On 23 Mar 2007 at 8:34, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 22.03.2007 David W. Fenton wrote: > >> The point of measure numbers it to allow conductors and scholars to > >> > unambiguously refer to a particular measure without fear of being > >> > misunderstood. That being the case, measures in first and second > >> > endings *must* be numbered differently, one way or another. > > > > Do you consider "1st ending measure 16" and "2nd ending measure 16" > > to be "one way or another" that they are numberd differently? If > > not, I'd like to know why. If so, then you don't have a beef with > > Johannes. > > In fact I expect the confusion greater if you number them seperately > and say "measure 17". Undoubtedly several orchestra members, at least > on this side of the globe, will ask "Is that the second ending?", and > that last viola player (sorry folks) will still start after the double > bar.
For me, measure 17 is the beginning of the second section, after the 2nd ending. Or, it should be in a conventionally structured piece. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
