Rehearsal Letters

[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?

[tbdana]

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?"

[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?

[LeTromboniste]

*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?

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]

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?

I HATE sheet musics that use this system.

For letters, I now use NATO phonetic alphabet. Alpha-Bravo-Charlie-Delta, something like that.

[officermayo]

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

[vetsurginc]

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?

I HATE sheet musics that use this system.

For letters, I now use NATO phonetic alphabet. Alpha-Bravo-Charlie-Delta, something like that.

[SwissTbone]

*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?

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!

Oooh boy! That's a big one here in our bilingual region. Makes rehearsing sometimes so much more difficult!

[BGuttman]

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).

[Kbiggs]

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.

[BGuttman]

So mC means "more cowbell"?

[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.

[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.

[WGWTR180]

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.

Opposite here.

[brassmedic]

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]

G as in doG
M as in Mancy

Just hours of fun!

[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.

Opposite here.

This you better explain to me.

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.

"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]

Opposite here.

This you better explain to me.

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.

"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?

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]

Opposite here.

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.

[Digidog]

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.

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]

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.

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.

This post didn't start out as a "what would you do" post. It was asking a different question.

[AtomicClock]

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?

I don't count to 16 starting with 12. I just count to 5.

[AtomicClock]

Also: To say "let's start five bars before 'T', as in 'Thatcher'!"

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]

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.

[WGWTR180]

Also: To say "let's start five bars before 'T', as in 'Thatcher'!"

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.

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]

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.

Hence, my question about service bands.

If you have a few players who are not native English speakers sometimes the phonetics won't work that way.

The NATO alphabet was designed to be understandable to speakers of multiple (mostly western european) languages.

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.

Bolero does this.

[GabrielRice]

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?

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]

LeTromboniste » Wed Mar 20, 2024 3:19 am

"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]

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?

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.

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. ) 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]

Chester is one that has rehearsal numbers that make zero sense.

[Digidog]

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.

This post didn't start out as a "what would you do" post. It was asking a different question.

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]

This post didn't start out as a "what would you do" post. It was asking a different question.

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?

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]

This post didn't start out as a "what would you do" post. It was asking a different question.

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?

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]

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.

[Digidog]

Chester is one that has rehearsal numbers that make zero sense.

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]

Chester is one that has rehearsal numbers that make zero sense.

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.

Chester has a rehearsal measure marked every 5 bars. Nothing to do with the phrases. It's pretty bad.

[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.

[Digidog]

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.

Chester has a rehearsal measure marked every 5 bars. Nothing to do with the phrases. It's pretty bad.

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]

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.

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]

So you require the players to hand-number their parts before (which means during) rehearsal? Or only play charts published with numbers?

[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.

[harrisonreed]

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.

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]

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.

In a stack of photocopied band parts I may or may not have on my shelf ( ):

Description	Count
No rehearsal points, no measure numbers	11
No rehearsal points, every measure numbered	1
Rehearsal letters	20
Sequential rehearsal numbers (1,2,3,...)	5
Big measure numbers used as rehearsal points, on sensible phrases	27
Big measure numbers used as rehearsal points, every 5th measure	1

No measure numbers unless mentioned. This is summer-concert-in-the-park fare. Big band or orchestral rep are probably different.

[brassmedic]

If you really want to throw everyone off, tell them to start at letter "I".

[brassmedic]

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.

The smart way to do it is to say, "Start in the third bar of 65". No ambiguity.

[LeTromboniste]

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.

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.

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]

Rehearsal markers should be engraved as dingbats, obviously.

“Take it from the heavy open center cross…”

[JohnL]

In a stack of photocopied band parts I may or may not have on my shelf ( ):

No rehearsal points, no measure numbers

11

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]

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]

So you require the players to hand-number their parts before (which means during) rehearsal? Or only play charts published with numbers?

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.