This is a stupid question but I have to do something for orchestra as librarian and I find myself unsure: when counting measures (in a part where the measure numbers are not listed), does the second ending of a repeat count as NEW measures or the same measure numbers as the first ending?
The important thing is uniformity of measure count in all parts. To gain this the measures should be counted first in the score, which can then be used to verify the count in all the parts.
OK. The conductor has the score and I do not and she asked me to do this. Her score apparently DOES have numbered measures, which the parts do not, but she specifically told ME to do it to save her the time so . . . trying to do it without having to ask her for her score. It doesn't appear to be on IMSLP.
Demand the score - otherwise you can spend days counting and writing measure numbers only to find you disagree. Printed music can have errors too (in measure numbers) - but that will not matter if all parts agree.
Elizabeth you absolutely need the score the conductor is using! They will find it normal that you ask them for it in order to be able to do a proper job.
Yeah, well . . .
Yes, it must agree with the conductor.
Rehearsal marks are a lot less work to set up than measure numbers, and we've already gone over some of the reasons. Just make sure that the marks are in the same place in every part! At a recent rehearsal I was having a lot of trouble coming in at the right time until I discovered that a rehearsal mark in my part was one bar off from everyone else's.
Charlie Gibbs, it is very true that rehearsal marks are easier to set up than measure numbers. But you need the score to do it and the problem seems to be that the score is not forthcoming.