At 11:57 AM 3/22/2007 -0400, John Howell wrote: >So how about this for a first principle? Every measure SHOULD have >and MUST have a unique identifying number, assigned in serial order >to aid quick and accurate locating of that measure. Period. End of >statement. >Would anyone care to argue against that principle? And explain why? >Without appealing to convention or other authority?
Oh, well, here I am again. :) Modular music or partly modular music is problematic, whether or not the score can have a form that appears to be written from beginning to end. My own "Mantra Canon" (1986) is for orchestra, chorus, six percussionists, two pianos, and descant soprano. It is created from fully linear areas and multiply looped areas. The loops differ from player to player in both length and number of repetitions. Cuing the piece is very difficult, and although the full score contains a number of every measure (1110 of them) and the loops are written out in full, the individual parts contain cue points, measure numbers, and position indicators (because some loops begin and end mid-measure). I used all three because it was composed and rehearsed very quickly (a month from beginning of composition to premiere) and it wasn't clear which would work in rehearsal. Measure numbers turned out to be useless, and only cue points were valuable. This is one of my pieces that hasn't yet been reset in Finale. The score can be done eventually (it's huge, and all those cross-bar loops, ack!), but the parts will be like separate miniature scores in themselves, and they're already pretty nice in inked form. Dennis _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
