Re: [Finale] Measure numbers on parts
Ok I’ll look Sent from my iPhone > On 7 Dec 2017, at 13:13, Christopher Smith> wrote: > > Use the Measure Tool>Edit Measure Number Regions. The settings should be > obvious. Don’t delete measure numbers manually; that’s nuts. > > Christopher > >> On Dec 7, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Martin Nickless wrote: >> >> Windows 10 finale 12 >> Could I ask ? >> I have measure numbers on all bars in the parts how do I get them at the >> start of the staff only >> ( need a number mid line if the start of a new section) and delete the ones >> I don’t need >> >> Many thanks >> Best >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> ___ >> Finale mailing list >> Finale@shsu.edu >> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale >> >> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: >> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu > > > ___ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > > To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: > finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers on parts
Use the Measure Tool>Edit Measure Number Regions. The settings should be obvious. Don’t delete measure numbers manually; that’s nuts. Christopher > On Dec 7, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Martin Nicklesswrote: > > Windows 10 finale 12 > Could I ask ? > I have measure numbers on all bars in the parts how do I get them at the > start of the staff only > ( need a number mid line if the start of a new section) and delete the ones I > don’t need > > Many thanks > Best > > Sent from my iPhone > ___ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > > To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: > finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale To unsubscribe from finale send a message to: finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers query
Global Staff Attributes plugin. Turn them off for every staff using the plugin, then go back and turn them on for individual staves as you were doing before, but obviously you only have to do THAT 3 or 4 times instead of 30! Christopher On 13-Jul-12, at 13-Jul-12 2:47 PM, J D Thomas wrote: Finale Mac 2012b.r1 Besides going thru the Staff Attributes dialog and adjusting select stave settings, isn't there one setting somewhere where I can tell Finale to show measure numbers on certain staves in an orchestral score? J D Thomas ThomaStudios ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers
On Mon Jan 10, at MondayJan 10 5:06 AM, dc wrote: Christopher Smith écrit: Yes, that one is a very annoying bug! Please open a case with Tech Support so they get more complaints about it, which will move it up the list of things to be fixed. You mean it's still not fixed in 2011!?! Before adding new features, or changing existing features, Makemusic needs to fix these bugs that are almost as old as Finale... Well, technically it's only as old as Include in Measure Numbering, except for when you use Finale's Pickup Measure which causes similar problems. I agree that MakeMusic should address some longstanding bugs, but from what Justin said, they seem to put priority on NEW bugs. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers don't print
On 17-8-2010 21:29, Jonathan Smith wrote: Try - Measure tool, page view, select all, either: Show measure numbers or Retore measure number defaults Jonathan Dennis B.-K. has found the solution. I had both Truetype and Type 1 versions of the font installed. Finale has a way handling fonts... ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers don't print
Barbara, Are these all in the same measure number region? If you've designed multiple regions, the settings for one or more measure number regions may be set not to print measure numbers. ns Barbara Touburg wrote: Hello all, I have a file where the measure numbers higher than 42, with an exceptiom of measure 48, won't print. I've tried a word-around with fake measure numbers, using expressions, but they won't print either. I've checked for staff styles, but there aren't any. I've tried to force them with a staff style, but they still won't print. Any other suggestions would e very welcome! Barbara ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers don't print
On 16-8-2010 19:25, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: Barbara, Are these all in the same measure number region? If you've designed multiple regions, the settings for one or more measure number regions may be set not to print measure numbers. Noel, They are in one region, mm 10-99. Some of them print, others do not. I also have tried expressions, but they don't print either. Entering them as lyrics verse 2 seems to work. Stupid, eh? Barbara ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers don't print
On 16 Aug 2010 at 18:47, Barbara Touburg wrote: I have a file where the measure numbers higher than 42, with an exceptiom of measure 48, won't print. I've tried a word-around with fake measure numbers, using expressions, but they won't print either. I've checked for staff styles, but there aren't any. I've tried to force them with a staff style, but they still won't print. Any other suggestions would e very welcome! Have you checked that your measure number region is not set to end at m. 42? Basically, this sounds like your measure number regions are just out of whack -- it's very easy for this to happen, of course. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers don't print
On 16-8-2010 19:24, David W. Fenton wrote: On 16 Aug 2010 at 18:47, Barbara Touburg wrote: Have you checked that your measure number region is not set to end at m. 42? Basically, this sounds like your measure number regions are just out of whack -- it's very easy for this to happen, of course. No, the region is fine. Would you like to take a look at the file? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers don't print
On 16 Aug 2010 at 20:07, Barbara Touburg wrote: On 16-8-2010 19:24, David W. Fenton wrote: On 16 Aug 2010 at 18:47, Barbara Touburg wrote: Have you checked that your measure number region is not set to end at m. 42? Basically, this sounds like your measure number regions are just out of whack -- it's very easy for this to happen, of course. No, the region is fine. Would you like to take a look at the file? I'm sure I can't read it, as I'm still on WinFin 2003. If it's not measure regions, then maybe staff styles? -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers don't print
On Mon Aug 16, at MondayAug 16 12:47 PM, Barbara Touburg wrote: Hello all, I have a file where the measure numbers higher than 42, with an exceptiom of measure 48, won't print. I've tried a word-around with fake measure numbers, using expressions, but they won't print either. I've checked for staff styles, but there aren't any. I've tried to force them with a staff style, but they still won't print. Any other suggestions would e very welcome! Barbara Is this possibly a file made from another file, where perhaps you clicked on and deleted certain measure numbers? Unfortunately, I don't know how to reverse that action, other than creating a NEW measure number region and deleting the old one. Or since expressions aren't printing either, it sounds like there is some file corruption. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers don't print
On Mon, August 16, 2010 12:47 pm, Barbara Touburg wrote: I have a file where the measure numbers higher than 42, with an exceptiom of measure 48, won't print. I've tried a word-around with fake measure numbers, using expressions, but they won't print either. I've checked for staff styles, but there aren't any. I've tried to force them with a staff style, but they still won't print. Any other suggestions would e very welcome! Figure it out yet? I'm just home. You're welcome to send the file. D ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers and groups
You set it in the Staff Attributes. Show measure numbers for the top staff of a group, but not for the bottom staff of the group. The Measure Number region you will set to show ALWAYS on the top staff of whatever staff or group of staves is in the extracted part. It's essentially the same operation for newer versions, except we have a few new options like Show on top staff (and EXCLUDE others) and showing on multimeasure rests. We STILL don't have an easy way to have measure number regions, positioning, frequency, or font be different between score and linked parts, however. You can kludge it by creating two regions, one for the score and one for the parts, and turn each one on or off depending on what you are about to print, but then you have to REMEMBER to do it! Christopher On Feb 8, 2009, at 9:29 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: If I use the setup wizard to start a new document with groups in them, each individual staff as display of measure numbers turned on (so parts are properly generated with measure numbers), but doesn't appear in the score except at the top of each group (e.g., piano quartet, with measure number at top of the 3 strings and at top of the piano grand staff). Now, I'm on Finale 2003, so things may have changed extensively since then, but I'm having trouble with making this come out right for a new score that I'm starting that is based on my old templates (which date back to Finale 2.1!). I can't start over with a new template, since there's way too much in the old one that I must have. But I can't figure out where in group options or measure region options I set the groups to display measure numbers only on the top staff of the group. Anyone? -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers and groups
On 8 Feb 2009 at 21:29, David W. Fenton wrote: If I use the setup wizard to start a new document with groups in them, each individual staff as display of measure numbers turned on (so parts are properly generated with measure numbers), but doesn't appear in the score except at the top of each group (e.g., piano quartet, with measure number at top of the 3 strings and at top of the piano grand staff). Oh, never mind. The reason the setup wizard gets it right is because it turns off measure number display on systems that aren't at the top of a group. And I see that when I generate parts, the measure numbers are there. I recently reworked a Finale 2000 file that I downloaded, and the parts generated from it uniformly inherited the measure numbering settings of the source staves. I wonder what I did wrong in that file? -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers and groups
On 8 Feb 2009 at 21:39, David W. Fenton wrote: I recently reworked a Finale 2000 file that I downloaded, and the parts generated from it uniformly inherited the measure numbering settings of the source staves. I wonder what I did wrong in that file? OK, I see what it is -- the measure numbering region needs to be defined with always include measure number on top system. Since the parts inherit the region definition, this overrides the setting for the staff that hides measure numbers. Sorry for causing all this confusion, but this was one of those things I never understood. To recapitulate: 1. there is no group-based control of measure numbering (shouldn't there be?). 2. in the score, set all the non-numbered staves to *not* display measure numbers. 3. in the measure numbering region definition, turn on ALWAYS SHOW ON TOP STAFF. In the parts, this will override the setting in Step #2. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers and groups
On 8 Feb 2009 at 21:35, Christopher Smith wrote: It's essentially the same operation for newer versions, except we have a few new options like Show on top staff (and EXCLUDE others) and showing on multimeasure rests. We STILL don't have an easy way to have measure number regions, positioning, frequency, or font be different between score and linked parts, however. You can kludge it by creating two regions, one for the score and one for the parts, and turn each one on or off depending on what you are about to print, but then you have to REMEMBER to do it! I've been doing a lot of futzing with measure number regions lately, and it seems to me that it's way too hard. Why can't you select a set of measures and then choose to create a measure numbering region for that set of measures? -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in score vs. linked parts
Brian Williams wrote: [snip] In large orchestral scores, I typically have large boxed measure numbers only displayed between the woodwinds and the brass and between the percussion and the strings. What I would need is the ability to create a large-font boxed measure number region that only displays below certain staves of the score, and another small-font region for parts that would display on the bottom staff of every part. Maybe this could be done by enabling measure number regions to use staff lists. Enabling staff lists for measure numbers would be a good thing, but I don't think it would solve the desire to number measures differently between score and parts. Such a thing would be possible if MakeMusic would simply make the measure numbers UNlinkable between score and parts. They should be able to be entirely separate, so that for each measure number region we could check a box from among the choices: Score Only, Parts Only, Score and Parts. However, so far MakeMusic hasn't seen fit to do this for us. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in linked parts
On 2 Oct 2006 at 15:34, dc wrote: David W. Fenton écrit: There's no way to unlink positiong from the score? That doesn't make much sense to me. You can unlink in all parts from the score. What I meant - sorry if I wasn't clear - is that simply moving the numbers in the score without prior unlinking affects all the parts. OK, then. I still don't know if your answer ways that it is possible to set the measure number position in the score (which will set it in the parts), unlink it, and then change it so that it's different for the score only, and the parts retain the original setting (which was appropriate for parts). Still, it would be nice to position measure numbers in the dialog box separately for each part if needed. I agree, but if the above is possible, it doesn't sound like a terribly problematic situation. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in linked parts
On Sep 30, 2006, at 4:27 AM, dc wrote: Apologies if I'm stating something obvious, but I just realized, after complaining about the the placement of measure numbers in linked parts, that one could unlink them by simply selecting them all and dragging them down (or up). Really? That's something then. But you would have to do it on EVERY extracted part separately, wouldn't you? And you can only select the measure numbers for an entire page at a time, so you would have to do it in three operations for a three-page part. But at least you CAN do it. Congrats! Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in linked parts
Christopher Smith wrote: On Sep 30, 2006, at 4:27 AM, dc wrote: Apologies if I'm stating something obvious, but I just realized, after complaining about the the placement of measure numbers in linked parts, that one could unlink them by simply selecting them all and dragging them down (or up). Really? That's something then. But you would have to do it on EVERY extracted part separately, wouldn't you? And you can only select the measure numbers for an entire page at a time, so you would have to do it in three operations for a three-page part. But at least you CAN do it. Congrats! How does one select all the measure numbers and no other measure-tool handles? -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in linked parts
dc wrote: dhbailey écrit: How does one select all the measure numbers and no other measure-tool handles? Ctrl A seems to select all the measure numbers and nothing else. But what other handles do you have, besides the two or three attached to each measure, which aren't affected by nudging? Dennis When I select the measure tool and hit ctrl-a, all the handles, including the barlines, are selected. And while barlines aren't affected by up-down nudging, they are affected by left-right nudging, so if I chose to shift the numbers left-right, barlines (and thus some measure widths) will be affected. I was just wondering if there was a way to select ONLY the measure number handles. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in linked parts
If you drag-select with the mouse, making sure that the first thing that is covered by the dragging rectangle is a measure number, only measure numbers should be selected. On 30 Sep 2006, at 14:17, dhbailey wrote: I was just wondering if there was a way to select ONLY the measure number handles. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in linked parts
dc wrote: dhbailey écrit: When I select the measure tool and hit ctrl-a, all the handles, including the barlines, are selected. And while barlines aren't affected by up-down nudging, they are affected by left-right nudging, so if I chose to shift the numbers left-right, barlines (and thus some measure widths) will be affected. I was just wondering if there was a way to select ONLY the measure number handles. You're right. Since I had only vertical nudging to do, I didn't think of this. There's still a way to select number handles only with the mouse if they are all vertically aligned. Yes, if the work has measure numbers only at the start of each system. But your method falls apart if they are also spaced out in different locations. Oh well, hopefully MM will take care of this issue in linked-score/parts v1.1. :-) -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in linked parts
Michael Cook wrote: If you drag-select with the mouse, making sure that the first thing that is covered by the dragging rectangle is a measure number, only measure numbers should be selected. That's good news but it only works for the measure numbers on a single page, then, so the effort would have to be made for each page. Hardly an effective method. Personally, for works which have only a single measure number region, my previously suggested method of creating two identical regions, where the one which should show in the score only has the numbers positioned in one location and the one which would show only in parts having its unique settings. Then the score-only region, when you want to print the score, is set to show starting with measure 1 (or 2), while the other region is set to show starting with measure [last-measure+1]. Simply reverse those starting with measure settings when one wants to print the linked parts. For multiple measure number regions, this would be as big a pain in the butt as all the other kludges suggested. However, Fin2007 has added an include in measure numbering checkbox which can be unchecked for any individual measures, so the days of requiring multiple measure number regions may be behind us, which will make my workaround not so difficult to live with. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in linked parts
On 30 Sep 2006 at 19:59, dc wrote: David W. Fenton écrit: I haven't tried linked parts, but can't you set it to the right location in the score, then ctrl-drag in the score (which I'd assume would unlink it) to the correct location for the score? That would mean moving it only once. No, because what you do in the score applies to the score and all parts (which only makes sense, or else there would be no way to make a change that applies everywhere). There's no way to unlink positiong from the score? That doesn't make much sense to me. Or, you'd have to be able to change position on all parts at once. I hope those of you who have Finale 2007 are putting in feature requests on this. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers
dc wrote: dhbailey écrit: What follows only will work easily for works/movements with a single measure number region. 1) Set up two regions, just like each other, but when it says show beginning with measure # put a measure number larger than the movement has for one of the regions. 2) when working on the score use one region and set it to show beginning with measure #2 or whatever you usually use, and set its position as you want it in the score. Be sure the other region is set to begin showing at a larger number than exists in the score. 3) when working on the parts, use the other region. Set the show beginning with measure # to a number larger than the last measure in the piece for the region that you just adjusted for the the score. Set the region you're reserving for parts to show beginning with measure 2 (or whatever you normally use) and set its position as you want for the parts. Thanks, David, but I must be missing something. Since the changes above affect both the score and the parts, as far as I can see, isn't it easier to simply change the position before printing out the parts? Dennis Yes, that would be easier, I had replied too early. My reply really was a rehashing of an answer I had given a short while ago to someone who wanted the measure numbers to appear differently (start of each system in the parts, under each measure in the score.) You're right -- simply changing the position and then remembering to change it back will work fine. But even with that, as with my answer, for any work with more than a couple of measure number regions, having them linked between score and parts is a real bother. I'm very grateful they added a don't include in measure numbers attribute to the measure tool dialog! That will significantly decrease the necessary number of regions in works with endings or split-measure repeats. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers
dc wrote: Has anyone found a way to have a different position for measure numbers in a score and in linked parts? I can't understand why this has been made always linked. Dennis What follows only will work easily for works/movements with a single measure number region. 1) Set up two regions, just like each other, but when it says show beginning with measure # put a measure number larger than the movement has for one of the regions. 2) when working on the score use one region and set it to show beginning with measure #2 or whatever you usually use, and set its position as you want it in the score. Be sure the other region is set to begin showing at a larger number than exists in the score. 3) when working on the parts, use the other region. Set the show beginning with measure # to a number larger than the last measure in the piece for the region that you just adjusted for the the score. Set the region you're reserving for parts to show beginning with measure 2 (or whatever you normally use) and set its position as you want for the parts. Nobody can understand why this item is always linked. Nobody, that is, except the good folks at MM who were forced to get this upgrade out the door by early August, before they had figured out how to unlink the measure numbers. Among other things. I can only begin to imagine the frustration of the programmers who work so hard to get things right and are told stop working on that feature, we're going gold with as it stands right now. We'll make them pay for the rest of that feature in the next upgrade. How frustrating that must be for their professional pride! -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] measure numbers and upbeats
Nonetheless, that upbeat measure should not have it's own number. I don't know what kind of piece you are doing, but musically the correct way to notate this is to have _two_ incomplete measures, ie (in 4/4) a measure with 3 quarters and one with one quarter, and both are in fact the same measure (and get the same measure number). If your source does not give you this option the upbeat measure should still not get it's own number imo. Depending on the circumstances you could consider to start new measure numbers, which would make the upbeat measure 0 (or -1). Johannes d. collins wrote: I know we discussed something similar recently, but what does one when, in the middle of a piece, a new section starts with an upbeat and an incomplete measure? It looks rather strange to have no way of identifying that measure by a number if numbers are only given to complete measures. Thanks, Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
I don't understand. Why is the problem only relevant in 20th century music? Johannes Owain Sutton wrote: Surely we're only talking about twentieth music, if the initial problem arising from first/second time endings is to be relevant? -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
I'm not aware of any consistent usage of 1st/2nd endings much before 1900. I'm happy to be corrected, though. Johannes Gebauer wrote: I don't understand. Why is the problem only relevant in 20th century music? Johannes Owain Sutton wrote: Surely we're only talking about twentieth music, if the initial problem arising from first/second time endings is to be relevant? ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
No, but there are editions of music before 1900 even in our times ;-) And we were talking about modern practice of publishing music, but not necessarily of contemporary music. Johannes Owain Sutton wrote: I'm not aware of any consistent usage of 1st/2nd endings much before 1900. I'm happy to be corrected, though. Johannes Gebauer wrote: I don't understand. Why is the problem only relevant in 20th century music? Johannes Owain Sutton wrote: Surely we're only talking about twentieth music, if the initial problem arising from first/second time endings is to be relevant? ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Johannes Gebauer wrote: No, but there are editions of music before 1900 even in our times ;-) And don't we know it*still awaiting the complete edition of the Trent Codices*... And we were talking about modern practice of publishing music, but not necessarily of contemporary music. That's truemy point (the context of which has been lost!) was how can one talk of a 'standard' system for such repeats in pre-1900 music, when they're rare enough to be considered non-standard? ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
I am not quite sure I follow you. Are you suggesting that first and second repeats are unusual in 18th and 19th century music? In that case, I am afraid you are wrong. They happen in about every larger piece many times, and in fact even in classical menuets you will find them in most of them. Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Bach, you name it. It's silly to list examples, I am afraid, just open a score of a Haydn string quartet, and you will find them. They are everywhere. Perhaps I misunderstood you. Johannnes Owain Sutton wrote: Johannes Gebauer wrote: No, but there are editions of music before 1900 even in our times ;-) And don't we know it*still awaiting the complete edition of the Trent Codices*... And we were talking about modern practice of publishing music, but not necessarily of contemporary music. That's truemy point (the context of which has been lost!) was how can one talk of a 'standard' system for such repeats in pre-1900 music, when they're rare enough to be considered non-standard? ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
On Nov 30, 2004, at 5:47 PM, John Howell wrote: back in the days before automatic bar numbering by computer, ... how did they handle this question of bar numbers in repeats? The issues and solutions were exactly the same as today. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
It is not just rehearsals, imagine someone doing an analyis of any piece. It is mandatory to use a _standard_ system of numbering the measures. In my opinion the _only_ standard for, shall we say, traditional music is to number first and second ending with the same numbers. Anything else is going to cause confusion, whether we like it or not. YMMV Johannes Andrew Stiller wrote: Posters to this thread have repeatedly referred to rehearsals, but this is not an issue with piano music, songs, etc.--and even in orchestral music the problems alluded to can be completely avoided simply by showing first and second endings in all extracted parts whether or not the endings differ in any given part. I agree that where the parts are to be notated inconsistently from the score, that some other method must be used. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Johannes Gebauer wrote: It is mandatory to use a _standard_ system of numbering the measures. In my opinion the _only_ standard for, shall we say, traditional music is to number first and second ending with the same numbers. Anything else is going to cause confusion, whether we like it or not. It's already become very clear that this is *not* a standard, but just one of several conventions. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Well, I beg to disagree. I still haven't heard of any edition by a major publisher that does not follow this standard. I actually did a little investigation in some scores I looked at, Eulenburg, Schott, Bärenreiter, Henle. All of them follow the same rule. Please name one. There are some special cases where repeats are numbered seperately, but they are rare, and there is always a good reason for this. I have not seen a single score by a major publisher, where the first ending and second ending are just numbered through. I really think that such practice is only done (at least as far as anything up to 1900 goes) by computer engravers who don't know better. That doesn't make it a convention. Please show me proof if you disagree. Johannes Owain Sutton wrote: It is mandatory to use a _standard_ system of numbering the measures. In my opinion the _only_ standard for, shall we say, traditional music is to number first and second ending with the same numbers. Anything else is going to cause confusion, whether we like it or not. It's already become very clear that this is *not* a standard, but just one of several conventions. -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Johannes Gebauer wrote: Well, I beg to disagree. I still haven't heard of any edition by a major publisher that does not follow this standard. I actually did a little investigation in some scores I looked at, Eulenburg, Schott, Bärenreiter, Henle. All of them follow the same rule. Please name one. There are some special cases where repeats are numbered seperately, but they are rare, and there is always a good reason for this. I have not seen a single score by a major publisher, where the first ending and second ending are just numbered through. I really think that such practice is only done (at least as far as anything up to 1900 goes) by computer engravers who don't know better. That doesn't make it a convention. Please show me proof if you disagree. Surely we're only talking about twentieth music, if the initial problem arising from first/second time endings is to be relevant? ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
On Nov 29, 2004, at 2:56 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Please can you tell me one publication of a _classical_ (ie 18th century) work from one of the major publishers where this practice is followed? I certainly know that any of the big complete editions (Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, you name it) do not have separate numbers for first and second endings. Well I'm not going to go do a big search right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if you are right--for one century out of, what, 12 centuries of Western classical music? Right now I have exactly one 18th-c. publication in my catalog--but I am publishing the complete works of a composer who lived 1781-1861, and have run into nothing problematic using the system I endorse. Posters to this thread have repeatedly referred to rehearsals, but this is not an issue with piano music, songs, etc.--and even in orchestral music the problems alluded to can be completely avoided simply by showing first and second endings in all extracted parts whether or not the endings differ in any given part. I agree that where the parts are to be notated inconsistently from the score, that some other method must be used. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
At 8:14 PM + 11/29/04, Owain Sutton wrote: dhbailey wrote: There is nothing that is so fool-proof as a group of professionals can't make a total sham of it. ...short of numbering every single bar ;) (hey, I'm used to it in some genres...) Which brings me to a question that's been in the back of my mind. It's fine to appeal to print publishers, but as pointed out (Riccordi) they don't always agree. These are, after all, editorial decisions combined with house style decisions. But, back in the days before automatic bar numbering by computer, in the days when professional copy houses turned out manuscript copies for studio and show work (ah, the amonia smell of fresh music!), and would number every bar for you (optional at extra cost, but more than worth it to save studio time), how did they handle this question of bar numbers in repeats? Was it a matter of house style then, or even a matter of individual copyist's style? Or did clients specify what they wanted? (Hard to believe when you know the hectic pace of meeting deadlines, which is why professional copyists were hired in the first place!) I suspect that there are a few on this list who can answer those questions from personal experience, either as clients, as copyists, or both. 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
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Why don't you check yourself? Look at any major publisher's edition, Bärenreiter, Henle, Peters, Breitkopf and Härtel, which ever. I am pretty sure you will find that I am correct. Johannes Darcy James Argue wrote: The correct way to number first and second endings is to number the first bar of the first and second ending the same. Really? So you're saying that, for a one-measure first and second ending, *both* measures would have the same number? Is that really standard practice? That seems like a really terrible idea to me. I've always either done what John does, above (just number consecutively, ignoring repeats) -- which I prefer -- or, when necessary, renumber the entire repeat, film-score style, as you describe below. I have never even considered having, for instance, two measure 9's in the same piece, one for the first ending, and one for the second. What is the rationale for this? -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Hi Johannes, I don't doubt that you are correct. But I was just wondering (A) if I had understood you correctly (which I guess I did), and (B) what the rationale was? This practice still strikes me as a terrible idea, Bärenreiter or no. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 29 Nov 2004, at 03:01 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: Why don't you check yourself? Look at any major publisher's edition, Bärenreiter, Henle, Peters, Breitkopf and Härtel, which ever. I am pretty sure you will find that I am correct. Johannes Darcy James Argue wrote: The correct way to number first and second endings is to number the first bar of the first and second ending the same. Really? So you're saying that, for a one-measure first and second ending, *both* measures would have the same number? Is that really standard practice? That seems like a really terrible idea to me. I've always either done what John does, above (just number consecutively, ignoring repeats) -- which I prefer -- or, when necessary, renumber the entire repeat, film-score style, as you describe below. I have never even considered having, for instance, two measure 9's in the same piece, one for the first ending, and one for the second. What is the rationale for this? -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Generally I prefer to have the first and second time bars numbered the same. In this way, (given 8 bar phrases ofr example) the second phrase starts on bar 9 whether or not there isa second time bar. All the best, Lawrence "þaes ofereode - þisses swa maeg"http://lawrenceyates.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
It actually makes a lot of sense to me. I agree that it may be different for contemporary music, though. The best example was already mentioned: imagine one part having a first and second ending, and another not having one. But even when this isn't the case it makes more sense to me that after measure 7 follows measure 8, and not 9. The rationale is especially obvious in baroque dance movements, or in calssical Menuets. It simply makes no sense to start the second section in measure 10 instead of measure 9, only because there perhaps is an extra note in the first ending. Very often the manuscript/autograph wouldn't even give you two different endings but just another way of indicating what should be played each time. Sticking with this rule (as far as classical music is concerned) avoids all kinds of counting problems. Johannes Darcy James Argue wrote: Hi Johannes, I don't doubt that you are correct. But I was just wondering (A) if I had understood you correctly (which I guess I did), and (B) what the rationale was? This practice still strikes me as a terrible idea, Bärenreiter or no. -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Johannes Gebauer wrote: It actually makes a lot of sense to me. I agree that it may be different for contemporary music, though. The best example was already mentioned: imagine one part having a first and second ending, and another not having one. But even when this isn't the case it makes more sense to me that after measure 7 follows measure 8, and not 9. The rationale is especially obvious in baroque dance movements, or in calssical Menuets. It simply makes no sense to start the second section in measure 10 instead of measure 9, only because there perhaps is an extra note in the first ending. Very often the manuscript/autograph wouldn't even give you two different endings but just another way of indicating what should be played each time. Sticking with this rule (as far as classical music is concerned) avoids all kinds of counting problems. Johannes I agree with all the logic Johannes has put forth, and for studying form it works best to have logical numbers, so if the first phrase is 16 measures long, with the 16th measure being the first ending and also the second ending, it is much more clear to have the second phrase begin on measure 17, for study purposes. It makes memorizing forms much easier, I find. It also makes it more clear that the second ending is the 16th measure of the phrase, not the 17th measure as it would appear to be if the measures are numbered straight through. However, since we are dealing with a computer program and can ensure that all parts are numbered exactly the same, I also find that with study issues set aside it really doesn't matter how the measures are numbered, just as long as all parts and the score agree and the numbers are in the music frequently enough to make finding specific measures easy for everybody. I get so tired in rehearsals when, as conductor, I say let's begin at measure 178, only to have to wait for 3 minutes while everybody tries to locate that measure on their parts, and quite often have them not able to find it and simply to save time I end up going back much further to something I know they all have, like a double bar or a key change. Whichever system a person uses, just make sure they actually ASSIST rehearsals and performances. Any system which isn't marked frequently enough in the music is worthless as anything other than a matter of pride (questionable pride at best) in having numbered the measures. To that end I would also discourage the use of numbers as rehearsal marks unless they actually denote the real measure number. Nothing wastes time more than my saying Let's start at 6 and having half the band begin at rehearsal marking 6 and the other half going all the way back to the 6th measure of the piece. If you want to have rehearsal marks which aren't measure numbers, use letters please. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
It actually makes a lot of sense to me. I agree that it may be different for contemporary music, though. The best example was already mentioned: imagine one part having a first and second ending, and another not having one. But even when this isn't the case it makes more sense to me that after measure 7 follows measure 8, and not 9. The rationale is especially obvious in baroque dance movements, or in calssical Menuets. It simply makes no sense to start the second section in measure 10 instead of measure 9, only because there perhaps is an extra note in the first ending. Very often the manuscript/autograph wouldn't even give you two different endings but just another way of indicating what should be played each time. Sticking with this rule (as far as classical music is concerned) avoids all kinds of counting problems. Johannes There is another (and IMO superior) way to handle this kind of situation however, and that is to number each performed measure rather than each written one. In that method, if the first eight measures are repeated, the first measure after the repeat is m. 17, not m. 9. This is an admittedly rare approach, but I have seen it in published material more than a few times. -- Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Andrew Stiller wrote: Really? So you're saying that, for a one-measure first and second ending, *both* measures would have the same number? Is that really standard practice? That seems like a really terrible idea to me. It *is* a terrible idea. I don't know what was meant by all major publishers, but I have seen numerous scholarly editions from famous, highly reputed firms that followed the tradition of separate numbers for first and second endings. The idea is, or should be, that reference to any given number will instantly call out one and only one written measure. Please can you tell me one publication of a _classical_ (ie 18th century) work from one of the major publishers where this practice is followed? I certainly know that any of the big complete editions (Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, you name it) do not have separate numbers for first and second endings. Again, as I said before, the reasoning for contemporary music may well be different. I would argue that if you were going to bring out that new edition of Beethoven Symphonies, you would probably not get many friends in the orchestra pit if you numbered differently from everyone else. Just imagine the confusion when the conductor uses the complete edition with different measure numbers. Nightmare. That's why I would strongly argue against separate numbers at least for anything written before 1880. It's bad enough that Ricordi decided to number through all movements in the Vivaldi complete edition, when everyone else doesn't. I agree with you on upbeats etc. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
And while I'm on *that* subject, I disagree with the poster who decried divided measures as unprofessional under all circumstances. Andrew Stiller As do I. Context is everything. I had a solo guitar transcription (Bach, I think) with lots of sixteenth notes in dense counterpoint, and many fingerings on a single staff. The choices were: one-measure systems and three pages or on-and-a-half measure systems and two pages (i.e. no page turn). The latter was clearly the better choice. Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Crystal Premo / 04.11.27 / 9:15PM wrote: Under the ninth measure, which is the second ending, there is an (8), and underneath it a 16. Is this usual, to think of the first measure of the second ending as measure (8)/16? I've never seen this in published music, and it seems a little odd. I am not sure if I clearly understood this, but if it is: Very close. Like this: - | |1 | |2 | bar 8 | bar (8) bar 16 Crystal Premo ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Crystal Premo wrote: Perhaps I am too inexperienced to have seen this before, but a client has given me a chart with edits, some of which are for measure numbers. It is a lead sheet for a jazz tune, with measure numbers on the first measure of each system. He has now indicated to place measure numbers under first and second endings thusly: the first ending is measure 8, and an 8 is written there. Under the ninth measure, which is the second ending, there is an (8), and underneath it a 16. Is this usual, to think of the first measure of the second ending as measure (8)/16? I've never seen this in published music, and it seems a little odd. I've seen similar things before, although more often with the second bar indicated as 2/(10). I always feel it's superfluous, though. Me, too. But I'll just do what the client wants. Crystal Premo [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
At 9:15 PM -0500 11/27/04, Crystal Premo wrote: Perhaps I am too inexperienced to have seen this before, but a client has given me a chart with edits, some of which are for measure numbers. It is a lead sheet for a jazz tune, with measure numbers on the first measure of each system. He has now indicated to place measure numbers under first and second endings thusly: the first ending is measure 8, and an 8 is written there. Under the ninth measure, which is the second ending, there is an (8), and underneath it a 16. Is this usual, to think of the first measure of the second ending as measure (8)/16? I've never seen this in published music, and it seems a little odd. Crystal Premo How to number 2nd endings is an editorial choice. I've seen it done in different ways, and done it different ways myself. I'll often take the lazy way out and number the first ending bar as 8 and the 2nd ending bar as 9, as long as the score and parts are all exactly the same. (Of course I number every bar; using marginal numbers only slows down rehearsals unacceptably.) To me AS A PLAYER the 16 makes no sense, even though it is mathematically correct, because measures 9-15 are not so marked, so I wouldn't use it unless you insert double measure numbers (1-9, 2-10, 3-11, etc.). My preference would be to use (8) for the 2nd ending and 9 for the first bar of the following that ending, as long as score and parts are all exactly the same. This becomes ESPECIALLY important when, as in many Broadway show books, repeats are written out in some parts and marked with 1st and 2nd endings in others. (And of course this is NEVER indicated in the piano-conductor books!) In that case, it is absolutely essential to mark the double measure numbers in sections that are copied as repeats, because they need to line up with the continuous measure numbers in the parts that are written out, especially when there might be cuts taken in exactly such situations, throwing the orchestra into chaos until somebody figures out what's happening. (And yes, it's happened to me!!) 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
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
John Howell wrote: How to number 2nd endings is an editorial choice. I've seen it done in different ways, and done it different ways myself. I'll often take the lazy way out and number the first ending bar as 8 and the 2nd ending bar as 9, as long as the score and parts are all exactly the same. This kind of practice is actually seen as wrong by all major publishers. It is possible that in your special case it doesn't cause any grief, but I strongly advise against doing it this way. It will add almost indefinite complications to rehearsals as soon as several editions of the same piece exist. The correct way to number first and second endings is to number the first bar of the first and second ending the same. There are rare cases where the whole repeat is renumbered in brackets. A typical example is when one part is added or changed the second time round. As far as I know this practice is also prefered in film scores, as it makes editing the sound track easier. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Actually, I have seen this type of notation, but mostly on vocal music with a backup CD-track. Since the CD is keyed to the measure number as played, it was needed to clarify where on the CD matches what part of the music. I've seen it in other situations, too, but I can't recall exactly why. (Some of my old band music was marked this way.) I think it was for marching music where timing on the football field made a difference ... but that was such a long time ago. At 06:25 PM 11/28/2004 +0100, Johannes Gebauer wrote: John Howell wrote: How to number 2nd endings is an editorial choice. I've seen it done in different ways, and done it different ways myself. I'll often take the lazy way out and number the first ending bar as 8 and the 2nd ending bar as 9, as long as the score and parts are all exactly the same. This kind of practice is actually seen as wrong by all major publishers. It is possible that in your special case it doesn't cause any grief, but I strongly advise against doing it this way. It will add almost indefinite complications to rehearsals as soon as several editions of the same piece exist. The correct way to number first and second endings is to number the first bar of the first and second ending the same. There are rare cases where the whole repeat is renumbered in brackets. A typical example is when one part is added or changed the second time round. As far as I know this practice is also prefered in film scores, as it makes editing the sound track easier. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale - Bruce K. H. Kau[EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Aina Haina, Honolulu, Hawai'i Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning ... ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Thanks, Johannes. I don't like it, either, but this client does a great many things which I question the rationality of. It is easier just to go along and not put my name on the sheet. I think this will be the last work I accept. Crystal Premo [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Johannes Gebauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:25:26 +0100 John Howell wrote: How to number 2nd endings is an editorial choice. I've seen it done in different ways, and done it different ways myself. I'll often take the lazy way out and number the first ending bar as 8 and the 2nd ending bar as 9, as long as the score and parts are all exactly the same. This kind of practice is actually seen as wrong by all major publishers. It is possible that in your special case it doesn't cause any grief, but I strongly advise against doing it this way. It will add almost indefinite complications to rehearsals as soon as several editions of the same piece exist. The correct way to number first and second endings is to number the first bar of the first and second ending the same. There are rare cases where the whole repeat is renumbered in brackets. A typical example is when one part is added or changed the second time round. As far as I know this practice is also prefered in film scores, as it makes editing the sound track easier. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
These are good points. However, I've been trying to get my voice students to read music for the last twenty years, and I'd be so surprised to find a singer who does anything but follow the lyrics. Crystal Premo [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Bruce K H Kau [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:33:11 Actually, I have seen this type of notation, but mostly on vocal music with a backup CD-track. Since the CD is keyed to the measure number as played, it was needed to clarify where on the CD matches what part of the music. I've seen it in other situations, too, but I can't recall exactly why. (Some of my old band music was marked this way.) I think it was for marching music where timing on the football field made a difference ... but that was such a long time ago. At 06:25 PM 11/28/2004 +0100, Johannes Gebauer wrote: John Howell wrote: How to number 2nd endings is an editorial choice. I've seen it done in different ways, and done it different ways myself. I'll often take the lazy way out and number the first ending bar as 8 and the 2nd ending bar as 9, as long as the score and parts are all exactly the same. This kind of practice is actually seen as wrong by all major publishers. It is possible that in your special case it doesn't cause any grief, but I strongly advise against doing it this way. It will add almost indefinite complications to rehearsals as soon as several editions of the same piece exist. The correct way to number first and second endings is to number the first bar of the first and second ending the same. There are rare cases where the whole repeat is renumbered in brackets. A typical example is when one part is added or changed the second time round. As far as I know this practice is also prefered in film scores, as it makes editing the sound track easier. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale - Bruce K. H. Kau[EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Aina Haina, Honolulu, Hawai'i Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning ... ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Crystal Premo wrote: Thanks, Johannes. I don't like it, either, but this client does a great many things which I question the rationality of. It is easier just to go along and not put my name on the sheet. I think this will be the last work I accept. I wasn't actually disgreeing with your client. I was disagreeing with John Howell's way of counting repeat bars. What your client asks for may in fact have good reasons. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
On 28 Nov 2004, at 12:25 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: John Howell wrote: How to number 2nd endings is an editorial choice. I've seen it done in different ways, and done it different ways myself. I'll often take the lazy way out and number the first ending bar as 8 and the 2nd ending bar as 9, as long as the score and parts are all exactly the same. This kind of practice is actually seen as wrong by all major publishers. It is possible that in your special case it doesn't cause any grief, but I strongly advise against doing it this way. It will add almost indefinite complications to rehearsals as soon as several editions of the same piece exist. The correct way to number first and second endings is to number the first bar of the first and second ending the same. Really? So you're saying that, for a one-measure first and second ending, *both* measures would have the same number? Is that really standard practice? That seems like a really terrible idea to me. I've always either done what John does, above (just number consecutively, ignoring repeats) -- which I prefer -- or, when necessary, renumber the entire repeat, film-score style, as you describe below. I have never even considered having, for instance, two measure 9's in the same piece, one for the first ending, and one for the second. What is the rationale for this? There are rare cases where the whole repeat is renumbered in brackets. A typical example is when one part is added or changed the second time round. As far as I know this practice is also prefered in film scores, as it makes editing the sound track easier. Johannes - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Crystal Premo wrote: Perhaps I am too inexperienced to have seen this before, but a client has given me a chart with edits, some of which are for measure numbers. It is a lead sheet for a jazz tune, with measure numbers on the first measure of each system. He has now indicated to place measure numbers under first and second endings thusly: the first ending is measure 8, and an 8 is written there. Under the ninth measure, which is the second ending, there is an (8), and underneath it a 16. Is this usual, to think of the first measure of the second ending as measure (8)/16? I've never seen this in published music, and it seems a little odd. I've seen similar things before, although more often with the second bar indicated as 2/(10). I always feel it's superfluous, though. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Crystal Premo / 04.11.27 / 9:15PM wrote: Under the ninth measure, which is the second ending, there is an (8), and underneath it a 16. Is this usual, to think of the first measure of the second ending as measure (8)/16? I've never seen this in published music, and it seems a little odd. I am not sure if I clearly understood this, but if it is: - | |1 | |2 | bar 8 | bar 16 then yes, we do this all the time. But somehow, I feel I misunderstood it? -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers
At 05:46 PM 10/30/2004, Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Ah yes, on the measure number front, I just finished a score, and set the measure numbers to appear every 5 measures, beginning on the 5th bar. In the score, it did exactly that. However, when I extracted parts, some of the parts had numbers, some didn't. With the ones which didn't, nothing I could do, save manually putting them in by using option click, would produce the desired effect. Whazzz up? I'm not sure what you mean by nothing I could do. This may sound obvious, but did you try, in the extracted part, checking Staff Attributes and making sure that measure numbers were set to display? Did you have Always show on top staff checked in the score for all measure number regions? Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers
Yes to both. I too am lost. Dean On Oct 30, 2004, at 3:16 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: On Oct 30, 2004, at 5:46 PM, Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Ah yes, on the measure number front, I just finished a score, and set the measure numbers to appear every 5 measures, beginning on the 5th bar. In the score, it did exactly that. However, when I extracted parts, some of the parts had numbers, some didn't. With the ones which didn't, nothing I could do, save manually putting them in by using option click, would produce the desired effect. Whazzz up? Dean Did the staff attributes have Measure numbers checked under the list of items to display? Also, did the Measure Numbers region have the box checked always show on top staff? If both these things are so, then I am lost. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Para mí, la música es la respiración de la vida y de Dios. Per me, la musica è l'alito della vita e di Dio Pour moi, la musique est le souffle de la vie et de Dieu. Für mich ist Musik der Atem des Lebens und des Gottes. Dean M. Estabrook Director of Music St. Andrew Presbyterian Church Yuba City, CA ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbers
Yes to both. Dean On Oct 30, 2004, at 3:18 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote: At 05:46 PM 10/30/2004, Dean M. Estabrook wrote: Ah yes, on the measure number front, I just finished a score, and set the measure numbers to appear every 5 measures, beginning on the 5th bar. In the score, it did exactly that. However, when I extracted parts, some of the parts had numbers, some didn't. With the ones which didn't, nothing I could do, save manually putting them in by using option click, would produce the desired effect. Whazzz up? I'm not sure what you mean by nothing I could do. This may sound obvious, but did you try, in the extracted part, checking Staff Attributes and making sure that measure numbers were set to display? Did you have Always show on top staff checked in the score for all measure number regions? Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Para mí, la música es la respiración de la vida y de Dios. Per me, la musica è l'alito della vita e di Dio Pour moi, la musique est le souffle de la vie et de Dieu. Für mich ist Musik der Atem des Lebens und des Gottes. Dean M. Estabrook Director of Music St. Andrew Presbyterian Church Yuba City, CA ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale