Anthony,
> Responding late, I know, but with about ONE exception,
> all the music I see follows lily's current behaviour.
Which scores/publishers have you found that match the
current behavior?
I recently acquired several notation manuals, and Gardner
Read doesn't mention numbering measures. However, Kurt
Stone (Music Notation in the 20th cent.) has this to say:
There is little agreement about numbering the measures
of first and second endings in repeats. The most
practical (although rather illogical) method is to
ignore the fact that first and second endings are
involved and simply count all measures, regardless of
repeat signs, etc. (p.168)
This is LilyPond's default behavior.
Also, Mark McGrain (in his book "Music Notation") doesn't
explicitly mention it, but all his examples (pp. 116,
121, 126) are numbered in the same manner.
However, the McGrain book seems more oriented towards
popular music notation, and I couldn't find a single
classical traditionally engraved score that did it this
way. Strangely, the overwhelming majority of classical
engraved scores (that I have access to) don't even number
the measures, and the only ones that I found (mostly
Henle) use the method where each ending starts with the
same measure number.
- Mark
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
