On 22.03.2007 David W. Fenton wrote:
It is actually very
> common in classical music to have a second ending only in some parts
> and not in others. You simply cannot number these separately.
I would say it's common in *historical* parts, but it's not a good
idea to reproduce it in modern parts.
Well, I see it quite frequently in such famous editions like the Henle
Haydn string quartets, Doblinger parts, and I believe I have even seen
this in the NMA parts from Bärenreiter. Ok, I change "very common" to
"quite common".
When I'm coaching chamber music and the parts are un-numbered at the
first coaching, I tell the players to number all the measures,
including 1st and 2nd endings, because I can't depend on them to do
it right if they skip the 2nd endings in their numbering. Then at the
next rehearsal, the first thing we do is check that everyone's
measure numbers agree.
But in a *printed* score, I would *not* number the 2nd ending. It's
only when you're manually numbering that counting all the measures is
the easy way to do it.
I do not disagree with the practical reasons, but in a published edition
the correct way to number measures is to give the first measure of the
endings the same measure number, at least as far as music up to the
second Viennese school goes. After that I couldn't care less how you
number your measures. I would still number it the same way, but hey,
anything is allowed in contemporary music, right? You could even write a
piece where someone shouts out the measure numbers at the top of his/her
voice. Would be quite funny going "...14!...15!...17!...". Perhaps the
review will read "the performers left out measure 16 the second time".
Perhaps not.
Damn, I should have written that piece myself, now someone else is going
to steal the idea...
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
