On Mar 19, 2005, at 8:26 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 19 Mar 2005, at 12:10 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
I was ready to capitulate on the numbering-all-complete-measures issue, but this went over the edge. You can say
Measure numbers have NOTHING TO DO with the form.
all you like, but in standard even-numbered forms, especially when written in lead-sheet format, many jazz musicians depend on the measure numbers to orient themselves.
Do any of the tunes in The New Real Book series have any measure numbers at all?
Is it hard to orient yourself when playing from a lead sheet from one of those books?
Now, why is that? It's because the charts are laid out intelligently, with new sections beginning new systems, and proper use of double bars and rehearsal letters. Nobody minds the lack of measure numbers, because measure numbers don't actually do the work you are claiming they do. Or rather, they are only pressed into service for that purpose if the copyist did a lousy job with the layout and section markers (double bars, rehearsal letters).
Your point about the New Real Book not having measure numbers illustrates my point even better than it does yours.
Turn to the "Daahoud" lead sheet in the original Real Book (sorry, not the New Real Book) in a rehearsal. Say to the musicians, "I would like the rhythm section to break in bar 3." Which bar are they going to break on, the 3rd bar of the form, or the 3rd full bar (which is the 2nd bar of the form)? Pretty much 100% of the musicians I play with are going to ignore the pickup bar completely for purposes of measure counting, despite it being notated as a complete measure.
In fact, Finale-copied lead sheets that HAVE bar numbers sometimes serve to confuse the issue. In the case of Daahoud, if I referred to bar 3, they might ask back, "Bar NUMBER 3, or the 3rd bar of the form?"
I know you understand about aligning the phrases with the beginnings of systems for readability; this is exactly the same.
I disagree. The first -- aligning the beginnings of phrases with the beginnings of systems and marking them with double bars and rehearsal numbers/and or letters -- is absolutely standard practice, is instantly obvious at a glance, and is still useful in situations where you aren't shackled to cycling through a 32-bar AABA form.
Measure numbers just can't do that kind of work. They are not instantly visible at a glance (even when every measure is numbered) and they aren't reliable indicators of where you are in the form, precisely because even in the arrangement of a standard, you may -- or, working today, you almost certainly will be -- dealing with all kinds of extended or truncated phrases, introductions, interludes, interjections, etc.
Even if you have a chart that is absolutely slavishly literally 32-bar AABA all the way through, how many choruses does it take before the measure numbers cease to twig anything in the mind of a player? I'll accept that 1, 9, 17, and 25, but 73? 81? 113? Come on.
One chorus. That's all it takes. It's important to musicians playing lead sheets, because they spend a lot of their careers playing standards with symmetrical forms. Not recognizing that fact might cause me to inadvertently create weirdness that reduces the readability of a lead sheet, instead of increasing it. If we are talking about a full-fledged arrangement, with extended intro, coda, yada yada, then I agree with you, of course the most important thing in measure numbering is that is all be the same and predictable for all players, rather than sticking to the basic form.
Yet, as Hiro said, if one is not composing in symmetrical phrases, it won't matter.
Again, I think it is an absolutely terrible idea to have one numbering system for pieces with symmetrical 8-bar phrases all the way through, and a different numbering system for pieces without.
Why? The notation of a piece should reflect the clearest communication to the players, and having set measure numbers starting at the beginning of symmetrical phrases is the clearest way to communicate that in certain works.
I'm stuck here defending a principle that I only apply myself rarely, as most of my music is NOT written in 32-bar lead sheets, and only one has ever had a measure or more pickup. But I think the principle is sound, nevertheless, when applied to that kind of music.
Another aside: I was cranky yesterday when I answered you and David Fenton on this subject. I'm sorry for the tone I took (especially in David's case, as it was my fault for not being clear in the first place) and I apologise.
Christopher
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
