Re: [Finale] Time signature question
Thank you to Johannes, Robert and Eric for the help on this. There is one thing I discovered which seems to alleviate the need for TGTools in this situation. I kept the 3/4 part of the signature in the Time Signature tool and replaced the plus sign with an *option* space. This gave me enough space for the parentheses, both between the 6/8 and 3/4, and before the music started. Mac '05, by the way. Thanks again. Don on 1/20/06 4:55 PM, Robert Patterson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Don Hart wrote: > >> I want the time signature to be >> 6/8 and to have 3/4 show immediately after in parentheses. >> > > Doing it with expressions is quite painless starting in Fin04, esp. with > the help of TGTools to make the space at the beginning of the bar. I > don't know of a better way. I would actually probably do it with 4 text > exps that all default the correct place H relative to "Start of Time > Sig" and V relative to Staff Reference line. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
Don Hart wrote: Thank you to Johannes, Robert and Eric for the help on this. There is one thing I discovered which seems to alleviate the need for TGTools in this situation. I kept the 3/4 part of the signature in the Time Signature tool and replaced the plus sign with an *option* space. This gave me enough space for the parentheses, both between the 6/8 and 3/4, and before the music started. Mac '05, by the way. Thanks again. I'm glad you've got the actual problem sorted out. Now comes the inevitable music theory question -- If you're just placing the two meters beside each other at the start of the work, how will anybody know when a measure is supposed to get the 3/4 feeling instead of hemiolas in 6/8? With both meters allowing 6 8th notes (or 3 quarter notes) it may not be immediately obvious in measures other than ones full of 8th notes where you can show the meter with the beaming. This is curiosity only, I don't mean to imply that you shouldn't do things as you've done them, I'm just wondering how the musicians will know the difference so they can play the different metrical stresses properly. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
I don't know what Don's piece looks like, but to take a well-known example: "I like to be in America" is notated this way, with 6/8(3/4) as time signature at the beginning, and I don't think there's any doubt how to play or conduct this piece. Michael Cook On 21 Jan 2006, at 12:21, dhbailey wrote: I'm glad you've got the actual problem sorted out. Now comes the inevitable music theory question -- If you're just placing the two meters beside each other at the start of the work, how will anybody know when a measure is supposed to get the 3/4 feeling instead of hemiolas in 6/8? With both meters allowing 6 8th notes (or 3 quarter notes) it may not be immediately obvious in measures other than ones full of 8th notes where you can show the meter with the beaming. This is curiosity only, I don't mean to imply that you shouldn't do things as you've done them, I'm just wondering how the musicians will know the difference so they can play the different metrical stresses properly. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
Le 06-01-21 à 06:21, dhbailey a écrit :If you're just placing the two meters beside each other at the start of the work, how will anybody know when a measure is supposed to get the 3/4 feeling instead of hemiolas in 6/8? With both meters allowing 6 8th notes (or 3 quarter notes) it may not be immediately obvious in measures other than ones full of 8th notes where you can show the meter with the beaming. When beaming correctly in 3/4 and 6/8 measure, it should be obvious in which of the two he is. Following Ted Ross-like rules for beaming and rests should make it clear. Eric DussaultFinale 2006c for MacReal-time Finale discussion - http://www.finaleirc.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] WinFin2006 & PDF
I never got a response to this question from last week so I am asking again: In FinWin2006 has the staff percentage bug been fixed? This occurs when a staff is reduced from 100%. When expressions are dragged they do not stay with the cursor but lag behind in proportion to the amount of reduction. Also, the automatic placement of articulations is affected in the same way: the farther from the middle of the staff that an articulation is placed (when defined to be placed at the cursor location), the farther its vertical displacement is from the cursor. In much of my work this makes for a tremendous amount of nudging. Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
On 1/21/06, Éric Dussault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le 06-01-21 à 06:21, dhbailey a écrit : > >> If you're just placing the two meters beside each other at >> the start of the work, how will anybody know when a measure >> is supposed to get the 3/4 feeling instead of hemiolas in 6/8? >> >> With both meters allowing 6 8th notes (or 3 quarter notes) it >> may not be immediately obvious in measures other than ones full >> of 8th notes where you can show the meter with the beaming. > > When beaming correctly in 3/4 and 6/8 measure, it should be > obvious in which of the two he is. Following Ted Ross-like rules > for beaming and rests should make it clear. Yes, but what if there are no beams (a half note and a quarter note, for example)? Also, Finale might make it difficult to ensure correct beaming, since it will alternate its default beaming between 6/8 and 3/4 in each subsequent measure. That's what "adding" timesigs together is supposed to denote. -- Brad Beyenhof Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
> Yes, but what if there are no beams (a half note and a quarter note, > for example)? Also, Finale might make it difficult to ensure correct > beaming, since it will alternate its default beaming between 6/8 and > 3/4 in each subsequent measure. That's what "adding" timesigs together > is supposed to denote. > > -- > Brad Beyenhof > Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com > my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com > Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also > deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky > If there is a quarter and a half in the bar, then the music is in 3/4 if there is a quarter and an eighth tied to dotted quarter, then it is 6/8. My most often performed piece shifts between 3/4 and 6/8; it's easy for musicians to figure out (it's been played a lot even at the high school level). As far as Finale thinking the meter is 6/8 + 3/4, all you'd need do is "use a different signature for display" in the time sig tool. Beaming could either be accomplished by region using the rebeam command, or if the meter changed too frequently, it would have to be done by hand; I find that pretty quick. I agree that addling time sigs together denotes actual addition, but putting one in parenthesis denotes an option not addition. In my experience this is common enough not to be problematic. -Carolyn ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] (no subject)
It's been years since I posted last, my technical deficiencies have induced me to revisit. I recently purchased a M-Audio Oxygen 8 to use as to enter music into Finale. I seem to have a latency problem. Using hyperscribe I'm trying to record a line of music in 6/8 time into a treble staff. Countoff is two dotted-quarters per bar.I'm starting bang on the beat but it is 'realized' in finale as beginning on the second eight note of the measure. I've tried adjusting human playback preferences 'anticipate continuous data' with values from 0 to 200 but that doesn't seem make a difference. Human playback style is set to none. I'm at a loss, any help would be appreciated. Andy Fox ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
On Jan 21, 2006, at 11:22 AM, Brad Beyenhof wrote: On 1/21/06, Éric Dussault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Le 06-01-21 à 06:21, dhbailey a écrit : If you're just placing the two meters beside each other at the start of the work, how will anybody know when a measure is supposed to get the 3/4 feeling instead of hemiolas in 6/8? With both meters allowing 6 8th notes (or 3 quarter notes) it may not be immediately obvious in measures other than ones full of 8th notes where you can show the meter with the beaming. When beaming correctly in 3/4 and 6/8 measure, it should be obvious in which of the two he is. Following Ted Ross-like rules for beaming and rests should make it clear. Yes, but what if there are no beams (a half note and a quarter note, for example)? How would your example be performed differently in 6/8 or 3/4? However, the notation of it looks like 3/4 to me, and in 6/8 should probably be dotted quarter tied to eighth, quarter note, which would adequately denote the intended subdivision. Also, Finale might make it difficult to ensure correct beaming, since it will alternate its default beaming between 6/8 and 3/4 in each subsequent measure. That's what "adding" timesigs together is supposed to denote. I don't get this. If you have set Finale to alternate measures of 6/8 and 3/4, but to always show as (whatever you chose), then beaming will occur automatically to the time signature unless you manually override it. Isn't that what is wanted? Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
On 1/21/06, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 21, 2006, at 11:22 AM, Brad Beyenhof wrote: > >> Yes, but what if there are no beams (a half note and a quarter note, >> for example)? > > How would your example be performed differently in 6/8 or 3/4? > > However, the notation of it looks like 3/4 to me, and in 6/8 should > probably be dotted quarter tied to eighth, quarter note, which would > adequately denote the intended subdivision. Yes, I'll admit that that was a silly example, since it can easily be adapted to make either signature clear. What about a dotted half? >> Also, Finale might make it difficult to ensure correct >> beaming, since it will alternate its default beaming between 6/8 and >> 3/4 in each subsequent measure. That's what "adding" timesigs together >> is supposed to denote. > > I don't get this. If you have set Finale to alternate measures of 6/8 > and 3/4, but to always show as (whatever you chose), then beaming will > occur automatically to the time signature unless you manually override > it. Isn't that what is wanted? That's the thing... Don is adapting the "6/8 + 3/4" signature to show as "6/8 (3/4)." However, there's still the underlying signature addition that means that the default beaming will alternate between the two. He has indicated that it's not a strict measure-after-measure alternation, though; the timesig changes are irregular. Carolyn offered a good suggestion to get around this: have "show as" always set to the modified "6/8 + 3/4" and keep the actual timesig for each section set for the proper beaming. -- Brad Beyenhof Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
On 21.01.2006 Brad Beyenhof wrote: Yes, I'll admit that that was a silly example, since it can easily be adapted to make either signature clear. What about a dotted half? In what way would a dotted half be performed differently in 6/8 and 3/4? Reminds me of Gerald Hoffnung (the GP in 3/4, which typical the typical Viennese swing to it). Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
Christopher Smith wrote: On Jan 21, 2006, at 11:22 AM, Brad Beyenhof wrote: On 1/21/06, Éric Dussault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Le 06-01-21 à 06:21, dhbailey a écrit : If you're just placing the two meters beside each other at the start of the work, how will anybody know when a measure is supposed to get the 3/4 feeling instead of hemiolas in 6/8? With both meters allowing 6 8th notes (or 3 quarter notes) it may not be immediately obvious in measures other than ones full of 8th notes where you can show the meter with the beaming. When beaming correctly in 3/4 and 6/8 measure, it should be obvious in which of the two he is. Following Ted Ross-like rules for beaming and rests should make it clear. Yes, but what if there are no beams (a half note and a quarter note, for example)? How would your example be performed differently in 6/8 or 3/4? However, the notation of it looks like 3/4 to me, and in 6/8 should probably be dotted quarter tied to eighth, quarter note, which would adequately denote the intended subdivision. Also, Finale might make it difficult to ensure correct beaming, since it will alternate its default beaming between 6/8 and 3/4 in each subsequent measure. That's what "adding" timesigs together is supposed to denote. I don't get this. If you have set Finale to alternate measures of 6/8 and 3/4, but to always show as (whatever you chose), then beaming will occur automatically to the time signature unless you manually override it. Isn't that what is wanted? Does Finale really alternate the time signatures and therefore the beaming if you use the + sign in the time signature? Whenever I've seen two meters it has never been an alternating every other measure sort of music, but rather some measures are in one meter, some in the other, and the mixture is consistent but not totally, so I don't see how Finale would know which beaming to use. Okay, I just tried this and I'm thoroughly confused -- how do you get the time signatures with the addition symbol? I just did it, using the Composite dialogue, and entered 2 over 1536 (using EDUs for the note values) and then 3 over 1024 and get the time signature to show 6/8 + 3/4, but that is for EACH measure, not alternating measures. I can now enter 12 8th-notes in measure, beamed 3, 3, 2, 2, 2. So how would Finale apply this to consecutive measures? If I enter a single time signature for the real time signature and then use the Use Different Signature For Display and set that to be the 6/8 + 3/4 then enter a bunch of 8th notes, they're all beamed in groups of 3 in each measure. Am I misunderstanding the process? Is there really a way to enter the two different meters and have Finale automatically switch beaming between alternating measures? -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
On 1/21/06, dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am I misunderstanding the process? Is there really a way to enter the > two different meters and have Finale automatically switch beaming > between alternating measures? Seems I was misremembering with the alternation thing. In any case, giving the timesig for beaming as the "real" one, with "show as" set to the modified "6/8 + 3/4" is certainly a solution that will display properly. -- Brad Beyenhof Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
Le 06-01-21 à 11:22, Brad Beyenhof a écrit :Yes, but what if there are no beams (a half note and a quarter note, for example)? in 6/8, a half plus a quarter note should be written as a dotted quarter tied to an eight note plus a quarter. This make it clear for the reader that he is in 6/8. Really, I see no situation where notation is the same in both. They both have their idioms for beaming and rests. Eric DussaultFinale 2006c for MacReal-time Finale discussion - http://www.finaleirc.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
This is an answer to David's question but it gets into a few of the other ideas that have been brought up since. I was a little slow getting around to the list today (it's Saturday after all!). A recurring rhythmic figure in the piece is: q e q e / q q q - one measure clearly 6/8 and one 3/4. You can also see the clutter every one would be faced with trying to indicate each change in a piece like this. There's also an arpeggiated figure that is sort of like the Saturday Night Live character, Pat, (for any of you who remember) from several years back: e e e tied to e e e which I've chosen to beam in 6/8 but could go either way. :-) Although 6/8, in two, really is the predominant metric feeling, the 3/4 aspect of the piece seemed to need recognition in the time signature. The tempo is fast enough that there's not a ton of consecutive 8th notes, and the beaming also helps in those situations. After taking another look, though, it's probably a little slow to conduct in one, as I had mentioned in my original post. But it's also fast enough to have a dotted half line that doesn't feel like it's just sustaining. The way some of the phrases come together, a case could probably be made for 6/4 (12/8), but I think that could make the above-mentioned figure a little harder to read. Don on 1/21/06 5:21 AM, dhbailey at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Don Hart wrote: > >> Thank you to Johannes, Robert and Eric for the help on this. >> >> There is one thing I discovered which seems to alleviate the need for >> TGTools in this situation. I kept the 3/4 part of the signature in the Time >> Signature tool and replaced the plus sign with an *option* space. This gave >> me enough space for the parentheses, both between the 6/8 and 3/4, and >> before the music started. Mac '05, by the way. >> >> Thanks again. >> > I'm glad you've got the actual problem sorted out. Now comes the > inevitable music theory question -- > > If you're just placing the two meters beside each other at the start of > the work, how will anybody know when a measure is supposed to get the > 3/4 feeling instead of hemiolas in 6/8? > > With both meters allowing 6 8th notes (or 3 quarter notes) it may not be > immediately obvious in measures other than ones full of 8th notes where > you can show the meter with the beaming. > > This is curiosity only, I don't mean to imply that you shouldn't do > things as you've done them, I'm just wondering how the musicians will > know the difference so they can play the different metrical stresses > properly. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
I think that's where I originally saw this sort of thing. - Don on 1/21/06 5:41 AM, Michael Cook at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I don't know what Don's piece looks like, but to take a well-known > example: "I like to be in America" is notated this way, with 6/8(3/4) > as time signature at the beginning, and I don't think there's any doubt > how to play or conduct this piece. > > Michael Cook > > On 21 Jan 2006, at 12:21, dhbailey wrote: > >> I'm glad you've got the actual problem sorted out. Now comes the >> inevitable music theory question -- >> >> If you're just placing the two meters beside each other at the start >> of the work, how will anybody know when a measure is supposed to get >> the 3/4 feeling instead of hemiolas in 6/8? >> >> With both meters allowing 6 8th notes (or 3 quarter notes) it may not >> be immediately obvious in measures other than ones full of 8th notes >> where you can show the meter with the beaming. >> >> This is curiosity only, I don't mean to imply that you shouldn't do >> things as you've done them, I'm just wondering how the musicians will >> know the difference so they can play the different metrical stresses >> properly. >> > > ___ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
On 21 Jan 2006 at 6:21, dhbailey wrote: > If you're just placing the two meters beside each other at the start > of the work, how will anybody know when a measure is supposed to get > the 3/4 feeling instead of hemiolas in 6/8? >From my point of view this is not a very smart question. Hundreds of years worth of music have been written without changing meters (and even without indicating the oscillation between two meters) where it is CRYSTAL-CLEAR which meter to use in which measures. > With both meters allowing 6 8th notes (or 3 quarter notes) it may not > be immediately obvious in measures other than ones full of 8th notes > where you can show the meter with the beaming. Uh, absent 8th notes, where's the problem? A half and quarter, or 3 quarters or two dotted quarters are pretty clear, don't you think? Of course, if you actually mean to have an accent or syncopation, then you'd notate it the opposite of the expected. For instance, if you had a note of 4 8ths duration followed by 2 8ths, but you wanted it in 6/8, you'd notate it as dotted quarter tied to 3 8ths, which makes clear that it's a measure in 6/8. This is not by any means anything I'd consider the slightest bit difficult or ambiguous. I'm surprised anyone would even ask the question, as the solutions are so simple and obvious, as well as so incredibly widespread in so many historical repertories. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
On 21 Jan 2006 at 8:22, Brad Beyenhof wrote: > Yes, but what if there are no beams (a half note and a quarter note, > for example)? . . . Well, I don't know how someone could play that without it sounding like it's in 3/4 not 6/8, but if you really wanted them to try, you'd notate it as dotted quarter tied to 8th tied to quarter. I doubt it would have any audible effect, but it would certainly indicate that you didn't want it to be in 3/4 but in 6/8. > . . . Also, Finale might make it difficult to ensure correct > beaming, since it will alternate its default beaming between 6/8 and > 3/4 in each subsequent measure. That's what "adding" timesigs together > is supposed to denote. You'd have to rebeam where Finale gets it wrong, but that's a given, since Finale can only beam automatically to the designated time signaturre. If you're not changing the time signatures, then you have to change the beaming to indicate the time signature. My bet is that in most music of this type, there's very little that has to be done to make it clear which is which. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
On 21 Jan 2006 at 9:19, Brad Beyenhof wrote: > On 1/21/06, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 21, 2006, at 11:22 AM, Brad Beyenhof wrote: > >> Yes, but > what if there are no beams (a half note and a quarter note, >> for > example)? > > How would your example be performed differently in 6/8 > or 3/4? > > However, the notation of it looks like 3/4 to me, and in > 6/8 should > probably be dotted quarter tied to eighth, quarter note, > which would > adequately denote the intended subdivision. > > Yes, I'll admit that that was a silly example, since it can easily be > adapted to make either signature clear. What about a dotted half? This is a ludicrous question, seems to me, because there's no way whatsoever for a performer to perform a dotted half in 3/4 in a way that sounds rhythmically different from the same value in 6/8. It's bloody ridiculous to imagine that such a difference could possibly make a difference, but if you really wanted to make it clear, you'd tie two dotted quarter notes. But I expect most performers would think you were nuts. > >> Also, Finale might make it difficult to ensure correct > >> beaming, since it will alternate its default beaming between 6/8 > >> and 3/4 in each subsequent measure. That's what "adding" timesigs > >> together is supposed to denote. > > > > I don't get this. If you have set Finale to alternate measures of > > 6/8 and 3/4, but to always show as (whatever you chose), then > > beaming will occur automatically to the time signature unless you > > manually override it. Isn't that what is wanted? > > That's the thing... Don is adapting the "6/8 + 3/4" signature to show > as "6/8 (3/4)." However, there's still the underlying signature > addition that means that the default beaming will alternate between > the two. He has indicated that it's not a strict measure-after-measure > alternation, though; the timesig changes are irregular. > > Carolyn offered a good suggestion to get around this: have "show as" > always set to the modified "6/8 + 3/4" and keep the actual timesig for > each section set for the proper beaming. You write as though this is some kind of revelation. Isn't it the bloody obvious way to do it? -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
This post provided a nice little nudge for me to explore the positioning of expressions further than I had previously. I guess those of you who are more serious about engraving are already on top of things, but those who aren't should really check this out. I didn't realize that the Measure Positioning H and V settings had all those options. Both parentheses are included and spaced in the same expression, which now pops in to place perfectly when I enter it. Thanks, Robert! Don Hart on 1/20/06 4:55 PM, Robert Patterson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Don Hart wrote: > >> I want the time signature to be >> 6/8 and to have 3/4 show immediately after in parentheses. >> > > Doing it with expressions is quite painless starting in Fin04, esp. with > the help of TGTools to make the space at the beginning of the bar. I > don't know of a better way. I would actually probably do it with 4 text > exps that all default the correct place H relative to "Start of Time > Sig" and V relative to Staff Reference line. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
I'm using "show as" and handling the beaming etc. manually. The adjustments are straight forward and hardly noticeable for this piece. Don on 1/21/06 12:25 PM, Brad Beyenhof at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 1/21/06, dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Am I misunderstanding the process? Is there really a way to enter the >> two different meters and have Finale automatically switch beaming >> between alternating measures? > > Seems I was misremembering with the alternation thing. In any case, > giving the timesig for beaming as the "real" one, with "show as" set > to the modified "6/8 + 3/4" is certainly a solution that will display > properly. > > -- > Brad Beyenhof > Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com > my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com > Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also > deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky > > ___ > Finale mailing list > Finale@shsu.edu > http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
David W. Fenton wrote: On 21 Jan 2006 at 9:19, Brad Beyenhof wrote: Yes, I'll admit that that was a silly example, since it can easily be adapted to make either signature clear. What about a dotted half? This is a ludicrous question, seems to me, because there's no way whatsoever for a performer to perform a dotted half in 3/4 in a way that sounds rhythmically different from the same value in 6/8. It's bloody ridiculous to imagine that such a difference could possibly make a difference, but if you really wanted to make it clear, you'd tie two dotted quarter notes. But I expect most performers would think you were nuts. I fully agree. Otherwise the argument suggests we should eliminate 2/2, because there's no way to make a semibreve sound different to one in 4/4. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
At 8:42 PM + 1/21/06, Owain Sutton wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: On 21 Jan 2006 at 9:19, Brad Beyenhof wrote: Yes, I'll admit that that was a silly example, since it can easily be adapted to make either signature clear. What about a dotted half? I've stayed out of this particular food-fight, but is it possible that complex time signatures should be used ONLY for regularly alternating measures, and that irregular alternation should be indicated by changing time signatures? It certainly worked for Stravinsky, although it's darned hard to sightread. Dave Brubeck's 5/4 is consistently 3+2, while Tchaikovsky's regularly alternates 3+2 with 2+3. Should they have different time signatures? And another question: When one does change time signatures, is it proper always to use a double bar line, or never to use a double bar line? I've always used it, but I'm not sure why. Of course I use double bar lines at structural points as well, just to make sightreading and counting rests easier. 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 Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
Le 06-01-21 à 16:05, John Howell a écrit :And another question: When one does change time signatures, is it proper always to use a double bar line, or never to use a double bar line? I've always used it, but I'm not sure why. Of course I use double bar lines at structural points as well, just to make sightreading and counting rests easier. No. it is not proper to use double barlines. In older music this was the practice, but with the much more common time signatures changes in modern music, it is just not necessary to use it, and it makes the music look cluttered. Some may prefer to use these, but I think it has become the general practice not to put double barlines at TS changes. Eric DussaultFinale 2006c for MacReal-time Finale discussion - http://www.finaleirc.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] fp
I thought I'd ask this question again. No responses the first time around. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Mays Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 4:37 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: [Finale] fp I am having a brain cramp -- or maybe not. I'd like to define either a note expression or articulation to playback "fp." I understand recent Human Playback can simulate that. However, I'd like to do it manually. I have WinFin 2006c, but I have a client who uses WinFin 2005 -- he's the one who wants to avoid HP. I suppose it's obvious -- but right at this instant -- not to me. Jim Mays ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
On 1/21/06, Owain Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: >> On 21 Jan 2006 at 9:19, Brad Beyenhof wrote: >>> Yes, I'll admit that that was a silly example, since it can easily be >>> adapted to make either signature clear. What about a dotted half? >> >> This is a ludicrous question, seems to me, because there's no way >> whatsoever for a performer to perform a dotted half in 3/4 in a way >> that sounds rhythmically different from the same value in 6/8. I wasn't implying that there would be any difference in how it would be performed. However, the performers would probably like to be notified in some way whether the conductor will split that measure into 2 or 3 beats. >> It's bloody ridiculous to imagine that such a difference could >> possibly make a difference, but if you really wanted to make it >> clear, you'd tie two dotted quarter notes. But I expect most >> performers would think you were nuts. > > I fully agree. Otherwise the argument suggests we should eliminate 2/2, > because there's no way to make a semibreve sound different to one in 4/4. Not at all; see my comments above. The only reason for even considering this is that, since the piece in question is alternately in 6/8 and 3/4, a dotted half note is ambiguous to a person reading only one part and they won't know what to expect from the conductor. I'm not suggesting that anything different needs to be done. I'm sure in many cases that a dotted half on its own would be sufficient; however, I just meant to provoke thought upon the matter. It is certainly unwarranted to say that suggesting the composer consider such issues is "bloody ridiculous," and I'm sure there are certain rare situations in which it might not be "bloody obvious." -- Brad Beyenhof Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] fp
At 04:20 PM 1/21/06 -0500, Jim Mays wrote: >I'd like to define either a note expression or articulation to playback >"fp." Not sure how HP does it, but you can create a shape expression that represents this sort of 'envelope', and Finale will adjust the output volume to follow it. It's like the shape expression for decrescendo, but using two (or more) pieces instead of one. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
Brad Beyenhof wrote: On 1/21/06, Owain Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: On 21 Jan 2006 at 9:19, Brad Beyenhof wrote: Yes, I'll admit that that was a silly example, since it can easily be adapted to make either signature clear. What about a dotted half? This is a ludicrous question, seems to me, because there's no way whatsoever for a performer to perform a dotted half in 3/4 in a way that sounds rhythmically different from the same value in 6/8. I wasn't implying that there would be any difference in how it would be performed. However, the performers would probably like to be notified in some way whether the conductor will split that measure into 2 or 3 beats. What, you want Boulez-style indications over every sustained note? If there's a regular alternation between 6/8 and 3/4, then a trained monkey could probably understand what the conductor was doing. Or, come to think of it, a trained monkey could conduct it ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
On 1/21/06, Owain Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brad Beyenhof wrote: >> On 1/21/06, Owain Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> David W. Fenton wrote: On 21 Jan 2006 at 9:19, Brad Beyenhof wrote: > Yes, I'll admit that that was a silly example, since it can easily be > adapted to make either signature clear. What about a dotted half? This is a ludicrous question, seems to me, because there's no way whatsoever for a performer to perform a dotted half in 3/4 in a way that sounds rhythmically different from the same value in 6/8. >> >> I wasn't implying that there would be any difference in how it would >> be performed. However, the performers would probably like to be >> notified in some way whether the conductor will split that measure >> into 2 or 3 beats. > > What, you want Boulez-style indications over every sustained note? If > there's a regular alternation between 6/8 and 3/4, then a trained monkey > could probably understand what the conductor was doing. Or, come to > think of it, a trained monkey could conduct it But we're *not* talking about regular alterations here. Also, if you had taken the time to read my entire message, you would have known that I had said that a dotted half note could very likely be fine all on its own. I was just presenting it as a point to consider; I wasn't trying to get anybody to change anything. -- Brad Beyenhof Real-time Finale discussion: http://www.finaleirc.com my blog: http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com Silence will save me from being wrong (and foolish), but it will also deprive me of the possibility of being right. ~ Igor Stravinsky ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
David W. Fenton wrote: On 21 Jan 2006 at 6:21, dhbailey wrote: If you're just placing the two meters beside each other at the start of the work, how will anybody know when a measure is supposed to get the 3/4 feeling instead of hemiolas in 6/8? From my point of view this is not a very smart question. Hundreds of years worth of music have been written without changing meters (and even without indicating the oscillation between two meters) where it is CRYSTAL-CLEAR which meter to use in which measures. You know, I could have sworn that over the years I seen people on this list say "there are no stupid questions." Or is your ever so politic "not a very smart question" your way of avoiding calling my question stupid? And how would it be handled if half the parts are continuing the quarter-eighth rhythm while the other half of the parts are given quarter notes only? Oops, that's probably another not very smart question, despite having seen people conduct such music by continuing the 2 beat of the 6/8. Maybe they aren't so smart either. I could have sworn there was even a musical term for the situation I describe: hemiola. If we change the meter to fit the rhythm, then there isn't any cross-rhythm going on, so why even have such a term? Sorry if my questions aren't so smart, David Fenton. I guess it's because we can't all think of the brilliant questions to ask like you do. Anyway, David, thank you for your condescension. The day just wouldn't be right without it. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] German question
I'm working on a 19th-c. score with instructions in both English and German. At one point, the composer cautions that some triplets are to be "slurred" (since the slur on a triplet does not by itself necessarily imply that a slur is to be performed), and gives a German equivalent that looks like "geschlitten." My German dictionary says that's not a word, so I've made it "geschliffen," wh. is sort of odd, but at least fits what I'm seeing on the page. Query to the German speakers on this list: does "geschliffen" make sense in this context, and if not, what other reading might you suggest? BTW: the composer was a native speaker of German, so that's not the problem. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
Exactly. After all, he's ALWAYS right. Who care what he thinks anyways? I think alternating 3/4 to 6/8 is just fine, especially if it is some sort of jazz piece where the 6/8 is played in a different feel. In fact, I know I have played something that alternated like this fairly recently. Maybe a Don Ellis tune? Piestrup? I don't remember. Don Ellis probably would have had a field day with Finale and alternating time signatures dhbailey wrote: You know, I could have sworn that over the years I seen people on this list say "there are no stupid questions." Or is your ever so politic "not a very smart question" your way of avoiding calling my question stupid? And how would it be handled if half the parts are continuing the quarter-eighth rhythm while the other half of the parts are given quarter notes only? Oops, that's probably another not very smart question, despite having seen people conduct such music by continuing the 2 beat of the 6/8. Maybe they aren't so smart either. I could have sworn there was even a musical term for the situation I describe: hemiola. If we change the meter to fit the rhythm, then there isn't any cross-rhythm going on, so why even have such a term? Sorry if my questions aren't so smart, David Fenton. I guess it's because we can't all think of the brilliant questions to ask like you do. Anyway, David, thank you for your condescension. The day just wouldn't be right without it. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] German question
Andrew Stiller schrieb: I'm working on a 19th-c. score with instructions in both English and German. At one point, the composer cautions that some triplets are to be "slurred" (since the slur on a triplet does not by itself necessarily imply that a slur is to be performed), and gives a German equivalent that looks like "geschlitten." My German dictionary says that's not a word, so I've made it "geschliffen," wh. is sort of odd, but at least fits what I'm seeing on the page. Query to the German speakers on this list: does "geschliffen" make sense in this context, and if not, what other reading might you suggest? BTW: the composer was a native speaker of German, so that's not the problem. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Hello, yes makes a kind of sense, "geschliffen" derives from the word "schleifen". But i wouldn`t think that "slur" is equivalent to "schleifen", it's more like glissando or portamento. If the composer is native german, this would make more sense. greeting Jörg -- Klangbild-Notengraphik Jörg Peltzer Aegidienstr. 28 23552 Lübeck Ruf 0451 / 70 20 830 Fax 0451 / 70 20 809 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bitte besuchen Sie auch meine Homepage http://www.notengraphik.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
On 21 Jan 2006 at 17:07, dhbailey wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > On 21 Jan 2006 at 6:21, dhbailey wrote: > > > >>If you're just placing the two meters beside each other at the start > >>of the work, how will anybody know when a measure is supposed to get > >>the 3/4 feeling instead of hemiolas in 6/8? > > > >>From my point of view this is not a very smart question. Hundreds of > >> > > years worth of music have been written without changing meters (and > > even without indicating the oscillation between two meters) where it > > is CRYSTAL-CLEAR which meter to use in which measures. > > You know, I could have sworn that over the years I seen people on this > list say "there are no stupid questions." Or is your ever so politic > "not a very smart question" your way of avoiding calling my question > stupid? My original reply, which I edited, used the term "idiotic." > And how would it be handled if half the parts are continuing the > quarter-eighth rhythm while the other half of the parts are given > quarter notes only? Oops, that's probably another not very smart > question, despite having seen people conduct such music by continuing > the 2 beat of the 6/8. Maybe they aren't so smart either. Well, that wasn't the question being considered, but, nonetheless, here's my answer: I play in a group that performs music just like that, where some parts are in 3 simultaneously with other parts in 2, and NOBODY HAS ANY PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER. > I could have sworn there was even a musical term for the situation I > describe: hemiola. If we change the meter to fit the rhythm, then > there isn't any cross-rhythm going on, so why even have such a term? > > Sorry if my questions aren't so smart, David Fenton. I guess it's > because we can't all think of the brilliant questions to ask like you > do. > > Anyway, David, thank you for your condescension. The day just > wouldn't be right without it. This situation is not complicated. I think all the people in this thread who are arguing for expicit metric changes are vastly overthinking the problem. It's been around for hundreds of years and performers have navigated the issue quite nicely without any of the suggested notational complexities, or with application of simple subdivision and beaming rules. And, of course, you weren't asking a question -- you were suggesting an answer by virtue of asking it. You were suggesting that something needed to be done, when, in fact, anyone with any experience of music ought to be able to see that there was no necessity for anything special to be done in the case of alternating 3/4 and 6/8, which have belonged together and functioned together literally for centuries. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] fp
On 21 Jan 2006 at 16:20, Jim Mays wrote: > I thought I'd ask this question again. No responses the first time > around. It has to be done with continuous data on the volume controller. The results are not likely to be very good without a lot of fiddling, and raise a lot of issues if you aren't already using the volume control. Finale simply doesn't provide good tools for editing this kind of MIDI data. I haven't heard how HP does it, but perhaps if it's results are satisfactory, you could use the "apply HP playback" plugin (or whatever it's called) to get proper-sounding MIDI data on the relevant notes alone. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] German question
to me it makes more sense the word "schliessen" -which in german is not spelled with to "s" but with a sign i dont have in my computer but that produces the sound of two "s"- which, among its many acceptations means to close, to conclude, to lock, which is what a slur does when it "locks" or "encloses" the notes within it. the "ge" before the word is to establish the past participle of the tense in which the verve is being used . gr Jörg Peltzer wrote: Andrew Stiller schrieb: I'm working on a 19th-c. score with instructions in both English and German. At one point, the composer cautions that some triplets are to be "slurred" (since the slur on a triplet does not by itself necessarily imply that a slur is to be performed), and gives a German equivalent that looks like "geschlitten." My German dictionary says that's not a word, so I've made it "geschliffen," wh. is sort of odd, but at least fits what I'm seeing on the page. Query to the German speakers on this list: does "geschliffen" make sense in this context, and if not, what other reading might you suggest? BTW: the composer was a native speaker of German, so that's not the problem. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Hello, yes makes a kind of sense, "geschliffen" derives from the word "schleifen". But i wouldn`t think that "slur" is equivalent to "schleifen", it's more like glissando or portamento. If the composer is native german, this would make more sense. greeting Jörg ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] German question
except that there is no "geschliessen" the past particle is: geschlossen. Sorry Thomas Schaller On Jan 21, 2006, at 6:25 PM, Godofredo Romero wrote: to me it makes more sense the word "schliessen" -which in german is not spelled with to "s" but with a sign i dont have in my computer but that produces the sound of two "s"- which, among its many acceptations means to close, to conclude, to lock, which is what a slur does when it "locks" or "encloses" the notes within it. the "ge" before the word is to establish the past participle of the tense in which the verve is being used . gr Jörg Peltzer wrote: Andrew Stiller schrieb: I'm working on a 19th-c. score with instructions in both English and German. At one point, the composer cautions that some triplets are to be "slurred" (since the slur on a triplet does not by itself necessarily imply that a slur is to be performed), and gives a German equivalent that looks like "geschlitten." My German dictionary says that's not a word, so I've made it "geschliffen," wh. is sort of odd, but at least fits what I'm seeing on the page. Query to the German speakers on this list: does "geschliffen" make sense in this context, and if not, what other reading might you suggest? BTW: the composer was a native speaker of German, so that's not the problem. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Hello, yes makes a kind of sense, "geschliffen" derives from the word "schleifen". But i wouldn`t think that "slur" is equivalent to "schleifen", it's more like glissando or portamento. If the composer is native german, this would make more sense. greeting Jörg ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
David W. Fenton wrote: [snip]> My original reply, which I edited, used the term "idiotic." How kind of you. I feel ever so much better now. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] fp
Jim wrote: Relative to your question about defining an expression or articulation of "fp" so that it plays back, this can be done by defining the expression as a text expresion, and defining playback. While I knew what I would do to effect this, the defining shapes for playback is an area I don't understand well, and I didn't have time to test what I meant to suggest until today. Here's what I'd do. 1) Select the expression tool, and open the expression selection dialog box. 2) Select (of if need be, create) the "fp" expression. [If you need to create it, it is at position 234 in the Maestro font.] 3) On the "playback" tab (or if you're using an older version of Finale, pressing the "playback options" button to expand the dialog box) choose as playback type "key velocity". 4) Select the option "execute shape", and press "select next to it to open the "shape selection" dialog box. 5) In the "shape selection" dialog box, press the "create" button to open the "executable shape designer" dialog box; press the "select" bar, next to the "shape id" box to open (another version) of the shape selection dialog box. \ 6) On the right side of the box, select "create" to open the "shape designer" dialog. 7) Select the shape designer item in the menu bar, and under "rulers and grid" select "eighth notes"; I suggest defining the distance between eighth notes as "1" or "2". 8) Again in the shape designer item in the menu bar, select the "show" item, and select the button beside "grid". 9) Define the size in the upper right hand corner to 100 percent, and if it is not there already, place a "0" in the H and V boxes to center the origin. At this point you have the shape designer open with a grid whose horizontal axis is measured in eighth notes, and whose vertical axis is measured in single units of measurement, in this case, of key velocity. In the libraries distributed with Finale, "f" has a playback value for key velocity of 88; "p" has a playback value of "49". 10) Select the broken line tool. 11) On the grid, place the cursor directly above the origin at the point you want the "f" to sound, at a level that looks like "88" to you [It may not, in fact be the correct level; you can adjust it later by moving the endpoint up or down as needed.] and define the first point of the shape line. 12) Move the cursor to the right the number of eighth notes you want the decrescendo to take [I'd probably start out with half the duration of an eighth note for starters], and place the second point of the shape line above that point at a level which looks like 49 to you [I'd start by assuming that 49 is about half the distance to the origin of 88; again you can adjust the level up or down as needed] and set the second point. 13) Finally, move the cursor to the right for the balance of the duration of the shape, and place the third point. 14) Click "OK" to exit the shape designer; and "select" to exit the shape selection dialog. 15) In the "executable shape designer" dialog, make certain that the two boxes next to time scale, and the two boxes next to level scale both contain "1", and select "OK" to exit the "Executable shape designer", and "select" to execute the "Executable shape selection" dialog. 16) Click "OK" to exit the "Text Expression Designer" dialog, and "select" to exit the "Expression selection" dialog. 17) Place the "f",. "fp" and "p" expressions in your score, and test playback. [Note: I used text expressions; the exact same procedure as outlined above works for shape expressions, too, by designating that you are defining playback for a shape-, instead of a text expression.] Now, unless the forces of proper dynamics happen to be with you, you may need to adjust the fp playback shape. There are two ways to do this. The first way is to go back into the executable shape designer, and adjust the location of the origin, intermediate, and endpoint of the shape. Moving points to the left (which is the time scale) will make that event happen sooner; moving points to the right will make them happen later; so if the beginning and ending dynamic levels are about right, but you want a faster decrescendo, move the intermediate point to the left; if you want a slower decrescendo, move the intermediate point to the right. If you want the sound louder at a given point, move the necessary points up; if you want them softer, move them down. Keep in mind that moving right to left, each grid point represents a duration of the number of eighth notes you entered in the box in step 6. Moving vertically, each point represents that same number of increments in the key velocity value. If the shape you defined has the origin point at 88 above the origin (and if you have the frequency of the grid points set to 2, this will be 44 points) above the origin, 49 a half eighth note later, and the final part of the line re
Re: [Finale] fp
On 21 Jan 2006, at 4:20 PM, Jim Mays wrote: I understand recent Human Playback can simulate that. However, I'd like to do it manually. No, actually -- trust me, you *really* don't want to do it manually. I have WinFin 2006c, but I have a client who uses WinFin 2005 -- he's the one who wants to avoid HP. This is, IMO, ridiculous. HP-generated "fp" marks (and fp-crescendos) are tempo- and context-sensitive, and much more musical than anything you'd get with a static expression. Plus, as responses to this thread have tended to suggest, creating functional "fp" expressions in Finale is quite the chore. I hope your client is paying you a *lot* of money to jump through these hoops. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://secretsociety.typepad.com Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Time signature question
Keep in mind, this is the guy who didn't take time to RTFM sotake it with a grain of salt.. dhbailey wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: [snip]> My original reply, which I edited, used the term "idiotic." How kind of you. I feel ever so much better now. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] German question
On 22.01.2006 Godofredo Romero wrote: to me it makes more sense the word "schliessen" -which in german is not spelled with to "s" but with a sign i dont have in my computer but that produces the sound of two "s"- which, among its many acceptations means to close, to conclude, to lock, which is what a slur does when it "locks" or "encloses" the notes within it. the "ge" before the word is to establish the past participle of the tense in which the verve is being used . Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] German question
On 21.01.2006 Andrew Stiller wrote: Query to the German speakers on this list: does "geschliffen" make sense in this context, and if not, what other reading might you suggest? That is correct, but very old-fashioned. A lot of people (like Jörg) wouldn't even know the meaning of it today, though it was standard in the 19th century. Today's word would be "gebunden". Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
