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.)

[amosfuegel]

You are thinking very logically about using rehearsal marks in music, especially when they can help with practice and rehearsal

Some situations can be useful: If the solo piece is complex, long, or has many different sections, rehearsal marks can help the player easily identify starting points for practice or communication with the teacher.

[John Ruggero]

Thanks for resurrecting this thread, amosfuegal, because it jogged my memory about some things that might be of interest, at least historically.

In my hand copying days, measure numbers were a special fee specified, like all the rates, by the musicians union, because they were laborious and there was greater danger of errors. The worst thing that can happen in an ensemble rehearsal is for a measure to be omitted in a part(s). The second worst is for a measure number or rehearsal letter to be misplaced.

For this reason we always checked the parts against a "bar count", a dummy empty part that contained only the measures (indicated by multi-measure rests), the tempo indications, and the rehearsal letters and/or numbers to make sure that all the parts matched.

Because of the great cost and effort involved, measure numbers were mostly used in commercial work, like short jingles. (Or boxed measure numbers in a regular spacing like every tenth measure were used in concert music.) Now things are completely reversed. Measure numbers are preferred to rehearsal letters in all genres. Often they appear only at the beginning of each staff, which is what you will see in current editions of solo piano music for example.

[hautbois baryton]

I prefer to use measure numbers, and I use boxed rehearsal marks (which are also measure numbers) at obvious phrases in the music so that musicians don't get lost.

[David Ward]

In a large multi-movement, or even more a multi-scene and multi-act piece, numbered rehearsal marks that continue their sequence for the entire piece are a quick way to a given place when a question is asked if there are numerous bar number regions (and thus many bars 107 [eg]).

1st bassoon to DW at end of rehearsal break: “At rehearsal number 257, bar 107 is the exaggerated way I have been interpreting the dynamics OK?”

[OCTO]

In a large multi-movement, or even more a multi-scene and multi-act piece, numbered rehearsal marks that continue their sequence for the entire piece are a quick way to a given place when a question is asked if there are numerous bar number regions (and thus many bars 107 [eg]).

1st bassoon to DW at end of rehearsal break: “At rehearsal number 257, bar 107 is the exaggerated way I have been interpreting the dynamics OK?”

I have had these issues and resolved them in this way:

1. As a rule, and what I teach, the rehearsal marks are the measure numbers. This avoids confusion—‘155’ clearly means the exact measure number or two measures after rehearsal mark ‘153.’ Another source of confusion is avoided when, for example, a Spanish conductor collaborates with an American soloist with a German orchestra. There’s often ambiguity: does ‘e’ mean Edvard, or is it ‘i,’ or even ‘I’?

2. If the piece has many movements, parts, or sections (such as a large operatic work), I assign each part an alphabetic symbol and then use the measure numbers. For instance, A162, F82, and L283 all precisely point exact measures within the entire piece.

Since then, I have zero issues, it is quick and effective.