Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
Barbara Touburg answered: Hear, hear! I've sung in a specialized Renaissance choir for several years and I can testify that *not* reducing note values makes all of the difference! We need to see the original notation. David W. Fenton wrote: So, this all depends on your repertory and the audience for your edition. I would say that performers are better served by learning to cope than they are by having their modern expectations accomodated in older music. The difference in notation is a constant reminder that they aren't playing Brahms, and I think that's a good thing. I comment: There are two different audiences involved here, which both Barbara and David certainly recognize. One is early music specialists, for whom original notation carries information that is obscured in even the best modern editions. For these specialists, a facsimile may be better than a semi-modern edition, a suggestion that regularly turns up on the HarpsichordList. The other audience is singers, players, and conductors who are NOT early music specialists, who do NOT read movable clefs, and who would panic at seeing individual vocal parts, especially without barlines. It is for them that modern editions, embodying all the knowledge the editor has but presenting it in a familiar form, are needed. I have found that the most destructive change in modern editions is not the note values, but the imposition of barlines on music that was never meant to have them. In my practical editions for my college group, who are NOT early music specialists, I often take a compromise path. I lay out the individual parts in score, as they are used to seeing it, and I may or may not reduce the note values to help them. However, I delete the bar lines except for places that are logical starting places in rehearsal, leaving the bar numbering in place for ease of rehearsal. All notes that would be tied over barlines in a modern edition are shown at their true value, so as my singers get more experience they can start thinking horizontally instead of vertically. And of course I use modern clefs. It works, and I do think that it gives a better picture of what the music is supposed to do and a better performance. John -- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
On 5 Jan 2004 at 13:52, Phil Daley wrote: > At 1/5/2004 01:29 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > >When I lived in Cleveland, I had the good fortune to be involved in > a >choir that sang Latin mass every Sunday, with a full polyphonic > >ordinary (drawn from both the great Renaissance repertory and from > >modern composers) and plus 1 to 3 polyphonic motets, with the rest > of >the proper sung in Gregorian chant for direct from the Liber > Usualis. >The group rehearsed for 3 hours on Sunday night and > performed the >service at noon on Sunday. > > 3 hour rehearsal? Volunteer? That's not going to happen in small > communities. You don't need a 3-hour rehearsal to perform one piece in white notes. You *do* need it if you're preparing 45-60 minutes of music. > >My experience with teaching, especially in volunteer circumstances, > is >that people rise to your expectations -- expect little and you > get >exactly what you expect. Treat them as though you expect > professional >levels of accomplishment and you would be surprised > what they >accomplish. > > Of course, but you are not going to get 3 hour rehearsals, in my > experience. To prepare one piece in unfamiliar notation, you'll need more time than you would for a piece in familiar notation. You won't need 3 hours, because if it takes 3 hours to learn a piece in white notes, it would take 2 hours to learn it in 4/4. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
On 5 Jan 2004 at 9:53, Harold Owen wrote: > At 3:39 PM +0100 1/5/04, Barbara Touburg wrote: > >Hear, hear! I've sung in a specialized Renaissance choir for > >several years and I can testify that *not* reducing note values > >makes all of the difference! We need to see the original notation. > > Note the words "specialized Renaissance choir." As a member of an > early music consort for many years and director of a Collegium > Musicum, I always insisted on performing from scores that were > closest to the original notation - and even performed from > facsimiles when I could get them. However, there are many more > school and church choirs out there who find the earlier notation > daunting. If there were time for them to get used to it, I would > give them the music with all those white notes, but there isn't. > With my own church choir, I was happy to use modern performance > transcriptions to save time and frustration. I have had published a > number of transcriptions intended for such groups. My publisher did > not want to take the chance of losing sales by my insisting on > original meters and clefs. Er, who said anything about original meters and original clefs? I said that certain rhythmic reductions (4/1 or 4/2 -> 4/4, for instance) will cause more problems than they solve for experienced musicians. I do believe that 4/1 is better for modern musicians transcribed to 4/2, but that 4/2 should be left alone, and that neither should be further reduced to 4/4, precisely because of all the 16th-notes (and even 32nd notes) that result. I think it would be worthwhile for a choir to learn to be able to read 4/2 and 3/2 transcriptions. If they developed the ability to cope with such rhythmic values in that Renaissance repertory, they would also gain skills that might be of value in other repertories as well. They'd certainly be better musicians for the experience. And it can be done with amateurs. When I lived in Cleveland, I had the good fortune to be involved in a choir that sang Latin mass every Sunday, with a full polyphonic ordinary (drawn from both the great Renaissance repertory and from modern composers) and plus 1 to 3 polyphonic motets, with the rest of the proper sung in Gregorian chant for direct from the Liber Usualis. The group rehearsed for 3 hours on Sunday night and performed the service at noon on Sunday. The group consisted of a number of professional and professionally- trained musicians, but also had a core of church members who had started out in 1974 with no experience of such repertory (and some did not even read music at that time). The choir director trained his choir over the course of the years so that 10 years later, when I joined, they were doing simply amazing things, and had a huge repertory of works that they had sung many times. I'm not suggesting that every situation requires such an approach, but that by coddling your singers, you're taking away an opportunity to learn something new, to expand their musical abilities and musical horizons. You're also restricting yourself to editions that make the reductions, or forcing yourself to do the work of making them. While that's not all that difficult with Finale, it's still work that you wouldn't have to do if the musicians learned the skills, instead. My experience with teaching, especially in volunteer circumstances, is that people rise to your expectations -- expect little and you get exactly what you expect. Treat them as though you expect professional levels of accomplishment and you would be surprised what they accomplish. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
At 3:39 PM +0100 1/5/04, Barbara Touburg wrote: Hear, hear! I've sung in a specialized Renaissance choir for several years and I can testify that *not* reducing note values makes all of the difference! We need to see the original notation. Dear folks, Note the words "specialized Renaissance choir." As a member of an early music consort for many years and director of a Collegium Musicum, I always insisted on performing from scores that were closest to the original notation - and even performed from facsimiles when I could get them. However, there are many more school and church choirs out there who find the earlier notation daunting. If there were time for them to get used to it, I would give them the music with all those white notes, but there isn't. With my own church choir, I was happy to use modern performance transcriptions to save time and frustration. I have had published a number of transcriptions intended for such groups. My publisher did not want to take the chance of losing sales by my insisting on original meters and clefs. Hal -- Harold Owen 2830 Emerald St., Eugene, OR 97403 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit my web site at: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~hjowen FAX: (509) 461-3608 ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
Hear, hear! I've sung in a specialized Renaissance choir for several years and I can testify that *not* reducing note values makes all of the difference! We need to see the original notation. David W. Fenton wrote: ... So, this all depends on your repertory and the audience for your edition. I would say that performers are better served by learning to cope than they are by having their modern expectations accomodated in older music. The difference in notation is a constant reminder that they aren't playing Brahms, and I think that's a good thing. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
I agree that the multimeasure rests should make sense with the phrasing of the surrounding music, not some arbitrary grouping of 5 or 10 measures per rest. When I run into long groups of such I pencil in the groupings of the rests that make the most sense musically. John.Howell wrote: At how many measures should one start to convert to multimeasure rests with numbers? I think Finale's default is 10. That sounds like a lot. The Essential Dictionary of Music Notation says anything over 1 measure. Ted Ross gives a system with symbols for 2 to 8, and uses numbers starting at 9. I find it much easier to read a "7" than add up the value of three different types of rests. What do instrumentalists generally prefer? Dennis This instrumentalist wants something absolutely clear and unambiguous. I use multimeasure rests from 2 measures on up. I assume that the "symbols" are the stacks of rests that go 'way back to the 13th century Franconian rest symbols. Out of date and dreadfully confusing to a modern player. One very bad publishing idea that was popular in about the mid-20th century was to break multimeasure rests every 5 or 10 bars, totally ignoring the phrasing of the music. You find this in some Copland and Persichetti--that generation. Those things drive me nuts when I'm confronted with them. John -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
Ultimately, your own opinion, your eye, and your experience is what matters most. You should do as you feel works best. I was just citing authorities to defend my statement that you said was wrong. It really makes no matter to me -- when I see an empty measure with a whole rest in it, regardless of the meter, I know what it means. Johannes Gebauer wrote: That's all very well, but if you look at modern (European) editions of Early music using such long measures you will find that the more authorative ones all use double whole rests in longer measures than 2/2. As I said, I am not entirely sure about 3/2, perhaps a single whole rest is correct here (I couldn't find an example quickly). To pick just one random example take Bärenreiter's edition of Bach's B minor Mass, eg Kyrie II or Dona nobis. Gardner Read is simply making this up in my opinion. I have not seen a single authorative edition where a 4/2 measure has a single whole rest. To add my own opinion, a single whole rest in a 4/2 measure simply looks wrong. Johannes On 04.01.2004 23:14 Uhr, David H. Bailey wrote Gardner Read, in Music Notation -- A Manual of Modern Practice, at the bottom of p. 97, continuing on the top of p. 98: "Although the whole rest literally signifies only the value of a whole note (or of two half-notes combines), it now commonly serves as the symbol for any completely silent measure, regardless of the meter or time signature (see chapter 10). Formerly, it served for all measure values except 4/2, this rest being indicated by a sign borrowed from the breve symbol of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century music (see page 15). But today the whole rest stands for any empty measure -- for all meters from a theoretical 8/2 to a 3/16. For a 2/16 (1/8) or smaller silent bar, an actual 8th (or smaller) rest would be used." Ted Ross says basically the same thing, bottom of page 173, although he still holds with what Garner Read refers to as "formerly" so that Ross says a 4/2 measure would use the breve rest. Kurt Stone says basically the same thing on pages 135-136 of Music Notation in the Twentieth Century. So depending on the authority you cite, we're both right -- Read says the whole rest can be used for any meter, both Ross and Stone say measures of 4/2 would use the breve rest, but none of them say that 3/2 measures would use the breve rest. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
On 4 Jan 2004 at 8:51, Harold Owen wrote: > I have to agree with Johannes. The normal "whole rest" can be very > deceiving in 4/2, 3/1, and other signatures larger than 2/2 when used > to indicate a measure rest because it must be available to indicate > exactly 2 half notes' duration in a measure that contains notes as > well. I remember reading from an edition that used the ordinary whole > rest in empty measures that were followed by measures beginning with a > "whole rest' followed by two half notes. That was very confusing. The > larger signatures are much more common to early music where the > original manuscripts used stacked up rests to show a voice part that > did not begin until after a long wait. Most of us do not use meters > larger than 3/2 nowadays (and I think that some contemporary scores > I've seen that use 4/2 would be much easier to read in 4/4). IMHO, > transcribers of early music intended for performance (especially by > amateur choirs) are well advised to reduce the original meters. A good > performance, after all, is a more important goal than what the score > looks like. Study scores are a different matter. I strenuosly disagree with the advice to diminish 4/2 to 4/4 or (ever more so) 3/2 to 3/4. Those who practice early music on a regular basis are quite accustomed to the longer note values and halving them (in some cases, you're actually halving them a *second* time, in comparison to the original notation) makes it harder to read. It all depends on the expected audience for your edition. If you're doing an edition of Palestrina for performance by high school musicians, perhaps 4/4 or 2/2 is appropriate. Perhaps. In the long run, I don't think you're doing anyone a favor by not asking them to work in notation as close as possible to the original. Say you have a group of musicians that you accommodate by halving the note values, the end result is that they never become accustomed to the older convention and then have a great deal of trouble with editions that use the conventions closer to the original notation (of which there are many, indeed, probably the majority). And it makes a difference in how the music comes out, in my opinion. Give the same music to players accustomed to reading both, and the musical results will likely be better for the longer note values. I can tell you this: if you're writing for viols, you'll get worse results with halved note values. At the point that viol players start seeing 16th notes (for what would have been 8ths in direct value transcription), you starting getting problems. And there are often 16th notes in music in a meter of 4/2 or 3/2. In diminution, you'd end up with 32nd notes, which are guaranteed to be a problem. So, this all depends on your repertory and the audience for your edition. I would say that performers are better served by learning to cope than they are by having their modern expectations accomodated in older music. The difference in notation is a constant reminder that they aren't playing Brahms, and I think that's a good thing. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
On 04.01.2004 13:11 Uhr, d. collins wrote Thanks, Johannes. This is indeed what I was wondering about (and, as I said in another message, I made the mistake of quoting Ross from memory and forgetting that he doesn't actually recommend the method he describes). But I'm not sure the solution you give works with "early" music (17th century) if you want to keep the original time signatures and if you have different time signatures in a piece (C and 3/1, as happens quite often) for which you can't really use the same default whole measure rest. (I use the double whole note rest for a whole measure in 3/1). Yes, that's a problem, and I don't know any automatic way how to do this. Effectively the multimeasure rest symbols would have to be translated for twice as many measures of rests. Johannes This actually comes down to a question of whether you want to keep as much of the original notation as possible, in which case a facsimile of the original is the best idea, or want to make an edition that is clear to a modern musician at sight. 3/1 time is NOT common today, although it was common enough in the 17th century. Normally when one makes a modern edition the note values for this kind of music are halved or quartered. (The Wili Apel generation loved 8th and 16th notes, no doubt a result of growing up with too much Beethoven!) John -- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
In a message dated 04/01/2004 23:08:38 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One very bad publishing idea that was popular in about the mid-20th century was to break multimeasure rests every 5 or 10 bars, totally ignoring the phrasing of the music Yes! - it's appalling and offers no help to the musician at all - please don't do it. The only music I've ever seen that uses rest symbols and not numbers at all has been photocopies (or originals) of 18th century manuscripts. One group with which I play often uses fascimiles - we can do it, but it takes a little more thought than reading modern parts. I see no reason for using this method in modern editions. The aim should always be to make the job as easy as possible for the musician who already has enough on his plate. All the best, Lawrence "þaes ofereode - þisses swa maeg" http://lawrenceyates.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
At how many measures should one start to convert to multimeasure rests with numbers? I think Finale's default is 10. That sounds like a lot. The Essential Dictionary of Music Notation says anything over 1 measure. Ted Ross gives a system with symbols for 2 to 8, and uses numbers starting at 9. I find it much easier to read a "7" than add up the value of three different types of rests. What do instrumentalists generally prefer? Dennis This instrumentalist wants something absolutely clear and unambiguous. I use multimeasure rests from 2 measures on up. I assume that the "symbols" are the stacks of rests that go 'way back to the 13th century Franconian rest symbols. Out of date and dreadfully confusing to a modern player. One very bad publishing idea that was popular in about the mid-20th century was to break multimeasure rests every 5 or 10 bars, totally ignoring the phrasing of the music. You find this in some Copland and Persichetti--that generation. Those things drive me nuts when I'm confronted with them. John -- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
That's all very well, but if you look at modern (European) editions of Early music using such long measures you will find that the more authorative ones all use double whole rests in longer measures than 2/2. As I said, I am not entirely sure about 3/2, perhaps a single whole rest is correct here (I couldn't find an example quickly). To pick just one random example take Bärenreiter's edition of Bach's B minor Mass, eg Kyrie II or Dona nobis. Gardner Read is simply making this up in my opinion. I have not seen a single authorative edition where a 4/2 measure has a single whole rest. To add my own opinion, a single whole rest in a 4/2 measure simply looks wrong. Johannes On 04.01.2004 23:14 Uhr, David H. Bailey wrote > Gardner Read, in Music Notation -- A Manual of Modern Practice, at the > bottom of p. 97, continuing on the top of p. 98: > > "Although the whole rest literally signifies only the value of a whole > note (or of two half-notes combines), it now commonly serves as the > symbol for any completely silent measure, regardless of the meter or > time signature (see chapter 10). Formerly, it served for all measure > values except 4/2, this rest being indicated by a sign borrowed from the > breve symbol of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century music (see page 15). > But today the whole rest stands for any empty measure -- for all > meters from a theoretical 8/2 to a 3/16. For a 2/16 (1/8) or smaller > silent bar, an actual 8th (or smaller) rest would be used." > > Ted Ross says basically the same thing, bottom of page 173, although he > still holds with what Garner Read refers to as "formerly" so that Ross > says a 4/2 measure would use the breve rest. > > Kurt Stone says basically the same thing on pages 135-136 of Music > Notation in the Twentieth Century. > > So depending on the authority you cite, we're both right -- Read says > the whole rest can be used for any meter, both Ross and Stone say > measures of 4/2 would use the breve rest, but none of them say that 3/2 > measures would use the breve rest. -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
Gardner Read, in Music Notation -- A Manual of Modern Practice, at the bottom of p. 97, continuing on the top of p. 98: "Although the whole rest literally signifies only the value of a whole note (or of two half-notes combines), it now commonly serves as the symbol for any completely silent measure, regardless of the meter or time signature (see chapter 10). Formerly, it served for all measure values except 4/2, this rest being indicated by a sign borrowed from the breve symbol of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century music (see page 15). But today the whole rest stands for any empty measure -- for all meters from a theoretical 8/2 to a 3/16. For a 2/16 (1/8) or smaller silent bar, an actual 8th (or smaller) rest would be used." Ted Ross says basically the same thing, bottom of page 173, although he still holds with what Garner Read refers to as "formerly" so that Ross says a 4/2 measure would use the breve rest. Kurt Stone says basically the same thing on pages 135-136 of Music Notation in the Twentieth Century. So depending on the authority you cite, we're both right -- Read says the whole rest can be used for any meter, both Ross and Stone say measures of 4/2 would use the breve rest, but none of them say that 3/2 measures would use the breve rest. Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 04.01.2004 13:40 Uhr, David H. Bailey wrote Actually, you CAN use the default whole rest, since its meaning is two-fold: equal in length to a whole note, or, when the only thing in the measure it represents a whole measure of rest. When it is the only thing present in the measure, its meaning is clear to me. That is not correct. If your measures are 4/2 long you should use the double whole measure rest for one measure. The whole rest only applies to measures up to 2/2, as far as I remember even a 3/2 measure should have a double whole rest. Johannes -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
From Johannes Gebauer: On 04.01.2004 13:40 Uhr, David H. Bailey wrote Actually, you CAN use the default whole rest, since its meaning is two-fold: equal in length to a whole note, or, when the only thing in the measure it represents a whole measure of rest. When it is the only thing present in the measure, its meaning is clear to me. That is not correct. If your measures are 4/2 long you should use the double whole measure rest for one measure. The whole rest only applies to measures up to 2/2, as far as I remember even a 3/2 measure should have a double whole rest. Johannes Folks, I have to agree with Johannes. The normal "whole rest" can be very deceiving in 4/2, 3/1, and other signatures larger than 2/2 when used to indicate a measure rest because it must be available to indicate exactly 2 half notes' duration in a measure that contains notes as well. I remember reading from an edition that used the ordinary whole rest in empty measures that were followed by measures beginning with a "whole rest' followed by two half notes. That was very confusing. The larger signatures are much more common to early music where the original manuscripts used stacked up rests to show a voice part that did not begin until after a long wait. Most of us do not use meters larger than 3/2 nowadays (and I think that some contemporary scores I've seen that use 4/2 would be much easier to read in 4/4). IMHO, transcribers of early music intended for performance (especially by amateur choirs) are well advised to reduce the original meters. A good performance, after all, is a more important goal than what the score looks like. Study scores are a different matter. -- Harold Owen 2830 Emerald St., Eugene, OR 97403 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit my web site at: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~hjowen FAX: (509) 461-3608 ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
On 04.01.2004 13:40 Uhr, David H. Bailey wrote > Actually, you CAN use the default whole rest, since its meaning is > two-fold: equal in length to a whole note, or, when the only thing in > the measure it represents a whole measure of rest. When it is the only > thing present in the measure, its meaning is clear to me. That is not correct. If your measures are 4/2 long you should use the double whole measure rest for one measure. The whole rest only applies to measures up to 2/2, as far as I remember even a 3/2 measure should have a double whole rest. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
On 04.01.2004 13:11 Uhr, d. collins wrote > Thanks, Johannes. This is indeed what I was wondering about (and, as I said > in another message, I made the mistake of quoting Ross from memory and > forgetting that he doesn't actually recommend the method he describes). But > I'm not sure the solution you give works with "early" music (17th century) > if you want to keep the original time signatures and if you have different > time signatures in a piece (C and 3/1, as happens quite often) for which > you can't really use the same default whole measure rest. (I use the double > whole note rest for a whole measure in 3/1). Yes, that's a problem, and I don't know any automatic way how to do this. Effectively the multimeasure rest symbols would have to be translated for twice as many measures of rests. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
At 04:20 AM 1/4/2004, d. collins wrote: >I guess this refers to the parts that don't have the expression. Which >makes sense. Having this box checked for any given measure means that any MM rest which would normally occur would be broken at that measure. Having it unchecked means that MM rests work normally. But the measures in question still have to be completely empty (of notes, expressions, etc.) in order to create MM rests. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
At 03:48 AM 1/4/2004, d. collins wrote: >At how many measures should one start to convert to multimeasure rests with >numbers? I think Finale's default is 10. I think you're misunderstanding. Finale will by default put a number over all MM rests. The option "Use symbols for rests less than X measures" only affects what kind of rests Finale puts in the staff. For MM rests less than this number, Finale will build up an actual collection of rests, using whole rests and double whole rests. For MM rests greater than this number, Finale will use the normal MM rest symbol. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
Actually, you CAN use the default whole rest, since its meaning is two-fold: equal in length to a whole note, or, when the only thing in the measure it represents a whole measure of rest. When it is the only thing present in the measure, its meaning is clear to me. d. collins wrote: Johannes Gebauer écrit: Ross tells about the old method (with no numbers). However, at least in recent European editions, it has become standard to use the symbols _combined_ with the number up to 8 measures. Thanks, Johannes. This is indeed what I was wondering about (and, as I said in another message, I made the mistake of quoting Ross from memory and forgetting that he doesn't actually recommend the method he describes). But I'm not sure the solution you give works with "early" music (17th century) if you want to keep the original time signatures and if you have different time signatures in a piece (C and 3/1, as happens quite often) for which you can't really use the same default whole measure rest. (I use the double whole note rest for a whole measure in 3/1). Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale . -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
On 04.01.2004 9:48 Uhr, d. collins wrote > At how many measures should one start to convert to multimeasure rests with > numbers? I think Finale's default is 10. That sounds like a lot. The > Essential Dictionary of Music Notation says anything over 1 measure. Ted > Ross gives a system with symbols for 2 to 8, and uses numbers starting at > 9. I find it much easier to read a "7" than add up the value of three > different types of rests. What do instrumentalists generally prefer? I think you are misunderstanding something. In any modern edition you will find numbers for anything more than one measure. Many editions even have a "1" on top of single measure rests in parts. Not having numbers is not an option. Finale has an option to use the proper rests symbols (regardless of using numbers) less than X measures. This should be set to 9. Start numbering should be set to 2, or 1. Ross tells about the old method (with no numbers). However, at least in recent European editions, it has become standard to use the symbols _combined_ with the number up to 8 measures. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
I may be misunderstanding what you are asking about multi-measure rests and numbers - If it's more than one bar rest I want a number with it. All the best, Lawrence "þaes ofereode - þisses swa maeg" http://lawrenceyates.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
At 05:03 PM 1/3/2004, d. collins wrote: >Is there any easy way to replace in an extracted part (after the part has >been extracted) a certain number of measures with a multimeasure rest? (I >have empty measures in which I had to put "expressions" in the score, but >would like them to appear as multimeasure rests in the extracted parts.) I think the measures have to actually be empty in order for there to be MM rests. The usual way of doing this sort of thing is to assign the expression in the score to a staff list, and define the staff list so that the expression displays on the appropriate staves in the score and on none of the staves in the parts. Then you can extract the parts and get the right MM rests. Otherwise, in the extracted part, you need to select all of the relevant measures with the Mass Edit tool and hit Backspace (to clear all entries). Then change to the Measure tool (measures should still be selected) and do Measure | Multimeasure Rests | Create. This should be done in Page View. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
Make sure the measures are truly empty, select the series of measures in question with the Measure Tool, then Measure->Multimeasure Rests->Create. "Create" will be disabled unless the measures are empty (including real rests instead of default whole measure rests). -Lee > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf > Of d. collins > Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 2:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Finale] Multimeasure rests > > > Is there any easy way to replace in an extracted part (after the part has > been extracted) a certain number of measures with a multimeasure rest? (I > have empty measures in which I had to put "expressions" in the score, but > would like them to appear as multimeasure rests in the extracted parts.) > > Thanks, > > Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in extracted parts
At 3:04 PM -0800 3/19/03, Brad Beyenhof wrote: Christopher BJ Smith wrote: You're not selecting ALL the measures, then double-clicking to change the maesure attributes, are you? This will change the attributes for ALL the selected measures. Only select the last measure in the group. Nope, that's not what I'm doing. I'm merely changing the attributes of the barlines with rehearsal numbers to break multimeasure rests. Then I go to File > Extract Parts, choose the parts I want extracted, and multimeasure rests are not created. Not one. Robert Patterson wrote: I can't reproduce your scenario either with meas exps or barlines. It makes me wonder about your exact steps. You must select the entire measure range when you create the new multimeas rests. I thought that extracting parts was supposed to automatically create multimeasure rests... it always did for me on FinWin. However, even when I go in and try to manually create the multimeasure rests (selecting the entire range) it will not happen. They remain broken, and the only available option in Measure > Multimeasure Rests is still "Create." It's as if Finale never even acknowledged that I tried to create them. If it helps anybody, this was once an Encore file, and it was converted to Finale before it was given to me. Ah ha! Are you sure the measures are blank, and that they do not contain actual entered whole rests? You can doublecheck by selecting the supposedly empty meaures and hitting Clear (on a Mac, i'm not sure on a PC, maybe Delete, whatever clears all the entries without deleting the measures). Christopher ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in extracted parts
> If it helps anybody, this was once an Encore file, and it was converted to > Finale before it was given to me. Aha! I found the answer. Well, actually, it was my editor's idea... Anyway, we discovered that the composer had written the Encore file with real whole rests. All I had to do was run the "change to default whole rests" plug-in, and then everything was as it should be. - Brad Beyenhof Music Theory/Composition major Point Loma Nazarene University San Diego, CA ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in extracted parts
Brad, have a look to db 'Multimeasur Rest' (Options/Document Settings...). What is written in the 'Start numbering at' field? Greetings Raimund Brad Beyenhof schrieb: > Christopher BJ Smith wrote: > > You're not selecting ALL the measures, then double-clicking to change > > the maesure attributes, are you? This will change the attributes for > > ALL the selected measures. Only select the last measure in the group. > > Nope, that's not what I'm doing. I'm merely changing the attributes of the > barlines with rehearsal numbers to break multimeasure rests. Then I go to > File > Extract Parts, choose the parts I want extracted, and multimeasure > rests are not created. Not one. > > Robert Patterson wrote: > > I can't reproduce your scenario either with meas exps or barlines. It > > makes me wonder about your exact steps. You must select the entire measure > > range when you create the new multimeas rests. > > I thought that extracting parts was supposed to automatically create > multimeasure rests... it always did for me on FinWin. However, even when I > go in and try to manually create the multimeasure rests (selecting the > entire range) it will not happen. They remain broken, and the only > available option in Measure > Multimeasure Rests is still "Create." It's as > if Finale never even acknowledged that I tried to create them. > > If it helps anybody, this was once an Encore file, and it was converted to > Finale before it was given to me. > > - > Brad Beyenhof > Music Theory/Composition major > Point Loma Nazarene University > San Diego, CA > > ___ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in extracted parts
Christopher BJ Smith wrote: > You're not selecting ALL the measures, then double-clicking to change > the maesure attributes, are you? This will change the attributes for > ALL the selected measures. Only select the last measure in the group. Nope, that's not what I'm doing. I'm merely changing the attributes of the barlines with rehearsal numbers to break multimeasure rests. Then I go to File > Extract Parts, choose the parts I want extracted, and multimeasure rests are not created. Not one. Robert Patterson wrote: > I can't reproduce your scenario either with meas exps or barlines. It > makes me wonder about your exact steps. You must select the entire measure > range when you create the new multimeas rests. I thought that extracting parts was supposed to automatically create multimeasure rests... it always did for me on FinWin. However, even when I go in and try to manually create the multimeasure rests (selecting the entire range) it will not happen. They remain broken, and the only available option in Measure > Multimeasure Rests is still "Create." It's as if Finale never even acknowledged that I tried to create them. If it helps anybody, this was once an Encore file, and it was converted to Finale before it was given to me. - Brad Beyenhof Music Theory/Composition major Point Loma Nazarene University San Diego, CA ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in extracted parts
At 12:38 PM 3/19/2003, Brad Beyenhof wrote: >I know about the "Break Multimeasure Rests" check-box in measure-attached >expressions, but that doesn't really do what I'd like it to. I have checked >that option in all of my rehearsal numbers, but, when I extract the parts, >the rehearsal numbers do just that-- they completely break any multimeasure >rests of which they would have been a part. I would rather it create >multimeasure rests on either side of the expression, but that doesn't seem >to be possible... It seems that I can either swallow the expression in the >rest or have no multimeasure rest at all. For me, FinWin2003a behaves exactly the way you want it to. If I have 16 measures of rest, with a rehearsal figure in the ninth measure set to Break MM, the extracted part shows two 8-bar rests. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in extracted parts
At 2:17 PM -0800 3/19/03, Brad Beyenhof wrote: > Use the *barline* to break a multimeasure rest. Select the measure tool, double-click the right barline of the bar before the rehearsal number, and turn on "Break Multimeasure rests." So, for instance, if you have a 32-measure rest with rehearsal numbers every eight measures, in the part you will get eight 8-bar rests and the rehearsal numbers will display properly. Darcy, That didn't seem to work. I got the same "completely broken" behavior that happened when I asked the expression to break the rest. Is there another setting somewhere that I'm missing? You're not selecting ALL the measures, then double-clicking to change the maesure attributes, are you? This will change the attributes for ALL the selected measures. Only select the last measure in the group. The same effect will happen if you select a multimeasure rest and change its attributes; the change will apply to ALL the measures contained in the multimeasure rest. Not pretty. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in extracted parts
On 19 Mar 2003, Brad Beyenhof wrote: > That didn't seem to work. I got the same > "completely broken" behavior that happened > when I asked the expression to break the rest. > Is there another setting somewhere that I'm > missing? > I can't reproduce your scenario either with meas exps or barlines. It makes me wonder about your exact steps. You must select the entire measure range when you create the new multimeas rests. I'm using WinFin03.r2 -- Robert Patterson http://www.robertgpatterson.com > - > Brad Beyenhof Music Theory/Composition major > Point Loma Nazarene University San Diego, CA > > _- > __ > Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in extracted parts
> Use the *barline* to break a multimeasure rest. Select the measure > tool, double-click the right barline of the bar before the rehearsal > number, and turn on "Break Multimeasure rests." So, for instance, if > you have a 32-measure rest with rehearsal numbers every eight measures, > in the part you will get eight 8-bar rests and the rehearsal numbers > will display properly. Darcy, That didn't seem to work. I got the same "completely broken" behavior that happened when I asked the expression to break the rest. Is there another setting somewhere that I'm missing? - Brad Beyenhof Music Theory/Composition major Point Loma Nazarene University San Diego, CA ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in extracted parts
On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 12:59 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote: So, for instance, if you have a 32-measure rest with rehearsal numbers every eight measures, in the part you will get eight 8-bar rests and the rehearsal numbers will display properly. Er, that's *four* 8-bar rests. But you get the idea - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston MA "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in extracted parts
On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 12:38 PM, Brad Beyenhof wrote: Dear Listers: I know this has been discussed before, but a thorough search of the archives didn't bring up an answer to my specific question. I know about the "Break Multimeasure Rests" check-box in measure-attached expressions, but that doesn't really do what I'd like it to. I have checked that option in all of my rehearsal numbers, but, when I extract the parts, the rehearsal numbers do just that-- they completely break any multimeasure rests of which they would have been a part. I would rather it create multimeasure rests on either side of the expression, but that doesn't seem to be possible... It seems that I can either swallow the expression in the rest or have no multimeasure rest at all. I know I can manually fix it, but that's tedious in a full-band score. Thoughts? Comments? Commiseration? Brad, Use the *barline* to break a multimeasure rest. Select the measure tool, double-click the right barline of the bar before the rehearsal number, and turn on "Break Multimeasure rests." So, for instance, if you have a 32-measure rest with rehearsal numbers every eight measures, in the part you will get eight 8-bar rests and the rehearsal numbers will display properly. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston MA "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests question
Johannes Gebauer writes: It's an idea. I now wonder, however, whether the number should in fact be on both staves anyway. Or should it be in between the staves? Yes. I believe I have seen keyboard parts where the multimeasure rest number was between the staves. It certainly makes sense. Instead of using "white-out" for the unwanted number, however, I would use Measure Menu/Multimeasure/Edit and enter an amount that will move the number off the page. Hal Owen -- Harold Owen 2830 Emerald St., Eugene, OR 97403 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit my web site at: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~hjowen FAX: (509) 461-3608 ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Sounds like you need to enter a number that is one digit larger than the current multi rest amount in the box labelled "start at". This will in fact REMOVE all rest numbers and allow you to enter a number using a text box or staff expression.. whichever you wish to choose. An example would be... |- 3 -| . Click the measure in question to highlight it, use the staff attributes tool and then choose edit from the staff tool menu. In the dialog window there is a choice for which number to start measuring the rest at. This number needs to be changed to reflect a number that is LARGER than the current number assigned to that particular rest in question. This will then cause the number above the multi rests to disappear for that selected measure only and will allow you to create your own number and place it wherever you wish to make it viewable at within the measure. -- J. Scott Jones Band/Orchestra Director/Freelance Trumpet Player-Teacher/Music Engraver ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Multimeasure rests question
as far as I can remember these should go in between. It's a nightmare in Finale. Sometimes is easier to edit a PDF file. cheers, Abel Johannes Gebauer wrote: > It's an idea. I now wonder, however, whether the number should in > fact be on > both staves anyway. Or should it be in between the staves? ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests question
On 12.02.2003 18:41 Uhr, Harold Owen wrote > Johannes Gebauer writes: > >> It's an idea. I now wonder, however, whether the number should in fact be on >> both staves anyway. Or should it be in between the staves? > > Yes. I believe I have seen keyboard parts where the multimeasure rest > number was between the staves. It certainly makes sense. Instead of > using "white-out" for the unwanted number, however, I would use > Measure Menu/Multimeasure/Edit and enter an amount that will move the > number off the page. That won't work for just one of two systems as far as I can see. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests question
Johannes Gebauer writes: It's an idea. I now wonder, however, whether the number should in fact be on both staves anyway. Or should it be in between the staves? Yes. I believe I have seen keyboard parts where the multimeasure rest number was between the staves. It certainly makes sense. Instead of using "white-out" for the unwanted number, however, I would use Measure Menu/Multimeasure/Edit and enter an amount that will move the number off the page. Hal Owen -- Harold Owen 2830 Emerald St., Eugene, OR 97403 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit my web site at: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~hjowen FAX: (509) 461-3608 ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests question
I don't think it will do any harm to have it in both places -- less likely to be overlooked or misread if the performer is keeping attention on the bottom staff for whatever reason. Johannes Gebauer wrote: On 12.02.2003 13:51 Uhr, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote Finale 2001d Windows: Create an opaque expression which consists only of an enclosed rectangle with a line thickness of "0". Make sure to connect this expression to a note which is in a frame which comes *after* the multimeasure rest, otherwise the number will not get covered. Place this expression on the multimeasure rest number in question. It's an idea. I now wonder, however, whether the number should in fact be on both staves anyway. Or should it be in between the staves? Johannes -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests question
I never played around with it. Whenever I needed one number only (between the staves) I chose the option of not displaying anything and I just added it at the end of all formatting by means of a measure expression by hand. Yes, it is extra work, but it is better in the end than trying to guess the height of the number and then kicking yourself in the leg once you get around to individually spacing the staves of that group, to find that the "center" moves around in every case. - Original Message - From: Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Finale list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:57 PM Subject: Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests question > On 12.02.2003 13:51 Uhr, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote > > > Finale 2001d Windows: > > > > Create an opaque expression which consists only of an enclosed rectangle > > with a line thickness of "0". Make sure to connect this expression to a note > > which is in a frame which comes *after* the multimeasure rest, otherwise the > > number will not get covered. Place this expression on the multimeasure rest > > number in question. > > It's an idea. I now wonder, however, whether the number should in fact be on > both staves anyway. Or should it be in between the staves? > > Johannes > -- > http://www.musikmanufaktur.com > http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de > > ___ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests question
On 12.02.2003 13:51 Uhr, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote > Finale 2001d Windows: > > Create an opaque expression which consists only of an enclosed rectangle > with a line thickness of "0". Make sure to connect this expression to a note > which is in a frame which comes *after* the multimeasure rest, otherwise the > number will not get covered. Place this expression on the multimeasure rest > number in question. It's an idea. I now wonder, however, whether the number should in fact be on both staves anyway. Or should it be in between the staves? Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests question
Finale 2001d Windows: Create an opaque expression which consists only of an enclosed rectangle with a line thickness of "0". Make sure to connect this expression to a note which is in a frame which comes *after* the multimeasure rest, otherwise the number will not get covered. Place this expression on the multimeasure rest number in question. Liudas - Original Message - From: Johannes Gebauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Is it possible to only display the multimeasure rest number on the top > system of a two staff group part (ie piano part)? ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] multimeasure rests
Are you sure the measures are really empty? Did you possibly put "real" whole rests in those measures? One easy way to check is to go to the Staff tool and double click the handle for that staff in the extracted part and UNcheck the box "fill empty measures with rests." After you exit that dialog, any really empty measures will be completely blank, while those you entered real whole rests in will still contain those rests. Delete those real whole rests and you will be able to create the multimeasure rests. Lawrence David Eden wrote: Got another question regarding percussion parts: The score for my most recent work included a part for snare drum. The part was on a separate staff and looked fine in the score. However, when I extracted the parts, the snare drum part did not make use of multimeasure rests. No matter what I tried, I could not get Finale (mac, 2000c) to create multimeasure rests. All of the other parts displayed correctly, so the problem must be in the way the snare drum part was created... Obviously, I have missed something, but I am at a loss to figure out what. Suggestions? Larry ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] multimeasure rests
Lawrence David Eden writes: > The score for my most recent work included a part for snare drum. The part > was on a separate staff and looked fine in the score. However, when I > extracted the parts, the snare drum part did not make use of multimeasure > rests. No matter what I tried, I could not get Finale (mac, 2000c) to > create multimeasure rests. All of the other parts displayed correctly, so > the problem must be in the way the snare drum part was created... You probably have a measure with a "real" whole note rest in the region. Fix with the "Change to Default Whole Rests" plug-in. Best regards, Jari Williamsson ICQ #: 78036563 ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] multimeasure rests
Hidden layers? Staff styles? Worth a look. Cheers, Keith in OZ. - Original Message - From: Lawrence David Eden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: FinaleList <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 11:20 PM Subject: [Finale] multimeasure rests > Got another question regarding percussion parts: > > The score for my most recent work included a part for snare drum. The part > was on a separate staff and looked fine in the score. However, when I > extracted the parts, the snare drum part did not make use of multimeasure > rests. No matter what I tried, I could not get Finale (mac, 2000c) to > create multimeasure rests. All of the other parts displayed correctly, so > the problem must be in the way the snare drum part was created... > > Obviously, I have missed something, but I am at a loss to figure out what. > > Suggestions? > > Larry > > > ___ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
