Re: feature req: volta bar numbering options

[Anthony W. Youngman]

In message <address@hidden>, Mark Polesky 
<address@hidden> 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 - address@hidden