At 11:02 PM +0100 1/18/10, Jari Williamsson wrote:
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
The measure number has no particular significance other than being
the address (to borrow a computer term) of the measure. The only
important consideration is that the measure number of a particular
measure should be the same in the score and in all parts. Instead
of the proposed arrow, I might put a footnote by the measure number
at the end of the section, and use a footnote in the score and
parts to indicate that there were four measures omitted.
Using my example, if the conductor asks to begin at measure 55 and
some musicians count backwards from the extra 60 measure number,
they'll start 4 measures before where the conductor starts if they
don't see/read the footnote.
Also, the parts have numerous other occasions where measure number
jumps, so putting footnotes at each such will clutter the parts
considerably.
You have a good point, and I would revise my previous suggestion.
Add bar numbers to the bar BEFORE the cut as well as to the bar AFTER
it. That should make the situation clear, and no footnote would be
needed. In fact I think I may remember that having been done in the
books for one show.
(All movements where there are cuts will be listed on an index page.)
I have no problem with that, but why? Do you envision a conductor
taking the trouble to re-insert the elision? Perhaps just a
conductor's note regarding your source and the fact of the cuts would
be enough?
John
--
John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music
Virginia Tech Department of Music
College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:[email protected])
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
"We never play anything the same way once." Shelly Manne's definition
of jazz musicians.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
