Bar numbering for repeats discussion

[NeeraWM]

It seems that there are several standards for repeats bar numbering.
For the sake of this discussion, I will use a very simple example: a piece whose first 8 bars are repeated, with a finale primo and finale secondo.
Options I know appear to be:

• nothing: just write 8 and 8

• slightly distinguish: write 8a and 8b or other options

• simplify the previous example: write 8 and 8-bis (or 8a)

• ignore the fact that the bar is a repeat ending: write 8 and 9

Please add any other alternative I may have missed.

This assumes that the first 7 bars are not counted again. If that is so, the last example, which is the default in most programs, doesn't make any sense to me. First of all, the second ending is not the 9th bar of the piece, in any case I can think of. If you don't play the repeat, it is the 8th, if you play it, it is either an alternative of the 8th or the 16th.
Why is this even an option?
What is your chosen notation and why?

[hautbois baryton]

The second ending may not be the 9th bar of the piece, but it would be the 9th bar of music.

[John Ruggero]

This is a quandary, isn't it?

Arnstein used straight-through numbering for repeat endings 8, 9, 10, etc. because of the simplicity for rehearsal purposes. No way for the orchestra to be confused. So that is one function of measure numbering and a reasonable approach.

However, measure numbers are also used for analytical and musicological reasons. So in a strict theme and variations, for example, it is nice if the measure numbers match in each variation in corresponding places. Therefore, the 9a and 9b style.

I use your first approach: nothing, since I only number at the beginning of each system. But then one has to say: "third measure of the first ending".

[JJP]

Arnstein used straight-through numbering for repeat endings 8, 9, 10, etc. because of the simplicity for rehearsal purposes. No way for the orchestra to be confused. So that is one function of measure numbering and a reasonable approach.

Musicological uses excepted, I prefer this system for practicality. That’s because the bar numbers are merely a way to reference a location. It’s a name for that bar that doesn’t carry significant musical meaning.

It’s a simple reference to say, “Bar 44, second time.”

[NeeraWM]

Very interesting!
I have always given musical meaning to bar numbers, instead.

[John Ruggero]

It’s a simple reference to say, “Bar 44, second time.”

Just to clarify. Using the "straight-through system" I was describing, one wouldn't have to say "Bar 44, second time", since every bar has it's own simple measure number 44, 45, 46, etc. One doesn't have to ever mention a first or second ending.

However in the "none" system I use, one would have to say "Bar 44, second time". And if the first and second endings don't have the same number of measures, one must say "third measure of the second ending" etc. if there are only two measures in the first ending. This is more complicated and I would say best for solo keyboard music. In ensemble music, the straight-through system is probably the most practical.