On 22 Mar 2007, at 8:47 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
But I still think that in a printed work, the 2nd endings should not be numbered whenever the 2nd ending has the same number of measures as the 1st ending.
So for works with long first and second endings, the conductor has to specify "Okay, let's begin in the fifth bar of the first ending?" or "Take it from the seventh bar of the second ending?" Why would you want to deal with a situation where "m.16" could potentially refer to two different measures, or some measures don't have an individual measure number at all?
Even worse is the system of assigning multiple measure numbers to repeated measures, as the system quickly breaks down when you have sections that are repeated many times, or vamps/loops that are repeated an indeterminate number of times.
Really, from a rehearsal perspective, for new music where nobody expects measure numbers to have anything to do with phrasing, this system has nothing to recommend it. I understand that it's a convention used by some publishers (especially for historical music), but it's an ambiguous convention, which is why virtually everyone in my field uses "one measure = one number."
I don't know why you'd agree that "one measure=one number" is the least ambiguous numbering method when players have to number their parts themselves, and then recommend a different, more ambiguous numbering system for publication.
Cheers, - Darcy ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
