Darcy James Argue wrote:
My own feeling is that measure numbers refer to measures on the PAGE. So
each individual measure, no matter how many times it is played, gets one
and only one measure number, and that number is the same number in the
score and all the parts.
This is the method that is maximally clear to conductors and performers.
(If you're doing a purely historical/analytical edition, you may have
different needs.)
So, in your example, the measure under the first ending is m.16, the
measure under the second ending is m.17, and the first measure following
the second ending is m.18.
I agree with Darcy on this point. The numbers are only to locate the
physical measure on the page, so all full measures should be counted in
a straight line from the first one through the final one.
If there are partial measures, ignoring a pickup measure at the start of
the piece, such as a 4/4 piece with a 3/4 measure and a 1/4 measure (not
marked as such because it's a 4/4 measure with a double bar or a repeat
sign) the first part of that gets a number and the second part of the
partial measure does not get a number.
On the other hand, as long as score and parts are all marked exactly the
same, however it is done isn't that important.
What is important is when the score might have each measure number shown
and the parts only have the measure numbers shown periodically, then
there should be a clear and obvious and unambiguous numbering system in
place or valuable rehearsal time is wasted trying to get everybody to
start in the same place.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
