Rehearsal Letters
- AtomicClock
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: Oct 19, 2023
*whispers*
"Did he say C or D? or Z"?
Sometimes, it is hard to tell which letter the conductor announces during rehearsal. In my orchestra, this is magnified by a thick Russian accent, and terrible acoustics in the hall. The obvious solution would be for the conductor to use pronunciations designed to be unambiguous, like the phonetic alphabet used in military and aviation (alfa, bravo, charlie, ...). I wonder if any conductors actually do that? My first guess would be in the service bands. How about it?
"Did he say C or D? or Z"?
Sometimes, it is hard to tell which letter the conductor announces during rehearsal. In my orchestra, this is magnified by a thick Russian accent, and terrible acoustics in the hall. The obvious solution would be for the conductor to use pronunciations designed to be unambiguous, like the phonetic alphabet used in military and aviation (alfa, bravo, charlie, ...). I wonder if any conductors actually do that? My first guess would be in the service bands. How about it?
- tbdana
- Posts: 1928
- Joined: Apr 08, 2023
I like to make it even more confusing:
Start at "P," as in pneumonia.
Start at "H," as in honest.
Start at "G," as in gnarly.
Start at "K," as in kneel.
Start at "W," as in wrack.
And then just as you're in the middle of the count-off, someone invariably asks, "Where are we starting?"
:D
Start at "P," as in pneumonia.
Start at "H," as in honest.
Start at "G," as in gnarly.
Start at "K," as in kneel.
Start at "W," as in wrack.
And then just as you're in the middle of the count-off, someone invariably asks, "Where are we starting?"
:D
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
Even worse are the arbitrary numbering systems with (for example) every 5th bar numbered, and you want to start at the beginning of a phrase, so "Let's start at 3 after 35". Does that mean 38? 2 before 40? ;)
- LeTromboniste
- Posts: 1634
- Joined: Apr 11, 2018
[quote="AtomicClock"]*whispers*
"Did he say C or D? or Z"?
Sometimes, it is hard to tell which letter the conductor announces during rehearsal. In my orchestra, this is magnified by a thick Russian accent, and terrible acoustics in the hall. The obvious solution would be for the conductor to use pronunciations designed to be unambiguous, like the phonetic alphabet used in military and aviation (alfa, bravo, charlie, ...). I wonder if any conductors actually do that? My first guess would be in the service bands. How about it?[/quote]
Many conductors do that, not necessarily with the official phonetic alphabets but just with random words.
Perhaps more confusing than not-quite-audible letters are measure numbers in German, when half the orchestra doesn't speak German as their first language. Call "fünfundsechzig" and you're bound to have at least a few musicians start at 56 instead of 65....and then if they're speaking in a local dialect where certain syllables in numbers sound very different, good luck... "fenfensachzig" sounds awfully close to "fenfenachtzig", combine that with the first problem and you might have people starting correctly at 65 but also at 56, 85 and 58!
"Did he say C or D? or Z"?
Sometimes, it is hard to tell which letter the conductor announces during rehearsal. In my orchestra, this is magnified by a thick Russian accent, and terrible acoustics in the hall. The obvious solution would be for the conductor to use pronunciations designed to be unambiguous, like the phonetic alphabet used in military and aviation (alfa, bravo, charlie, ...). I wonder if any conductors actually do that? My first guess would be in the service bands. How about it?[/quote]
Many conductors do that, not necessarily with the official phonetic alphabets but just with random words.
Perhaps more confusing than not-quite-audible letters are measure numbers in German, when half the orchestra doesn't speak German as their first language. Call "fünfundsechzig" and you're bound to have at least a few musicians start at 56 instead of 65....and then if they're speaking in a local dialect where certain syllables in numbers sound very different, good luck... "fenfensachzig" sounds awfully close to "fenfenachtzig", combine that with the first problem and you might have people starting correctly at 65 but also at 56, 85 and 58!
- sirisobhakya
- Posts: 445
- Joined: Jun 11, 2018
[quote="BGuttman"]Even worse are the arbitrary numbering systems with (for example) every 5th bar numbered, and you want to start at the beginning of a phrase, so "Let's start at 3 after 35". Does that mean 38? 2 before 40? ;)[/quote]
I HATE sheet musics that use this system.
For letters, I now use NATO phonetic alphabet. Alpha-Bravo-Charlie-Delta, something like that.
I HATE sheet musics that use this system.
For letters, I now use NATO phonetic alphabet. Alpha-Bravo-Charlie-Delta, something like that.
- officermayo
- Posts: 654
- Joined: Jun 09, 2021
D as in Django
E as in Eh
F as in Filipino
G as in Gnat
K as in knock
O as in possum
P as in phone
W as in "Why, I oughta......"
X as in xylophone
Z as in zzzzzzzzzzzz
E as in Eh
F as in Filipino
G as in Gnat
K as in knock
O as in possum
P as in phone
W as in "Why, I oughta......"
X as in xylophone
Z as in zzzzzzzzzzzz
- vetsurginc
- Posts: 166
- Joined: Jun 29, 2019
[quote="sirisobhakya"]<QUOTE author="BGuttman" post_id="237636" time="1710628134" user_id="53">
Even worse are the arbitrary numbering systems with (for example) every 5th bar numbered, and you want to start at the beginning of a phrase, so "Let's start at 3 after 35". Does that mean 38? 2 before 40? ;)[/quote]
I HATE sheet musics that use this system.
For letters, I now use NATO phonetic alphabet. Alpha-Bravo-Charlie-Delta, something like that.
</QUOTE>
<EMOJI seq="1f44d" tseq="1f44d">👍</EMOJI>
Even worse are the arbitrary numbering systems with (for example) every 5th bar numbered, and you want to start at the beginning of a phrase, so "Let's start at 3 after 35". Does that mean 38? 2 before 40? ;)[/quote]
I HATE sheet musics that use this system.
For letters, I now use NATO phonetic alphabet. Alpha-Bravo-Charlie-Delta, something like that.
</QUOTE>
<EMOJI seq="1f44d" tseq="1f44d">👍</EMOJI>
- SwissTbone
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="LeTromboniste"]<QUOTE author="AtomicClock" post_id="237633" time="1710625686" user_id="17161">
*whispers*
"Did he say C or D? or Z"?
Sometimes, it is hard to tell which letter the conductor announces during rehearsal. In my orchestra, this is magnified by a thick Russian accent, and terrible acoustics in the hall. The obvious solution would be for the conductor to use pronunciations designed to be unambiguous, like the phonetic alphabet used in military and aviation (alfa, bravo, charlie, ...). I wonder if any conductors actually do that? My first guess would be in the service bands. How about it?[/quote]
Many conductors do that, not necessarily with the official phonetic alphabets but just with random words.
Perhaps more confusing than not-quite-audible letters are measure numbers in German, when half the orchestra doesn't speak German as their first language. Call "fünfundsechzig" and you're bound to have at least a few musicians start at 56 instead of 65....and then if they're speaking in a local dialect where certain syllables in numbers sound very different, good luck... "fenfensachzig" sounds awfully close to "fenfenachtzig", combine that with the first problem and you might have people starting correctly at 65 but also at 56, 85 and 58!
</QUOTE>
Oooh boy! That's a big one here in our bilingual region. Makes rehearsing sometimes so much more difficult!
*whispers*
"Did he say C or D? or Z"?
Sometimes, it is hard to tell which letter the conductor announces during rehearsal. In my orchestra, this is magnified by a thick Russian accent, and terrible acoustics in the hall. The obvious solution would be for the conductor to use pronunciations designed to be unambiguous, like the phonetic alphabet used in military and aviation (alfa, bravo, charlie, ...). I wonder if any conductors actually do that? My first guess would be in the service bands. How about it?[/quote]
Many conductors do that, not necessarily with the official phonetic alphabets but just with random words.
Perhaps more confusing than not-quite-audible letters are measure numbers in German, when half the orchestra doesn't speak German as their first language. Call "fünfundsechzig" and you're bound to have at least a few musicians start at 56 instead of 65....and then if they're speaking in a local dialect where certain syllables in numbers sound very different, good luck... "fenfensachzig" sounds awfully close to "fenfenachtzig", combine that with the first problem and you might have people starting correctly at 65 but also at 56, 85 and 58!
</QUOTE>
Oooh boy! That's a big one here in our bilingual region. Makes rehearsing sometimes so much more difficult!
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
In bi-lingual Switzerland you actually have three languages: French, German, and English for us lazy Americans. :)
And in other parts of Switzerland you have to speak Italian and that odd Romanche (I hope I spelled it correctly).
And in other parts of Switzerland you have to speak Italian and that odd Romanche (I hope I spelled it correctly).
- Kbiggs
- Posts: 1768
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
Perhaps we should expand music as a universal language. Consider the following phonetic rehearsal letters in English, Italian, French, German, and Spanish:
A for ‘alf note, à tempo, à deux, Abstoßen, apoyattura
B for bagpipe, barcarolle, Baß (alternate: beklemmt) Beschleunigend, bajar
C for cowbell, cassa (alternate: castrato), C-moll, cascara (alternate: cajón)
You get the idea.
A for ‘alf note, à tempo, à deux, Abstoßen, apoyattura
B for bagpipe, barcarolle, Baß (alternate: beklemmt) Beschleunigend, bajar
C for cowbell, cassa (alternate: castrato), C-moll, cascara (alternate: cajón)
You get the idea.
- Digidog
- Posts: 483
- Joined: Dec 13, 2018
Don't use letters for navigating the notes - only bar numbers!
Lettering is made for confusion and can be arbitrary enough to consume serious time from rehearsals. I learned from a note engraver only to use numbering, bar 1 to bar x, and nothing else!
For commercial use, I'd also recommend to strictly avoid da capos and dal segnos, to facilitate what little rehearsal time there usually is - if any.
Lettering is made for confusion and can be arbitrary enough to consume serious time from rehearsals. I learned from a note engraver only to use numbering, bar 1 to bar x, and nothing else!
For commercial use, I'd also recommend to strictly avoid da capos and dal segnos, to facilitate what little rehearsal time there usually is - if any.
- AtomicClock
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: Oct 19, 2023
I hate bar numbers. The conductor invariably calls a number in the middle of a multibar rest, and I have to do arithmentic to find the location. Too prone to off-by-one errors. I also don't enjoy hand-numbering a part. Do you? "Let's start at 3 after 35" is unambiguous, even if not quite logical.
- WGWTR180
- Posts: 2152
- Joined: Sep 04, 2019
[quote="Digidog"]Don't use letters for navigating the notes - only bar numbers!
Lettering is made for confusion and can be arbitrary enough to consume serious time from rehearsals. I learned from a note engraver only to use numbering, bar 1 to bar x, and nothing else!
For commercial use, I'd also recommend to strictly avoid da capos and dal segnos, to facilitate what little rehearsal time there usually is - if any.[/quote]
Opposite here.
Lettering is made for confusion and can be arbitrary enough to consume serious time from rehearsals. I learned from a note engraver only to use numbering, bar 1 to bar x, and nothing else!
For commercial use, I'd also recommend to strictly avoid da capos and dal segnos, to facilitate what little rehearsal time there usually is - if any.[/quote]
Opposite here.
- brassmedic
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Dec 14, 2018
I am annoyed by conductors who don't do their homework and show up to the first rehearsal with a score that's a different edition than the parts and numbered differently. And sadly, this happens a lot. I remember a particular rehearsal where the conductor called out a bar number to start at, and immediately the oboe player shouted, "We don't have bar numbers, only rehearsal letters." The crazy thing is, he proceeded to do the same thing several more times during rehearsal, and every time someone had to shout, "WE DON'T HAVE MEASURE NUMBERS!"
- WilliamLang
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Nov 22, 2019
G as in doG
M as in Mancy
Just hours of fun!
M as in Mancy
Just hours of fun!
- Digidog
- Posts: 483
- Joined: Dec 13, 2018
[quote="WGWTR180"]<QUOTE author="Digidog" post_id="237879" time="1710866813" user_id="4099">
Don't use letters for navigating the notes - only bar numbers!
Lettering is made for confusion and can be arbitrary enough to consume serious time from rehearsals. I learned from a note engraver only to use numbering, bar 1 to bar x, and nothing else!
For commercial use, I'd also recommend to strictly avoid da capos and dal segnos, to facilitate what little rehearsal time there usually is - if any.[/quote]
Opposite here.
</QUOTE>
This you better explain to me. :???:
[quote="AtomicClock"]I hate bar numbers. The conductor invariably calls a number in the middle of a multibar rest, and I have to do arithmentic to find the location. Too prone to off-by-one errors. I also don't enjoy hand-numbering a part. Do you? "Let's start at 3 after 35" is unambiguous, even if not quite logical.[/quote]
"Finale" - or any notation program, for that matter - is the key word for numbering scores and parts. I learned the hard way to always put measure numbers at the left margin of each system, so every row indicates a measure number regardless of if in a rest or not.
Also: To say "let's start five bars before 'T', as in 'Thatcher'!" should be equally arithmetic if that is in the middle of a sixteen bar rest, or am I missing something in your reasoning?
Don't use letters for navigating the notes - only bar numbers!
Lettering is made for confusion and can be arbitrary enough to consume serious time from rehearsals. I learned from a note engraver only to use numbering, bar 1 to bar x, and nothing else!
For commercial use, I'd also recommend to strictly avoid da capos and dal segnos, to facilitate what little rehearsal time there usually is - if any.[/quote]
Opposite here.
</QUOTE>
This you better explain to me. :???:
[quote="AtomicClock"]I hate bar numbers. The conductor invariably calls a number in the middle of a multibar rest, and I have to do arithmentic to find the location. Too prone to off-by-one errors. I also don't enjoy hand-numbering a part. Do you? "Let's start at 3 after 35" is unambiguous, even if not quite logical.[/quote]
"Finale" - or any notation program, for that matter - is the key word for numbering scores and parts. I learned the hard way to always put measure numbers at the left margin of each system, so every row indicates a measure number regardless of if in a rest or not.
Also: To say "let's start five bars before 'T', as in 'Thatcher'!" should be equally arithmetic if that is in the middle of a sixteen bar rest, or am I missing something in your reasoning?
- LeTromboniste
- Posts: 1634
- Joined: Apr 11, 2018
[quote="Digidog"]<QUOTE author="WGWTR180" post_id="237910" time="1710897747" user_id="7573">
Opposite here.[/quote]
This you better explain to me. :???:
[quote="AtomicClock"]I hate bar numbers. The conductor invariably calls a number in the middle of a multibar rest, and I have to do arithmentic to find the location. Too prone to off-by-one errors. I also don't enjoy hand-numbering a part. Do you? "Let's start at 3 after 35" is unambiguous, even if not quite logical.[/quote]
"Finale" - or any notation program, for that matter - is the key word for numbering scores and parts. I learned the hard way to always put measure numbers at the left margin of each system, so every row indicates a measure number regardless of if in a rest or not.
Also: To say "let's start five bars before 'T', as in 'Thatcher'!" should be equally arithmetic if that is in the middle of a sixteen bar rest, or am I missing something in your reasoning?
</QUOTE>
Rehearsal marks break multirests. "5 before T" is always going to be easy to count. Arguably, it also forces conductors starting somewhere logical that will be easy for everyone to find, assuming the rehearsal marks are well placed and frequent enough. No good conductor will say "53 before T" because it's quicker and safer to just play from the previous rehearsal mark than for everyone to count correctly. If the rehearsal marks are too spread out, then that's a problem of there not being enough of them, not a problem inherent to rehearsal marks.
"Start at 235" when that falls in the middle of a 73-bar multi rest can be a real annoyance, especially if there's a cue between the multi rest and your next entrance. You then need to do some quick math (and possibly mess it up) which might require a different counting method depending on where in the system things fall and what is the most convenient starting point to count (forwards or backwards) from. Or you need to mark in advance the bar numbers of every entrance (which, arguable, shouldn't be your job).
For shorter pieces or works where nobody has long rests, I use bar numbers and no rehearsal marks in my editions, because in that context it's easiest to just call bar numbers. For longer pieces or with large ensembles where some instruments may have long rests, I use rehearsal marks.
Opposite here.[/quote]
This you better explain to me. :???:
[quote="AtomicClock"]I hate bar numbers. The conductor invariably calls a number in the middle of a multibar rest, and I have to do arithmentic to find the location. Too prone to off-by-one errors. I also don't enjoy hand-numbering a part. Do you? "Let's start at 3 after 35" is unambiguous, even if not quite logical.[/quote]
"Finale" - or any notation program, for that matter - is the key word for numbering scores and parts. I learned the hard way to always put measure numbers at the left margin of each system, so every row indicates a measure number regardless of if in a rest or not.
Also: To say "let's start five bars before 'T', as in 'Thatcher'!" should be equally arithmetic if that is in the middle of a sixteen bar rest, or am I missing something in your reasoning?
</QUOTE>
Rehearsal marks break multirests. "5 before T" is always going to be easy to count. Arguably, it also forces conductors starting somewhere logical that will be easy for everyone to find, assuming the rehearsal marks are well placed and frequent enough. No good conductor will say "53 before T" because it's quicker and safer to just play from the previous rehearsal mark than for everyone to count correctly. If the rehearsal marks are too spread out, then that's a problem of there not being enough of them, not a problem inherent to rehearsal marks.
"Start at 235" when that falls in the middle of a 73-bar multi rest can be a real annoyance, especially if there's a cue between the multi rest and your next entrance. You then need to do some quick math (and possibly mess it up) which might require a different counting method depending on where in the system things fall and what is the most convenient starting point to count (forwards or backwards) from. Or you need to mark in advance the bar numbers of every entrance (which, arguable, shouldn't be your job).
For shorter pieces or works where nobody has long rests, I use bar numbers and no rehearsal marks in my editions, because in that context it's easiest to just call bar numbers. For longer pieces or with large ensembles where some instruments may have long rests, I use rehearsal marks.
- WGWTR180
- Posts: 2152
- Joined: Sep 04, 2019
[quote="Digidog"]<QUOTE author="WGWTR180" post_id="237910" time="1710897747" user_id="7573">
Opposite here.[/quote]
This you better explain to me. :???:
Well it really depends on the piece of music. In some orchestra works with major rest areas it's sometimes difficult to catch "measure 225 within 59 bars of rest." Stating "before rehearsal letter C count back twelve bars" is easier if stated that way. If one says "start 12 bars before letter C" it takes longer. I learned this technique in conducting class in grad school. Works for most. Other pieces of music, depending on how they're written out, are more number friendly. But we're all wired differently. If you're a number guy and need the numbers okay.</QUOTE>
Opposite here.[/quote]
This you better explain to me. :???:
Well it really depends on the piece of music. In some orchestra works with major rest areas it's sometimes difficult to catch "measure 225 within 59 bars of rest." Stating "before rehearsal letter C count back twelve bars" is easier if stated that way. If one says "start 12 bars before letter C" it takes longer. I learned this technique in conducting class in grad school. Works for most. Other pieces of music, depending on how they're written out, are more number friendly. But we're all wired differently. If you're a number guy and need the numbers okay.</QUOTE>
- Digidog
- Posts: 483
- Joined: Dec 13, 2018
[quote="LeTromboniste"]Rehearsal marks break multirests. "5 before T" is always going to be easy to count. Arguably, it also forces conductors starting somewhere logical that will be easy for everyone to find, assuming the rehearsal marks are well placed and frequent enough. No good conductor will say "53 before T" because it's quicker and safer to just play from the previous rehearsal mark than for everyone to count correctly. If the rehearsal marks are too spread out, then that's a problem of there not being enough of them, not a problem inherent to rehearsal marks.
"Start at 235" when that falls in the middle of a 73-bar multi rest can be a real annoyance, especially if there's a cue between the multi rest and your next entrance. You then need to do some quick math (and possibly mess it up) which might require a different counting method depending on where in the system things fall and what is the most convenient starting point to count (forwards or backwards) from. Or you need to mark in advance the bar numbers of every entrance (which, arguable, shouldn't be your job).
For shorter pieces or works where nobody has long rests, I use bar numbers and no rehearsal marks in my editions, because in that context it's easiest to just call bar numbers. For longer pieces or with large ensembles where some instruments may have long rests, I use rehearsal marks.[/quote]
As rehearsal bars break multimeasure rests, the main problem with most classical - or poorly engraved or edited in general - repertoire is that there are too few of them, and too far between. I mean; Fauré's Requiem for trombone - come on!
For commercial use, I try to never have more than 12 bars between marks and no fewer than 4 (and that is rare), and I try to keep those marks as close to phrases or sections of the music as possible; all to provide logical starting and rehearsing points to facilitate the overall work to with the least rehearsing time possible make the music work. For that I have also found that numbering the bars and marks always is better than lettering them.
Even a heavy accent can make "five-eight" or "fifty eight" discernible in an ensemble expecting numbers from being provided numbered music, while f.ex. a French conductor I once had had huge problems in saying an understandable "H". Many non English speaking also confuse A and I, as a further example.
"Start at 235" when that falls in the middle of a 73-bar multi rest can be a real annoyance, especially if there's a cue between the multi rest and your next entrance. You then need to do some quick math (and possibly mess it up) which might require a different counting method depending on where in the system things fall and what is the most convenient starting point to count (forwards or backwards) from. Or you need to mark in advance the bar numbers of every entrance (which, arguable, shouldn't be your job).
For shorter pieces or works where nobody has long rests, I use bar numbers and no rehearsal marks in my editions, because in that context it's easiest to just call bar numbers. For longer pieces or with large ensembles where some instruments may have long rests, I use rehearsal marks.[/quote]
As rehearsal bars break multimeasure rests, the main problem with most classical - or poorly engraved or edited in general - repertoire is that there are too few of them, and too far between. I mean; Fauré's Requiem for trombone - come on!
For commercial use, I try to never have more than 12 bars between marks and no fewer than 4 (and that is rare), and I try to keep those marks as close to phrases or sections of the music as possible; all to provide logical starting and rehearsing points to facilitate the overall work to with the least rehearsing time possible make the music work. For that I have also found that numbering the bars and marks always is better than lettering them.
Even a heavy accent can make "five-eight" or "fifty eight" discernible in an ensemble expecting numbers from being provided numbered music, while f.ex. a French conductor I once had had huge problems in saying an understandable "H". Many non English speaking also confuse A and I, as a further example.
- WGWTR180
- Posts: 2152
- Joined: Sep 04, 2019
[quote="Digidog"]<QUOTE author="LeTromboniste" post_id="237926" time="1710929950" user_id="3038">
Rehearsal marks break multirests. "5 before T" is always going to be easy to count. Arguably, it also forces conductors starting somewhere logical that will be easy for everyone to find, assuming the rehearsal marks are well placed and frequent enough. No good conductor will say "53 before T" because it's quicker and safer to just play from the previous rehearsal mark than for everyone to count correctly. If the rehearsal marks are too spread out, then that's a problem of there not being enough of them, not a problem inherent to rehearsal marks.
"Start at 235" when that falls in the middle of a 73-bar multi rest can be a real annoyance, especially if there's a cue between the multi rest and your next entrance. You then need to do some quick math (and possibly mess it up) which might require a different counting method depending on where in the system things fall and what is the most convenient starting point to count (forwards or backwards) from. Or you need to mark in advance the bar numbers of every entrance (which, arguable, shouldn't be your job).
For shorter pieces or works where nobody has long rests, I use bar numbers and no rehearsal marks in my editions, because in that context it's easiest to just call bar numbers. For longer pieces or with large ensembles where some instruments may have long rests, I use rehearsal marks.[/quote]
As rehearsal bars break multimeasure rests, the main problem with most classical - or poorly engraved or edited in general - repertoire is that there are too few of them, and too far between. I mean; Fauré's Requiem for trombone - come on!
For commercial use, I try to never have more than 12 bars between marks and no fewer than 4 (and that is rare), and I try to keep those marks as close to phrases or sections of the music as possible; all to provide logical starting and rehearsing points to facilitate the overall work to with the least rehearsing time possible make the music work. For that I have also found that numbering the bars and marks always is better than lettering them.
Even a heavy accent can make "five-eight" or "fifty eight" discernible in an ensemble expecting numbers from being provided numbered music, while f.ex. a French conductor I once had had huge problems in saying an understandable "H". Many non English speaking also confuse A and I, as a further example.
</QUOTE>
This post didn't start out as a "what would you do" post. It was asking a different question.
Rehearsal marks break multirests. "5 before T" is always going to be easy to count. Arguably, it also forces conductors starting somewhere logical that will be easy for everyone to find, assuming the rehearsal marks are well placed and frequent enough. No good conductor will say "53 before T" because it's quicker and safer to just play from the previous rehearsal mark than for everyone to count correctly. If the rehearsal marks are too spread out, then that's a problem of there not being enough of them, not a problem inherent to rehearsal marks.
"Start at 235" when that falls in the middle of a 73-bar multi rest can be a real annoyance, especially if there's a cue between the multi rest and your next entrance. You then need to do some quick math (and possibly mess it up) which might require a different counting method depending on where in the system things fall and what is the most convenient starting point to count (forwards or backwards) from. Or you need to mark in advance the bar numbers of every entrance (which, arguable, shouldn't be your job).
For shorter pieces or works where nobody has long rests, I use bar numbers and no rehearsal marks in my editions, because in that context it's easiest to just call bar numbers. For longer pieces or with large ensembles where some instruments may have long rests, I use rehearsal marks.[/quote]
As rehearsal bars break multimeasure rests, the main problem with most classical - or poorly engraved or edited in general - repertoire is that there are too few of them, and too far between. I mean; Fauré's Requiem for trombone - come on!
For commercial use, I try to never have more than 12 bars between marks and no fewer than 4 (and that is rare), and I try to keep those marks as close to phrases or sections of the music as possible; all to provide logical starting and rehearsing points to facilitate the overall work to with the least rehearsing time possible make the music work. For that I have also found that numbering the bars and marks always is better than lettering them.
Even a heavy accent can make "five-eight" or "fifty eight" discernible in an ensemble expecting numbers from being provided numbered music, while f.ex. a French conductor I once had had huge problems in saying an understandable "H". Many non English speaking also confuse A and I, as a further example.
</QUOTE>
This post didn't start out as a "what would you do" post. It was asking a different question.
- AtomicClock
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: Oct 19, 2023
[quote="Digidog"]Also: To say "let's start five bars before 'T', as in 'Thatcher'!" should be equally arithmetic if that is in the middle of a sixteen bar rest, or am I missing something in your reasoning?[/quote]
I don't count to 16 starting with 12. I just count to 5.
I don't count to 16 starting with 12. I just count to 5.
- AtomicClock
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: Oct 19, 2023
[quote="Digidog"]Also: To say "let's start five bars before 'T', as in 'Thatcher'!"[/quote]
One of the nice things about the NATO phonetic alphabet is that you don't have to say "T as in Tango", you just say Tango. It's a longer, clearer alternative pronunciation of the letter, not an example word that just starts with the letter.
One of the nice things about the NATO phonetic alphabet is that you don't have to say "T as in Tango", you just say Tango. It's a longer, clearer alternative pronunciation of the letter, not an example word that just starts with the letter.
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
If you are used to using the NATO phonetics (or the US Military phonetics, which are slightly different) that's great. Not too many conductors are taught that alphabet.
If you have a few players who are not native English speakers sometimes the phonetics won't work that way.
I still have problems with parts with a big blank place that is marked "tacet jusq'au" then a few marked rest bars, maybe a cue, maybe a letter, and then notes to play. I can count long rests (I actually played bass trombone on Beethoven's 9th -- 561 bars out in a fast 1, followed by a D above the staff SOLO) but guessing what's in a big blank area is a real pain.
If you have a few players who are not native English speakers sometimes the phonetics won't work that way.
I still have problems with parts with a big blank place that is marked "tacet jusq'au" then a few marked rest bars, maybe a cue, maybe a letter, and then notes to play. I can count long rests (I actually played bass trombone on Beethoven's 9th -- 561 bars out in a fast 1, followed by a D above the staff SOLO) but guessing what's in a big blank area is a real pain.
- WGWTR180
- Posts: 2152
- Joined: Sep 04, 2019
[quote="AtomicClock"]<QUOTE author="Digidog" post_id="237924" time="1710923116" user_id="4099">
Also: To say "let's start five bars before 'T', as in 'Thatcher'!"[/quote]
One of the nice things about the NATO phonetic alphabet is that you don't have to say "T as in Tango", you just say Tango. It's a longer, clearer alternative pronunciation of the letter, not an example word that just starts with the letter.
</QUOTE>
Well that's interesting and I don't disagree. There was a conductor around here who would use names of cities for the letters. It worked and became fun to see what he'd come up with.
Also: To say "let's start five bars before 'T', as in 'Thatcher'!"[/quote]
One of the nice things about the NATO phonetic alphabet is that you don't have to say "T as in Tango", you just say Tango. It's a longer, clearer alternative pronunciation of the letter, not an example word that just starts with the letter.
</QUOTE>
Well that's interesting and I don't disagree. There was a conductor around here who would use names of cities for the letters. It worked and became fun to see what he'd come up with.
- AtomicClock
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: Oct 19, 2023
[quote="BGuttman"]If you are used to using the NATO phonetics (or the US Military phonetics, which are slightly different) that's great. Not too many conductors are taught that alphabet.[/quote]
Hence, my question about service bands.
[quote="BGuttman"]If you have a few players who are not native English speakers sometimes the phonetics won't work that way.[/quote]
The NATO alphabet was designed to be understandable to speakers of multiple (mostly western european) languages.
[quote="BGuttman"]I still have problems with parts with a big blank place that is marked "tacet jusq'au" then a few marked rest bars, maybe a cue, maybe a letter, and then notes to play.[/quote]
Bolero does this.
Hence, my question about service bands.
[quote="BGuttman"]If you have a few players who are not native English speakers sometimes the phonetics won't work that way.[/quote]
The NATO alphabet was designed to be understandable to speakers of multiple (mostly western european) languages.
[quote="BGuttman"]I still have problems with parts with a big blank place that is marked "tacet jusq'au" then a few marked rest bars, maybe a cue, maybe a letter, and then notes to play.[/quote]
Bolero does this.
- GabrielRice
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="BGuttman"]Even worse are the arbitrary numbering systems with (for example) every 5th bar numbered, and you want to start at the beginning of a phrase, so "Let's start at 3 after 35". Does that mean 38? 2 before 40? ;)[/quote]
My casual observation is that this rehearsal numbering system - usually every 10 measures - seems to come exclusively from music created in countries with totalitarian governments.
My casual observation is that this rehearsal numbering system - usually every 10 measures - seems to come exclusively from music created in countries with totalitarian governments.
- Kbiggs
- Posts: 1768
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
LeTromboniste » Wed Mar 20, 2024 3:19 am
This is a chronic problem for instruments that don’t play as often. I have enough problems counting rests, but trying to add or subtract x from y while listening to the conductor’s instructions, holding the horn, trying to ignore the useless chatter of the other 50-70 voices, is sometimes too much sensory input for me.
Why shouldn’t the musician number their parts? In a professional group with a dedicated (and hopefully, decently paid) librarian, some of that responsibility would fall to them. But community groups I’ve played in ask the musicians to number their parts.
I usually put measure numbers in the left margin, along with rehearsal letters, cues, and multi-measure rests. If there’s an important cue in the middle of an eighty-bar rest, I’ll mark underneath “59 + 21,” and then an abbreviation for the instrument. I’d rather have a mark that I don’t use than not have a mark that I need.
"Start at 235" when that falls in the middle of a 73-bar multi rest can be a real annoyance, especially if there's a cue between the multi rest and your next entrance. You then need to do some quick math (and possibly mess it up) which might require a different counting method depending on where in the system things fall and what is the most convenient starting point to count (forwards or backwards) from. Or you need to mark in advance the bar numbers of every entrance (which, arguable, shouldn't be your job).
This is a chronic problem for instruments that don’t play as often. I have enough problems counting rests, but trying to add or subtract x from y while listening to the conductor’s instructions, holding the horn, trying to ignore the useless chatter of the other 50-70 voices, is sometimes too much sensory input for me.
Why shouldn’t the musician number their parts? In a professional group with a dedicated (and hopefully, decently paid) librarian, some of that responsibility would fall to them. But community groups I’ve played in ask the musicians to number their parts.
I usually put measure numbers in the left margin, along with rehearsal letters, cues, and multi-measure rests. If there’s an important cue in the middle of an eighty-bar rest, I’ll mark underneath “59 + 21,” and then an abbreviation for the instrument. I’d rather have a mark that I don’t use than not have a mark that I need.
- Kbiggs
- Posts: 1768
- Joined: Mar 24, 2018
[quote="GabrielRice"]<QUOTE author="BGuttman" post_id="237636" time="1710628134" user_id="53">
Even worse are the arbitrary numbering systems with (for example) every 5th bar numbered, and you want to start at the beginning of a phrase, so "Let's start at 3 after 35". Does that mean 38? 2 before 40? ;)[/quote]
My casual observation is that this rehearsal numbering system - usually every 10 measures - seems to come exclusively from music created in countries with totalitarian governments.
</QUOTE>
If I hadn’t just played David Maslanka’s “Fanfare for Mother Earth,” I would agree. (My section mates who have more experience with concert and wind bands assured it’s the norm for Maslanka. <EMOJI seq="1f644" tseq="1f644">🙄</EMOJI>) I first started seeing this style in chamber music that was written in the 1950’s-1980’s or so. I think there are different conventions for numbering that depend on the composer, the school of composition they hail from, the publisher, the country, etc.
Even worse are the arbitrary numbering systems with (for example) every 5th bar numbered, and you want to start at the beginning of a phrase, so "Let's start at 3 after 35". Does that mean 38? 2 before 40? ;)[/quote]
My casual observation is that this rehearsal numbering system - usually every 10 measures - seems to come exclusively from music created in countries with totalitarian governments.
</QUOTE>
If I hadn’t just played David Maslanka’s “Fanfare for Mother Earth,” I would agree. (My section mates who have more experience with concert and wind bands assured it’s the norm for Maslanka. <EMOJI seq="1f644" tseq="1f644">🙄</EMOJI>) I first started seeing this style in chamber music that was written in the 1950’s-1980’s or so. I think there are different conventions for numbering that depend on the composer, the school of composition they hail from, the publisher, the country, etc.
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
Chester is one that has rehearsal numbers that make zero sense.
- Digidog
- Posts: 483
- Joined: Dec 13, 2018
[quote="WGWTR180"]<QUOTE author="Digidog" post_id="237930" time="1710939104" user_id="4099">
As rehearsal bars break multimeasure rests, the main problem with most classical - or poorly engraved or edited in general - repertoire is that there are too few of them, and too far between. I mean; Fauré's Requiem for trombone - come on!
For commercial use, I try to never have more than 12 bars between marks and no fewer than 4 (and that is rare), and I try to keep those marks as close to phrases or sections of the music as possible; all to provide logical starting and rehearsing points to facilitate the overall work to with the least rehearsing time possible make the music work. For that I have also found that numbering the bars and marks always is better than lettering them.
Even a heavy accent can make "five-eight" or "fifty eight" discernible in an ensemble expecting numbers from being provided numbered music, while f.ex. a French conductor I once had had huge problems in saying an understandable "H". Many non English speaking also confuse A and I, as a further example.[/quote]
This post didn't start out as a "what would you do" post. It was asking a different question.
</QUOTE>
Yes, but I am baffled that now, when notation software never have been better, and the layout possibilities for both scores and parts are fantastic, people still use old engravings, from the nineteenth century, with pedagogically terrible layouts and dispositions, while also lettering rehearsal marks.
How hard would it be to make proper new editions of old scores, to break down those 250-bar rests into more manageable and followable sections, and to provide good and comprehensible rehearsal marking?
As rehearsal bars break multimeasure rests, the main problem with most classical - or poorly engraved or edited in general - repertoire is that there are too few of them, and too far between. I mean; Fauré's Requiem for trombone - come on!
For commercial use, I try to never have more than 12 bars between marks and no fewer than 4 (and that is rare), and I try to keep those marks as close to phrases or sections of the music as possible; all to provide logical starting and rehearsing points to facilitate the overall work to with the least rehearsing time possible make the music work. For that I have also found that numbering the bars and marks always is better than lettering them.
Even a heavy accent can make "five-eight" or "fifty eight" discernible in an ensemble expecting numbers from being provided numbered music, while f.ex. a French conductor I once had had huge problems in saying an understandable "H". Many non English speaking also confuse A and I, as a further example.[/quote]
This post didn't start out as a "what would you do" post. It was asking a different question.
</QUOTE>
Yes, but I am baffled that now, when notation software never have been better, and the layout possibilities for both scores and parts are fantastic, people still use old engravings, from the nineteenth century, with pedagogically terrible layouts and dispositions, while also lettering rehearsal marks.
How hard would it be to make proper new editions of old scores, to break down those 250-bar rests into more manageable and followable sections, and to provide good and comprehensible rehearsal marking?
- LeTromboniste
- Posts: 1634
- Joined: Apr 11, 2018
[quote="Digidog"]<QUOTE author="WGWTR180" post_id="237932" time="1710939348" user_id="7573">
This post didn't start out as a "what would you do" post. It was asking a different question.[/quote]
How hard would it be to make proper new editions of old scores, to break down those 250-bar rests into more manageable and followable sections, and to provide good and comprehensible rehearsal marking?
</QUOTE>
I'm happy to make a new edition of an old score for you or your conductor. As a professional editor, my going rate is $0.35 per frame (that's any bar that has music in it, any bar that has lyrics in it and any bar that has dynamics or other staff text in it, for each staff or text line, not counting copy-pasted material), and then $35/hour for cleaning up and optimizing the layout of the score and parts (because no, just inputting the notes in Finale doesn't give you an acceptable result without more editing work).
A Romantic 45-60 minute symphony is going to set you back several thousand dollars. For an opera, expect a 5-figure amount.
This post didn't start out as a "what would you do" post. It was asking a different question.[/quote]
How hard would it be to make proper new editions of old scores, to break down those 250-bar rests into more manageable and followable sections, and to provide good and comprehensible rehearsal marking?
</QUOTE>
I'm happy to make a new edition of an old score for you or your conductor. As a professional editor, my going rate is $0.35 per frame (that's any bar that has music in it, any bar that has lyrics in it and any bar that has dynamics or other staff text in it, for each staff or text line, not counting copy-pasted material), and then $35/hour for cleaning up and optimizing the layout of the score and parts (because no, just inputting the notes in Finale doesn't give you an acceptable result without more editing work).
A Romantic 45-60 minute symphony is going to set you back several thousand dollars. For an opera, expect a 5-figure amount.
- WGWTR180
- Posts: 2152
- Joined: Sep 04, 2019
[quote="Digidog"]<QUOTE author="WGWTR180" post_id="237932" time="1710939348" user_id="7573">
This post didn't start out as a "what would you do" post. It was asking a different question.[/quote]
Yes, but I am baffled that now, when notation software never have been better, and the layout possibilities for both scores and parts are fantastic, people still use old engravings, from the nineteenth century, with pedagogically terrible layouts and dispositions, while also lettering rehearsal marks.
How hard would it be to make proper new editions of old scores, to break down those 250-bar rests into more manageable and followable sections, and to provide good and comprehensible rehearsal marking?
</QUOTE>
So once again, staying in the orchestral field, why would anybody want to spend the money and the time to redo editions that have been used for decades? Orchestras these days if you have not noticed our actually trying to find new sources of revenue. Of course, it would not necessarily be up to the orchestra, depending on what level of orchestra we are speaking of. But I cannot imagine the Boston Symphony trashing all of the music that they own and then having a publishing company do new additions for them. In all honesty, it’s just not that difficult to use most of these parts.
If you do it enough, you know.
This post didn't start out as a "what would you do" post. It was asking a different question.[/quote]
Yes, but I am baffled that now, when notation software never have been better, and the layout possibilities for both scores and parts are fantastic, people still use old engravings, from the nineteenth century, with pedagogically terrible layouts and dispositions, while also lettering rehearsal marks.
How hard would it be to make proper new editions of old scores, to break down those 250-bar rests into more manageable and followable sections, and to provide good and comprehensible rehearsal marking?
</QUOTE>
So once again, staying in the orchestral field, why would anybody want to spend the money and the time to redo editions that have been used for decades? Orchestras these days if you have not noticed our actually trying to find new sources of revenue. Of course, it would not necessarily be up to the orchestra, depending on what level of orchestra we are speaking of. But I cannot imagine the Boston Symphony trashing all of the music that they own and then having a publishing company do new additions for them. In all honesty, it’s just not that difficult to use most of these parts.
If you do it enough, you know.
- OneTon
- Posts: 757
- Joined: Nov 02, 2021
Wichita Symphony Orchestra owns a few staples. On any given concert, the majority of the performance is rented. Score rentals is a big business. Transcription inevitably introduces new errors for performers to discover. Only native English speakers would necessarily be expected to know the English alphabet. The percentage who do not increases each year. The trend towards arbitrary numbers in even fives or tens is by transcribers who fancy themselves as mathematicians. Good luck with that. This crowd won’t be happy until each performer has their own computer tablet that turns the page for them and gives a 5 measure blinking light countdown personalized cue.
Doug Elliot would be subject matter expert. Service bands and orchestras use the same repertoire as anyone else, except for what they create. Their budgets are even tighter.
Doug Elliot would be subject matter expert. Service bands and orchestras use the same repertoire as anyone else, except for what they create. Their budgets are even tighter.
- Digidog
- Posts: 483
- Joined: Dec 13, 2018
[quote="harrisonreed"]Chester is one that has rehearsal numbers that make zero sense.[/quote]
But the rehearsal points should be numbered by the actual bar number, not some randomly chosen number, or numbered by some warped logic that noone can follow.
If a starting point suitable to rehearse from is in bar 59, then that point should be labelled "59" and every staff system should have the actual bar number above it in the left margin.
But the rehearsal points should be numbered by the actual bar number, not some randomly chosen number, or numbered by some warped logic that noone can follow.
If a starting point suitable to rehearse from is in bar 59, then that point should be labelled "59" and every staff system should have the actual bar number above it in the left margin.
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
[quote="Digidog"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="237953" time="1710955099" user_id="3642">
Chester is one that has rehearsal numbers that make zero sense.[/quote]
But the rehearsal points should be numbered by the actual bar number, not some randomly chosen number, numbers by some warped logic that noone can follow.
If a staring point suitable to rehearse from is in bar 59, then that point should be labelled "59" and every staff system should have the actual bar number above it in the left margin.
</QUOTE>
Chester has a rehearsal measure marked every 5 bars. Nothing to do with the phrases. It's pretty bad.
Chester is one that has rehearsal numbers that make zero sense.[/quote]
But the rehearsal points should be numbered by the actual bar number, not some randomly chosen number, numbers by some warped logic that noone can follow.
If a staring point suitable to rehearse from is in bar 59, then that point should be labelled "59" and every staff system should have the actual bar number above it in the left margin.
</QUOTE>
Chester has a rehearsal measure marked every 5 bars. Nothing to do with the phrases. It's pretty bad.
- AtomicClock
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: Oct 19, 2023
I prefer rehearsal points when they are letters, not numbers. It is less ambiguous. Oftentimes, the conductor calls a starting position some number of measures before or after the rehearsal point. Before is fine; the ambiguous case is after. This is because rehearsal letters are clearly BETWEEN the two measures, and rehearsal numbers (measure number style) are either between the two measures, or the number of the measure it begins.
Take for example, "Start three after 65". You dutifully count one (65), two (66), three (67), and everyone plays measure 67. Even though 65+3 is 68. Consider the degenerate case of "one after 65". That is the same as measure 65. Nonsense. This is because we count measures after the rehearsal point 65, which precedes measure 65, in the gap between 64 and 65. But we're all used to it, and don't think about it much. Except when large blocks of rests force us to switch from habit to arithmetic, and invite the off-by-one error.
Take for example, "Start three after 65". You dutifully count one (65), two (66), three (67), and everyone plays measure 67. Even though 65+3 is 68. Consider the degenerate case of "one after 65". That is the same as measure 65. Nonsense. This is because we count measures after the rehearsal point 65, which precedes measure 65, in the gap between 64 and 65. But we're all used to it, and don't think about it much. Except when large blocks of rests force us to switch from habit to arithmetic, and invite the off-by-one error.
- Digidog
- Posts: 483
- Joined: Dec 13, 2018
[quote="harrisonreed"]<QUOTE author="Digidog" post_id="238367" time="1711379189" user_id="4099">
But the rehearsal points should be numbered by the actual bar number, not some randomly chosen number, numbers by some warped logic that noone can follow.
If a staring point suitable to rehearse from is in bar 59, then that point should be labelled "59" and every staff system should have the actual bar number above it in the left margin.[/quote]
Chester has a rehearsal measure marked every 5 bars. Nothing to do with the phrases. It's pretty bad.
</QUOTE>
Yeah, and I loathe poorly marked up notes. It can really bog a whole rehearsal.
There once was a fantastic arranger here in Sweden, who consistently marked his music differently from part to part. The clarinets could have bar numbers and a first and second house, while the trombones could have letterings and a da capo, when the trumpets had both numbers and letterings and no repeat whatsoever. His arrangements were great and truly innovative, but the music ended up nearly impossible to rehearse because of his inconsistencies. Accordingly nobody plays his works today, and his arranging and composing never really took off so that he is more or less in oblivion today, some thirty years after his passing. I have heard rumours that he was a periodical alcoholic, so if that's true it could explain some, but his music is a true pain to sight read and rehearse nonetheless.
But the rehearsal points should be numbered by the actual bar number, not some randomly chosen number, numbers by some warped logic that noone can follow.
If a staring point suitable to rehearse from is in bar 59, then that point should be labelled "59" and every staff system should have the actual bar number above it in the left margin.[/quote]
Chester has a rehearsal measure marked every 5 bars. Nothing to do with the phrases. It's pretty bad.
</QUOTE>
Yeah, and I loathe poorly marked up notes. It can really bog a whole rehearsal.
There once was a fantastic arranger here in Sweden, who consistently marked his music differently from part to part. The clarinets could have bar numbers and a first and second house, while the trombones could have letterings and a da capo, when the trumpets had both numbers and letterings and no repeat whatsoever. His arrangements were great and truly innovative, but the music ended up nearly impossible to rehearse because of his inconsistencies. Accordingly nobody plays his works today, and his arranging and composing never really took off so that he is more or less in oblivion today, some thirty years after his passing. I have heard rumours that he was a periodical alcoholic, so if that's true it could explain some, but his music is a true pain to sight read and rehearse nonetheless.
- Digidog
- Posts: 483
- Joined: Dec 13, 2018
[quote="AtomicClock"]I prefer rehearsal points when they are letters, not numbers. It is less ambiguous. Oftentimes, the conductor calls a starting position some number of measures before or after the rehearsal point. Before is fine; the ambiguous case is after. This is because rehearsal letters are clearly BETWEEN the two measures, and rehearsal numbers (measure number style) are either between the two measures, or the number of the measure it begins.
Take for example, "Start three after 65". You dutifully count one (65), two (66), three (67), and everyone plays measure 67. Even though 65+3 is 68. Consider the degenerate case of "one after 65". That is the same as measure 65. Nonsense. This is because we count measures after the rehearsal point 65, which precedes measure 65, in the gap between 64 and 65. But we're all used to it, and don't think about it much. Except when large blocks of rests force us to switch from habit to arithmetic, and invite the off-by-one error.[/quote]
When I lead bands or orchestras, I always say exactly what measure I want to start from - I never relate to a bar number. Like "everybody from bar 87!" or "start at rehearsal number 154" which in that case should be bar 154 if the engraver have done a proper work.
It's a figure of speech - and a matter of exactness from the conductor's side.
Take for example, "Start three after 65". You dutifully count one (65), two (66), three (67), and everyone plays measure 67. Even though 65+3 is 68. Consider the degenerate case of "one after 65". That is the same as measure 65. Nonsense. This is because we count measures after the rehearsal point 65, which precedes measure 65, in the gap between 64 and 65. But we're all used to it, and don't think about it much. Except when large blocks of rests force us to switch from habit to arithmetic, and invite the off-by-one error.[/quote]
When I lead bands or orchestras, I always say exactly what measure I want to start from - I never relate to a bar number. Like "everybody from bar 87!" or "start at rehearsal number 154" which in that case should be bar 154 if the engraver have done a proper work.
It's a figure of speech - and a matter of exactness from the conductor's side.
- AtomicClock
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: Oct 19, 2023
So you require the players to hand-number their parts before (which means during) rehearsal? Or only play charts published with numbers?
- BGuttman
- Posts: 7368
- Joined: Mar 22, 2018
Numbering parts with measure numbers every 5 used to be a standard with one publisher. All the Aaron Copland stuff we played was numbered that way. I also think that the early Finale numbering system was this way as well.
I've encountered parts using numbers for rehearsal point but not actual measure numbers. So "5 after number 10" is not measure 15, but somewhere further into the piece. Can get very confusing.
I've encountered parts using numbers for rehearsal point but not actual measure numbers. So "5 after number 10" is not measure 15, but somewhere further into the piece. Can get very confusing.
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
[quote="BGuttman"]Numbering parts with measure numbers every 5 used to be a standard with one publisher. All the Aaron Copland stuff we played was numbered that way. I also think that the early Finale numbering system was this way as well.
I've encountered parts using numbers for rehearsal point but not actual measure numbers. So "5 after number 10" is not measure 15, but somewhere further into the piece. Can get very confusing.[/quote]
It was, at least in Chester, the worst of both worlds because not only was, say, rehearsal measure 65 in the exact middle of a phrase at the worst place to start, but you then also ran into the issue of confusing people with the "2 after measure 60" thing described above. And it's in a kind of mixed meter feel if I recall, to compound it all.
I've encountered parts using numbers for rehearsal point but not actual measure numbers. So "5 after number 10" is not measure 15, but somewhere further into the piece. Can get very confusing.[/quote]
It was, at least in Chester, the worst of both worlds because not only was, say, rehearsal measure 65 in the exact middle of a phrase at the worst place to start, but you then also ran into the issue of confusing people with the "2 after measure 60" thing described above. And it's in a kind of mixed meter feel if I recall, to compound it all.
- AtomicClock
- Posts: 1094
- Joined: Oct 19, 2023
[quote="BGuttman"]I've encountered parts using numbers for rehearsal point but not actual measure numbers. So "5 after number 10" is not measure 15, but somewhere further into the piece.[/quote]
In a stack of photocopied band parts I may or may not have on my shelf ( :shuffle: ):
<TABLE>[table]<TR>[tr]<TH>[th]Description</TH><TH>[th]Count</TH></TR>
<TR>[tr]<TD>[td]No rehearsal points, no measure numbers</TD><TD>[td]11</TD></TR>
<TR>[tr]<TD>[td]No rehearsal points, every measure numbered</TD><TD>[td]1</TD></TR>
<TR>[tr]<TD>[td]Rehearsal letters</TD><TD>[td]20</TD></TR>
<TR>[tr]<TD>[td]Sequential rehearsal numbers (1,2,3,...)</TD><TD>[td]5</TD></TR>
<TR>[tr]<TD>[td]Big measure numbers used as rehearsal points, on sensible phrases</TD><TD>[td]27</TD></TR>
<TR>[tr]<TD>[td]Big measure numbers used as rehearsal points, every 5th measure</TD><TD>[td]1</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
No measure numbers unless mentioned. This is summer-concert-in-the-park fare. Big band or orchestral rep are probably different.
In a stack of photocopied band parts I may or may not have on my shelf ( :shuffle: ):
<TABLE>
<TR>
<TR>
<TR>
<TR>
<TR>
<TR>
</TABLE>
No measure numbers unless mentioned. This is summer-concert-in-the-park fare. Big band or orchestral rep are probably different.
- brassmedic
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Dec 14, 2018
If you really want to throw everyone off, tell them to start at letter "I". :lol:
- brassmedic
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Dec 14, 2018
[quote="AtomicClock"]I prefer rehearsal points when they are letters, not numbers. It is less ambiguous. Oftentimes, the conductor calls a starting position some number of measures before or after the rehearsal point. Before is fine; the ambiguous case is after. This is because rehearsal letters are clearly BETWEEN the two measures, and rehearsal numbers (measure number style) are either between the two measures, or the number of the measure it begins.
Take for example, "Start three after 65". You dutifully count one (65), two (66), three (67), and everyone plays measure 67. Even though 65+3 is 68. Consider the degenerate case of "one after 65". That is the same as measure 65. Nonsense. This is because we count measures after the rehearsal point 65, which precedes measure 65, in the gap between 64 and 65. But we're all used to it, and don't think about it much. Except when large blocks of rests force us to switch from habit to arithmetic, and invite the off-by-one error.[/quote]
The smart way to do it is to say, "Start in the third bar of 65". No ambiguity.
Take for example, "Start three after 65". You dutifully count one (65), two (66), three (67), and everyone plays measure 67. Even though 65+3 is 68. Consider the degenerate case of "one after 65". That is the same as measure 65. Nonsense. This is because we count measures after the rehearsal point 65, which precedes measure 65, in the gap between 64 and 65. But we're all used to it, and don't think about it much. Except when large blocks of rests force us to switch from habit to arithmetic, and invite the off-by-one error.[/quote]
The smart way to do it is to say, "Start in the third bar of 65". No ambiguity.
- LeTromboniste
- Posts: 1634
- Joined: Apr 11, 2018
[quote="Digidog"]<QUOTE author="AtomicClock" post_id="238371" time="1711380052" user_id="17161">
I prefer rehearsal points when they are letters, not numbers. It is less ambiguous. Oftentimes, the conductor calls a starting position some number of measures before or after the rehearsal point. Before is fine; the ambiguous case is after. This is because rehearsal letters are clearly BETWEEN the two measures, and rehearsal numbers (measure number style) are either between the two measures, or the number of the measure it begins.
Take for example, "Start three after 65". You dutifully count one (65), two (66), three (67), and everyone plays measure 67. Even though 65+3 is 68. Consider the degenerate case of "one after 65". That is the same as measure 65. Nonsense. This is because we count measures after the rehearsal point 65, which precedes measure 65, in the gap between 64 and 65. But we're all used to it, and don't think about it much. Except when large blocks of rests force us to switch from habit to arithmetic, and invite the off-by-one error.[/quote]
When I lead bands or orchestras, I always say exactly what measure I want to start from - I never relate to a bar number. Like "everybody from bar 87!" or "start at rehearsal number 154" which in that case should be bar 154 if the engraver have done a proper work.
It's a figure of speech - and a matter of exactness from the conductor's side.
</QUOTE>
Then you should be prepared for those whose bar 87 is the 23rd bar of a 41-bar multirest not to come in at their next entrance or come in wrong.
I prefer rehearsal points when they are letters, not numbers. It is less ambiguous. Oftentimes, the conductor calls a starting position some number of measures before or after the rehearsal point. Before is fine; the ambiguous case is after. This is because rehearsal letters are clearly BETWEEN the two measures, and rehearsal numbers (measure number style) are either between the two measures, or the number of the measure it begins.
Take for example, "Start three after 65". You dutifully count one (65), two (66), three (67), and everyone plays measure 67. Even though 65+3 is 68. Consider the degenerate case of "one after 65". That is the same as measure 65. Nonsense. This is because we count measures after the rehearsal point 65, which precedes measure 65, in the gap between 64 and 65. But we're all used to it, and don't think about it much. Except when large blocks of rests force us to switch from habit to arithmetic, and invite the off-by-one error.[/quote]
When I lead bands or orchestras, I always say exactly what measure I want to start from - I never relate to a bar number. Like "everybody from bar 87!" or "start at rehearsal number 154" which in that case should be bar 154 if the engraver have done a proper work.
It's a figure of speech - and a matter of exactness from the conductor's side.
</QUOTE>
Then you should be prepared for those whose bar 87 is the 23rd bar of a 41-bar multirest not to come in at their next entrance or come in wrong.
- bitbckt
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Aug 19, 2020
Rehearsal markers should be engraved as dingbats, obviously.
“Take it from the heavy open center cross…”
“Take it from the heavy open center cross…”
- JohnL
- Posts: 2529
- Joined: Mar 23, 2018
[quote="AtomicClock"]In a stack of photocopied band parts I may or may not have on my shelf ( :shuffle: ):
<TABLE>[table]
<TR>[tr]<TD>[td]No rehearsal points, no measure numbers</TD><TD>[td]11</TD></TR>
</TABLE>[/quote]
Probably mostly older editions of traditional marches in landscape format. The usual rehearsal points were just kind of "understood", like "1st Strain", "Break Strain", or (my favorite) "Dogfight".
<TABLE>
<TR>
</TABLE>[/quote]
Probably mostly older editions of traditional marches in landscape format. The usual rehearsal points were just kind of "understood", like "1st Strain", "Break Strain", or (my favorite) "Dogfight".
- officermayo
- Posts: 654
- Joined: Jun 09, 2021
Probably mostly older editions of traditional marches in landscape format. The usual rehearsal points were just kind of "understood", like "1st Strain", "Break Strain", or (my favorite) "Dogfight".
According to my Jarhead musician father (see signature), break up sections are called "lightening strikes the shit house strain".
- Digidog
- Posts: 483
- Joined: Dec 13, 2018
[quote="AtomicClock"]So you require the players to hand-number their parts before (which means during) rehearsal? Or only play charts published with numbers?[/quote]
No, I am just tired of, and pi$$ed by, even professional orchestras handing out hundred year old editions of major works, with atrocious notation and markings (you wouldn't believe how bad the trombone parts for Tannhäuser looked like, that we got a few weeks ago).
This discussion of rehearsing marks, says something of the financial conditions for music and orchestral playing. I mean; you would never see a law firm using a misspelt law book with arbitrary side numbering and long blanks in sections that were not concerning their judicial specialisation.
As Maximilien said: To produce fresh editions of major scores would take thousands of $, so it seems like we have to wait for some institution to strike a jackpot and investing it in their sheet music, or to put up with poorly marked-up rehearsing points and ambiguous notation.
No, I am just tired of, and pi$$ed by, even professional orchestras handing out hundred year old editions of major works, with atrocious notation and markings (you wouldn't believe how bad the trombone parts for Tannhäuser looked like, that we got a few weeks ago).
This discussion of rehearsing marks, says something of the financial conditions for music and orchestral playing. I mean; you would never see a law firm using a misspelt law book with arbitrary side numbering and long blanks in sections that were not concerning their judicial specialisation.
As Maximilien said: To produce fresh editions of major scores would take thousands of $, so it seems like we have to wait for some institution to strike a jackpot and investing it in their sheet music, or to put up with poorly marked-up rehearsing points and ambiguous notation.
- LeTromboniste
- Posts: 1634
- Joined: Apr 11, 2018
I'd rather an institution who has struck jackpot spend that money on commissioning new works, or having editions made of music that is not already available, to expand the repertoire. And then if spending money on improving existing score, start with the awfully engraved new compositions where the musicians get the printout direct from the composer's awfully edited Finale or Sibelius file. I personally find that old 19th and early 20th century prints, although they sometimes feature dated conventions and could be improved, are still often much better edited and easier to read than many recent computer-made engravings. Yeah there's some badly-engraved old editions, but also some perfectly legible and functional, for the most part. But rarely have I played new music for orchestra that didn't have major engraving issues, missing bars, pages full of individual bar rests instead of multirests, uneven and/or confusing horizontal spacing, suboptimal density and use of the page (typically way too much white space) and illogical enharmonic spellings, let alone rhythm notation that fails to follow conventions and obscures beats, and actual note-entry mistakes, etc.
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
[quote="LeTromboniste"]I'd rather an institution who has struck jackpot spend that money on commissioning new works, or having editions made of music that is not already available, to expand the repertoire.[/quote]
100% yes <EMOJI seq="2b06" tseq="2b06">⬆️</EMOJI>
Aren't those generally better suited for filling in the circular filling cabinet next to the library door?
Like I said ...<EMOJI seq="1f602" tseq="1f602">😂</EMOJI>
It's like... "Haven't you ever actually played music before? Or do you just listen to the beep boop sounds coming out of your Roland midi?". Just bin it.
100% yes <EMOJI seq="2b06" tseq="2b06">⬆️</EMOJI>
And then if spending money on improving existing score, start with the awfully engraved new compositions where the musicians get the printout direct from the composer's awfully edited Finale or Sibelius file.
Aren't those generally better suited for filling in the circular filling cabinet next to the library door?
.....let alone rhythm notation that fails to follow conventions and obscures beats ....
Like I said ...<EMOJI seq="1f602" tseq="1f602">😂</EMOJI>
It's like... "Haven't you ever actually played music before? Or do you just listen to the beep boop sounds coming out of your Roland midi?". Just bin it.
- OneTon
- Posts: 757
- Joined: Nov 02, 2021
One of our divas took the existing computer score of a standard and transposed it to the key they preferred. The 8 bar phrases had 2 bar licks repeated once, followed by the same lick applied to another chord. This Einstein puts in fore and aft bar repeats every 2 measures as an “improvement.” Everywhere. And there is a ds. It belongs in the bin. I never see garbage like this on cruise ship charts, even if they’re off a software platform. Garbage in — Garbage out.
- Digidog
- Posts: 483
- Joined: Dec 13, 2018
[quote="LeTromboniste"]Then you should be prepared for those whose bar 87 is the 23rd bar of a 41-bar multirest not to come in at their next entrance or come in wrong.[/quote]
Yeah, but there should not be any 41 bar rests; those should be broken up in smaller parts, following sub phrases or natural points of musical significance to facilitate just such situations. When I edit commercial notation, regardless of ensemble, I always try to avoid longer rests than 12 bars, and only occasionally use 16 bars rests if there are no other possibilities. A practice learned the hard way.....
And of course I agree with you on orchestras spending more money on new repertoire, but I am souring up on all the lousy notation that's been handed me over the years and would want to see a change in the attitude towards note engraving and the over all editing of sheet music.
I also agree on many composers and/or arrangers being atrociously ignorant with their notation softwares, and horrendously lousy and sloppy in their layout work, but that's a subject where I also can get a little worked-up, so I will abstain from venting my opinions on that; however much I share the same experiences.
Yeah, but there should not be any 41 bar rests; those should be broken up in smaller parts, following sub phrases or natural points of musical significance to facilitate just such situations. When I edit commercial notation, regardless of ensemble, I always try to avoid longer rests than 12 bars, and only occasionally use 16 bars rests if there are no other possibilities. A practice learned the hard way.....
And of course I agree with you on orchestras spending more money on new repertoire, but I am souring up on all the lousy notation that's been handed me over the years and would want to see a change in the attitude towards note engraving and the over all editing of sheet music.
I also agree on many composers and/or arrangers being atrociously ignorant with their notation softwares, and horrendously lousy and sloppy in their layout work, but that's a subject where I also can get a little worked-up, so I will abstain from venting my opinions on that; however much I share the same experiences.
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 6479
- Joined: Aug 17, 2018
The problem is that composer ≠ engraver, right? It means that now, potentially, but it's a separate skill.
- LeTromboniste
- Posts: 1634
- Joined: Apr 11, 2018
[quote="Digidog"]<QUOTE author="LeTromboniste" post_id="238413" time="1711401728" user_id="3038">
Then you should be prepared for those whose bar 87 is the 23rd bar of a 41-bar multirest not to come in at their next entrance or come in wrong.[/quote]
Yeah, but there should not be any 41 bar rests; those should be broken up in smaller parts, following sub phrases or natural points of musical significance to facilitate just such situations. When I edit commercial notation, regardless of ensemble, I always try to avoid longer rests than 12 bars, and only occasionally use 16 bars rests if there are no other possibilities. A practice learned the hard way.....
</QUOTE>
Yeah that works for commercial music, but it ain't gonna work for a 55-minute symphony in most cases, or a movement in 3/4 counted in 1 with hundreds of measures, for example. There are many, many situations in orchestral music where having very frequent rehearsal marks makes very little sense and would create more problems than it would solve. The available material for the majority of the frequently-played repertoire is perfectly adequate and no problem whatsoever to read for those who regularly do that kind of playing. It's a different feel and workflow to what you're used to perhaps, but it's really not difficult to get used to it.
Then you should be prepared for those whose bar 87 is the 23rd bar of a 41-bar multirest not to come in at their next entrance or come in wrong.[/quote]
Yeah, but there should not be any 41 bar rests; those should be broken up in smaller parts, following sub phrases or natural points of musical significance to facilitate just such situations. When I edit commercial notation, regardless of ensemble, I always try to avoid longer rests than 12 bars, and only occasionally use 16 bars rests if there are no other possibilities. A practice learned the hard way.....
</QUOTE>
Yeah that works for commercial music, but it ain't gonna work for a 55-minute symphony in most cases, or a movement in 3/4 counted in 1 with hundreds of measures, for example. There are many, many situations in orchestral music where having very frequent rehearsal marks makes very little sense and would create more problems than it would solve. The available material for the majority of the frequently-played repertoire is perfectly adequate and no problem whatsoever to read for those who regularly do that kind of playing. It's a different feel and workflow to what you're used to perhaps, but it's really not difficult to get used to it.
- Digidog
- Posts: 483
- Joined: Dec 13, 2018
[quote="LeTromboniste"]Yeah that works for commercial music, but it ain't gonna work for a 55-minute symphony in most cases, or a movement in 3/4 counted in 1 with hundreds of measures, for example. There are many, many situations in orchestral music where having very frequent rehearsal marks makes very little sense and would create more problems than it would solve. The available material for the majority of the frequently-played repertoire is perfectly adequate and no problem whatsoever to read for those who regularly do that kind of playing. It's a different feel and workflow to what you're used to perhaps, but it's really not difficult to get used to it.[/quote]
Sure, but even for symphonic music - or long works in general - there are ways to break down long multimeasure breaks into manageable sections and portions. It's not too often I do engravings for symphony-sized orchestras, but when I do I always look for ways to break long rests into the smallest possible parts, to facilitate keeping track of the counting without making it preoccupying. It's always a balance between fragmentation and overarching coherence, and the lack thereof can be heard, and is often heard.
Though I, myself, am quite used to count and keep track, it's increasingly vexing me to sight read poorly marked up music, with often rudimentary lead lines for queing in either a musical section or my own part. It's more a matter of me being annoyed with energy and focus unnecessarily spent (or misspent) - a phenomenon I hear even with the best professional orchestras - than execution.
My general view of this, is that the quality of format and information in sheet music too often is neglected as a serious and determining factor of the over all execution and apperance of the music itself - in many cases regardless of the level of professionality and experience of the musicians of the ensemble.
[quote="harrisonreed"]The problem is that composer ≠ engraver, right? It means that now, potentially, but it's a separate skill.[/quote]
Yes! Too often yes....
Sure, but even for symphonic music - or long works in general - there are ways to break down long multimeasure breaks into manageable sections and portions. It's not too often I do engravings for symphony-sized orchestras, but when I do I always look for ways to break long rests into the smallest possible parts, to facilitate keeping track of the counting without making it preoccupying. It's always a balance between fragmentation and overarching coherence, and the lack thereof can be heard, and is often heard.
Though I, myself, am quite used to count and keep track, it's increasingly vexing me to sight read poorly marked up music, with often rudimentary lead lines for queing in either a musical section or my own part. It's more a matter of me being annoyed with energy and focus unnecessarily spent (or misspent) - a phenomenon I hear even with the best professional orchestras - than execution.
My general view of this, is that the quality of format and information in sheet music too often is neglected as a serious and determining factor of the over all execution and apperance of the music itself - in many cases regardless of the level of professionality and experience of the musicians of the ensemble.
[quote="harrisonreed"]The problem is that composer ≠ engraver, right? It means that now, potentially, but it's a separate skill.[/quote]
Yes! Too often yes....