At 12:39 PM -0400 3/22/07, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 22 Mar 2007 at 11:57, John Howell wrote:
At 9:24 AM +0100 3/22/07, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
>On 22.03.2007 dhbailey wrote:
>>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.
>
>Well, even if you agree, you are still in disagreement with all major
>publishers, at least in Europe, which publish classical music,
>including contemporary as far as I can see.
Am I the only one to whom this discussion seems equivalent to
medieval theologians arguing how many angels can dance on the head of
a pin? (And why the head, anyhow, when dancing on the point would
take much more skill?!!!) A disputation full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing!!!
No, no, no! It's much more like the discussion
[]
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?
Yes.
And explain why?
Because you're describing the *music*, not the score.
Yes, or rather no, because someone (Darcy, I think) made the point
that measure numbers DO apply only to what's on the page, and that's
what I base my usage on and have always done.
I understand exactly what you're saying, of course. You want to use
measure numbers for a DIFFERENT purpose, that of analysis rather than
rehearsal convenience. This is much the same as saying that Roman
numeral analysis is superior to either chord symbols or figured bass,
because it was designed for analysis rather than performance, whereas
each system has its own advantages and is very useful for different
things from the others.
If you were listening to someone play, the 2nd ending of a 16-bar
period would still be the 16th bar after the first measure of the
period. It's 16 twice, or it's 16 for first ending and 32 for the
second. I find this latter overly fussy, so would never do it, as
it's easy enough to say "2nd ending."
Without appealing to convention or other authority?
I'm appealing to *music*, i.e., what is heard.
Yes, I understand perfectly. And repeat that in practical terms
rehearsal efficiency far outweighs analysis in the kinds of
situations I have found myself in.
That's how you determine
phrase lengths, too (and a measure that constitutes an ellision
between two phrases can be counted in both, but that's entirely
*different* can of worms!).
And one that belongs in the realm of analysis, of course, and can
lead to quite wonderful musical insights, but once again, we are not
arguing for analysis but for rehearsal practicality. If one has to
make a choice between one or the other, I know which is more
important to me, just as you seem to know which is more important to
you. I was taught to analyze phrases by bar groupings, of course,
but the actual numbers on the bars are not a necessary part of that
analysis. They are arbitrary identifiers.
John
--
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
