On Tue 10 Nov 2015 at 13:52:33 (+0000), Graham King wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 21:53 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 09 Nov 2015 at 23:22:14 (+0000), Graham King wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 14:55 -0600, Christopher R. Maden wrote:
> > On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> > > The very first thing they said to me was, “Add measure numbers.”
> > > That’s sufficient reason for me. =)
> > Good answer.
> > In that case, I would pick one part, and force those measure numbers in
> > as numeric rehearsal marks in the other parts.
> > Otherwise, you’d need a translation guide...
> > ~Chris
> > I guess Gould has a point. I've just realised that, under my system as I
> > described it, a part could have the same bar number twice. For example, in the
> > attachment below, T has two bars "9". But apart from an ill-chosen number (in
> > this case), one could regard the "bar numbers" as "numeric rehearsal marks".
> > Different mechanism, different formatting, same result. In practice, for the
> > sort of music I'm dealing with, the polymetric sections tend to be quite short
> > so, for the most part, bar numbers are more helpful than rehearsal marks.
>
> This is avoidable if each new bar is numbered with 1+(number of the
> bar—looking across all the parts—that most recently finished). Not
> something I could automate with my zero knowledge of scheme.
>
> Very logical.
> Advantages:
> +1 Might be amenable to automation.
> +2 Robust with respect to re-formatting.
> +3 Supports any variation of Staff.BarNumber.break-visibility (I think).
>
> Disadvantages:
> -1 On a given line, bar numbers increase in strange and surprising ways,
> giving potential for confusion.
That's unavoidable by any scheme. Where a player has a part that has
many bars in one line (eg a slow-moving bass part where some other
parts have many more notes), the player will see multiple jumps in
their line, each where your "reference part" starts a new line in
its score. These jumps could be forwards or backwards.
I see your point. I'm dealing with a special case however, in which there is just a vocal score (no separate parts). Clearly, your scheme is superior in the general case.
> One cannot just count from the start of the
> line and announce a bar number.
Oh, I don't think you can get away without labelling every bar in
every part. We're just discussing what those labels will say.
> For that reason alone, I'm inclined to favour:
> o Counting the bars of the top visible staff of the system, whilst
> o Allowing discontinuity at the start of each line to accommodate other
> parts that might have more bars in the previous line.
The "start of each line" will be different in each and every score:
the full score, the vocal score, the choral score, and all the parts.
*Their* discontinuities will be all over the place, with jumps
backwards and forwards! Exciting stuff.
So I see further advantages than just those in your list:
+4 Bar numbers monotonically increase throughout every part.
+5 Bar numbers are a defined and intrinsic property of the music,
not an accident of one particular layout. In other words, the
bar number of every bar is known *before* LP tries to calculate
linebreaks and pagebreaks.
> But that's just a personal preference. I wouldn't want to impose it on anyone
> else! (and I'm prepared to accept the need to fiddle with bar numbers manually
> at a late stage in the editing process).
So what you're saying is (correct me if I'm wrong) you typeset the
music *in it's final form*, then sit down with the printout and
annotate the "reference part" bar numbers, then re-edit the source
putting in all the \set Score.currentBarNumber commands for each and
every line of the reference part.
not necessarily every line. Different assumptions about the musical material - see below.