John Howell wrote:
At 2:29 PM -0500 3/18/05, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Like I keep saying, it's not about the gesture, or the phrasing, or any of that stuff. Measure numbering follows a simple, objective, easy-to-understand and (almost) universally-applied rule. Every complete measure gets a unique measure number, and numbering begins with the first complete measure. I see no advantage to creating a bunch of exceptions to a well-established rule that happens to work quite well.
The one situation in which I've been caught unaware is in the matter of bar numbering in repeated sections. Yes, the convention is to give a single identifying number to every measure, and the various options concerning the 1st and 2nd endings were discussed here a little while ago. But I've been caught in Broadway show books where the conductor's score, for example, has a repeated section, while either some of the individual books or all of the individual books have the passage written out completely with no repeat marks. In other words, the score does not show what the players see, which SHOULD be a no-no, but obviously wasn't for those particular copyists.
Doing "Oliver!" this summer. Anybody happen to know whether the orchestra parts are manuscript or have been reengraved?
John
Lots of older band arrangements especially those where there is no separate conductor part, just a solo or Eb cornet part to direct from, have the same problems, where some of the band parts have repeated sections and others have them written out straight through, and further complicated by some of those with repeated sections having first/second endings while others are straight repeats.
It's a nightmare trying to keep some of those old gems alive without spending a lot of time re-engraving the parts for consistency.
-- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
