At 10:23 AM 06/10/03, David W. Fenton wrote: > [...] Also, the idea of specifying beats as numbers really does not >make sense to me. Beat 1 is 0 to me, not 1.0. And figuring out where >you want it to be requires calculating decimal fractions. This is not >musically friendly.
I agree about numbering the beats. It always feels bizarre to me to think that 1.5 is at the end of one 8th notes rather than three. (And 0.5 means nothing at all....) I've been using it for years, but it still feels wrong to me. I wish they'd give us a program option where we could set the downbeat of a measure to start counting at zero. I've experimented with counting in EDUs rather than beats. An EDU is the length of a note with 10 flags on it. Thus a quarter note is 1024 EDUs, a sixteenth is 256 EDUs, etc. With EDUs, at least the downbeat starts at zero, but if you don't like calculating decimal fractions, you probably won't like calculating powers of two any better. I don't mind so much for the first beat or so, but if I'm looking for the fifth 8th note in 6/8 my brain starts to fry. Too bad you can't enter them in hexadecimal. That would make it remarkably easy. >Well, the system that is ready to accept this kind of thing is not >the beat chart, but the system used with measure expressions. That was what I thought was being suggested. I think that the basic structure of the measure expressions are fine, it's just the UI that's clunky. mdl _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
