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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
[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
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
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
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,
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
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
