RE: [Finale] Dumb question
Sound advice - I've wasted lots of rehearsal time forgetting *that* one! --- On Mon 05/20, Wiz-of-Oz wrote: > When you start numbering from the first full measure > (which seems the most logical, a pickup is just an upbeat to a full > measure after all, isn't it?) > just make double sure that you didn't forget to input apropriate rests in > all silent voices of the pickup, > so that every extracted part would clearly show an upbeat to the first > measure. > You do not really want the Horns to see 11 measure rest at the beggining, > instead of a pickup + 10m rest. > > best regards, > Abel Korzeniowski > > > ___ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Dumb question
When you start numbering from the first full measure (which seems the most logical, a pickup is just an upbeat to a full measure after all, isn't it?) just make double sure that you didn't forget to input apropriate rests in all silent voices of the pickup, so that every extracted part would clearly show an upbeat to the first measure. You do not really want the Horns to see 11 measure rest at the beggining, instead of a pickup + 10m rest. best regards, Abel Korzeniowski ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dumb question
At 6:41 AM -0400 5/20/02, David H. Bailey wrote: > >Here is another corollary to Linda's question: How do you number >1st and 2nd endings? Do you keep the numbers running right through >all the measures of the two endings in a linear fashion, or do you >begin a new region following the 2nd ending, so that the measures of >the two endings are numbered the same? > >I know what I do in such situations: > >1) I begin numbering measures with the first complete measure; >2) I start a new region following a second ending, showing the >proper number if the work were being played straight through without >taking the first ending. > >I have found that it doesn't really matter what the answers to these >questions are as long as they are used consistently from score >through all the parts, so that everybody is showing the same measure >numbers in the same spots in their parts. Your last sentence is absolutely the most important point. The only thing that might screw things up a bit is that in rehearsals when musicians ask questions about measures near the beginning, they ARE generally talking about measures in terms of from the first FULL measure, which everyone seems to agree with. I tend to number 2nd endings consecutively, following the 1st ending, the way Finale defaults to. I did it this way when I copied by hand, too. (I'm sorry I wasn't able to end that last sentence with a preposition as well.) 8-) Christopher ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dumb question
On Mon, 20 May 2002 13:51:19 +0100, you wrote: >Linda Worsley wrote: >>Anyone out there have the gospel according to whomever? Do I need >>to call my pickup measure "measure one"? > > >No, please don't. If you tell an orchestra to make a sforzando at the >beginning of the 2nd measure they will _all_ take that to mean the >2nd full measure. If you need to give the anacrusis a number call it >zero. Yes, I agree, So what's up with Bartok - is it that he was SO particular about timing? (Some say he had "absolute time" the way others have absolute pitch.) Ken ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dumb question
Linda Worsley wrote: >Anyone out there have the gospel according to whomever? Do I need >to call my pickup measure "measure one"? No, please don't. If you tell an orchestra to make a sforzando at the beginning of the 2nd measure they will _all_ take that to mean the 2nd full measure. If you need to give the anacrusis a number call it zero. Regards John ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dumb question
Jón Kristinn Cortez wrote: > On 20.5.2002 03:43, "Linda Worsley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>You'd think after a hundred years of writing music and copying >>manuscripts I'd know this, but when I was asked today, and gave "my" >>answer, it made me think: Is this right??? Help me, o list gurus. >> >>I generally do not call a pickup measure "measure 1" but start the >>numbering at the first full measure. I just went through a bunch of >>scores, but all have rehearsal numbers and no measure numbers, or the >>few that do, by some quirk of fate, all begin on the downbeat with >>full measures. All my orchestration books, band scoring books, >>notation books, etc. have no reference to this. >> >>Anyone out there have the gospel according to whomever? Do I need to >>call my pickup measure "measure one"? [snip] > The measure that is full according to the time-signature is the first > measure. Like you wrote *...start the numbering at the first full measure* > is logical. The pickup measure and the last measure always add up to a full > measure. If you start numbering at the pickup measure what do you do at the > last measure? Pickup measure is a part of a measure (!) > Now I must find my Gardner Read or Ted Ross or Whomever! > There is usually no need to know the number of the final measure beyond being able to count from the last posted number. It is rare (assuming measure 257 is the final measure, complete or not) that people say let's try measure 257 again. Normally they simply say let's try the final measure again, or let's play the final 10 measures, rather than saying Let's start at measure 248 (unless there is a measure number right there.) It is only in the middle of the piece that measure numbers are important. Here is another corollary to Linda's question: How do you number 1st and 2nd endings? Do you keep the numbers running right through all the measures of the two endings in a linear fashion, or do you begin a new region following the 2nd ending, so that the measures of the two endings are numbered the same? I know what I do in such situations: 1) I begin numbering measures with the first complete measure; 2) I start a new region following a second ending, showing the proper number if the work were being played straight through without taking the first ending. I have found that it doesn't really matter what the answers to these questions are as long as they are used consistently from score through all the parts, so that everybody is showing the same measure numbers in the same spots in their parts. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dumb question
On Sun, 19 May 2002 20:43:27 -0700, you wrote: >You'd think after a hundred years of writing music and copying >manuscripts I'd know this, but when I was asked today, and gave "my" >answer, it made me think: Is this right??? Help me, o list gurus. > >I generally do not call a pickup measure "measure 1" but start the >numbering at the first full measure. I just went through a bunch of >scores, but all have rehearsal numbers and no measure numbers, or the >few that do, by some quirk of fate, all begin on the downbeat with >full measures. All my orchestration books, band scoring books, >notation books, etc. have no reference to this. > >Anyone out there have the gospel according to whomever? Do I need to >call my pickup measure "measure one"? > >Thanks, all. > >Linda Worsley > Well, well, interesting question. I would have thought certainly the first full measure counts as No.1. But I just checked about a dozen scores, and they are divided. Most don't count the pick-ups as a measure. Barenrieter and Haydn Mozart Press Haydn, Mozart and Bach scores don't count the pick up. Neither does a Norton Critical score of a Bach Cantata. But all Bartok scores count the pick-up measure, even if it's just an 8th note. Universal Webern score does not count pick-up, even when it's half a measure (Op. 5/II), and Eulenberg Berlioz Nuits d'Ete does not count the anacruses. Nor does the Prelude to Tristan. Thinking the Bartok might be a Boosey thing, I checked Respighi's Rachmaninoff transcriptions, and, well, they all start on the beat.Universal: Berio "Circles" whoops, no bar lines. Ah, here we go, Boosey again Holst's Planets . . . darn, all on the beat again.The rest of my Boosey scores, Britten, Stravinsky, etc are no help. And you're right, the majority use rehearsal numbers/letters. Well, I wasn't much help, but I do think the majority favors NOT counting the anacrusis. But, is counting it a Bartok thing, or a Boosey thing? Now I gotta know! I have about a thousand more scores to go through, but I think thius sample is probably pretty representative, especially considering the ones I didn't mention. Ken ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dumb question
At 4:14 AM + 5/20/02, Jón Kristinn Cortez wrote: >On 20.5.2002 03:43, "Linda Worsley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do I need to > > call my pickup measure "measure one"? > >The measure that is full according to the time-signature is the first >measure. Like you wrote [clip] >Now I must find my Gardner Read or Ted Ross or Whomever! Thanks, Cortez! I tried to find it in my Gardner Read... but no luck. Your logic is what I've always used for numbering, and all great minds etc. etc... right? Linda Hear the music at: http://www.ganymuse.com/ ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Dumb question
On 20.5.2002 03:43, "Linda Worsley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You'd think after a hundred years of writing music and copying > manuscripts I'd know this, but when I was asked today, and gave "my" > answer, it made me think: Is this right??? Help me, o list gurus. > > I generally do not call a pickup measure "measure 1" but start the > numbering at the first full measure. I just went through a bunch of > scores, but all have rehearsal numbers and no measure numbers, or the > few that do, by some quirk of fate, all begin on the downbeat with > full measures. All my orchestration books, band scoring books, > notation books, etc. have no reference to this. > > Anyone out there have the gospel according to whomever? Do I need to > call my pickup measure "measure one"? > > Thanks, all. > > Linda Worsley > > The measure that is full according to the time-signature is the first measure. Like you wrote *...start the numbering at the first full measure* is logical. The pickup measure and the last measure always add up to a full measure. If you start numbering at the pickup measure what do you do at the last measure? Pickup measure is a part of a measure (!) Now I must find my Gardner Read or Ted Ross or Whomever! Cortez ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
