Hi David,
Just to be clear, I agree with this -- as you say, historical forms
in which the numbering system you describe is what's expected. But I
would never recommend that this numbering system be used for a piece
of new music.
Cheers,
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 22 Mar 2007, at 8:31 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 21 Mar 2007 at 18:25, Darcy James Argue wrote:
So, in your example, the measure under the first ending is m.16, the
measure under the second ending is m.17, and the first measure
following the second ending is m.18.
I would do that in the vast majority of situations. The one exception
would be a binary form with clear 8- or 16-bar sections, where the
numbers will then come out wrong if you count the 2nd endings. If the
B section begins in measure 10 instead of measure 9, it will confuse
those who are accustomed to the conventions of these historical
forms.
--
David W. Fenton http://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
