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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
--
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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,
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
89 matches
Mail list logo
