Modern convention for numbering 1st time bars?

[David Ward]

What is the preferred modern convention for numbering first time bars?

Older scores don't number them, but I seem to have noticed that nowadays they are usually included in the regular numbering (which I like, as I have found it usually makes bar counting quicker and easier).

[Magnus Johansson]

Hey, David! Do you mean for a situation like this?:

Screenshot_20260613_132433.png (6.59 KiB) Viewed 1489 times

[David Ward]

Hey, David! Do you mean for a situation like this?:

Screenshot_20260613_132433.png

Yes, like that. In older scores the two bars under the first time bracket would not have been added to the general bar count, but I think it's now fairly common to include them. I quite like that.

EDIT: After further thought, for the current instance, which is a solo violin piece, I think I'll keep to the traditional practice of not numbering such bars. In other words, if bar 47 is the last one before two first time bars, 48 becomes the first second time bar. Thus, the two first time bars become ‘orphaned’ from the numbering.

[frames]

The current convention is to number every bar sequentially as they appear on the page (so in Magnus’s example it would be 1-2-3-4-5-6). Other methods of numbering, like giving the first ending and the corresponding second ending bars the same bar number (1-2-3-4-3-4) or renumbering each pass through the repeat (1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8) might be more accurate to the phrasing or musical structure, but numbering every bar in order and ignoring repeat signs is the easiest to deal with when in rehearsal situations IMO

[Magnus Johansson]

The current convention is to number every bar sequentially as they appear on the page (so in Magnus’s example it would be 1-2-3-4-5-6).

Yes, I would use that convention. Igor Engraver and MuseScore Studio use it per default too. What about Dorico and Lilypond?

[frames]

The current convention is to number every bar sequentially as they appear on the page (so in Magnus’s example it would be 1-2-3-4-5-6).

Yes, I would use that convention. Igor Engraver and MuseScore Studio use it per default too. What about Dorico and Lilypond?

Can't comment on Lilypond, but Dorico and Sibelius do (and I assume Finale did) it by default

[David Ward]

Thank you both. It seems that I should follow my first approach and have the bar numbering continuous, irrespective of first time bars &c.

I nearly always write out repeats and vary them in the process, but the thirty four year old piece in question is an exception (and even includes a D.S. al Coda).

[John Ruggero]

This topic was discussed more extensively at:

viewtopic.php?t=1138

There are several accepted conventions, each with advantages and disadvantages depending on the genre.

[LSL2026]

Can't comment on Lilypond, but Dorico and Sibelius do (and I assume Finale did) it by default

Finale did!

[David Ward]

This topic was discussed more extensively at:

viewtopic.php?t=1138

There are several accepted conventions, each with advantages and disadvantages depending on the genre.

A useful discussion: thank you for reminding me of it.