About the use of rehearsal marks

[CPacaud]

Hi! First time posting here.

About rehearsal marks - I've been using them as markers to delineate major sections in my pieces in the past, but I've read up a little bit about the subject and the more I think about it, it starts making more sense to me to really use them to provide useful "start" points in the score, for example just before a particularly difficult section, etc. - and on the flip side, this also means stopping using them at obvious section changes where chances are there's already an existing musical marker (tempo change, mood indication, double barline, key change, etc.). What's the general stance here on the subject? Looking for insight to further my reflections.

And this leads me to another question - rehearsal marks on a solo piece? Yes or no? To me, they make sense as a way to communicate a specific point to another musician in a piece efficiently/quickly - so do you think it's useful to have them in a solo piece?

[John Ruggero]

The older style was to do exactly what you describe: rehearsal letters only at places where a conductor would be likely to restart in rehearsal that are not already marked by a repeat mark, double bar, change of tempo or key, repeat ending etc. This limited the number of rehearsal letters at a time when parts were hand copied and adding them was laborious. See the following for an example:

https://s9.imslp.org/files/imglnks/usim ... S._292.pdf

With computer engraving, many consider the use of measure numbers as the most practical way to accomplish this.

I don't recall seeing rehearsal letters in a solo piano piece by well-known publisher, but perhaps there are instances. Again, measure numbers at the beginning of each system are now used, because it is precise and doesn't interrupt and clutter the text.

[OCTO]

My advice is to use measure numbers as rehearsal marks. They are effective, clear, fast, and without confusion (as the pronunciation of letters varies between languages.)