Dear Mats, Bertalan and Graham,
Flooded with and surprised by instant reactions, I've given the problem (or
is it a bug?) some more thought. Two points of view are possible:
1. The Programmer's view. A measure of music, like any other object in
programming, should have a unique number. No ambig
> Op zaterdag 27-06-2009 om 14:54 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Mats
> Bengtsson:
>
> > I could also imagine the conductors view at a rehearsal.
>
Actually I think repeating the bar numbers can make it easier for a conductor
because bar 17 (say) always follows bar 16 both first and second time.
Op zaterdag 27-06-2009 om 14:54 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Mats
Bengtsson:
> I could also imagine the conductors view at a rehearsal.
> Still, the
> formulation "most common" indicates that both strategies are used.
Right, so this could be a choice. From my experience in an
orchestra, it of
Mats Bengtsson wrote:
> However, I just looked in a book on music typesetting ("Noter", by B. Tyboni,
> which unfortunately only is available in Swedish), which says that it is most
> common to do what you propose, namely to use the same measure numbers both in
> the first and second ending. S
Paul de Bruin wrote:
Dear Mats, Bertalan and Graham,
Flooded with and surprised by instant reactions, I've given the
problem (or is it a bug?) some more thought. Two points of view are
possible:
1. The Programmer's view. A measure of music, like any other object in
programming, should have
