On Mar 22, 2007, at 6:20 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Do you consider "1st ending measure 16" and "2nd ending measure 16" to be "one way or another" that they are numberd differently?
Sure--if you want to put that clumsy formulation in the score. My argument was/is that such a convention cannot be tacitly assumed (i.e., unwritten), since there are other conventions. You cannot blithely leave the 2d ending (or the 1st) unnumbered and assume that a reduplication of numbers is taking place, and that this will be universally understood, for it won't.
If a conductor tells *my* orchestra "2nd ending measure 16," and the measure is not specifically labeled as such in both the score and parts, I can assure you that more than several hands will go up asking exactly which measure that is, or complaining that measure 16 was in the first ending, so there must be some mistake.
The second ending *must* be numbered differently--one way or another--than the first, or confusion will reign. Voilà tout. People like Johannes can use "16a" and "16b" if they want--but they cannot leave everything blank, or they are doing a disservice to the performers.
Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://www.kallistimusic.com/kallisti.html _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
