Fwd: Re: Measure numbering: Volta with incomplete alternatives

[Simon Albrecht]

Sorry, forgot to cc to the list…



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:        Re: Measure numbering: Volta with incomplete alternatives
Date:   Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:17:34 +0200
From:   Simon Albrecht <address@hidden>
To:     Sam Bivens <address@hidden>



On 20.06.2018 22:59, Sam Bivens wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm typesetting a Beethoven bagatelle (119/4) where both alternative 
> measures at the end of a volta are incomplete. If you look at the 
> attached PNG, you'll see that the measure immediately following the 
> second alternative is also incomplete (it's the start of the third 
> system). LilyPond gives this half-measure it's own measure number, as 
> shown in my attached MWE. I have two questions:
>
>  1. Are there any sources in the notation literature that give a
>     suggestion on how we should number these measures? Should the
>     half-measure at the start of the third system get its own measure
>     number, or should it be a continuation of the previous measure (in
>     my Lily file, 2b)? My intuition suggests the latter.
Of course the latter. There are two valid, basic ways to handle this:
either number bars so that at the end your bar count is the number of
bars played if all repetitions are skipped, i.e. always the last
\alternative played; or the bar count corresponds to the number of bars
played if all repetitions are observed. The latter has my vote, but it’s
much less common; a prominent example are the chorales in the New Bach
Edition. There are also prominent cases of editors getting it altogether
wrong (the 1950’s critical edition of Dvorak’s 9th symphony, else very
good, counts the alternatives as if they were played consecutively, not
alternatively)…
> 1.
>
>
>  2. Are there cleaner ways of fixing this than my three commented-out
>     lines?
Yes, using \partial mid-piece. See attachment – which unfortunately
exposes a bug in the numbers-with-letters style…
> (And a bonus question if anyone knows: why isn't this bagatelle 
> written starting on beat 1?)
You suggest shifting the bar lines? If yes – very bold idea. There’s a
difference between 1 and 3 in common time; and Beethoven wanted the
phrases to start with a two-beat anacrusis.

I have to add one thing: unless you have very specific (weird) reasons
for reproducing this exact interpreted edition, that is a very bad
source to base you reengraving upon. Definitely go for a scientific
edition; sometimes the one from the 19th century (the complete edition
available on IMSLP) gets it right, most of the time you definitely need
to go with a modern one, especially with Beethoven.

Best, Simon

measure_numbering_mwe_with_partial.ly
Description: Text Data