On Mar 22, 2007, at 8:33 AM, dhbailey wrote:
."
What is really stupid is when music has the double numbers for
repeated times, so that the same measure is measure 1 the first
time and measure 17 the second time, when calling for the group to
start at measure 17, some fool is always going to ask "First time
or second time?"
Like, why even bother making things clear! Stupidity will always
show. And if the conductor has to say "Start at 17, second time
through" there's really no reason for an engraver to have spent
that extra time adding those extra measure numbers.
Unless someone has the passage written out without a repeat while
others HAVE a repeat.
That's why I think it is important for ALL parts and score to have
exactly the same roadmap—IOW, no repeats unless EVERYBODY has one, no
first and second endings unless EVERYBODY has them, etc.
I know that there are traditions where some instruments have repeats
where other instruments have things written out (just played William
Tell Overture, I forget the edition, this caused mucho problems in
rehearsal trying to figure out where to start) but this is BAD
tradition. There are all kinds of kudges designed to save paper/ink/
copyist's time that are bad ideas—this is one.
As someone said earlier (David Bailey?) as long as all the parts and
score agree with each other, we can deal with any kind of numbering
scheme.
Christopher
(who prefers to number each measure sequentially, so second ending
would be 17 and next measure 18, but hey, I don't do much 200 year
old music these days.)
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
