NOTATIO

Thanks John for your comment! I too couldn't find moving barlines to be the thing to do in this case. I'm glad you agree that numbering repeated measures is a good idea. I've used it myself in obvious situations like app. 8 or more measures with identical contents.

Anders Hedelin wrote: ↑03 Jul 2024, 06:45 I'm not sure that moving the barlines a little would be of much help here - or would it? Perhaps numbers below the measures? (I think I would have done something like putting measure numbers to the left above the staff system, and numbers counting the measures of this section below.) Any ideas?

One thing that would help is fewer staves on the page. That page has 15 staves! If it’s possible to spread the staves, and still have page turns, that lessens the effect of the vertical bar lines. The added space makes it possible to have a sense of vertical location in relation to the overall page.

It’s not always possible, especially with divided string parts. Those are the compromises we often face!

Deleted

I've been looking over orchestral parts by Sibelius and Bruckner, some of which are hand copied and some engraved. Some of the engravers and copyists seem to be consciously pre- aligning the bar lines as a convenience before filling them in, even if there are variations in accidentals that should have put them out of alignment. This seems particularly common for the engravers. Other hand copyists seem to be copying measure by measure and thus not aligning the bar lines even where a computer would align them. Based on this small amount of data, I am seeing no conscious attempt to follow A. A's rule. However, I think that the rule is a good one for many situations and worthy of consideration, and so I myself will continue to follow it.

Thank you all for your comments and contributions.

Anders, in most of the cases the repeated measures are numbered in the parts I just reviewed. I believe that this is standard or at least should be.

Shinohara Hoshi, you are very welcome and thank you for contributing your insightful comments.

JJP, so true. There are other factors that can minimize or maximize the column effect.

John Ruggero wrote: ↑03 Jul 2024, 15:13 I've been looking over orchestral parts by Sibelius and Bruckner, some of which are hand copied and some engraved. Some of the engravers and copyists seem to be consciously pre- aligning the bar lines as a convenience before filling them in, even if there are variations in accidentals that should have put them out of alignment. This seems particularly common for the engravers. Other hand copyists seem to be copying measure by measure and thus not aligning the bar lines even where a computer would align them. Based on this small amount of data, I am seeing no conscious attempt to follow A. A's rule. However, I think that the rule is a good one for many situations and worthy of consideration, and so I myself will continue to follow it.

I think this may be a result of the copying approach. I know some pen hand copyists pre-draw barlines or use paper with pre-drawn barlines. Others lay them out per stave depending on the music. The latter would sometimes lead to amusing spacing from a miscalculation when there was no time for correcting or redoing the page. Casting off is indeed an art… an art that is in decline!