Re: [Finale] Measure numbers on parts

[Martin Nickless]

Ok I’ll look 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 7 Dec 2017, at 13:13, Christopher Smith  
> wrote:
> 
> Use the Measure Tool>Edit Measure Number Regions. The settings should be 
> obvious. Don’t delete measure numbers manually; that’s nuts.
> 
> Christopher
> 
>> On Dec 7, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Martin Nickless  wrote:
>> 
>> Windows 10 finale 12
>> Could I ask ?
>> I have measure numbers on all bars in the parts how do I get them at the 
>> start of the staff only
>> ( need a number mid line if the start of a new section) and delete the ones 
>> I don’t need
>> 
>> Many thanks 
>> Best
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> ___
>> Finale mailing list
>> Finale@shsu.edu
>> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>> 
>> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
>> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu
> 
> 
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
> 
> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers on parts

[Christopher Smith]

Use the Measure Tool>Edit Measure Number Regions. The settings should be 
obvious. Don’t delete measure numbers manually; that’s nuts.

Christopher

> On Dec 7, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Martin Nickless  wrote:
> 
> Windows 10 finale 12
> Could I ask ?
> I have measure numbers on all bars in the parts how do I get them at the 
> start of the staff only
> ( need a number mid line if the start of a new section) and delete the ones I 
> don’t need
> 
> Many thanks 
> Best
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
> 
> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

[Finale] Measure numbers on parts

[Martin Nickless]

Windows 10 finale 12
Could I ask ?
I have measure numbers on all bars in the parts how do I get them at the start 
of the staff only
( need a number mid line if the start of a new section) and delete the ones I 
don’t need

Many thanks 
Best

Sent from my iPhone
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers query

[Christopher Smith]

Global Staff Attributes plugin. Turn them off for every staff using  
the plugin, then go back and turn them on for individual staves as  
you were doing before, but obviously you only have to do THAT 3 or 4  
times instead of 30!

Christopher


On 13-Jul-12, at 13-Jul-12  2:47 PM, J D Thomas wrote:

> Finale Mac 2012b.r1
>
> Besides going thru the Staff Attributes dialog and adjusting select  
> stave settings, isn't there one setting somewhere where I can tell  
> Finale to show measure numbers on certain staves in an orchestral  
> score?
>
> J D Thomas
> ThomaStudios
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Finale] Measure numbers query

[J D Thomas]

Finale Mac 2012b.r1

Besides going thru the Staff Attributes dialog and adjusting select stave 
settings, isn't there one setting somewhere where I can tell Finale to show 
measure numbers on certain staves in an orchestral score?

J D Thomas
ThomaStudios


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers

[Christopher Smith]

On Mon Jan 10, at MondayJan 10 5:06 AM, dc wrote:

> Christopher Smith écrit:
>> Yes, that one is a very annoying bug! Please open a case with Tech Support 
>> so they get more complaints about it, which will move it up the list of 
>> things to be fixed.
> 
> You mean it's still not fixed in 2011!?! Before adding new features, or 
> changing existing features, Makemusic needs to fix these bugs that are almost 
> as old as Finale...
> 

Well, technically it's only as old as "Include in Measure Numbering", except 
for when you use Finale's Pickup Measure which causes similar problems.

I agree that MakeMusic should address some longstanding bugs, but from what 
Justin said, they seem to put priority on NEW bugs.

Christopher



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers don't print

[Barbara Touburg]

On 17-8-2010 21:29, Jonathan Smith wrote:

Try - Measure tool, page view, select all, either:

Show measure numbers

or

Retore measure number defaults

Jonathan


Dennis B.-K. has found the solution. I had both Truetype and Type 1 versions of the font 
installed. Finale has a way handling fonts...

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Measure numbers don't print

[Jonathan Smith]

Try - Measure tool, page view, select all, either:

Show measure numbers

or

Retore measure number defaults

Jonathan


> Hello all,
> 
> I have a file where the measure numbers higher than 42, with an exceptiom of 
> measure 48, won't print. I've tried a word-around with fake measure numbers, 
> using expressions, but they won't print either. I've checked for staff 
> styles, but there aren't any.
> I've tried to force them with a staff style, but they still won't print.
> Any other suggestions would e very welcome!
> 
> Barbara


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers don't print

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

On Mon, August 16, 2010 12:47 pm, Barbara Touburg wrote:
> I have a file where the measure numbers higher than 42, with an exceptiom of
> measure 48, won't
> print. I've tried a word-around with fake measure numbers, using expressions,
> but they won't
> print either. I've checked for staff styles, but there aren't any.
> I've tried to force them with a staff style, but they still won't print.
> Any other suggestions would e very welcome!

Figure it out yet? I'm just home. You're welcome to send the file.

D



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers don't print

[Christopher Smith]

On Mon Aug 16, at MondayAug 16 12:47 PM, Barbara Touburg wrote:


Hello all,

I have a file where the measure numbers higher than 42, with an  
exceptiom of measure 48, won't print. I've tried a word-around with  
fake measure numbers, using expressions, but they won't print  
either. I've checked for staff styles, but there aren't any.
I've tried to force them with a staff style, but they still won't  
print.

Any other suggestions would e very welcome!

Barbara


Is this possibly a file made from another file, where perhaps you  
clicked on and deleted certain measure numbers? Unfortunately, I  
don't know how to reverse that action, other than creating a NEW  
measure number region and deleting the old one.


Or since expressions aren't printing either, it sounds like there is  
some file corruption.


Christopher



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers don't print

[David W. Fenton]

On 16 Aug 2010 at 20:07, Barbara Touburg wrote:

> On 16-8-2010 19:24, David W. Fenton wrote:
> > On 16 Aug 2010 at 18:47, Barbara Touburg wrote:
> >
> >
> > Have you checked that your measure number region is not set to end
> > at m. 42? Basically, this sounds like your measure number regions
> > are just out of whack -- it's very easy for this to happen, of
> > course.
> 
> No, the region is fine. Would you like to take a look at the file?

I'm sure I can't read it, as I'm still on WinFin 2003.

If it's not measure regions, then maybe staff styles?

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers don't print

[Barbara Touburg]

On 16-8-2010 19:24, David W. Fenton wrote:

On 16 Aug 2010 at 18:47, Barbara Touburg wrote:


Have you checked that your measure number region is not set to end at
m. 42? Basically, this sounds like your measure number regions are
just out of whack -- it's very easy for this to happen, of course.



No, the region is fine. Would you like to take a look at the file?
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers don't print

[David W. Fenton]

On 16 Aug 2010 at 18:47, Barbara Touburg wrote:

> I have a file where the measure numbers higher than 42, with an
> exceptiom of measure 48, won't print. I've tried a word-around with
> fake measure numbers, using expressions, but they won't print either.
> I've checked for staff styles, but there aren't any. I've tried to
> force them with a staff style, but they still won't print. Any other
> suggestions would e very welcome!

Have you checked that your measure number region is not set to end at 
m. 42? Basically, this sounds like your measure number regions are 
just out of whack -- it's very easy for this to happen, of course.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers don't print

[Barbara Touburg]

On 16-8-2010 19:25, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:

Barbara,

Are these all in the same measure number region? If you've designed multiple 
regions, the
settings for one or more measure number regions may be set not to print measure 
numbers.


Noel,

They are in one region, mm 10-99. Some of them print, others do not.
I also have tried expressions, but they don't print either.
Entering them as lyrics verse 2 seems to work.
Stupid, eh?

Barbara
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers don't print

[Noel Stoutenburg]

Barbara,

Are these all in the same measure number region? If you've designed 
multiple regions, the settings for one or more measure number regions 
may be set not to print measure numbers.


ns

Barbara Touburg wrote:

Hello all,

I have a file where the measure numbers higher than 42, with an
exceptiom of measure 48, won't print. I've tried a word-around with fake
measure numbers, using expressions, but they won't print either. I've
checked for staff styles, but there aren't any.
I've tried to force them with a staff style, but they still won't print.
Any other suggestions would e very welcome!

Barbara
___
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

[Finale] Measure numbers don't print

[Barbara Touburg]

Hello all,

I have a file where the measure numbers higher than 42, with an exceptiom of measure 48, won't 
print. I've tried a word-around with fake measure numbers, using expressions, but they won't 
print either. I've checked for staff styles, but there aren't any.

I've tried to force them with a staff style, but they still won't print.
Any other suggestions would e very welcome!

Barbara
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers and groups

[David W. Fenton]

On 8 Feb 2009 at 21:35, Christopher Smith wrote:

> It's essentially the same operation for newer versions, except we  
> have a few new options like Show on top staff (and EXCLUDE others)  
> and showing on multimeasure rests. We STILL don't have an easy way to  
> have measure number regions, positioning, frequency, or font be  
> different between score and linked parts, however. You can kludge it  
> by creating two regions, one for the score and one for the parts, and  
> turn each one on or off depending on what you are about to print, but  
> then you have to REMEMBER to do it!

I've been doing a lot of futzing with measure number regions lately, 
and it seems to me that it's way too hard. Why can't you select a set 
of measures and then choose to create a measure numbering region for 
that set of measures?

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers and groups

[David W. Fenton]

On 8 Feb 2009 at 21:39, David W. Fenton wrote:

> I recently reworked a Finale 2000 file that I downloaded, and the 
> parts generated from it uniformly inherited the measure numbering 
> settings of the source staves. I wonder what I did wrong in that 
> file?

OK, I see what it is -- the measure numbering region needs to be 
defined with "always include measure number on top system." Since the 
parts inherit the region definition, this overrides the setting for 
the staff that hides measure numbers.

Sorry for causing all this confusion, but this was one of those 
things I never understood.

To recapitulate:

1. there is no group-based control of measure numbering (shouldn't 
there be?).

2. in the score, set all the non-numbered staves to *not* display 
measure numbers.

3. in the measure numbering region definition, turn on ALWAYS SHOW ON 
TOP STAFF. In the parts, this will override the setting in Step #2.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers and groups

[David W. Fenton]

On 8 Feb 2009 at 21:29, David W. Fenton wrote:

> If I use the setup wizard to start a new document with groups in 
> them, each individual staff as display of measure numbers turned on 
> (so parts are properly generated with measure numbers), but doesn't 
> appear in the score except at the top of each group (e.g., piano 
> quartet, with measure number at top of the 3 strings and at top of 
> the piano grand staff).

Oh, never mind. The reason the setup wizard gets it right is because 
it turns off measure number display on systems that aren't at the top 
of a group. And I see that when I generate parts, the measure numbers 
are there.

I recently reworked a Finale 2000 file that I downloaded, and the 
parts generated from it uniformly inherited the measure numbering 
settings of the source staves. I wonder what I did wrong in that 
file?

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers and groups

[Christopher Smith]

You set it in the Staff Attributes. Show measure numbers for the top  
staff of a group, but not for the bottom staff of the group. The  
Measure Number region you will set to show ALWAYS on the top staff of  
whatever staff or group of staves is in the extracted part.


It's essentially the same operation for newer versions, except we  
have a few new options like Show on top staff (and EXCLUDE others)  
and showing on multimeasure rests. We STILL don't have an easy way to  
have measure number regions, positioning, frequency, or font be  
different between score and linked parts, however. You can kludge it  
by creating two regions, one for the score and one for the parts, and  
turn each one on or off depending on what you are about to print, but  
then you have to REMEMBER to do it!


Christopher


On Feb 8, 2009, at 9:29 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:


If I use the setup wizard to start a new document with groups in
them, each individual staff as display of measure numbers turned on
(so parts are properly generated with measure numbers), but doesn't
appear in the score except at the top of each group (e.g., piano
quartet, with measure number at top of the 3 strings and at top of
the piano grand staff).

Now, I'm on Finale 2003, so things may have changed extensively since
then, but I'm having trouble with making this come out right for a
new score that I'm starting that is based on my old templates (which
date back to Finale 2.1!). I can't start over with a new template,
since there's way too much in the old one that I must have.

But I can't figure out where in group options or measure region
options I set the groups to display measure numbers only on the top
staff of the group.

Anyone?

--
David W. Fentonhttp://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

[Finale] Measure numbers and groups

[David W. Fenton]

If I use the setup wizard to start a new document with groups in 
them, each individual staff as display of measure numbers turned on 
(so parts are properly generated with measure numbers), but doesn't 
appear in the score except at the top of each group (e.g., piano 
quartet, with measure number at top of the 3 strings and at top of 
the piano grand staff).

Now, I'm on Finale 2003, so things may have changed extensively since 
then, but I'm having trouble with making this come out right for a 
new score that I'm starting that is based on my old templates (which 
date back to Finale 2.1!). I can't start over with a new template, 
since there's way too much in the old one that I must have.

But I can't figure out where in group options or measure region 
options I set the groups to display measure numbers only on the top 
staff of the group.

Anyone?

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in score vs. linked parts

[dhbailey]

Brian Williams wrote:
[snip]


In large orchestral scores, I typically have large boxed measure numbers
only displayed between the woodwinds and the brass and between the
percussion and the strings. What I would need is the ability to create a
large-font boxed measure number region that only displays below certain
staves of the score, and another small-font region for parts that would
display on the bottom staff of every part. Maybe this could be done by
enabling measure number regions to use staff lists.



Enabling staff lists for measure numbers would be a good thing, but I 
don't think it would solve the desire to number measures differently 
between score and parts.


Such a thing would be possible if MakeMusic would simply make the 
measure numbers UNlinkable between score and parts.


They should be able to be entirely separate, so that for each measure 
number region we could check a box from among the choices: Score Only, 
Parts Only, Score and Parts.


However, so far MakeMusic hasn't seen fit to do this for us.

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Measure numbers in score vs. linked parts

[Brian Williams]

Thanks Darcy for the tips for multimeasure rests and optimization of linked
parts. That really helped.

Regarding measure numbers, Mike Greensill wrote:
> I still use the old method of having a score and a parts copy. So when
> I think that everything possible has been entered in the file I save
> that as "score" and then "save as" for the parts. Where I alter the
> measure numbers and quite a few other things that I like to be much
> different in the parts than the score.

Doesn't that kind of negate the whole reason for having linked parts in the
first place? I thought the whole point is that if you change something in
the score -- especially something as major as deleting or adding measures
(which happens a lot in choreography cues) -- the parts are automatically
updated to include the changes. If you have to create a separate "parts"
document, then you'll have to make the changes in multiple documents, making
the linked parts feature much less useful.

In large orchestral scores, I typically have large boxed measure numbers
only displayed between the woodwinds and the brass and between the
percussion and the strings. What I would need is the ability to create a
large-font boxed measure number region that only displays below certain
staves of the score, and another small-font region for parts that would
display on the bottom staff of every part. Maybe this could be done by
enabling measure number regions to use staff lists.

Brian Williams

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in linked parts

[David W. Fenton]

On 2 Oct 2006 at 15:34, dc wrote:

> David W. Fenton écrit:
> >There's no way to unlink positiong from the score? That doesn't make
> >much sense to me.
> 
> You can "unlink in all parts" from the score. What I meant - sorry if
> I wasn't clear - is that simply moving the numbers in the score
> without prior unlinking affects all the parts.

OK, then. I still don't know if your answer ways that it is possible 
to set the measure number position in the score (which will set it in 
the parts), unlink it, and then change it so that it's different for 
the score only, and the parts retain the original setting (which was 
appropriate for parts).

> Still, it would be nice to position measure numbers in the dialog box
> separately for each part if needed.

I agree, but if the above is possible, it doesn't sound like a 
terribly problematic situation.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in linked parts

[David W. Fenton]

On 30 Sep 2006 at 19:59, dc wrote:

> David W. Fenton écrit:
> >I haven't tried linked parts, but can't you set it to the right
> >location in the score, then ctrl-drag in the score (which I'd assume
> >would unlink it) to the correct location for the score? That would
> >mean moving it only once.
> 
> No, because what you do in the score applies to the score and all
> parts (which only makes sense, or else there would be no way to make a
> change that applies everywhere).

There's no way to unlink positiong from the score? That doesn't make 
much sense to me.

Or, you'd have to be able to change position on all parts at once.

I hope those of you who have Finale 2007 are putting in feature 
requests on this.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in linked parts

[David W. Fenton]

On 30 Sep 2006 at 7:30, Christopher Smith wrote:

> On Sep 30, 2006, at 4:27 AM, dc wrote:
> 
> > Apologies if I'm stating something obvious, but I just realized, 
> > after complaining about the the placement of measure numbers in 
> > linked parts,  that one could unlink them by simply selecting them 
> > all and dragging them down (or up).
> 
> Really? That's something then.
> 
> But you would have to do it on EVERY extracted part separately, 
> wouldn't you? And you can only select the measure numbers for an 
> entire page at a time, so you would have to do it in three operations 
> for a three-page part.
> 
> But at least you CAN do it. Congrats!

I haven't tried linked parts, but can't you set it to the right 
location in the score, then ctrl-drag in the score (which I'd assume 
would unlink it) to the correct location for the score? That would 
mean moving it only once.

-- 
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates   http://dfenton.com/DFA/

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in linked parts

[dhbailey]

Michael Cook wrote:
If you drag-select with the mouse, making sure that the first thing that 
is covered by the dragging rectangle is a measure number, only measure 
numbers should be selected.




That's good news but it only works for the measure numbers on a single 
page, then, so the effort would have to be made for each page.


Hardly an effective method.

Personally, for works which have only a single measure number region, my 
previously suggested method of creating two identical regions, where the 
one which should show in the score only has the numbers positioned in 
one location and the one which would show only in parts having its 
unique settings.


Then the score-only region, when you want to print the score, is set to 
show starting with measure 1 (or 2), while the other region is set to 
show starting with measure [last-measure+1].  Simply reverse those 
"starting with measure" settings when one wants to print the linked parts.


For multiple measure number regions, this would be as big a pain in the 
butt as all the other kludges suggested.


However, Fin2007 has added an "include in measure numbering" checkbox 
which can be unchecked for any individual measures, so the days of 
requiring multiple measure number regions may be behind us, which will 
make my workaround not so difficult to live with.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in linked parts

[dhbailey]

dc wrote:

dhbailey écrit:
When I select the measure tool and hit ctrl-a, all the handles, 
including the barlines, are selected.  And while barlines aren't 
affected by up-down nudging, they are affected by left-right nudging, 
so if I chose to shift the numbers left-right, barlines (and thus some 
measure widths) will be affected.


I was just wondering if there was a way to select ONLY the measure 
number handles.


You're right. Since I had only vertical nudging to do, I didn't think of 
this. There's still a way to select number handles only with the mouse 
if they are all vertically aligned.




Yes, if the work has measure numbers only at the start of each system. 
But your method falls apart if they are also spaced out in different 
locations.


Oh well, hopefully MM will take care of this issue in linked-score/parts 
v1.1.  :-)



--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in linked parts

[Michael Cook]

If you drag-select with the mouse, making sure that the first thing  
that is covered by the dragging rectangle is a measure number, only  
measure numbers should be selected.


On 30 Sep 2006, at 14:17, dhbailey wrote:
I was just wondering if there was a way to select ONLY the measure  
number handles.


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in linked parts

[dhbailey]

dc wrote:

dhbailey écrit:
How does one select all the measure numbers and no other measure-tool 
handles?


Ctrl A seems to select all the measure numbers and nothing else. But 
what other handles do you have, besides the two or three attached to 
each measure, which aren't affected by nudging?


Dennis


When I select the measure tool and hit ctrl-a, all the handles, 
including the barlines, are selected.  And while barlines aren't 
affected by up-down nudging, they are affected by left-right nudging, so 
if I chose to shift the numbers left-right, barlines (and thus some 
measure widths) will be affected.


I was just wondering if there was a way to select ONLY the measure 
number handles.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in linked parts

[dhbailey]

Christopher Smith wrote:


On Sep 30, 2006, at 4:27 AM, dc wrote:

Apologies if I'm stating something obvious, but I just realized, after 
complaining about the the placement of measure numbers in linked 
parts,  that one could unlink them by simply selecting them all and 
dragging them down (or up).


Really? That's something then.

But you would have to do it on EVERY extracted part separately, wouldn't 
you? And you can only select the measure numbers for an entire page at a 
time, so you would have to do it in three operations for a three-page part.


But at least you CAN do it. Congrats!



How does one select all the measure numbers and no other measure-tool 
handles?



--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in linked parts

[Christopher Smith]

On Sep 30, 2006, at 4:27 AM, dc wrote:

Apologies if I'm stating something obvious, but I just realized,  
after complaining about the the placement of measure numbers in  
linked parts,  that one could unlink them by simply selecting them  
all and dragging them down (or up).


Really? That's something then.

But you would have to do it on EVERY extracted part separately,  
wouldn't you? And you can only select the measure numbers for an  
entire page at a time, so you would have to do it in three operations  
for a three-page part.


But at least you CAN do it. Congrats!

Christopher



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers

[dhbailey]

dc wrote:

dhbailey écrit:
What follows only will work easily for works/movements with a single 
measure number region.


1) Set up two regions, just like each other, but when it says "show 
beginning with measure #" put a measure number larger than the 
movement has for one of the regions.


2) when working on the score use one region and set it to "show 
beginning with measure #2" or whatever you usually use, and set its 
position as you want it in the score.  Be sure the other region is set 
to begin showing at a larger number than exists in the score.


3) when working on the parts, use the other region.  Set the "show 
beginning with measure #" to a number larger than the last measure in 
the piece for the region that you just adjusted for the the score.  
Set the region you're reserving for parts to show beginning with 
measure 2 (or whatever you normally use) and set its position as you 
want for the parts.


Thanks, David, but I must be missing something. Since the changes above 
affect both the score and the parts, as far as I can see, isn't it 
easier to simply change the position before printing out the parts?


Dennis


Yes, that would be easier, I had replied too early.  My reply really was 
a rehashing of an answer I had given a short while ago to someone who 
wanted the measure numbers to appear differently (start of each system 
in the parts, under each measure in the score.)


You're right -- simply changing the position and then remembering to 
change it back will work fine.


But even with that, as with my answer, for any work with more than a 
couple of measure number regions, having them linked between score and 
parts is a real bother.


I'm very grateful they added a "don't include in measure numbers" 
attribute to the measure tool dialog!  That will significantly decrease 
the necessary number of regions in works with endings or split-measure 
repeats.



--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers

[dhbailey]

dc wrote:
Has anyone found a way to have a different position for measure numbers 
in a score and in linked parts? I can't understand why this has been 
made "always linked".


Dennis


What follows only will work easily for works/movements with a single 
measure number region.


1) Set up two regions, just like each other, but when it says "show 
beginning with measure #" put a measure number larger than the movement 
has for one of the regions.


2) when working on the score use one region and set it to "show 
beginning with measure #2" or whatever you usually use, and set its 
position as you want it in the score.  Be sure the other region is set 
to begin showing at a larger number than exists in the score.


3) when working on the parts, use the other region.  Set the "show 
beginning with measure #" to a number larger than the last measure in 
the piece for the region that you just adjusted for the the score.  Set 
the region you're reserving for parts to show beginning with measure 2 
(or whatever you normally use) and set its position as you want for the 
parts.


Nobody can understand why this item is always linked.  Nobody, that is, 
except the good folks at MM who were forced to get this upgrade out the 
door by early August, before they had figured out how to unlink the 
measure numbers.  Among other things.


I can only begin to imagine the frustration of the programmers who work 
so hard to get things right and are told "stop working on that feature, 
we're going gold with as it stands right now.  We'll make them pay for 
the rest of that feature in the next upgrade."  How frustrating that 
must be for their professional pride!


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] measure numbers and upbeats

[Johannes Gebauer]

Nonetheless, that upbeat measure should not have it's own number. I 
don't know what kind of piece you are doing, but musically the correct 
way to notate this is to have _two_ incomplete measures, ie (in 4/4) a 
measure with 3 quarters and one with one quarter, and both are in fact 
the same measure (and get the same measure number). If your source does 
not give you this option the upbeat measure should still not get it's 
own number imo.
Depending on the circumstances you could consider to start new measure 
numbers, which would make the upbeat measure 0 (or "-1").

Johannes
d. collins wrote:
I know we discussed something similar recently, but what does one when, 
in the middle of a piece, a new section starts with an upbeat and an 
incomplete measure? It looks rather strange to have no way of 
identifying that measure by a number if numbers are only given to 
complete measures.

Thanks,
Dennis
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] measure numbers and upbeats

[dhbailey]

d. collins wrote:
I know we discussed something similar recently, but what does one when, 
in the middle of a piece, a new section starts with an upbeat and an 
incomplete measure? It looks rather strange to have no way of 
identifying that measure by a number if numbers are only given to 
complete measures.

Thanks,
Dennis
Usually that pickup measure completes the preceding measure.  In those 
rare instances when it doesn't, as long as all measures are numbered the 
same in score and parts, it doesn't really matter whether you number 
that pickup measure or not, when a person calls out "Let's start at 
measure 119" everybody will be able to find it.

To identify that particular measure it is easy to say "Let's start at 
the pickup measure leading into bar 120."  It's only when it's hard to 
locate bar 120 that that method (or any method) is difficult.

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Johannes Gebauer]

I am not quite sure I follow you. Are you suggesting that first and 
second repeats are unusual in 18th and 19th century music? In that case, 
I am afraid you are wrong. They happen in about every larger piece many 
times, and in fact even in classical menuets you will find them in most 
of them. Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Bach, you name it.

It's silly to list examples, I am afraid, just open a score of a Haydn 
string quartet, and you will find them. They are everywhere.

Perhaps I misunderstood you.
Johannnes
Owain Sutton wrote:

Johannes Gebauer wrote:
No, but there are editions of music before 1900 even in our times ;-)
And don't we know it*still awaiting the complete edition of the 
Trent Codices*...


And we were talking about modern practice of publishing music, but not 
necessarily of contemporary music.

That's truemy point (the context of which has been lost!) was how 
can one talk of a 'standard' system for such repeats in pre-1900 music, 
when they're rare enough to be considered non-standard?
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Owain Sutton]

Johannes Gebauer wrote:
No, but there are editions of music before 1900 even in our times ;-)
And don't we know it*still awaiting the complete edition of the 
Trent Codices*...


And we were talking about modern practice of publishing music, but not 
necessarily of contemporary music.

That's truemy point (the context of which has been lost!) was how 
can one talk of a 'standard' system for such repeats in pre-1900 music, 
when they're rare enough to be considered non-standard?
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Johannes Gebauer]

No, but there are editions of music before 1900 even in our times ;-)
And we were talking about modern practice of publishing music, but not 
necessarily of contemporary music.

Johannes
Owain Sutton wrote:
I'm not aware of any consistent usage of 1st/2nd endings much before 
1900.  I'm happy to be corrected, though.

Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I don't understand. Why is the problem only relevant in 20th century 
music?

Johannes
Owain Sutton wrote:
Surely we're only talking about twentieth music, if the initial 
problem arising from first/second time endings is to be relevant?


___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Owain Sutton]

I'm not aware of any consistent usage of 1st/2nd endings much before 
1900.  I'm happy to be corrected, though.

Johannes Gebauer wrote:
I don't understand. Why is the problem only relevant in 20th century music?
Johannes
Owain Sutton wrote:
Surely we're only talking about twentieth music, if the initial 
problem arising from first/second time endings is to be relevant?

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Johannes Gebauer]

I don't understand. Why is the problem only relevant in 20th century music?
Johannes
Owain Sutton wrote:
Surely we're only talking about twentieth music, if the initial problem 
arising from first/second time endings is to be relevant?
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Owain Sutton]

Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Well, I beg to disagree. I still haven't heard of any edition by a major 
publisher that does not follow this standard. I actually did a little 
investigation in some scores I looked at, Eulenburg, Schott, 
Bärenreiter, Henle. All of them follow the same rule. Please name one.

There are some special cases where repeats are numbered seperately, but 
they are rare, and there is always a good reason for this.

I have not seen a single score by a major publisher, where the first 
ending and second ending are just numbered through.

I really think that such practice is only done (at least as far as 
anything up to 1900 goes) by computer engravers who don't know better. 
That doesn't make it a convention.

Please show me proof if you disagree.

Surely we're only talking about twentieth music, if the initial problem 
arising from first/second time endings is to be relevant?
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Johannes Gebauer]

Well, I beg to disagree. I still haven't heard of any edition by a major 
publisher that does not follow this standard. I actually did a little 
investigation in some scores I looked at, Eulenburg, Schott, 
Bärenreiter, Henle. All of them follow the same rule. Please name one.

There are some special cases where repeats are numbered seperately, but 
they are rare, and there is always a good reason for this.

I have not seen a single score by a major publisher, where the first 
ending and second ending are just numbered through.

I really think that such practice is only done (at least as far as 
anything up to 1900 goes) by computer engravers who don't know better. 
That doesn't make it a convention.

Please show me proof if you disagree.
Johannes
Owain Sutton wrote:
It is mandatory to use a _standard_ system of numbering the
measures. In my opinion the _only_ standard for, shall we say, 
traditional music is to number first and second ending with the same 
numbers. Anything else is going to cause confusion, whether we like it 
or not.


It's already become very clear that this is *not* a standard, but just 
one of several conventions.
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Owain Sutton]

Johannes Gebauer wrote:

It is mandatory to use a _standard_ system of numbering the
measures. In my opinion the _only_ standard for, shall we say, 
traditional music is to number first and second ending with the same 
numbers. Anything else is going to cause confusion, whether we like it 
or not.


It's already become very clear that this is *not* a standard, but just 
one of several conventions.
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Johannes Gebauer]

It is not just rehearsals, imagine someone doing an analyis of any
piece. It is mandatory to use a _standard_ system of numbering the
measures. In my opinion the _only_ standard for, shall we say, 
traditional music is to number first and second ending with the same 
numbers. Anything else is going to cause confusion, whether we like it 
or not.

YMMV
Johannes
Andrew Stiller wrote:
Posters to this thread have repeatedly referred to rehearsals, but this 
is not an issue with piano music, songs, etc.--and even in orchestral 
music the problems alluded to can be completely avoided simply by 
showing first and second endings in all extracted parts whether or not 
the endings differ in any given part.

I agree that where the parts are to be notated inconsistently from the 
score, that some other method must be used.

Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Andrew Stiller]

On Nov 30, 2004, at 5:47 PM, John Howell wrote:
 back in the days before automatic bar numbering by computer, ... how 
did they handle this question of bar numbers in repeats?
The issues and solutions were exactly the same as today.
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[John Howell]

At 8:14 PM + 11/29/04, Owain Sutton wrote:
dhbailey wrote:
There is nothing that is so fool-proof as a group of professionals 
can't make a total sham of it.

...short of numbering every single bar ;) (hey, I'm used to it 
in some genres...)
Which brings me to a question that's been in the back of my mind. 
It's fine to appeal to print publishers, but as pointed out 
(Riccordi) they don't always agree.  These are, after all, editorial 
decisions combined with house style decisions.

But, back in the days before automatic bar numbering by computer, in 
the days when professional copy houses turned out manuscript copies 
for studio and show work (ah, the amonia smell of fresh music!), and 
would number every bar for you (optional at extra cost, but more than 
worth it to save studio time), how did they handle this question of 
bar numbers in repeats?  Was it a matter of house style then, or even 
a matter of individual copyist's style?  Or did clients specify what 
they wanted?  (Hard to believe when you know the hectic pace of 
meeting deadlines, which is why professional copyists were hired in 
the first place!)

I suspect that there are a few on this list who can answer those 
questions from personal experience, either as clients, as copyists, 
or both.

John
--
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
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
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Andrew Stiller]

On Nov 29, 2004, at 2:56 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Please can you tell me one publication of a _classical_ (ie 18th
century) work from one of the major publishers where this practice is
followed? I certainly know that any of the big complete editions (Bach,
Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, you name it) do not have separate numbers for
first and second endings.
Well I'm not going to go do a big search right now, and I  wouldn't be 
surprised if you are right--for one century out of, what, 12 centuries 
of Western classical music?

Right now I have exactly one 18th-c. publication in my catalog--but I 
am publishing the complete works of a composer who lived 1781-1861, and 
have run into nothing problematic using the system I endorse.

Posters to this thread have repeatedly referred to rehearsals, but this 
is not an issue with piano music, songs, etc.--and even in orchestral 
music the problems alluded to can be completely avoided simply by 
showing first and second endings in all extracted parts whether or not 
the endings differ in any given part.

I agree that where the parts are to be notated inconsistently from the 
score, that some other method must be used.

Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Crystal Premo]

There is another (and IMO superior) way to handle this kind of situation 
however, and that is to number each performed measure rather than each 
written one. In that method, if the first eight measures are repeated, the 
first measure after the repeat is m. 17, not m. 9. This is an admittedly 
rare approach, but I have seen it in published material more than a few 
times.
That's how I do it when it's my call.  (When it's not my call, I do what 
the client asks, of course.)
During the day, while I was working, you have come completely full circle on 
this discussion.  What you are suggesting above is exactly what the client 
asked for, and exactly my decision to do whatever is wanted!

It's so Zen!
mdl
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Richard Yates]

> And while I'm on *that* subject, I disagree with the poster who
> decried divided measures as unprofessional under all circumstances.
> Andrew Stiller

As do I. Context is everything. I had a solo guitar transcription (Bach, I
think) with lots of sixteenth notes in dense counterpoint, and many
fingerings on a single staff. The choices were: one-measure systems and
three pages or on-and-a-half measure systems and two pages (i.e. no page
turn). The latter was clearly the better choice.

Richard Yates



___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Mark D Lew]

On Nov 29, 2004, at 10:29 AM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
There is another (and IMO superior) way to handle this kind of 
situation however, and that is to number each performed measure rather 
than each written one. In that method, if the first eight measures are 
repeated, the first measure after the repeat is m. 17, not m. 9. This 
is an admittedly rare approach, but I have seen it in published 
material more than a few times.
That's how I do it when it's my call.  (When it's not my call, I do 
what the client asks, of course.)

mdl
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Owain Sutton]

dhbailey wrote:
Owain Sutton wrote:

Andrew Stiller wrote:
There is another (and IMO superior) way to handle this kind of 
situation however, and that is to number each performed measure 
rather than each written one. In that method, if the first eight 
measures are repeated, the first measure after the repeat is m. 17, 
not m. 9. This is an admittedly rare approach, but I have seen it in 
published material more than a few times.

This is what I would use, if there were any possible conflicts 
regarding first/second-time endings etc.  Anything that has the 
potential to cause confusion in rehearsal must surely be considered a 
Bad Thing?

Given that professional musicians are humans, they can always find 
something to cause confusion.

Numbering the measure after the 1st, 2nd endings at the end of an 8-bar 
phrase as measure 17, will have some musicians, when the conductor says 
"Let's start at measure 21" counting 13 measure past the endings, while 
others will start in the 5th measure after the endings.

There is nothing that is so fool-proof as a group of professionals can't 
make a total sham of it.

...short of numbering every single bar ;) (hey, I'm used to it in 
some genres...)
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[dhbailey]

Owain Sutton wrote:

Andrew Stiller wrote:
There is another (and IMO superior) way to handle this kind of 
situation however, and that is to number each performed measure rather 
than each written one. In that method, if the first eight measures are 
repeated, the first measure after the repeat is m. 17, not m. 9. This 
is an admittedly rare approach, but I have seen it in published 
material more than a few times.

This is what I would use, if there were any possible conflicts regarding 
first/second-time endings etc.  Anything that has the potential to cause 
confusion in rehearsal must surely be considered a Bad Thing?
Given that professional musicians are humans, they can always find 
something to cause confusion.

Numbering the measure after the 1st, 2nd endings at the end of an 8-bar 
phrase as measure 17, will have some musicians, when the conductor says 
"Let's start at measure 21" counting 13 measure past the endings, while 
others will start in the 5th measure after the endings.

There is nothing that is so fool-proof as a group of professionals can't 
make a total sham of it.

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Owain Sutton]

Andrew Stiller wrote:
There is another (and IMO superior) way to handle this kind of situation 
however, and that is to number each performed measure rather than each 
written one. In that method, if the first eight measures are repeated, 
the first measure after the repeat is m. 17, not m. 9. This is an 
admittedly rare approach, but I have seen it in published material more 
than a few times.

This is what I would use, if there were any possible conflicts regarding 
first/second-time endings etc.  Anything that has the potential to cause 
confusion in rehearsal must surely be considered a Bad Thing?
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Johannes Gebauer]

Andrew Stiller wrote:
Really?  So you're saying that, for a one-measure first and second 
ending, *both* measures would have the same number?

Is that really standard practice?  That seems like a really terrible 
idea to me.

It *is* a terrible idea. I don't know what was meant by "all major 
publishers," but I have seen numerous scholarly editions from famous, 
highly reputed firms that followed the tradition of separate numbers for 
first and second endings. The idea is, or should be, that reference to 
any given number will instantly call out one and only one written measure.
Please can you tell me one publication of a _classical_ (ie 18th
century) work from one of the major publishers where this practice is
followed? I certainly know that any of the big complete editions (Bach,
Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, you name it) do not have separate numbers for
first and second endings.
Again, as I said before, the reasoning for contemporary music may well
be different.
I would argue that if you were going to bring out that new edition of
Beethoven Symphonies, you would probably not get many friends in the
orchestra pit if you numbered differently from everyone else. Just
imagine the confusion when the conductor uses the complete edition with
different measure numbers. Nightmare.
That's why I would strongly argue against separate numbers at least for
anything written before 1880.
It's bad enough that Ricordi decided to number through all movements in
the Vivaldi complete edition, when everyone else doesn't.
I agree with you on upbeats etc.
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Andrew Stiller]

It actually makes a lot of sense to me. I agree that it may be 
different for contemporary music, though.

The best example was already mentioned: imagine one part having a 
first and second ending, and another not having one. But even when 
this isn't the case it makes more sense to me that after measure 7 
follows measure 8, and not 9.

The rationale is especially obvious in baroque dance movements, or 
in calssical Menuets. It simply makes no sense to start the second 
section in measure 10 instead of measure 9, only because there 
perhaps is an extra note in the first ending. Very often the 
manuscript/autograph wouldn't even give you two different endings 
but just another way of indicating what should be played each time.

Sticking with this rule (as far as classical music is concerned) 
avoids all kinds of counting problems.

Johannes
There is another (and IMO superior) way to handle this kind of 
situation however, and that is to number each performed measure 
rather than each written one. In that method, if the first eight 
measures are repeated, the first measure after the repeat is m. 17, 
not m. 9. This is an admittedly rare approach, but I have seen it in 
published material more than a few times.

--
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Andrew Stiller]

John Howell wrote:
How to number 2nd endings is an editorial choice.  I've seen it 
done in different ways, and done it different ways myself.  I'll 
often take the lazy way out and number the first ending bar as "8" 
and the 2nd ending bar as "9," as long as the score and parts are 
all exactly the same.
This kind of practice is actually seen as wrong by all major 
publishers. It is possible that in your special case it doesn't 
cause any grief, but I strongly advise against doing it this way. 
It will add almost indefinite complications to rehearsals as soon 
as several editions of the same piece exist.

The correct way to number first and second endings is to number the 
first bar of the first and second ending the same.
Really?  So you're saying that, for a one-measure first and second 
ending, *both* measures would have the same number?

Is that really standard practice?  That seems like a really terrible 
idea to me.
It *is* a terrible idea. I don't know what was meant by "all major 
publishers," but I have seen numerous scholarly editions from famous, 
highly reputed firms that followed the tradition of separate numbers 
for first and second endings. The idea is, or should be, that 
reference to any given number will instantly call out one and only 
one written measure.

As long as we're on this subject, let me caution against two real and 
all too common numbering errors:

1) The first numbered measure should always be the first complete 
measure. Pickups do not constitute a measure and should not be 
counted.

2) When a measure is divided by a repeat sign in the middle, it is 
still only one measure, not two. If the repeat sign comes at the end 
of the line the partial measure beginning the next line should either 
be unnumbered or numbered in such a way as to point out the division: 
"(38)" or "38 bis" for example. This same rule applies to all other 
instances of measures divided across systems.

And while I'm on *that* subject, I disagree with the poster who 
decried divided measures as unprofessional under all circumstances. 
Sometimes (mostly in piano music) they just cannot be avoided: a 
measure full of 32d and 64th notes and bristling with ledger lines, 
accidentals, and clef changes may well exceed the length of a system, 
even at 70% reduction. It happens.

--
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[dhbailey]

Johannes Gebauer wrote:
It actually makes a lot of sense to me. I agree that it may be different 
for contemporary music, though.

The best example was already mentioned: imagine one part having a first 
and second ending, and another not having one. But even when this isn't 
the case it makes more sense to me that after measure 7 follows measure 
8, and not 9.

The rationale is especially obvious in baroque dance movements, or in 
calssical Menuets. It simply makes no sense to start the second section 
in measure 10 instead of measure 9, only because there perhaps is an 
extra note in the first ending. Very often the manuscript/autograph 
wouldn't even give you two different endings but just another way of 
indicating what should be played each time.

Sticking with this rule (as far as classical music is concerned) avoids 
all kinds of counting problems.

Johannes
I agree with all the logic Johannes has put forth, and for studying form 
it works best to have logical numbers, so if the first phrase is 16 
measures long, with the 16th measure being the first ending and also the 
second ending, it is much more clear to have the second phrase begin on 
measure 17, for study purposes.  It makes memorizing forms much easier, 
I find.  It also makes it more clear that the second ending is the 16th 
measure of the phrase, not the 17th measure as it would appear to be if 
the measures are numbered straight through.

However, since we are dealing with a computer program and can ensure 
that all parts are numbered exactly the same, I also find that with 
study issues set aside it really doesn't matter how the measures are 
numbered, just as long as all parts and the score agree and the numbers 
are in the music frequently enough to make finding specific measures 
easy for everybody.  I get so tired in rehearsals when, as conductor, I 
say let's begin at measure 178, only to have to wait for 3 minutes while 
everybody tries to locate that measure on their parts, and quite often 
have them not able to find it and simply to save time I end up going 
back much further to something I know they all have, like a double bar 
or a key change.

Whichever system a person uses, just make sure they actually ASSIST 
rehearsals and performances.  Any system which isn't marked frequently 
enough in the music is worthless as anything other than a matter of 
pride (questionable pride at best) in having numbered the measures.

To that end I would also discourage the use of numbers as rehearsal 
marks unless they actually denote the real measure number.  Nothing 
wastes time more than my saying "Let's start at 6" and having half the 
band begin at rehearsal marking 6 and the other half going all the way 
back to the 6th measure of the piece.  If you want to have rehearsal 
marks which aren't measure numbers, use letters please.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Johannes Gebauer]

It actually makes a lot of sense to me. I agree that it may be different 
for contemporary music, though.

The best example was already mentioned: imagine one part having a first 
and second ending, and another not having one. But even when this isn't 
the case it makes more sense to me that after measure 7 follows measure 
8, and not 9.

The rationale is especially obvious in baroque dance movements, or in 
calssical Menuets. It simply makes no sense to start the second section 
in measure 10 instead of measure 9, only because there perhaps is an 
extra note in the first ending. Very often the manuscript/autograph 
wouldn't even give you two different endings but just another way of 
indicating what should be played each time.

Sticking with this rule (as far as classical music is concerned) avoids 
all kinds of counting problems.

Johannes
Darcy James Argue wrote:
Hi Johannes,
I don't doubt that you are correct.  But I was just wondering (A) if I 
had understood you correctly (which I guess I did), and (B) what the 
rationale was?  This practice still strikes me as a terrible idea, 
Bärenreiter or no.
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[YATESLAWRENCE]

Generally I prefer to have the first and second time bars numbered the 
same.  In this way, (given 8 bar phrases ofr example) the second phrase 
starts on bar 9 whether or not there is a second time bar.
 
All the best,
 
Lawrence
 
"þaes 
ofereode - þisses swa 
maeg"http://lawrenceyates.co.uk
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Darcy James Argue]

Hi Johannes,
I don't doubt that you are correct.  But I was just wondering (A) if I 
had understood you correctly (which I guess I did), and (B) what the 
rationale was?  This practice still strikes me as a terrible idea, 
Bärenreiter or no.

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 29 Nov 2004, at 03:01 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Why don't you check yourself? Look at any major publisher's edition, 
Bärenreiter, Henle, Peters, Breitkopf and Härtel, which ever. I am 
pretty sure you will find that I am correct.

Johannes
Darcy James Argue wrote:
The correct way to number first and second endings is to number the 
first bar of the first and second ending the same.
Really?  So you're saying that, for a one-measure first and second 
ending, *both* measures would have the same number?
Is that really standard practice?  That seems like a really terrible 
idea to me.  I've always either done what John does, above (just 
number consecutively, ignoring repeats) -- which I prefer -- or, when 
necessary, renumber the entire repeat, film-score style, as you 
describe below.  I have never even considered having, for instance, 
two measure 9's in the same piece, one for the first ending, and one 
for the second.
What is the rationale for this?
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Johannes Gebauer]

Why don't you check yourself? Look at any major publisher's edition, 
Bärenreiter, Henle, Peters, Breitkopf and Härtel, which ever. I am 
pretty sure you will find that I am correct.

Johannes
Darcy James Argue wrote:
The correct way to number first and second endings is to number the 
first bar of the first and second ending the same.

Really?  So you're saying that, for a one-measure first and second 
ending, *both* measures would have the same number?

Is that really standard practice?  That seems like a really terrible 
idea to me.  I've always either done what John does, above (just number 
consecutively, ignoring repeats) -- which I prefer -- or, when 
necessary, renumber the entire repeat, film-score style, as you describe 
below.  I have never even considered having, for instance, two measure 
9's in the same piece, one for the first ending, and one for the second.

What is the rationale for this?
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Christopher Smith]

On Nov 28, 2004, at 6:40 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 28 Nov 2004, at 12:25 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
John Howell wrote:
How to number 2nd endings is an editorial choice.  I've seen it done 
in different ways, and done it different ways myself.  I'll often 
take the lazy way out and number the first ending bar as "8" and the 
2nd ending bar as "9," as long as the score and parts are all 
exactly the same.
This kind of practice is actually seen as wrong by all major 
publishers. It is possible that in your special case it doesn't cause 
any grief, but I strongly advise against doing it this way. It will 
add almost indefinite complications to rehearsals as soon as several 
editions of the same piece exist.

The correct way to number first and second endings is to number the 
first bar of the first and second ending the same.
Really?  So you're saying that, for a one-measure first and second 
ending, *both* measures would have the same number?

Is that really standard practice?  That seems like a really terrible 
idea to me.  I've always either done what John does, above (just 
number consecutively, ignoring repeats) -- which I prefer -- or, when 
necessary, renumber the entire repeat, film-score style, as you 
describe below.  I have never even considered having, for instance, 
two measure 9's in the same piece, one for the first ending, and one 
for the second.

What is the rationale for this?

Yep, that's traditional measure numbering for you. It's so that one 
part can have a first and second ending if necessary, while those parts 
that DON'T need the ending won't have it. Nowadays in non-traditional 
music that kind of thing is frowned upon, and justly so, considering 
the confusion it can cause.

Consider the rule about no repeats during a DS; it all came about to 
simplify notation of a rounded binary form – A repeated, B, then DS to 
A with no repeat. But in non-traditional forms, this rule causes all 
kinds of confusion, and is often forgotten anyway, so modern composers 
and arrangers simply specify whether to repeat or not on a DS.


There are rare cases where the whole repeat is renumbered in 
brackets. A typical example is when one part is added or changed the 
second time round. As far as I know this practice is also prefered in 
film scores, as it makes editing the sound track easier.

Johannes


The studio music context is one modern example of a good reason to 
number bars differently on repeats. Of course, one could also just 
write out the extra bars, since in Finale it is a snap to do so.

When time is tight in commercial recording sessions (and when is it 
not?) I try to make sure that the measure numbers match between the 
sequence the engineer is looking at in ProTools an the instrumental 
parts, including the click count-in. If an offset is necessary 
(sometimes hundreds of bars, if the composer has sequenced an entire 
reel in one file, divided into multiple cues, then I put it in using 
the Measure Number offset.

Christopher
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Owain Sutton]

Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 28 Nov 2004, at 12:25 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
John Howell wrote:
How to number 2nd endings is an editorial choice.  I've seen it done 
in different ways, and done it different ways myself.  I'll often 
take the lazy way out and number the first ending bar as "8" and the 
2nd ending bar as "9," as long as the score and parts are all exactly 
the same.

This kind of practice is actually seen as wrong by all major 
publishers. It is possible that in your special case it doesn't cause 
any grief, but I strongly advise against doing it this way. It will 
add almost indefinite complications to rehearsals as soon as several 
editions of the same piece exist.

The correct way to number first and second endings is to number the 
first bar of the first and second ending the same.

Really?  So you're saying that, for a one-measure first and second 
ending, *both* measures would have the same number?

Is that really standard practice?  That seems like a really terrible 
idea to me.  I've always either done what John does, above (just number 
consecutively, ignoring repeats) -- which I prefer -- or, when 
necessary, renumber the entire repeat, film-score style, as you describe 
below.  I have never even considered having, for instance, two measure 
9's in the same piece, one for the first ending, and one for the second.

I've had experience on just how awful this system is in rehearsals.
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Darcy James Argue]

On 28 Nov 2004, at 12:25 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
John Howell wrote:
How to number 2nd endings is an editorial choice.  I've seen it done 
in different ways, and done it different ways myself.  I'll often 
take the lazy way out and number the first ending bar as "8" and the 
2nd ending bar as "9," as long as the score and parts are all exactly 
the same.
This kind of practice is actually seen as wrong by all major 
publishers. It is possible that in your special case it doesn't cause 
any grief, but I strongly advise against doing it this way. It will 
add almost indefinite complications to rehearsals as soon as several 
editions of the same piece exist.

The correct way to number first and second endings is to number the 
first bar of the first and second ending the same.
Really?  So you're saying that, for a one-measure first and second 
ending, *both* measures would have the same number?

Is that really standard practice?  That seems like a really terrible 
idea to me.  I've always either done what John does, above (just number 
consecutively, ignoring repeats) -- which I prefer -- or, when 
necessary, renumber the entire repeat, film-score style, as you 
describe below.  I have never even considered having, for instance, two 
measure 9's in the same piece, one for the first ending, and one for 
the second.

What is the rationale for this?
There are rare cases where the whole repeat is renumbered in brackets. 
A typical example is when one part is added or changed the second time 
round. As far as I know this practice is also prefered in film scores, 
as it makes editing the sound track easier.

Johannes
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Johannes Gebauer]

Crystal Premo wrote:
Thanks, Johannes.  I don't like it, either, but this client does a great 
many things which I question the rationality of.  It is easier just to 
go along and not put my name on the sheet.  I think this will be the 
last work I accept.
I wasn't actually disgreeing with your client. I was disagreeing with 
John Howell's way of counting repeat bars.

What your client asks for may in fact have good reasons.
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Crystal Premo]

These are good points.
However, I've been trying to get my voice students to read music for the 
last twenty years, and I'd be so surprised to find a singer who does 
anything but follow the lyrics.


Crystal Premo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


From: Bruce K H Kau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:33:11
Actually, I have seen this type of notation, but mostly on vocal music with
a backup CD-track. Since the CD is keyed to the measure number as played,
it was needed to clarify where on the CD matches what part of the music.
I've seen it in other situations, too, but I can't recall exactly why.
(Some of my old band music was marked this way.) I think it was for
marching music where timing on the football field made a difference ... but
that was such a long time ago.
At 06:25 PM 11/28/2004 +0100, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
>John Howell wrote:
>> How to number 2nd endings is an editorial choice.  I've seen it done in
>> different ways, and done it different ways myself.  I'll often take the
>> lazy way out and number the first ending bar as "8" and the 2nd ending
>> bar as "9," as long as the score and parts are all exactly the same.
>
>This kind of practice is actually seen as wrong by all major publishers.
>It is possible that in your special case it doesn't cause any grief, but
>I strongly advise against doing it this way. It will add almost
>indefinite complications to rehearsals as soon as several editions of
>the same piece exist.
>
>The correct way to number first and second endings is to number the
>first bar of the first and second ending the same.
>
>There are rare cases where the whole repeat is renumbered in brackets. A
>typical example is when one part is added or changed the second time
>round. As far as I know this practice is also prefered in film scores,
>as it makes editing the sound track easier.
>
>Johannes
>--
>http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
>http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
>
>___
>Finale mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
-
Bruce K. H. Kau[EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Aina Haina, Honolulu, Hawai'i
"Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning ..."
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Crystal Premo]

Thank you for this thoughtful reply.
On this one-page lead sheet of a jazz tune, I think this extra labeling is 
extraneous.  It is perfectly obvious what is meant, even with measure 
numbers only at the beginning of each line.  It is useless to offer an 
opinion with this client unless it is asked, so I am just doing what is 
indicated.

Thanks again.
Crystal Premo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


From: John Howell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Crystal Premo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:59:46 -0500
At 9:15 PM -0500 11/27/04, Crystal Premo wrote:
Perhaps I am too inexperienced to have seen this before, but a client has 
given me a chart with edits, some of which are for measure numbers.  It is 
a lead sheet for a jazz tune, with measure numbers on the first measure of 
each system.  He has now indicated to place measure numbers under first 
and second endings thusly:  the first ending is measure 8, and an 8 is 
written there.  Under the ninth measure, which is the second ending, there 
is an (8), and underneath it a 16.  Is this usual, to think of the first 
measure of the second ending as measure (8)/16?  I've never seen this in 
published music, and it seems a little odd.


Crystal Premo
How to number 2nd endings is an editorial choice.  I've seen it done in 
different ways, and done it different ways myself.  I'll often take the 
lazy way out and number the first ending bar as "8" and the 2nd ending bar 
as "9," as long as the score and parts are all exactly the same.  (Of 
course I number every bar; using marginal numbers only slows down 
rehearsals unacceptably.)  To me AS A PLAYER the "16" makes no sense, even 
though it is mathematically correct, because measures 9-15 are not so 
marked, so I wouldn't use it unless you insert double measure numbers (1-9, 
2-10, 3-11, etc.).  My preference would be to use "(8)" for the 2nd ending 
and "9" for the first bar of the following that ending, as long as score 
and parts are all exactly the same.

This becomes ESPECIALLY important when, as in many Broadway show books, 
repeats are written out in some parts and marked with 1st and 2nd endings 
in others.  (And of course this is NEVER indicated in the piano-conductor 
books!)  In that case, it is absolutely essential to mark the double 
measure numbers in sections that are copied as repeats, because they need 
to line up with the continuous measure numbers in the parts that are 
written out, especially when there might be cuts taken in exactly such 
situations, throwing the orchestra into chaos until somebody figures out 
what's happening. (And yes, it's happened to me!!)

John
--
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
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
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Crystal Premo]

Thanks, Johannes.  I don't like it, either, but this client does a great 
many things which I question the rationality of.  It is easier just to go 
along and not put my name on the sheet.  I think this will be the last work 
I accept.


Crystal Premo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


From: Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:25:26 +0100
John Howell wrote:
How to number 2nd endings is an editorial choice.  I've seen it done in 
different ways, and done it different ways myself.  I'll often take the 
lazy way out and number the first ending bar as "8" and the 2nd ending bar 
as "9," as long as the score and parts are all exactly the same.
This kind of practice is actually seen as wrong by all major publishers. It 
is possible that in your special case it doesn't cause any grief, but I 
strongly advise against doing it this way. It will add almost indefinite 
complications to rehearsals as soon as several editions of the same piece 
exist.

The correct way to number first and second endings is to number the first 
bar of the first and second ending the same.

There are rare cases where the whole repeat is renumbered in brackets. A 
typical example is when one part is added or changed the second time round. 
As far as I know this practice is also prefered in film scores, as it makes 
editing the sound track easier.

Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Bruce K H Kau]

Actually, I have seen this type of notation, but mostly on vocal music with
a backup CD-track. Since the CD is keyed to the measure number as played,
it was needed to clarify where on the CD matches what part of the music.

I've seen it in other situations, too, but I can't recall exactly why.
(Some of my old band music was marked this way.) I think it was for
marching music where timing on the football field made a difference ... but
that was such a long time ago.

At 06:25 PM 11/28/2004 +0100, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
>John Howell wrote:
>> How to number 2nd endings is an editorial choice.  I've seen it done in 
>> different ways, and done it different ways myself.  I'll often take the 
>> lazy way out and number the first ending bar as "8" and the 2nd ending 
>> bar as "9," as long as the score and parts are all exactly the same.  
>
>This kind of practice is actually seen as wrong by all major publishers. 
>It is possible that in your special case it doesn't cause any grief, but 
>I strongly advise against doing it this way. It will add almost 
>indefinite complications to rehearsals as soon as several editions of 
>the same piece exist.
>
>The correct way to number first and second endings is to number the 
>first bar of the first and second ending the same.
>
>There are rare cases where the whole repeat is renumbered in brackets. A 
>typical example is when one part is added or changed the second time 
>round. As far as I know this practice is also prefered in film scores, 
>as it makes editing the sound track easier.
>
>Johannes
>-- 
>http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
>http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
>
>___
>Finale mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
>
-
Bruce K. H. Kau[EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Aina Haina, Honolulu, Hawai'i
"Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning ..."

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Johannes Gebauer]

John Howell wrote:
How to number 2nd endings is an editorial choice.  I've seen it done in 
different ways, and done it different ways myself.  I'll often take the 
lazy way out and number the first ending bar as "8" and the 2nd ending 
bar as "9," as long as the score and parts are all exactly the same.  
This kind of practice is actually seen as wrong by all major publishers. 
It is possible that in your special case it doesn't cause any grief, but 
I strongly advise against doing it this way. It will add almost 
indefinite complications to rehearsals as soon as several editions of 
the same piece exist.

The correct way to number first and second endings is to number the 
first bar of the first and second ending the same.

There are rare cases where the whole repeat is renumbered in brackets. A 
typical example is when one part is added or changed the second time 
round. As far as I know this practice is also prefered in film scores, 
as it makes editing the sound track easier.

Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Bob Florence]

Crystal Premo wrote:
Perhaps I am too inexperienced to have seen this before, but a 
client has given me a chart with edits, some of which are for 
measure numbers.  It is a lead sheet for a jazz tune, with measure 
numbers on the first measure of each system.  He has now indicated 
to place measure numbers under first and second endings thusly: 
the first ending is measure 8, and an 8 is written there.  Under 
the ninth measure, which is the second ending, there is an (8), and 
underneath it a 16.  Is this usual, to think of the first measure 
of the second ending as measure (8)/16?  I've never seen this in 
published music, and it seems a little odd.

I use double measure numbers on some parts when I have somethings 
that repeats over and over. I put a repeat around a section and do 
double bar numbers in order to make page turns. For second endings 
I will use the number of the privious bar and add A and or B to the 
second ending measure.

Bob Florence

I've seen similar things before, although more often with the second 
bar indicated as " 2/(10)".  I always feel it's superfluous, though.
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[John Howell]

At 9:15 PM -0500 11/27/04, Crystal Premo wrote:
Perhaps I am too inexperienced to have seen this before, but a 
client has given me a chart with edits, some of which are for 
measure numbers.  It is a lead sheet for a jazz tune, with measure 
numbers on the first measure of each system.  He has now indicated 
to place measure numbers under first and second endings thusly:  the 
first ending is measure 8, and an 8 is written there.  Under the 
ninth measure, which is the second ending, there is an (8), and 
underneath it a 16.  Is this usual, to think of the first measure of 
the second ending as measure (8)/16?  I've never seen this in 
published music, and it seems a little odd.


Crystal Premo
How to number 2nd endings is an editorial choice.  I've seen it done 
in different ways, and done it different ways myself.  I'll often 
take the lazy way out and number the first ending bar as "8" and the 
2nd ending bar as "9," as long as the score and parts are all exactly 
the same.  (Of course I number every bar; using marginal numbers only 
slows down rehearsals unacceptably.)  To me AS A PLAYER the "16" 
makes no sense, even though it is mathematically correct, because 
measures 9-15 are not so marked, so I wouldn't use it unless you 
insert double measure numbers (1-9, 2-10, 3-11, etc.).  My preference 
would be to use "(8)" for the 2nd ending and "9" for the first bar of 
the following that ending, as long as score and parts are all exactly 
the same.

This becomes ESPECIALLY important when, as in many Broadway show 
books, repeats are written out in some parts and marked with 1st and 
2nd endings in others.  (And of course this is NEVER indicated in the 
piano-conductor books!)  In that case, it is absolutely essential to 
mark the double measure numbers in sections that are copied as 
repeats, because they need to line up with the continuous measure 
numbers in the parts that are written out, especially when there 
might be cuts taken in exactly such situations, throwing the 
orchestra into chaos until somebody figures out what's happening. 
(And yes, it's happened to me!!)

John
--
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
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
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Crystal Premo]

Crystal Premo wrote:
Perhaps I am too inexperienced to have seen this before, but a client has 
given me a chart with edits, some of which are for measure numbers.  It is 
a lead sheet for a jazz tune, with measure numbers on the first measure of 
each system.  He has now indicated to place measure numbers under first 
and second endings thusly:  the first ending is measure 8, and an 8 is 
written there.  Under the ninth measure, which is the second ending, there 
is an (8), and underneath it a 16.  Is this usual, to think of the first 
measure of the second ending as measure (8)/16?  I've never seen this in 
published music, and it seems a little odd.

I've seen similar things before, although more often with the second bar 
indicated as " 2/(10)".  I always feel it's superfluous, though.
Me, too.  But I'll just do what the client wants.
Crystal Premo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Crystal Premo]

Crystal Premo / 04.11.27 / 9:15PM wrote:
>Under the ninth measure, which is the second ending, there is an
>(8), and underneath it a 16.  Is this usual, to think of the first 
measure
>of the second ending as measure (8)/16?  I've never seen this in 
published
>music, and it seems a little odd.

I am not sure if I clearly understood this, but if it is:

Very close.  Like this:
-  | 
|1 | |2
   |
bar 8  |  bar (8)
  bar 16

Crystal Premo
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[A-NO-NE Music]

Crystal Premo / 04.11.27 / 9:15PM wrote:

>Under the ninth measure, which is the second ending, there is an 
>(8), and underneath it a 16.  Is this usual, to think of the first measure 
>of the second ending as measure (8)/16?  I've never seen this in published 
>music, and it seems a little odd.

I am not sure if I clearly understood this, but if it is:

-  | 
|1 | |2
   | 
bar 8  |  bar 16

then yes, we do this all the time.
But somehow, I feel I misunderstood it?

-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Owain Sutton]

Crystal Premo wrote:
Perhaps I am too inexperienced to have seen this before, but a client 
has given me a chart with edits, some of which are for measure numbers.  
It is a lead sheet for a jazz tune, with measure numbers on the first 
measure of each system.  He has now indicated to place measure numbers 
under first and second endings thusly:  the first ending is measure 8, 
and an 8 is written there.  Under the ninth measure, which is the second 
ending, there is an (8), and underneath it a 16.  Is this usual, to 
think of the first measure of the second ending as measure (8)/16?  I've 
never seen this in published music, and it seems a little odd.



I've seen similar things before, although more often with the second bar 
indicated as " 2/(10)".  I always feel it's superfluous, though.
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Measure numbers in repeats

[Crystal Premo]

Perhaps I am too inexperienced to have seen this before, but a client has 
given me a chart with edits, some of which are for measure numbers.  It is a 
lead sheet for a jazz tune, with measure numbers on the first measure of 
each system.  He has now indicated to place measure numbers under first and 
second endings thusly:  the first ending is measure 8, and an 8 is written 
there.  Under the ninth measure, which is the second ending, there is an 
(8), and underneath it a 16.  Is this usual, to think of the first measure 
of the second ending as measure (8)/16?  I've never seen this in published 
music, and it seems a little odd.


Crystal Premo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers

[Dean M. Estabrook]

Yes to both.
Dean
On Oct 30, 2004, at 3:18 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 05:46 PM 10/30/2004, Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
>Ah yes, on the measure number front, I just finished a score, and set
>the measure numbers to appear every 5 measures, beginning on the 5th
>bar. In the score, it did exactly that. However, when I extracted
>parts,  some of the parts had numbers, some didn't.  With the ones
>which didn't,  nothing I could do, save manually putting them in by
>using option click, would produce the desired effect.  Whazzz up?
I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing I could do". This may sound 
obvious, but did you try, in the extracted part, checking Staff 
Attributes and making sure that measure numbers were set to display? 
Did you have "Always show on top staff" checked in the score for all 
measure number regions?

Aaron.
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Para mí, la música es la respiración de la vida y de Dios.
Per me, la musica è l'alito della vita e di Dio
Pour moi, la musique est le souffle de la vie et de Dieu.
Für mich ist Musik der Atem des Lebens und des Gottes.
Dean M. Estabrook
Director of Music
St. Andrew Presbyterian Church
Yuba City, CA
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers

[Dean M. Estabrook]

Yes to both. I too am lost.
Dean
On Oct 30, 2004, at 3:16 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Oct 30, 2004, at 5:46 PM, Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
Ah yes, on the measure number front, I just finished a score, and set 
the measure numbers to appear every 5 measures, beginning on the 5th 
bar. In the score, it did exactly that. However, when I extracted 
parts,  some of the parts had numbers, some didn't.  With the ones 
which didn't,  nothing I could do, save manually putting them in by 
using option click, would produce the desired effect.  Whazzz up?

Dean

Did the staff attributes have "Measure numbers" checked under the list 
of items to display? Also, did the Measure Numbers region have the box 
checked "always show on top staff?" If both these things are so, then 
I am lost.

Christopher
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Para mí, la música es la respiración de la vida y de Dios.
Per me, la musica è l'alito della vita e di Dio
Pour moi, la musique est le souffle de la vie et de Dieu.
Für mich ist Musik der Atem des Lebens und des Gottes.
Dean M. Estabrook
Director of Music
St. Andrew Presbyterian Church
Yuba City, CA
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers

[Aaron Sherber]

At 05:46 PM 10/30/2004, Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
>Ah yes, on the measure number front, I just finished a score, and set
>the measure numbers to appear every 5 measures, beginning on the 5th
>bar. In the score, it did exactly that. However, when I extracted
>parts,  some of the parts had numbers, some didn't.  With the ones
>which didn't,  nothing I could do, save manually putting them in by
>using option click, would produce the desired effect.  Whazzz up?
I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing I could do". This may sound obvious, 
but did you try, in the extracted part, checking Staff Attributes and 
making sure that measure numbers were set to display? Did you have "Always 
show on top staff" checked in the score for all measure number regions?

Aaron.
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers

[Christopher Smith]

On Oct 30, 2004, at 5:46 PM, Dean M. Estabrook wrote:
Ah yes, on the measure number front, I just finished a score, and set 
the measure numbers to appear every 5 measures, beginning on the 5th 
bar. In the score, it did exactly that. However, when I extracted 
parts,  some of the parts had numbers, some didn't.  With the ones 
which didn't,  nothing I could do, save manually putting them in by 
using option click, would produce the desired effect.  Whazzz up?

Dean

Did the staff attributes have "Measure numbers" checked under the list 
of items to display? Also, did the Measure Numbers region have the box 
checked "always show on top staff?" If both these things are so, then I 
am lost.

Christopher
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Measure numbers

[Dean M. Estabrook]

Ah yes, on the measure number front, I just finished a score, and set 
the measure numbers to appear every 5 measures, beginning on the 5th 
bar. In the score, it did exactly that. However, when I extracted 
parts,  some of the parts had numbers, some didn't.  With the ones 
which didn't,  nothing I could do, save manually putting them in by 
using option click, would produce the desired effect.  Whazzz up?

Dean

Para mí, la música es la respiración de la vida y de Dios.
Per me, la musica è l'alito della vita e di Dio
Pour moi, la musique est le souffle de la vie et de Dieu.
Für mich ist Musik der Atem des Lebens und des Gottes.
Dean M. Estabrook
Director of Music
St. Andrew Presbyterian Church
Yuba City, CA 

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers

[dhbailey]

Default files come with a measure number region already defined, so if 
Guy has simply added extra number regions, the original one will still 
exist, which would show the wrong measure numbers.

He should check what the settings are for all the measure number regions 
and adjust the position, etc. for all of them and delete any that he 
doesn't need.

David H. Bailey
Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
At 9:22 AM -0400 5/28/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been preparing works that have repeat signs and/or double bars 
in the
middle of measures.  Several issues arose that I do not know how to fix:

I have renumbered regions to reflect whole measures.  However, the 
default
measure numbers at the beginning of lines do not correspond with the 
numbers
in the region.  I have been unsuccesful at trying to delete the 
beginning of
the line defaults without also suppressing the regional numbers.  How 
do I
fix that?

Also, my handbell choir asked that I number each measure.  I can not 
get the
regional numbers to move up and out of the way of the top voice which is
often above the staff.  I also have two sets of numbers when I try to add
the regional numbers instead of the default numbering.  What works?

Thanks for your continued help!
Guy Hayden

This sounds like you don't have the regions properly set. There are no 
default measure numbers, aside from the first region that shows up when 
you create a new file. Simply delete that region in the Measure tool, 
Measure Menu>Edit Regions... dialogue box to get rid of it.

Normally if you click on a measure number in the score while in the 
Measure tool, then hit Delete (Backspace I think on a PC) then that 
number only will be deleted. But setting the regions properly is the 
best bet.

Positioning is set in the Measure tool, Measure Menu>Edit Regions... 
dialogue box ("Positioning..."). Make sure you have the proper region 
selected before you adjust this. New regions adopt the characteristics 
of the previous region, so you can save yourself a lot of tweaking by 
setting the FIRST region correctly BEFORE you create a new region.

You could send me the file as an attachment (NOT to the list!) and I 
could check it out for you if you like. Let me know what version of 
Finale you used to create the file.

Christopher Smith
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Measure numbers

[Christopher BJ Smith]

At 9:22 AM -0400 5/28/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been preparing works that have repeat signs and/or double bars in the
middle of measures.  Several issues arose that I do not know how to fix:
I have renumbered regions to reflect whole measures.  However, the default
measure numbers at the beginning of lines do not correspond with the numbers
in the region.  I have been unsuccesful at trying to delete the beginning of
the line defaults without also suppressing the regional numbers.  How do I
fix that?
Also, my handbell choir asked that I number each measure.  I can not get the
regional numbers to move up and out of the way of the top voice which is
often above the staff.  I also have two sets of numbers when I try to add
the regional numbers instead of the default numbering.  What works?
Thanks for your continued help!
Guy Hayden

This sounds like you don't have the regions properly set. There are 
no default measure numbers, aside from the first region that shows up 
when you create a new file. Simply delete that region in the Measure 
tool, Measure Menu>Edit Regions... dialogue box to get rid of it.

Normally if you click on a measure number in the score while in the 
Measure tool, then hit Delete (Backspace I think on a PC) then that 
number only will be deleted. But setting the regions properly is the 
best bet.

Positioning is set in the Measure tool, Measure Menu>Edit Regions... 
dialogue box ("Positioning..."). Make sure you have the proper region 
selected before you adjust this. New regions adopt the 
characteristics of the previous region, so you can save yourself a 
lot of tweaking by setting the FIRST region correctly BEFORE you 
create a new region.

You could send me the file as an attachment (NOT to the list!) and I 
could check it out for you if you like. Let me know what version of 
Finale you used to create the file.

Christopher Smith
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Measure numbers

[dumusic]

I have been preparing works that have repeat signs and/or double bars in the
middle of measures.  Several issues arose that I do not know how to fix:

I have renumbered regions to reflect whole measures.  However, the default
measure numbers at the beginning of lines do not correspond with the numbers
in the region.  I have been unsuccesful at trying to delete the beginning of
the line defaults without also suppressing the regional numbers.  How do I
fix that?

Also, my handbell choir asked that I number each measure.  I can not get the
regional numbers to move up and out of the way of the top voice which is
often above the staff.  I also have two sets of numbers when I try to add
the regional numbers instead of the default numbering.  What works?

Thanks for your continued help!

Guy Hayden, Minister of Music
St. Stephen's Episcopal Church
372 Hiden Boulevard
Newport News, Virginia 23606



___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale