Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
I find that most conductors don't use the bar (measure) numbers on first and second time bars anyway - they say first time for for the second (or third or fourth or whatever) time Cheers, Lawrence lawrenceyates.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On 24.03.2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I find that most conductors don't use the bar (measure) numbers on first and second time bars anyway - they say first time for for the second (or third or fourth or whatever) time That is my experience, too. Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22.03.2007 Darcy James Argue wrote: That's a straw man. I agreed from the beginning that there are different conventions for historical music. At first, the original poster didn't indicate whether they were working with new music or not. Darcy, I replied to John, not to you, so whatever you agreed with is irrelevant. John took a very strong standing, and I disagreed with that. Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22.03.2007 Darcy James Argue wrote: And contra Johannes, the before indications are always unambiguous. There's no possible confusion about what measure three before [C] refers to. Ay? Did I ever say anything else? I never implied that the before indications are ambiguous. Please read again. Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22.03.2007 Andrew Stiller wrote: This is definitely completely non-standard for classical music. Look into any complete edition, NBA, NMA, you name it. Never will it be done like this. First always and now never? The world doesn't work like that. Look into my ongoing Heinrich gesamtausgabe (now up to 28 vols. , w. a 29th currently in press) and you will find the measures numbered in *exactly* that way. Ok, any _major_ complete edition (of historical composers). Satisfied? Please look yourself and name one which doesn't agree. I am afraid your own Heinrich edition doesn't count. Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22.03.2007 David W. Fenton wrote: The point of measure numbers it to allow conductors and scholars to unambiguously refer to a particular measure without fear of being misunderstood. That being the case, measures in first and second endings *must* be numbered differently, one way or another. Do you consider 1st ending measure 16 and 2nd ending measure 16 to be one way or another that they are numberd differently? If not, I'd like to know why. If so, then you don't have a beef with Johannes. In fact I expect the confusion greater if you number them seperately and say measure 17. Undoubtedly several orchestra members, at least on this side of the globe, will ask Is that the second ending?, and that last viola player (sorry folks) will still start after the double bar. Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22.03.2007 dhbailey wrote: Nobody needs to number Baroque dance movements because the sections are so short that it's easy for everybody to find the 9th measure of the second section. What? That's ridiculous. You get 24 measure sections, 32 measure sections. Do you want your rehearsal to stop while everyone goes 1...2...3...17? Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 23 Mar 2007, at 3:28 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 22.03.2007 Darcy James Argue wrote: And contra Johannes, the before indications are always unambiguous. There's no possible confusion about what measure three before [C] refers to. Ay? Did I ever say anything else? I never implied that the before indications are ambiguous. Please read again. I read it fine the first time. You were replying to Hiro, who wrote: Go from bar 21 second time is clear. Also I'd like to point out calling measure number is only for where it is too far from rehearsal letter, or it would be much clearer to say: Go from 4 bars before [C]. He didn't say anything about after [C]. But you replied as if he had. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On 23.03.2007 Darcy James Argue wrote: He didn't say anything about after [C]. But you replied as if he had. No I didn't. Here is what I said: You come from a different music culture. Where I play people never agree on what 4 bars after C means. Do you count C as 1, or 0? I know he didn't say after, but as you say, there isn't any confusion with before, whereas there is with after. He made the point that letters are always clear, to which I objected. They certainly aren't in this country. You then said, that I disagreed about before indications being unambiguous, which I definitely did not. That was my point, and either you didn't read carefully, or you are deliberately misinterpreting me. Sorry Darcy, I know this is splitting hairs, but you are misinterpreting me, and there is no reason for that in anything I wrote. Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 23 Mar 2007 at 8:34, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 22.03.2007 David W. Fenton wrote: The point of measure numbers it to allow conductors and scholars to unambiguously refer to a particular measure without fear of being misunderstood. That being the case, measures in first and second endings *must* be numbered differently, one way or another. Do you consider 1st ending measure 16 and 2nd ending measure 16 to be one way or another that they are numberd differently? If not, I'd like to know why. If so, then you don't have a beef with Johannes. In fact I expect the confusion greater if you number them seperately and say measure 17. Undoubtedly several orchestra members, at least on this side of the globe, will ask Is that the second ending?, and that last viola player (sorry folks) will still start after the double bar. For me, measure 17 is the beginning of the second section, after the 2nd ending. Or, it should be in a conventionally structured piece. -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 23 Mar 2007 at 8:30, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 22.03.2007 dhbailey wrote: Nobody needs to number Baroque dance movements because the sections are so short that it's easy for everybody to find the 9th measure of the second section. What? That's ridiculous. You get 24 measure sections, 32 measure sections. Do you want your rehearsal to stop while everyone goes 1...2...3...17? Yes, and the B sections can be the same length as the A, twice the length, or some other length. Second, in movements other than binary forms, there are often more than two repeated sections, and the more sections there are, the more variability there is in section length. It's very often the case that you'll have a piece if 4 sections, 3 of which are 8 bars each, repeated, and one of which is 16 bars, no repeat, because there's written-out variation of the repeat. This kind of thing happens *all the time*. While it's usually the case that the sections are some multiple of 4 bars, you can never tell for certain without some looking whether it's 8, 12, 16, 24, 32 or what. The longer the section, the more pages it will span, and the harder it is to tell just by looking what the length is. So, yes, I agree that David Bailey's suggestion is not very good advice. -- 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 numbering with repeats
On Mar 22, 2007, at 6:20 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Do you consider 1st ending measure 16 and 2nd ending measure 16 to be one way or another that they are numberd differently? Sure--if you want to put that clumsy formulation in the score. My argument was/is that such a convention cannot be tacitly assumed (i.e., unwritten), since there are other conventions. You cannot blithely leave the 2d ending (or the 1st) unnumbered and assume that a reduplication of numbers is taking place, and that this will be universally understood, for it won't. If a conductor tells *my* orchestra 2nd ending measure 16, and the measure is not specifically labeled as such in both the score and parts, I can assure you that more than several hands will go up asking exactly which measure that is, or complaining that measure 16 was in the first ending, so there must be some mistake. The second ending *must* be numbered differently--one way or another--than the first, or confusion will reign. Voilà tout. People like Johannes can use 16a and 16b if they want--but they cannot leave everything blank, or they are doing a disservice to the performers. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://www.kallistimusic.com/kallisti.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On Mar 22, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: [answering John Howell] Am I the only one to whom this discussion seems equivalent to medieval theologians arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? (And why the head, anyhow, when dancing on the point would take much more skill?!!!) I always thought the argument was about the point... The earliest references actually say the point of a *needle*. I'm not sure how that evolved to the head of a pin. It should be noted that there is no documentation of theologians actually debating this particular question (though they did debate some similar abstractions), only critical references to the alleged debate. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
Mark D Lew wrote: On Mar 22, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: [answering John Howell] Am I the only one to whom this discussion seems equivalent to medieval theologians arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? (And why the head, anyhow, when dancing on the point would take much more skill?!!!) I always thought the argument was about the point... The earliest references actually say the point of a *needle*. I'm not sure how that evolved to the head of a pin. The Angel's Union kept complaining about the point being bad on their bunions. cd -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/dershem/# http://members.cox.net/dershem ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On 22.03.2007 A-NO-NE Music wrote: 17. If you want to use 33, I believe you need to put both 1 and 17 to the first measure. Do you not think? This is interesting, since you seem to come from the same music area as Darcy, yet you disagree... Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
Darcy James Argue wrote: My own feeling is that measure numbers refer to measures on the PAGE. So each individual measure, no matter how many times it is played, gets one and only one measure number, and that number is the same number in the score and all the parts. This is the method that is maximally clear to conductors and performers. (If you're doing a purely historical/analytical edition, you may have different needs.) So, in your example, the measure under the first ending is m.16, the measure under the second ending is m.17, and the first measure following the second ending is m.18. I agree with Darcy on this point. The numbers are only to locate the physical measure on the page, so all full measures should be counted in a straight line from the first one through the final one. If there are partial measures, ignoring a pickup measure at the start of the piece, such as a 4/4 piece with a 3/4 measure and a 1/4 measure (not marked as such because it's a 4/4 measure with a double bar or a repeat sign) the first part of that gets a number and the second part of the partial measure does not get a number. On the other hand, as long as score and parts are all marked exactly the same, however it is done isn't that important. What is important is when the score might have each measure number shown and the parts only have the measure numbers shown periodically, then there should be a clear and obvious and unambiguous numbering system in place or valuable rehearsal time is wasted trying to get everybody to start in the same place. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On 22.03.2007 dhbailey wrote: I agree with Darcy on this point. The numbers are only to locate the physical measure on the page, so all full measures should be counted in a straight line from the first one through the final one. Well, even if you agree, you are still in disagreement with all major publishers, at least in Europe, which publish classical music, including contemporary as far as I can see. There are two possible systems which all editions I have seen stick with: Either number the first and second time endings with the same numbers, or include numbers for the repeats as well, so that every repeated measure gets two numbers, ie 1(17). These two systems are the only ones I have ever seen in major publications. Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 22.03.2007 dhbailey wrote: I agree with Darcy on this point. The numbers are only to locate the physical measure on the page, so all full measures should be counted in a straight line from the first one through the final one. Well, even if you agree, you are still in disagreement with all major publishers, at least in Europe, which publish classical music, including contemporary as far as I can see. There are two possible systems which all editions I have seen stick with: Either number the first and second time endings with the same numbers, or include numbers for the repeats as well, so that every repeated measure gets two numbers, ie 1(17). These two systems are the only ones I have ever seen in major publications. Johannes I'm basing my statements on the system which more than one orchestra conductor has told groups I've been in concerning numbering our measures in the old BH publications which didn't have measure numbers in them. But it really doesn't matter which system is used as long as the music is clear where everybody should play when the conductor says Let's start at measure 17. What is really stupid is when music has the double numbers for repeated times, so that the same measure is measure 1 the first time and measure 17 the second time, when calling for the group to start at measure 17, some fool is always going to ask First time or second time? Like, why even bother making things clear! Stupidity will always show. And if the conductor has to say Start at 17, second time through there's really no reason for an engraver to have spent that extra time adding those extra measure numbers. But I also think that the numbering is dependent on the tradition -- American band music publishers seem to have gotten together and agreed that no single publisher shall use the same numbering system on any two consecutive publications, nor shall more than three publications from any publisher in any give year use the same numbering system. It's a real mess! -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On 21 Mar 2007 at 18:15, Chuck Israels wrote: sometimes a longer 1st and second ending (3 or 4 measures) does come at the beginning of a line. That raises an other issue -- the 2nd ending with more (or fewer) measures than the 1st ending. In the case of *more*, I'd skip numbering the 1st, and number the remaining measures. In the case of fewer, I don't know what I'd do. Ideas? -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22 Mar 2007 at 3:28, dhbailey wrote: If there are partial measures, ignoring a pickup measure at the start of the piece, such as a 4/4 piece with a 3/4 measure and a 1/4 measure (not marked as such because it's a 4/4 measure with a double bar or a repeat sign) the first part of that gets a number and the second part of the partial measure does not get a number. There is no issue with counting pickup bars -- you only number bars having downbeats. That convention is universal in my experience, and across historical periods. -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22 Mar 2007 at 8:33, dhbailey wrote: I'm basing my statements on the system which more than one orchestra conductor has told groups I've been in concerning numbering our measures in the old BH publications which didn't have measure numbers in them. If you're instructing a group of players on how to number by hand, yes, numbering every single measure is the least problematic method. But you still have to check that everyone got the numbers right (by checking the count for each movement/section). I've done this numerous times in coaching chamber music, and the only way to do it is by numbering all measures, as anything else results in people miscounting much more often than happens when they count every single measure. The hard part is getting them to notice internal pickup measures when quickly counting measures (pickup measures are not numbered, only measures with downbeats, complete or not). But I still think that in a printed work, the 2nd endings should not be numbered whenever the 2nd ending has the same number of measures as the 1st ending. When then number of measures differs in the two endings, then I think you should do whatever is going to be most clear for the situation. There the argument for numbers that represent balanced periodic phrasing (as in a minuet and trio) likely don't apply, so numbering all measures is not going to confuse those who are accustomed enough to the conventions to recognize m. 17 as the beginning of a new 16-bar period. -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 21 Mar 2007 at 18:25, Darcy James Argue wrote: So, in your example, the measure under the first ending is m.16, the measure under the second ending is m.17, and the first measure following the second ending is m.18. I would do that in the vast majority of situations. The one exception would be a binary form with clear 8- or 16-bar sections, where the numbers will then come out wrong if you count the 2nd endings. If the B section begins in measure 10 instead of measure 9, it will confuse those who are accustomed to the conventions of these historical forms. -- David W. 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 numbering with repeats
On 22 Mar 2007 at 0:38, Johannes Gebauer wrote: It is actually very common in classical music to have a second ending only in some parts and not in others. You simply cannot number these separately. I would say it's common in *historical* parts, but it's not a good idea to reproduce it in modern parts. When I'm coaching chamber music and the parts are un-numbered at the first coaching, I tell the players to number all the measures, including 1st and 2nd endings, because I can't depend on them to do it right if they skip the 2nd endings in their numbering. Then at the next rehearsal, the first thing we do is check that everyone's measure numbers agree. But in a *printed* score, I would *not* number the 2nd ending. It's only when you're manually numbering that counting all the measures is the easy way to do it. -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22.03.2007 David W. Fenton wrote: That raises an other issue -- the 2nd ending with more (or fewer) measures than the 1st ending. In the case of *more*, I'd skip numbering the 1st, and number the remaining measures. In the case of fewer, I don't know what I'd do. Unless there is a third ending as well the number of measures in the second ending is actually completely irrelevant. That's why the normal procedure is to just have a second ending bracket over one measure. Another reason to not number the first ending in Finale. It makes things more obvious. Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
Johannes Gebauer / 2007/03/22 / 02:57 AM wrote: This is interesting, since you seem to come from the same music area as Darcy, yet you disagree... Well, measure numbering for me is for rehearsing only, and double numbering isn't that convenient. Go from bar 21 second time is clear. Also I'd like to point out calling measure number is only for where it is too far from rehearsal letter, or it would be much clearer to say: Go from 4 bars before [C]. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On Mar 22, 2007, at 8:33 AM, dhbailey wrote: . What is really stupid is when music has the double numbers for repeated times, so that the same measure is measure 1 the first time and measure 17 the second time, when calling for the group to start at measure 17, some fool is always going to ask First time or second time? Like, why even bother making things clear! Stupidity will always show. And if the conductor has to say Start at 17, second time through there's really no reason for an engraver to have spent that extra time adding those extra measure numbers. Unless someone has the passage written out without a repeat while others HAVE a repeat. That's why I think it is important for ALL parts and score to have exactly the same roadmap—IOW, no repeats unless EVERYBODY has one, no first and second endings unless EVERYBODY has them, etc. I know that there are traditions where some instruments have repeats where other instruments have things written out (just played William Tell Overture, I forget the edition, this caused mucho problems in rehearsal trying to figure out where to start) but this is BAD tradition. There are all kinds of kudges designed to save paper/ink/ copyist's time that are bad ideas—this is one. As someone said earlier (David Bailey?) as long as all the parts and score agree with each other, we can deal with any kind of numbering scheme. Christopher (who prefers to number each measure sequentially, so second ending would be 17 and next measure 18, but hey, I don't do much 200 year old music these days.) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On 22.03.2007 David W. Fenton wrote: But I still think that in a printed work, the 2nd endings should not be numbered whenever the 2nd ending has the same number of measures as the 1st ending. It really makes no difference whether you print the bracket over the same number of measures as the first ending or not. A second ending doesn't normally have any number of measures. It is simply the place to jump to when you play for the second time. It is only a mark, not a passage. Unless there is a third ending, of course. Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22.03.2007 David W. Fenton wrote: It is actually very common in classical music to have a second ending only in some parts and not in others. You simply cannot number these separately. I would say it's common in *historical* parts, but it's not a good idea to reproduce it in modern parts. Well, I see it quite frequently in such famous editions like the Henle Haydn string quartets, Doblinger parts, and I believe I have even seen this in the NMA parts from Bärenreiter. Ok, I change very common to quite common. When I'm coaching chamber music and the parts are un-numbered at the first coaching, I tell the players to number all the measures, including 1st and 2nd endings, because I can't depend on them to do it right if they skip the 2nd endings in their numbering. Then at the next rehearsal, the first thing we do is check that everyone's measure numbers agree. But in a *printed* score, I would *not* number the 2nd ending. It's only when you're manually numbering that counting all the measures is the easy way to do it. I do not disagree with the practical reasons, but in a published edition the correct way to number measures is to give the first measure of the endings the same measure number, at least as far as music up to the second Viennese school goes. After that I couldn't care less how you number your measures. I would still number it the same way, but hey, anything is allowed in contemporary music, right? You could even write a piece where someone shouts out the measure numbers at the top of his/her voice. Would be quite funny going ...14!...15!...17! Perhaps the review will read the performers left out measure 16 the second time. Perhaps not. Damn, I should have written that piece myself, now someone else is going to steal the idea... Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On 22.03.2007 A-NO-NE Music wrote: Go from bar 21 second time is clear. Also I'd like to point out calling measure number is only for where it is too far from rehearsal letter, or it would be much clearer to say: Go from 4 bars before [C]. You come from a different music culture. Where I play people never agree on what 4 bars after C means. Do you count C as 1, or 0? Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
Johannes Gebauer / 2007/03/22 / 11:05 AM wrote: You come from a different music culture. Where I play people never agree on what 4 bars after C means. Do you count C as 1, or 0? Interesting. 4 bars after [C] means we are starting at the 5th bar from [C]. I have never experienced any confusion during my rehearsals so this is new to me. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
At 11:05 AM 3/22/2007, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 22.03.2007 A-NO-NE Music wrote: Go from 4 bars before [C]. You come from a different music culture. Where I play people never agree on what 4 bars after C means. Do you count C as 1, or 0? Well, for starters, '4 before C' is unambiguous. 'After' can be trickier in theory, but in practice I haven't had problems; C is always 0, as you say. But note that in English there's a difference between '4 bars after C' and 'the fourth bar of C'. The latter is one bar before the former. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On 22 Mar 2007 at 11:19, A-NO-NE Music wrote: Johannes Gebauer / 2007/03/22 / 11:05 AM wrote: You come from a different music culture. Where I play people never agree on what 4 bars after C means. Do you count C as 1, or 0? Interesting. 4 bars after [C] means we are starting at the 5th bar from [C]. I have never experienced any confusion during my rehearsals so this is new to me. See, I would have immediately played the previous measure. In my viol consort we just say measure 13 because we always use music with measure numbers. But because our coach is slightly dyslexic, she might actually mean measure 17 -- it depends on where the numbered measures are, but if the point of reference is measure 15, she will often count in the wrong direction. It's pretty weird, but we're all used to it now! :) -- 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 numbering with repeats
At 9:24 AM +0100 3/22/07, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 22.03.2007 dhbailey wrote: I agree with Darcy on this point. The numbers are only to locate the physical measure on the page, so all full measures should be counted in a straight line from the first one through the final one. Well, even if you agree, you are still in disagreement with all major publishers, at least in Europe, which publish classical music, including contemporary as far as I can see. Am I the only one to whom this discussion seems equivalent to medieval theologians arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? (And why the head, anyhow, when dancing on the point would take much more skill?!!!) A disputation full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!!! There are two possible systems which all editions I have seen stick with: Either number the first and second time endings with the same numbers, or include numbers for the repeats as well, so that every repeated measure gets two numbers, ie 1(17). These two systems are the only ones I have ever seen in major publications. The discussion also reminds me (painfully) of entirely too many faculty committee meetings in which the universal and irresistible urge to jump right into the details defeats any rational attempt to first agree on first principles!! There are obviously MORE than just those two systems that are possible. Clearly Johannes is arguing from conventions which have the authority of precedent, and believes those conventions to be proper. And just as clearly, David, Darcy and I are arguing from more recent conventions, including the convention of numbering every single bar in commercial music like that for recording sessions and touring shows that use a different orchestra every night, and we believe that newer practicalities trump the conventions of 19th century European publishers. So how about this for a first principle? Every measure SHOULD have and MUST have a unique identifying number, assigned in serial order to aid quick and accurate locating of that measure. Period. End of statement. Would anyone care to argue against that principle? And explain why? Without appealing to convention or other authority? (Yes, as stated that could be read to mean that partial bars and pickup bars also should have unique numbers, but that's a DETAIL, so keep it outa here!!!) 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 Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
At 11:45 AM 3/22/2007, David W. Fenton wrote: On 22 Mar 2007 at 11:19, A-NO-NE Music wrote: Johannes Gebauer / 2007/03/22 / 11:05 AM wrote: You come from a different music culture. Where I play people never agree on what 4 bars after C means. Do you count C as 1, or 0? Interesting. 4 bars after [C] means we are starting at the 5th bar from [C]. I have never experienced any confusion during my rehearsals so this is new to me. See, I would have immediately played the previous measure. I do understand the potential for confusion, but really it's just logic. Where would you start if I said 1 bar after C? You wouldn't start at C, I assume -- you'd start the next bar (that is, the second bar of C). So 4 bars after C therefore has to be 3 bars later than that. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On 3/22/07, John Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am I the only one to whom this discussion seems equivalent to medieval theologians arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Heh, you should join the Bach cantatas discussion list on Yahoo, it's a real wank fest there. Cheerio :) Kim Patrick Clow ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
At 11:57 AM 3/22/2007 -0400, John Howell wrote: So how about this for a first principle? Every measure SHOULD have and MUST have a unique identifying number, assigned in serial order to aid quick and accurate locating of that measure. Period. End of statement. Would anyone care to argue against that principle? And explain why? Without appealing to convention or other authority? Oh, well, here I am again. :) Modular music or partly modular music is problematic, whether or not the score can have a form that appears to be written from beginning to end. My own Mantra Canon (1986) is for orchestra, chorus, six percussionists, two pianos, and descant soprano. It is created from fully linear areas and multiply looped areas. The loops differ from player to player in both length and number of repetitions. Cuing the piece is very difficult, and although the full score contains a number of every measure (1110 of them) and the loops are written out in full, the individual parts contain cue points, measure numbers, and position indicators (because some loops begin and end mid-measure). I used all three because it was composed and rehearsed very quickly (a month from beginning of composition to premiere) and it wasn't clear which would work in rehearsal. Measure numbers turned out to be useless, and only cue points were valuable. This is one of my pieces that hasn't yet been reset in Finale. The score can be done eventually (it's huge, and all those cross-bar loops, ack!), but the parts will be like separate miniature scores in themselves, and they're already pretty nice in inked form. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On 22 Mar 2007 at 12:04, Aaron Sherber wrote: At 11:45 AM 3/22/2007, David W. Fenton wrote: On 22 Mar 2007 at 11:19, A-NO-NE Music wrote: Johannes Gebauer / 2007/03/22 / 11:05 AM wrote: You come from a different music culture. Where I play people never agree on what 4 bars after C means. Do you count C as 1, or 0? Interesting. 4 bars after [C] means we are starting at the 5th bar from [C]. I have never experienced any confusion during my rehearsals so this is new to me. See, I would have immediately played the previous measure. I do understand the potential for confusion, but really it's just logic. Most people think the year 2000 was the first year of the 21st century (rather than the last of the 20th). It's not logical, but that's what everyone believes. Where would you start if I said 1 bar after C? You wouldn't start at C, I assume -- you'd start the next bar (that is, the second bar of C). So 4 bars after C therefore has to be 3 bars later than that. It doesn't matter how logical it is. When I hear it I'm equally likely to choose the 4th or 5th bar. Since it's quite easy to say 5th bar after C I don't see why you'd ever say 4 bars after C. In any event, this is why I actually prefer running measure numbers instead of rehearsal letters, because then you can just say start at measure 23 and there's no possible way it can be misinterpreted. I know that's not customary in orchestral music, though, or in stage works. -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22 Mar 2007 at 11:57, John Howell wrote: At 9:24 AM +0100 3/22/07, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 22.03.2007 dhbailey wrote: I agree with Darcy on this point. The numbers are only to locate the physical measure on the page, so all full measures should be counted in a straight line from the first one through the final one. Well, even if you agree, you are still in disagreement with all major publishers, at least in Europe, which publish classical music, including contemporary as far as I can see. Am I the only one to whom this discussion seems equivalent to medieval theologians arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? (And why the head, anyhow, when dancing on the point would take much more skill?!!!) A disputation full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!!! No, no, no! It's much more like the discussion [] So how about this for a first principle? Every measure SHOULD have and MUST have a unique identifying number, assigned in serial order to aid quick and accurate locating of that measure. Period. End of statement. Would anyone care to argue against that principle? Yes. And explain why? Because you're describing the *music*, not the score. If you were listening to someone play, the 2nd ending of a 16-bar period would still be the 16th bar after the first measure of the period. It's 16 twice, or it's 16 for first ending and 32 for the second. I find this latter overly fussy, so would never do it, as it's easy enough to say 2nd ending. Without appealing to convention or other authority? I'm appealing to *music*, i.e., what is heard. In the case of single-bar 2nd endings, there is simply no ambiguity in identifying which measure is being discussed, as the 1st and 2nd ending brackets clearly differentiate the two measures 16. However, in cases where there's some reason this is ambiguous, if it makes it clearer, then I would say to number in whatever fashion makes the most sense for the *musical* situation. (Yes, as stated that could be read to mean that partial bars and pickup bars also should have unique numbers, but that's a DETAIL, so keep it outa here!!!) There's an unambiguous convention for partial bars and pickups -- number any bar with a downbeat. Period. That's how you determine phrase lengths, too (and a measure that constitutes an ellision between two phrases can be counted in both, but that's entirely *different* can of worms!). -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22.03.2007 John Howell wrote: Would anyone care to argue against that principle? And explain why? Without appealing to convention or other authority? Well, for me this would make baroque dance movement numbering completely illogical. And I actually see no reason for it. Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22.03.2007 John Howell wrote: So how about this for a first principle? Every measure SHOULD have and MUST have a unique identifying number, assigned in serial order to aid quick and accurate locating of that measure. Period. End of statement. I can already see problems when the next edition of a Mozart symphony comes out, obliging your new conventionl, and disagreeing with all previous editions. Thanks. And no thanks. Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22.03.2007 Aaron Sherber wrote: I do understand the potential for confusion, but really it's just logic. Where would you start if I said 1 bar after C? You wouldn't start at C, I assume -- you'd start the next bar (that is, the second bar of C). So 4 bars after C therefore has to be 3 bars later than that. Some musicians are not exactly the most logical people. Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22.03.2007 John Howell wrote: Am I the only one to whom this discussion seems equivalent to medieval theologians arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? (And why the head, anyhow, when dancing on the point would take much more skill?!!!) I always thought the argument was about the point... Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22.03.2007 John Howell wrote: Would anyone care to argue against that principle? And explain why? Without appealing to convention or other authority? By the same logic you could start writing out minor keys with extra an extra raised 7th. So that G minor would have 2 flats and one sharp. There is a lot of reasons to do that, and only convention stops you. So why don't we? Sorry, John, but I really, really disagree with you, as far as any music in classical form is concerned. After that, do whatever works best. Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22 Mar 2007, at 8:47 AM, David W. Fenton wrote: But I still think that in a printed work, the 2nd endings should not be numbered whenever the 2nd ending has the same number of measures as the 1st ending. So for works with long first and second endings, the conductor has to specify Okay, let's begin in the fifth bar of the first ending? or Take it from the seventh bar of the second ending? Why would you want to deal with a situation where m.16 could potentially refer to two different measures, or some measures don't have an individual measure number at all? Even worse is the system of assigning multiple measure numbers to repeated measures, as the system quickly breaks down when you have sections that are repeated many times, or vamps/loops that are repeated an indeterminate number of times. Really, from a rehearsal perspective, for new music where nobody expects measure numbers to have anything to do with phrasing, this system has nothing to recommend it. I understand that it's a convention used by some publishers (especially for historical music), but it's an ambiguous convention, which is why virtually everyone in my field uses one measure = one number. I don't know why you'd agree that one measure=one number is the least ambiguous numbering method when players have to number their parts themselves, and then recommend a different, more ambiguous numbering system for publication. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
I am confident that neither Chuck nor Hiro would assign multiple sets of measure numbers to, for instance, an open solo section, even though the music is played multiple times. If the solo section is just a simple repeat, each measure would get one set of numbers. Even if a solo section is not open, but repeated a set number of times (say, 3Xs), I very much doubt that Chuck or Hiro would assign three sets of numbers to that section. But perhaps I'm mistaken, in which case I'm sure they will correct me. The question then arises: what do you do if the solo section has multiple endings? Often, in solo sections, you'll keep taking the first ending every time, until the cue to go on, when you take the Last X Only second ending. Would either Chuck or Hiro assign two sets of numbers to that solo section, one corresponding to every time but the last time and another corresponding to last time - going on? Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 22 Mar 2007, at 2:57 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 22.03.2007 A-NO-NE Music wrote: 17. If you want to use 33, I believe you need to put both 1 and 17 to the first measure. Do you not think? This is interesting, since you seem to come from the same music area as Darcy, yet you disagree... Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ 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
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
Hi David, Just to be clear, I agree with this -- as you say, historical forms in which the numbering system you describe is what's expected. But I would never recommend that this numbering system be used for a piece of new music. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 22 Mar 2007, at 8:31 AM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 21 Mar 2007 at 18:25, Darcy James Argue wrote: So, in your example, the measure under the first ending is m.16, the measure under the second ending is m.17, and the first measure following the second ending is m.18. I would do that in the vast majority of situations. The one exception would be a binary form with clear 8- or 16-bar sections, where the numbers will then come out wrong if you count the 2nd endings. If the B section begins in measure 10 instead of measure 9, it will confuse those who are accustomed to the conventions of these historical forms. -- David W. 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
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
That's a straw man. I agreed from the beginning that there are different conventions for historical music. At first, the original poster didn't indicate whether they were working with new music or not. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 22 Mar 2007, at 12:44 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 22.03.2007 John Howell wrote: So how about this for a first principle? Every measure SHOULD have and MUST have a unique identifying number, assigned in serial order to aid quick and accurate locating of that measure. Period. End of statement. I can already see problems when the next edition of a Mozart symphony comes out, obliging your new conventionl, and disagreeing with all previous editions. Thanks. And no thanks. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ 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
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
Darcy James Argue / 2007/03/22 / 01:07 PM wrote: I am confident that neither Chuck nor Hiro would assign multiple sets of measure numbers to, for instance, an open solo section, even though the music is played multiple times. If the solo section is just a simple repeat, each measure would get one set of numbers. Even if a solo section is not open, but repeated a set number of times (say, 3Xs), I very much doubt that Chuck or Hiro would assign three sets of numbers to that section. But perhaps I'm mistaken, in which case I'm sure they will correct me. Sorry I wasn't too clear. My measure numbers are strictly sequencial. I don't care if it matches phrasings, besides many of my compositions has odd phrasings. So, I never assign multiple sets of measure numbers. Again, strictly sequential regardless of repeats. On the other hand, I am very careful to put rehearsal letters organically to the music. The question then arises: what do you do if the solo section has multiple endings? Often, in solo sections, you'll keep taking the first ending every time, until the cue to go on, when you take the Last X Only second ending. Yes, this is very common. Would either Chuck or Hiro assign two sets of numbers to that solo section, one corresponding to every time but the last time and another corresponding to last time - going on? Again, mine is strictly sequential. I use a lot of rehearsal letters even within an open solo section, so it would be like: OK, let's start from [Solo D] last time which means take the last ending. I have not experienced anyone getting confused with my charts. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On Mar 22, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 22.03.2007 John Howell wrote: Would anyone care to argue against that principle? And explain why? Without appealing to convention or other authority? By the same logic you could start writing out minor keys with extra an extra raised 7th. So that G minor would have 2 flats and one sharp. There is a lot of reasons to do that, and only convention stops you. Oh boy! A big can of worms. Part of the point here is that this is a language - a written one describing an aural tradition and aural communication. It has been my experience that all attempts to write down what is heard (spoken or played) are both woefully incomplete and often ambiguous. What we hear as tonality is no exception. A Blues in Bb, which can be predominantly mixolydian, is written in two flats rather than three. (We like to preserve the leading tone in our idea of the key.) Why we don't feel that way about G minor is one of those mysteries of convention where logical arguments can be made for more than one point of view. (Do optimists want F Sharp and pessimists F natural?) I am trying to make sense of the numbering discussion, and can find compelling arguments for different methods. The numbers represent heard form to me, so I am inclined to practices that support that experience. From a purely graphic point of view, however, that is harder to support. YMMV Chuck So why don't we? Sorry, John, but I really, really disagree with you, as far as any music in classical form is concerned. After that, do whatever works best. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
At 11:19 AM -0400 3/22/07, A-NO-NE Music wrote: Johannes Gebauer / 2007/03/22 / 11:05 AM wrote: You come from a different music culture. Where I play people never agree on what 4 bars after C means. Do you count C as 1, or 0? Interesting. 4 bars after [C] means we are starting at the 5th bar from [C]. I have never experienced any confusion during my rehearsals so this is new to me. Hmmm. Assuming that a rehearsal letter is over a bar line, as it should be, and not over the middle of a bar, then the first bar to the right of that letter is indeed one bar after C, neh?? 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 Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On Mar 22, 2007, at 10:07 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote: I am confident that neither Chuck nor Hiro would assign multiple sets of measure numbers to, for instance, an open solo section, even though the music is played multiple times. If the solo section is just a simple repeat, each measure would get one set of numbers. Even if a solo section is not open, but repeated a set number of times (say, 3Xs), I very much doubt that Chuck or Hiro would assign three sets of numbers to that section. But perhaps I'm mistaken, in which case I'm sure they will correct me. The question then arises: what do you do if the solo section has multiple endings? Often, in solo sections, you'll keep taking the first ending every time, until the cue to go on, when you take the Last X Only second ending. Would either Chuck or Hiro assign two sets of numbers to that solo section, one corresponding to every time but the last time and another corresponding to last time - going on? Normally, only one set of numbers, but I have encountered a few situations where I have found it useful (to me) to use two. If I have an AABA, 32 measure repeated solo section that, for reasons of space saving, has its first A section written as 8 measures with a repeat (with or without 1st and 2nd endings), I will use two sets of numbers for that A section, even though it is only written once. To my ear, there are 16 measures there so, when I get to B, it's measure 17, not 9. I can accept arguments to the contrary, but that's the way I do it, and I am at least consistent in my practice. I have also saved space on one part where there is a simple repeat of a solo section, but other instruments have a variety of entrances throughout the two choruses. Those parts that require 64 measures to appear on the page are numbered consecutively, while the simple solo section can comfortably, even more efficiently, have 32 measures with two sets of numbers. (Can't do that with linked parts!) Assuming conventional form with the solo starting at 33, it is then sufficiently clear to say, Take it from 41, or 73. On the other hand, if it is a simple repeated chorus, I am comfortable with one set of numbers. Take it from 65, second time. Chuck Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 22 Mar 2007, at 2:57 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 22.03.2007 A-NO-NE Music wrote: 17. If you want to use 33, I believe you need to put both 1 and 17 to the first measure. Do you not think? This is interesting, since you seem to come from the same music area as Darcy, yet you disagree... Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ 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 Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On Mar 21, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: First and second endings always _start_ with the same measure number. Sometimes, I imagine, they do. But always? Hardly! Nor, in my view is such a practice desirable. The point of measure numbers it to allow conductors and scholars to unambiguously refer to a particular measure without fear of being misunderstood. That being the case, measures in first and second endings *must* be numbered differently, one way or another. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://www.kallistimusic.com/kallisti.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On Mar 21, 2007, at 6:49 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 21.03.2007 Darcy James Argue wrote: So, in your example, the measure under the first ending is m.16, the measure under the second ending is m.17, and the first measure following the second ending is m.18. This is definitely completely non-standard for classical music. Look into any complete edition, NBA, NMA, you name it. Never will it be done like this. First always and now never? The world doesn't work like that. Look into my ongoing Heinrich gesamtausgabe (now up to 28 vols. , w. a 29th currently in press) and you will find the measures numbered in *exactly* that way. To me, measure numbers are written labels for written objects, and I am hardly the only person--nor the most radical--in the past century to question standard notational practices. A few years back on this list there was a Spanish horn player who insisted passionately that key signatures for horns were always and forever improper. This current discussion smells a lot like that... Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://www.kallistimusic.com/kallisti.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
Hey Chuck, Normally, only one set of numbers, but I have encountered a few situations where I have found it useful (to me) to use two. If I have an AABA, 32 measure repeated solo section that, for reasons of space saving, has its first A section written as 8 measures with a repeat (with or without 1st and 2nd endings), I will use two sets of numbers for that A section, even though it is only written once. While I understand why you might want to use this space-saving notation, most copyists would avoid it because it contains nested repeats, which are to be avoided whenever possible. The usual thing to do is to write out both A sections, even if they are identical. I have also saved space on one part where there is a simple repeat of a solo section, but other instruments have a variety of entrances throughout the two choruses. Those parts that require 64 measures to appear on the page are numbered consecutively, while the simple solo section can comfortably, even more efficiently, have 32 measures with two sets of numbers. (Can't do that with linked parts!) Assuming conventional form with the solo starting at 33, it is then sufficiently clear to say, Take it from 41, or 73. Again, the overwhelming majority of copyists would not choose this solution. If the backgrounds are such that they cannot be handled with Play 2nd X only indications, then we would write out the two choruses consecutively, for band AND soloist, so that everyone has the same roadmap. it is then sufficiently clear to say, Take it from 41, or 73. YMMV, of course, but to me, this does not seem clear at all! Imagine there's an impending trainwreck on a gig and you need to shout out: 41! Or 73! [grin] I'm just not comfortable with a score where different instruments have different roadmaps, or different measure numbers refer to the same point in time (except in certain asynchronous situations like Dennis described). I have to say, I just don't understand the desire to want to make measure numbers delineate form and phrasing. We already have so many other tools much better suited to that purpose -- rehearsal letters, double bars, the physical layout of the page, etc. To my mind, trying to make measure numbers do double duty as (A) unique identifiers of measures on the page, and (B) form/phrasing cues often leads to confusion. Why not just let measure numbers be measure numbers? Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 22.03.2007 A-NO-NE Music wrote: Go from bar 21 second time is clear. Also I'd like to point out calling measure number is only for where it is too far from rehearsal letter, or it would be much clearer to say: Go from 4 bars before [C]. You come from a different music culture. Where I play people never agree on what 4 bars after C means. Do you count C as 1, or 0? Johannes Good point -- when I'm leading a rehearsal I always say Count with me, counting C as measure 1, then 2, 3, 4, 5 is where we'll start. If anybody gets that wrong, they're obviously not the brightest bulb on the porch. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
I always use first measure of [C], second measure of [C], etc., which is unambiguous. And contra Johannes, the before indications are always unambiguous. There's no possible confusion about what measure three before [C] refers to. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 22 Mar 2007, at 3:07 PM, dhbailey wrote: Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 22.03.2007 A-NO-NE Music wrote: Go from bar 21 second time is clear. Also I'd like to point out calling measure number is only for where it is too far from rehearsal letter, or it would be much clearer to say: Go from 4 bars before [C]. You come from a different music culture. Where I play people never agree on what 4 bars after C means. Do you count C as 1, or 0? Johannes Good point -- when I'm leading a rehearsal I always say Count with me, counting C as measure 1, then 2, 3, 4, 5 is where we'll start. If anybody gets that wrong, they're obviously not the brightest bulb on the porch. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 22.03.2007 John Howell wrote: Would anyone care to argue against that principle? And explain why? Without appealing to convention or other authority? Well, for me this would make baroque dance movement numbering completely illogical. And I actually see no reason for it. Johannes Nobody needs to number Baroque dance movements because the sections are so short that it's easy for everybody to find the 9th measure of the second section. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On Mar 22, 2007, at 12:04 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote: I do understand the potential for confusion, but really it's just logic. Where would you start if I said 1 bar after C? You wouldn't start at C, I assume -- you'd start the next bar (that is, the second bar of C). So 4 bars after C therefore has to be 3 bars later than that. The question really is whether C designates a given measure, or the spot where that measure begins. It really ought to be the latter, and careful publishers take pains to put rehearsal letters right above the barline to (hopefully) make that clear. In every ensemble I've ever played in, 12 after C unambiguously includes the first measure following the letter C as #1. The only time there is trouble is if the conductor asks for one or two after C. Since 1 after C makes no sense if that means the first bar of C (why not ask just to start at C?), he must mean the second bar *of* C--but that would be *two* after C--so there is always confusion in such cases unless the conductor takes care to phrase his request with of, or says something like the second full measure after C. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://www.kallistimusic.com/kallisti.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:01 PM, John Howell wrote: At 11:19 AM -0400 3/22/07, A-NO-NE Music wrote: Johannes Gebauer / 2007/03/22 / 11:05 AM wrote: You come from a different music culture. Where I play people never agree on what 4 bars after C means. Do you count C as 1, or 0? Interesting. 4 bars after [C] means we are starting at the 5th bar from [C]. I have never experienced any confusion during my rehearsals so this is new to me. Hmmm. Assuming that a rehearsal letter is over a bar line, as it should be, and not over the middle of a bar, then the first bar to the right of that letter is indeed one bar after C, neh?? That is what I learned. C indicates the barline. Everyone I work with says Start at the 5th bar of C, which is a little more precise than Four (or five) bars after C. Now, if you were say rehearse next Saturday when today is Thursday, half the band will show up in two days, the other half in nine days. However, the French-Canadians will ALL show up in two days, because the meaning of samedi prochain in French is perfectly clear, whereas it isn't in English, for some strange reason. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
Woa, wait a minute. The rehearsal letter [INTRO] is sitting on the 1st measure of the piece, and [INTRO-17] is the 17th measure of the piece, which is 16 bars after where [INTRO] was. 'After' means that portion has been completed. I don't think it can be clearer than this, no? By the way, when I write a head chart, which has open solo section for soloist(s) which will be determined on stage, I don't give measure numbers to that section. I give rehearsal letters, and at the end of the harmonic phrases, say '8' for standard 32 bars form, I put (8) underneath of the 8th bar. This is more important for the music I write when the last measure of the phrase I wrote isn't 8, but odd number instead. P.S. Did anyone have any idea about my Peek-A-Boo issue I posted? -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
At 12:32 PM -0400 3/22/07, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: At 11:57 AM 3/22/2007 -0400, John Howell wrote: So how about this for a first principle? Every measure SHOULD have and MUST have a unique identifying number, assigned in serial order to aid quick and accurate locating of that measure. Period. End of statement. Would anyone care to argue against that principle? And explain why? Without appealing to convention or other authority? Oh, well, here I am again. :) Modular music or partly modular music is problematic, whether or not the score can have a form that appears to be written from beginning to end. My own Mantra Canon (1986) is for orchestra, chorus, six percussionists, two pianos, and descant soprano. It is created from fully linear areas and multiply looped areas. The loops differ from player to player in both length and number of repetitions. Cuing the piece is very difficult, and although the full score contains a number of every measure (1110 of them) and the loops are written out in full, the individual parts contain cue points, measure numbers, and position indicators (because some loops begin and end mid-measure). OK, fair enough. When one writes music that requires a new notation it follows that even such things as measure numbers and/or rehearsal marks/letters/numbers will have to be rethought. I seldom (perhaps never is closer to the truth) am involved in such music, to my own loss, I'm sure. 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 Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
At 12:39 PM -0400 3/22/07, David W. Fenton wrote: On 22 Mar 2007 at 11:57, John Howell wrote: At 9:24 AM +0100 3/22/07, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 22.03.2007 dhbailey wrote: I agree with Darcy on this point. The numbers are only to locate the physical measure on the page, so all full measures should be counted in a straight line from the first one through the final one. Well, even if you agree, you are still in disagreement with all major publishers, at least in Europe, which publish classical music, including contemporary as far as I can see. Am I the only one to whom this discussion seems equivalent to medieval theologians arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? (And why the head, anyhow, when dancing on the point would take much more skill?!!!) A disputation full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!!! No, no, no! It's much more like the discussion [] So how about this for a first principle? Every measure SHOULD have and MUST have a unique identifying number, assigned in serial order to aid quick and accurate locating of that measure. Period. End of statement. Would anyone care to argue against that principle? Yes. And explain why? Because you're describing the *music*, not the score. Yes, or rather no, because someone (Darcy, I think) made the point that measure numbers DO apply only to what's on the page, and that's what I base my usage on and have always done. I understand exactly what you're saying, of course. You want to use measure numbers for a DIFFERENT purpose, that of analysis rather than rehearsal convenience. This is much the same as saying that Roman numeral analysis is superior to either chord symbols or figured bass, because it was designed for analysis rather than performance, whereas each system has its own advantages and is very useful for different things from the others. If you were listening to someone play, the 2nd ending of a 16-bar period would still be the 16th bar after the first measure of the period. It's 16 twice, or it's 16 for first ending and 32 for the second. I find this latter overly fussy, so would never do it, as it's easy enough to say 2nd ending. Without appealing to convention or other authority? I'm appealing to *music*, i.e., what is heard. Yes, I understand perfectly. And repeat that in practical terms rehearsal efficiency far outweighs analysis in the kinds of situations I have found myself in. That's how you determine phrase lengths, too (and a measure that constitutes an ellision between two phrases can be counted in both, but that's entirely *different* can of worms!). And one that belongs in the realm of analysis, of course, and can lead to quite wonderful musical insights, but once again, we are not arguing for analysis but for rehearsal practicality. If one has to make a choice between one or the other, I know which is more important to me, just as you seem to know which is more important to you. I was taught to analyze phrases by bar groupings, of course, but the actual numbers on the bars are not a necessary part of that analysis. They are arbitrary identifiers. 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 Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats (OT)
At 12:48 PM -0400 3/22/07, David W. Fenton wrote: [not sure what happened here] No, no, no! It's much more like the discussion ... the discussion of whether 2000 or 2001 was the first year of the 21st century. It's all about whether you're thinking 0-based counting or 1-based. Yes, you're right, it is. And I certainly don't want to reopen THAT discussion, but I will briefly point out that the Christian calendar is not and never has been a construct designed by mathematicians and logic-driven. It is simply a King List, which is how people kept track of the years back then (and even further back, with the Egyptian Dynastic lists). Only it's a king list with only a single king, and with no terminus. Anything beyond that strikes me as wishful thinking, since the date of New Year has been all over the map without triggering cries of outrage against logic, and since Pope Gregory thought nothing about removing--what was it, 10 days?--arbitrarily from the calendar in the 16th century. 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 Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
Darcy, I don't disagree with trying to avoid this, and maybe I should have kept my mouth (typing fingers) shut. It is an unusual situation and not at all normal practice for me. I have only used it when there seemed to be real space constraints. (I know - paper is relatively cheap compared to rehearsal time.) Chuck On Mar 22, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: Hey Chuck, Normally, only one set of numbers, but I have encountered a few situations where I have found it useful (to me) to use two. If I have an AABA, 32 measure repeated solo section that, for reasons of space saving, has its first A section written as 8 measures with a repeat (with or without 1st and 2nd endings), I will use two sets of numbers for that A section, even though it is only written once. While I understand why you might want to use this space-saving notation, most copyists would avoid it because it contains nested repeats, which are to be avoided whenever possible. The usual thing to do is to write out both A sections, even if they are identical. I have also saved space on one part where there is a simple repeat of a solo section, but other instruments have a variety of entrances throughout the two choruses. Those parts that require 64 measures to appear on the page are numbered consecutively, while the simple solo section can comfortably, even more efficiently, have 32 measures with two sets of numbers. (Can't do that with linked parts!) Assuming conventional form with the solo starting at 33, it is then sufficiently clear to say, Take it from 41, or 73. Again, the overwhelming majority of copyists would not choose this solution. If the backgrounds are such that they cannot be handled with Play 2nd X only indications, then we would write out the two choruses consecutively, for band AND soloist, so that everyone has the same roadmap. it is then sufficiently clear to say, Take it from 41, or 73. YMMV, of course, but to me, this does not seem clear at all! Imagine there's an impending trainwreck on a gig and you need to shout out: 41! Or 73! [grin] I'm just not comfortable with a score where different instruments have different roadmaps, or different measure numbers refer to the same point in time (except in certain asynchronous situations like Dennis described). I have to say, I just don't understand the desire to want to make measure numbers delineate form and phrasing. We already have so many other tools much better suited to that purpose -- rehearsal letters, double bars, the physical layout of the page, etc. To my mind, trying to make measure numbers do double duty as (A) unique identifiers of measures on the page, and (B) form/phrasing cues often leads to confusion. Why not just let measure numbers be measure numbers? Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
At 3:44 PM -0400 3/22/07, Christopher Smith wrote: Now, if you were say rehearse next Saturday when today is Thursday, half the band will show up in two days, the other half in nine days. However, the French-Canadians will ALL show up in two days, because the meaning of samedi prochain in French is perfectly clear, whereas it isn't in English, for some strange reason. That may also be a generational thing. I would show up in two days. Our kids in 9 days!! 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 Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On 22 Mar 2007 at 13:11, Darcy James Argue wrote: Just to be clear, I agree with this -- as you say, historical forms in which the numbering system you describe is what's expected. But I would never recommend that this numbering system be used for a piece of new music. Well, if you'll reread what I actually posted in this thread, you'll see that I never advocated that. -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22 Mar 2007 at 14:35, Andrew Stiller wrote: The point of measure numbers it to allow conductors and scholars to unambiguously refer to a particular measure without fear of being misunderstood. That being the case, measures in first and second endings *must* be numbered differently, one way or another. Do you consider 1st ending measure 16 and 2nd ending measure 16 to be one way or another that they are numberd differently? If not, I'd like to know why. If so, then you don't have a beef with Johannes. -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22 Mar 2007, at 6:18 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 22 Mar 2007 at 13:11, Darcy James Argue wrote: Just to be clear, I agree with this -- as you say, historical forms in which the numbering system you describe is what's expected. But I would never recommend that this numbering system be used for a piece of new music. Well, if you'll reread what I actually posted in this thread, you'll see that I never advocated that. Nor did I claim, or intend to imply, that you had. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On 22 Mar 2007 at 18:08, John Howell wrote: At 3:44 PM -0400 3/22/07, Christopher Smith wrote: Now, if you were say rehearse next Saturday when today is Thursday, half the band will show up in two days, the other half in nine days. However, the French-Canadians will ALL show up in two days, because the meaning of samedi prochain in French is perfectly clear, whereas it isn't in English, for some strange reason. That may also be a generational thing. I would show up in two days. Our kids in 9 days!! It might be regional. I'm pretty certain I'm closer to your age than your kids, and I'd show up in 9 days (raised in the Midwest). -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 22 Mar 2007 at 17:36, John Howell wrote: You want to use measure numbers for a DIFFERENT purpose, that of analysis rather than rehearsal convenience. No, I want to use them for both analytical purposes and for clarity. I see nothing unclear about 1st ending m. 16 and 2nd ending m. 16. -- 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 numbering with repeats
John Howell wrote: At 3:44 PM -0400 3/22/07, Christopher Smith wrote: Now, if you were say rehearse next Saturday when today is Thursday, half the band will show up in two days, the other half in nine days. However, the French-Canadians will ALL show up in two days, because the meaning of samedi prochain in French is perfectly clear, whereas it isn't in English, for some strange reason. That may also be a generational thing. I would show up in two days. Our kids in 9 days!! John Naw, it isn't generational -- I'd show up in 9 days and my wife would show up in 2. So we've learned to be very careful to say this coming Saturday which is a pretty good transliteration of the French samedi prochain when we mean 2 days and next Saturday as meaning not THIS Saturday but the following one, 9 days later. And my wife and I agree that no matter what the situation, no matter how clear anything is to one party, it will be totally confusing to the other party. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
In a message dated 23/03/2007 00:25:02 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: no matter how clear anything is to one party, it will be totally confusing to the other party. And the confused party is usually a woman! :-) Take this true scenario: Who but a woman would seriously believe that a sensible answer to the question When are you coming home is We only arrived on Monday It took ten minutes, four questions and a very unhealthy degree of frustration, to say nothing of a dangerously high blood pressure, to finally get the answer, Next Saturday Each repetition of the question was slightly different. I numbered them all the same. Cheers, Lawrence lawrenceyates.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
Most people think the year 2000 was the first year of the 21st century (rather than the last of the 20th). It's not logical, but that's what everyone believes. Hey! Don't start that one again. (For those not present seven (!) years ago the topic of when the millennium was to begin occupied several hundred posts. At least this time numbering is music-related). RY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
Dennis, I've seen it done with 16 and with 33. It's my feeling that you should always count every measure including the repeated measures. I would mark it as measure 33. Nick Raspa NJR Music Enterprises -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: finale@shsu.edu Sent: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 4:26 PM Subject: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats Say you have a piece that begins with 16 measures repeated with the last measure different for the second ending. What number does the next measure get 17? 33? Thanks, Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. =0 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
My own feeling is that measure numbers refer to measures on the PAGE. So each individual measure, no matter how many times it is played, gets one and only one measure number, and that number is the same number in the score and all the parts. This is the method that is maximally clear to conductors and performers. (If you're doing a purely historical/analytical edition, you may have different needs.) So, in your example, the measure under the first ending is m.16, the measure under the second ending is m.17, and the first measure following the second ending is m.18. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 21 Mar 2007, at 5:26 PM, dc wrote: Say you have a piece that begins with 16 measures repeated with the last measure different for the second ending. What number does the next measure get 17? 33? Thanks, Dennis ___ 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
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
17b? dc wrote: Say you have a piece that begins with 16 measures repeated with the last measure different for the second ending. What number does the next measure get 17? 33? Thanks, Dennis ___ 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
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On 21.03.2007 dc wrote: Say you have a piece that begins with 16 measures repeated with the last measure different for the second ending. What number does the next measure get 17? 33? First and second endings always _start_ with the same measure number. So the next measure in your case would be 17 I guess. Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
From my point of view, there are logical reasons for either, but I'd probably use 33. Not 34. In 2k7, you can use measure attributes to exclude the 2nd ending from the measure number region. Chuck On Mar 21, 2007, at 2:26 PM, dc wrote: Say you have a piece that begins with 16 measures repeated with the last measure different for the second ending. What number does the next measure get 17? 33? Thanks, Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On 21.03.2007 Darcy James Argue wrote: So, in your example, the measure under the first ending is m.16, the measure under the second ending is m.17, and the first measure following the second ending is m.18. This is definitely completely non-standard for classical music. Look into any complete edition, NBA, NMA, you name it. Never will it be done like this. Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 3/21/07, Johannes Gebauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First and second endings always _start_ with the same measure number. So the next measure in your case would be 17 I guess. Yep, it's odd this question came up because my editor told me exactly that's his preference. Good luck Kim Patrick Clow ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
At 6:25 PM -0400 3/21/07, Darcy James Argue wrote: My own feeling is that measure numbers refer to measures on the PAGE. So each individual measure, no matter how many times it is played, gets one and only one measure number, and that number is the same number in the score and all the parts. Yes, I agree with this completely, IF AND ONLY IF the numbering is exactly the same in score and all parts. Every measure needs to have one and only one unique identifier in any context I can think of. BUT, where you get into trouble is with sloppy copying and multiple revisions, as those of us involved with Broadway musical scores and partbooks have inevitably tripped over. There was one point in King I--and I can't recall which number it was in--where some part books had a repeat, others had the repeat written out, and neither one matched the piano-vocal score. That's the mark of quick and dirty copying where some shortcuts are taken because they can be, without considering the overall effect. We stumbled over that particularly bad example when we were asked to make a cut involving that section--a real mess and an unnecessary waste of rehearsal time!!! John So, in your example, the measure under the first ending is m.16, the measure under the second ending is m.17, and the first measure following the second ending is m.18. Agreed. Bar numbers are to speed up rehearsals, not to outline musical form!! 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 Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
At 11:49 PM +0100 3/21/07, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 21.03.2007 Darcy James Argue wrote: So, in your example, the measure under the first ending is m.16, the measure under the second ending is m.17, and the first measure following the second ending is m.18. This is definitely completely non-standard for classical music. Look into any complete edition, NBA, NMA, you name it. Never will it be done like this. Agreed. But it's still the best practical way to do it. Anything else is a convention, and almost certainly NOT the composer's idea since bars were hardly ever numbered in original scores. 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 Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On 22.03.2007 John Howell wrote: This is definitely completely non-standard for classical music. Look into any complete edition, NBA, NMA, you name it. Never will it be done like this. Agreed. But it's still the best practical way to do it. Anything else is a convention, and almost certainly NOT the composer's idea since bars were hardly ever numbered in original scores. It has got little to do with what the composer intended. In my opinion the convention is by far the most logical way to number measures, and in addition it is the only which allows individual parts to differ on endings while still having the same measure count. It is actually very common in classical music to have a second ending only in some parts and not in others. You simply cannot number these separately. I also find it very strange especially in baroque movements which are symmetric when the second section starts with measure 18, bringing the measure count to 33. Makes no sense to me. Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
On 21.03.2007 Chuck Israels wrote: From my point of view, there are logical reasons for either, but I'd probably use 33. Not 34. In 2k7, you can use measure attributes to exclude the 2nd ending from the measure number region. Actually, I would exclude the first ending, as this is very unlikely to be placed at the beginning of a staff system. Johannes -- 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 numbering with repeats
I agree that it's nonstandard for an edition of big-C Classical music. It's absolutely standard for new music, though. How else would you number an open repeat or repeat till cue section? Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 21 Mar 2007, at 6:49 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 21.03.2007 Darcy James Argue wrote: So, in your example, the measure under the first ending is m.16, the measure under the second ending is m.17, and the first measure following the second ending is m.18. This is definitely completely non-standard for classical music. Look into any complete edition, NBA, NMA, you name it. Never will it be done like this. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ 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
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On 21 Mar 2007, at 7:38 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: It has got little to do with what the composer intended. In my opinion the convention is by far the most logical way to number measures, Strongly disagree. and in addition it is the only which allows individual parts to differ on endings while still having the same measure count. I would see that as a bug, not a feature. All parts and the score ought to have the same roadmap, IMO (absent some exceptional cases like some instruments looping while others go on, or asymmetrical barlines or whatnot). I also find it very strange especially in baroque movements which are symmetric when the second section starts with measure 18, bringing the measure count to 33. Makes no sense to me. Only if you feel measure numbers have anything at all to do with phrasing or form. In the kind of copying/engraving I do, they don't. They're just labels. Cheers, - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
What you have said about this makes sense to me, but sometimes a longer 1st and second ending (3 or 4 measures) does come at the beginning of a line. I do try to make sure that 1st and 2nd endings are on the same line, though there are rare occasions where things work out better with them on different lines (really long endings). Chuck On Mar 21, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 21.03.2007 Chuck Israels wrote: From my point of view, there are logical reasons for either, but I'd probably use 33. Not 34. In 2k7, you can use measure attributes to exclude the 2nd ending from the measure number region. Actually, I would exclude the first ending, as this is very unlikely to be placed at the beginning of a staff system. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
dc / 2007/03/21 / 05:26 PM wrote: Say you have a piece that begins with 16 measures repeated with the last measure different for the second ending. What number does the next measure get 17? 33? 17. If you want to use 33, I believe you need to put both 1 and 17 to the first measure. Do you not think? -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Measure numbering with repeats
On Mar 21, 2007, at 8:50 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote: dc / 2007/03/21 / 05:26 PM wrote: Say you have a piece that begins with 16 measures repeated with the last measure different for the second ending. What number does the next measure get 17? 33? 17. If you want to use 33, I believe you need to put both 1 and 17 to the first measure. Do you not think? I have been know to do this, in order to facilitate starting a rehearsal segment from the beginning of, or from within the second time through. It's fussy, and maybe redundant, but I have done this sometimes. However, Lately I have simply used one number per measure. Chuck -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
