TromboneChat

AtomicClock wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:48 pm *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?

BGuttman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:28 pm 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?

sirisobhakya wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 7:36 am

BGuttman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:28 pm 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.

LeTromboniste wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:33 pm

AtomicClock wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 3:48 pm *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!

Digidog wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 10:46 am 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.

WGWTR180 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 7:22 pm

Digidog wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 10:46 am 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.

AtomicClock wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:48 pm 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.

Digidog wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 2:25 am

WGWTR180 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 7:22 pm

Opposite here.

This you better explain to me.

AtomicClock wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:48 pm 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?

Digidog wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 2:25 am

WGWTR180 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 7:22 pm

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.

LeTromboniste wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 4:19 am 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.

Digidog wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 6:51 am

LeTromboniste wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 4:19 am 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.

Digidog wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 2:25 am 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?

Digidog wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 2:25 am Also: To say "let's start five bars before 'T', as in 'Thatcher'!"

AtomicClock wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 7:47 am

Digidog wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 2:25 am 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 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 8:26 am 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.

BGuttman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 8:26 am If you have a few players who are not native English speakers sometimes the phonetics won't work that way.

BGuttman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 8:26 am 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.

BGuttman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:28 pm 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?

"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).

GabrielRice wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 10:34 am

BGuttman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:28 pm 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.

WGWTR180 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 6:55 am

Digidog wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 6:51 am

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.

Digidog wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 11:37 am

WGWTR180 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 6:55 am

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?

Digidog wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 11:37 am

WGWTR180 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 6:55 am

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?

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 11:18 am Chester is one that has rehearsal numbers that make zero sense.

Digidog wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:06 am

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 11:18 am 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.

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:07 am

Digidog wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:06 am

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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:20 am 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.

BGuttman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:01 am 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.

BGuttman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:01 am 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.

AtomicClock wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:20 am 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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:25 am

AtomicClock wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:20 am 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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:22 pm 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".

AtomicClock wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:28 am So you require the players to hand-number their parts before (which means during) rehearsal? Or only play charts published with numbers?