In message <450977.38398...@web83407.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>, Mark Polesky
<markpole...@yahoo.com> writes
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'm a band musician (brass, concert, big), and play the trombone. Pretty
much EVERY part I've ever played just counts bars from the beginning of
the piece.
Normal behaviour is, as I say, to ignore the existence of the voltae
when counting bars.
Unusual behaviour is to give a bar a "double number", eg the first bar
of a 16-bar repeat might be numbered 40/56, but I think that's normally
explained by the fact that some parts have voltae and some are written
out in full.
I can only remember ONE occasion where there was a volta and the bars of
the voltae shared bar numbers. And I can't remember what piece that was.
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.
And I'm afraid I agree, with Lily, that practical is best. If, as
conductor (which I'm not), I want to refer to a bar, then I want that
number to be unique, not duplicated across voltae. And, for practical
purposes, what other use do bar numbers have? None, to my mind ...
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
