Darcy,
I don't disagree with trying to avoid this, and maybe I should have
kept my mouth (typing fingers) shut. It is an unusual situation and
not at all normal practice for me. I have only used it when there
seemed to be real space constraints. (I know - paper is relatively
cheap compared to rehearsal time.)
Chuck
On Mar 22, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Hey Chuck,
Normally, only one set of numbers, but I have encountered a few
situations where I have found it useful (to me) to use two. If I
have an AABA, 32 measure repeated solo section that, for reasons
of space saving, has its first A section written as 8 measures
with a repeat (with or without 1st and 2nd endings), I will use
two sets of numbers for that A section, even though it is only
written once.
While I understand why you might want to use this space-saving
notation, most copyists would avoid it because it contains nested
repeats, which are to be avoided whenever possible. The usual thing
to do is to write out both A sections, even if they are identical.
I have also saved space on one part where there is a simple repeat
of a solo section, but other instruments have a variety of
entrances throughout the two choruses. Those parts that require
64 measures to appear on the page are numbered consecutively,
while the simple solo section can comfortably, even more
efficiently, have 32 measures with two sets of numbers. (Can't do
that with linked parts!) Assuming conventional form with the solo
starting at 33, it is then sufficiently clear to say, "Take it
from 41, or 73."
Again, the overwhelming majority of copyists would not choose this
solution. If the backgrounds are such that they cannot be handled
with "Play 2nd X only" indications, then we would write out the two
choruses consecutively, for band AND soloist, so that everyone has
the same roadmap.
it is then sufficiently clear to say, "Take it from 41, or 73."
YMMV, of course, but to me, this does not seem clear at all!
Imagine there's an impending trainwreck on a gig and you need to
shout out: "41! Or 73!" [grin]
I'm just not comfortable with a score where different instruments
have different roadmaps, or different measure numbers refer to the
same point in time (except in certain asynchronous situations like
Dennis described). I have to say, I just don't understand the
desire to want to make measure numbers delineate form and phrasing.
We already have so many other tools much better suited to that
purpose -- rehearsal letters, double bars, the physical layout of
the page, etc. To my mind, trying to make measure numbers do double
duty as (A) unique identifiers of measures on the page, and (B)
form/phrasing cues often leads to confusion. Why not just let
measure numbers be measure numbers?
Cheers,
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Chuck Israels
230 North Garden Terrace
Bellingham, WA 98225-5836
phone (360) 671-3402
fax (360) 676-6055
www.chuckisraels.com
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
