Measure numbering of repeats

[alleycat0]

By default, my MakeMusic ver. 25 includes repeats in the measure count. It is my understanding that, if there is a first repeat & second repeat of equal size, the second repeat shouldn't increment the measure count. I can obtain the desired result by using the measure tool to double-click every instance of repeated measures and de-selecting "Include in measure numbering", but this is laborious - is there a way to specify across the entire score that repeated measures shouldn't be included in measure numbering? Thanks!

[motet]

By "repeats" do you mean first and second endings?

The purpose of measure numbers is so that two or more people discussing the music can refer to a specific measure, so every printed measure needs a number. If a section is repeated, the measures are not given new numbers the second time through, though.

[Peter Thomsen]

… I can obtain the desired result by using the measure tool to double-click every instance of repeated measures and de-selecting "Include in measure numbering", but this is laborious - is there a way to specify across the entire score that repeated measures shouldn't be included in measure numbering? …

Not that I know of.

You can edit the Measure Number Regions.
Might be faster.

[alleycat0]

I'm sorry, I should have used the term "endings" instead of "repeats". Yes, I'm talking about the fact that, at least according to a knowledgeable friend (college music instructor), second endings should not get numbered - although I can't see how that would work if the number of measures in each ending is different...

[N Grossingink]

Just saying - current, professional practice is to number all measures.

[Peter Thomsen]

… I'm talking about the fact that, at least according to a knowledgeable friend (college music instructor), second endings should not get numbered - although I can't see how that would work if the number of measures in each ending is different...

Actually the number of measures in a second ending is “undefined” = all the following measures (which can be any number of measures).
The first ending (= the measures only played the first time) displays both a bracket beginning and a bracket ending.
The second ending only displays a bracket beginning.
Your “knowledgeable friend (college music instructor)” may be referring to the special case of a following repeated section, and thus defining the “second ending” as only the measures before the following repeated section.

[motet]

As i see it and said above, the reason to number measures is so that one person can say to another, for example, "shouldn't that be a B natural in measure 123?" or, "Let's start at measure 99." If you're not numbering your second ending, how could you do that? I think a survey of printed editions will show all the measures numbered. The only exception is that pick-up measures are typically not numbered for some reason. But I'd be interested what advantage your friend sees to not numbering them.

[ebiggs1]

Since I deal with mostly high school and civic band/orchestra musicians, I wish all composers/arrangers had numbers on every measure in the piece.
In school when they don't we tell the kids to take the time to number all the measures.

[alleycat0]

I misunderstood my friend (college music professor) and she clarified with this: "The way engravers usually do it is to not count the measures in the first ending and count them instead in the second. If the second ending is longer (with a coda or something) then this way of doing it keeps things clear."

I was able to accomplish this by selecting the first ending with the Measures tool, "Edit Measures Attributes", and unselecting "Include in measure numbering".

[ebiggs1]

Not good enough in my book.
What if the first ending is long, and I want to be able to refer to a measure contained in the first ending? You say to not number any ending except the measure in the last or 2nd ending. What if a repeat is written out in one or some part and others have a 1st and 2nd ending?

[alleycat0]

I was merely conveying what a professional in the field related to me. I have scores from several sources that follow the convention she outlined. But hey, anyone putting music to paper is free to do as they wish.

[ebiggs1]

OK agreed.
But in your situation all you have to do is make several measure regions with whatever measure number you want them to say. Your first region will go form measure one to measure 15 or whatever and stop. Region two will start with number 16 in the 2nd ending and go up to the end of the piece or the next repeat where region 3 will take over. And so on and so on.

[alleycat0]

Thanks for the tip! I've never used measure number regions before (I mostly generate relatively straightforward single-staff lead sheets) - I'll have to try that next time.

[John Ruggero]

What if a repeat is written out in one or some part and others have a 1st and 2nd ending?

Hopefully, that would never happen. One of the big no-nos for A. Arnstein. He didn't tolerate first and second endings in one part that were not in all.

[motet]

That would be confusing!

[motet]

I looked at a Philharmonia score of a Brahms symphony and it's as alleycat0 says--measures in the first ending not numbered--so i apologize for being a doubting Thomas. But I wonder why they did that? Seems bizarre.

[David Ward]

I looked at a Philharmonia score of a Brahms symphony and it's as alleycat0 says--measures in the first ending not numbered--so i apologize for being a doubting Thomas. But I wonder why they did that? Seems bizarre.

I think that was the standard practice. It's the same in my Beethoven scores (quartets, symphonies et al).

However, I see that Gould recommends continuous numbering, so that if the first ending has bar numbers 20, 21 the second ending begins with bar 22. She also recommends that these numbers should be displayed to allay any possible confusion.

As a composer I only use repeats in pastiche stage dances &c, so I have rarely had to think about this.

[John Ruggero]

Arnstein numbered straight through, because it avoids complication. But the other system is standard practice in current Urtext and scholarly editions. Often letters are appended to the alternate numbers so 160 becomes 160a etc.

I think the rationale is that in many cases, the second ending just replaces the first ending, and are not in that sense "real" measures. This is clearer in works like sets of variations in which each variation is measure numbered starting at 1 and there are an equal number of measures in each variation. So even if one variation has simple repeats and another has first and second endings the measure numbers at the beginning of the sections match. For example, the second half of the variations would always start with m. 17. This makes comparing the variations easier.

But the complications start when the endings don't match in length...Well the conductor can always say "let's start in the fourth measure of the second ending."

[RMK]

Not good enough in my book.
What if the first ending is long, and I want to be able to refer to a measure contained in the first ending? You say to not number any ending except the measure in the last or 2nd ending. What if a repeat is written out in one or some part and others have a 1st and 2nd ending?

This is exactly the case in the Simrock edition of Dvorak Symphony No.8 (old No.4).
There are no measure numbers in the parts, but when entering them in I had to be sure not to count first endings. I also noted in the parts with straight repeats that other parts have first/second endings, so those musicians would not be confused during rehearsals.

[ebiggs1]

Yes I see it in orchestra scores and some concert band scores. JR must not play in an orchestra because perhaps not common but certainly not unheard of.

[motet]

-

[John Ruggero]

Yes I see it in orchestra scores and some concert band scores. JR must not play in an orchestra because perhaps not common but certainly not unheard of.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that it was unheard of, ebiggs1. No, certainly not unheard of, unfortunately. But Arnstein avoided everything that could cause rehearsal problems, all the risky things that one encounters in orchestral parts, and did everything that would make a rehearsal move as smoothly as possible.