Re: [Finale] Multimeasure Rests

[Blane Music]

Until this bug is addressed, you can create mm rests in all parts at once from 
the score. Select all and look in edit menu>multi measure rest>crate>all parts 
(or something like that - you'll figure it out)

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 5, 2017, at 4:38 AM, Michael Lawlor  wrote:
> 
> Finale 2014.5
> 
> Even though I have specified the parameters for creating multimeasure 
> rests in the part extraction dialogue, I do not get multimeasure rests 
> and have to create them manually in each part. Does this work or is 
> there something I might be missing?
> 
> Happy New Year,
> 
> Michael Lawlor
> 
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
> 
> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure Rests

[Chuck Israels]

In my case, this is broken.  MM rests are not created automatically, in spite 
of checking that box.

Chuck


> On Jan 5, 2017, at 3:17 AM, David H. Bailey  wrote:
> 
> On 1/5/2017 5:38 AM, Michael Lawlor wrote:
>> Finale 2014.5
>> 
>> Even though I have specified the parameters for creating multimeasure
>> rests in the part extraction dialogue, I do not get multimeasure rests
>> and have to create them manually in each part. Does this work or is
>> there something I might be missing?
>> 
> 
> What you're missing is buried so deep that only a Dwarf miner from Lord 
> of the Rings could find it.  :-)
> 
> In the Part Extraction dialog, click on Manage Parts, then select Part 
> Creation Preferences from the next dialog, then be sure the check box 
> next to Create Multimeasure Rests is actually checked.  If that is 
> already checked, then I'm out of ideas.
> 
> 
> -- 
> *
> David H. Bailey
> dhbaile...@comcast.net
> http://www.davidbaileymusicstudio.com
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
> 
> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Chuck Israels
cisra...@comcast.net
(360) 201-3434

8831 SE 12th Ave.
Portland OR 97202






___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure Rests

[Christopher Smith]

I create all mine at once, because when I make edits I sometimes get added 
material buried in the former rests. You can create for all parts at once in 
the Create Multimeasure Rests menu item. 

Christopher 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 5, 2017, at 5:38 AM, Michael Lawlor  wrote:
> 
> Finale 2014.5
> 
> Even though I have specified the parameters for creating multimeasure 
> rests in the part extraction dialogue, I do not get multimeasure rests 
> and have to create them manually in each part. Does this work or is 
> there something I might be missing?
> 
> Happy New Year,
> 
> Michael Lawlor
> 
> ___
> Finale mailing list
> Finale@shsu.edu
> https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
> 
> To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
> finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure Rests

[David H. Bailey]

On 1/5/2017 5:38 AM, Michael Lawlor wrote:
> Finale 2014.5
>
> Even though I have specified the parameters for creating multimeasure
> rests in the part extraction dialogue, I do not get multimeasure rests
> and have to create them manually in each part. Does this work or is
> there something I might be missing?
>

What you're missing is buried so deep that only a Dwarf miner from Lord 
of the Rings could find it.  :-)

In the Part Extraction dialog, click on Manage Parts, then select Part 
Creation Preferences from the next dialog, then be sure the check box 
next to Create Multimeasure Rests is actually checked.  If that is 
already checked, then I'm out of ideas.


-- 
*
David H. Bailey
dhbaile...@comcast.net
http://www.davidbaileymusicstudio.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

[Finale] Multimeasure Rests

[Michael Lawlor]

Finale 2014.5

Even though I have specified the parameters for creating multimeasure 
rests in the part extraction dialogue, I do not get multimeasure rests 
and have to create them manually in each part. Does this work or is 
there something I might be missing?

Happy New Year,

Michael Lawlor

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
https://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

To unsubscribe from finale send a message to:
finale-unsubscr...@shsu.edu

Re: [Finale] multimeasure rests in linked part with voices

[Christopher Smith]

There is a Staff Style, called Blank Notation with Rests Layer 1. Apply in the 
part, TO THE PART ONLY, and then you will able to make a multimeasure rest with 
those measures IN THE PART ONLY.

There is another one for Layer 4, but none for Layer 2, AFAIK, so you'll have 
to create it if you ever have Clar 1 playing while Clar 2 rests. Check the 
other one to see what they did.

Christopher


On Thu Sep 27, at ThursdaySep 27 7:38 PM, Ryan wrote:

> Clarinets 1 and 2 share a line in the score.
> The voices are specified like this for the linked parts:
> 
> Clarinet 1
> Selected Notes from one or more layers
> 1st Note
> Include Single Note Passages
> Display Layer 1
> 
> Clarinet 2
> Selected Notes from one or more layers
> 2nd Note
> Include Single Note Passages
> Display Layer 2
> 
> Here's the situation: Clarinet 1 rests for two bars while Clarinet 2 plays.
> I entered Clarinet 2's music in Layer 2, with nothing in Layer 1. In the
> part, I'd like a two bar rest to show for Clarinet 1, but it's showing the
> music in Layer 2 (because that's how it's defined). If I enter real whole
> rests in layer one, then the music in Layer 2 won't display (which is what
> I want) but then I can't get a multimeasure rest.
> 
> Aside from extracting the parts, is there a solution to this?
> ___
> 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

[Finale] multimeasure rests in linked part with voices

[Ryan]

Clarinets 1 and 2 share a line in the score.
The voices are specified like this for the linked parts:

Clarinet 1
Selected Notes from one or more layers
1st Note
Include Single Note Passages
Display Layer 1

Clarinet 2
Selected Notes from one or more layers
2nd Note
Include Single Note Passages
Display Layer 2

Here's the situation: Clarinet 1 rests for two bars while Clarinet 2 plays.
I entered Clarinet 2's music in Layer 2, with nothing in Layer 1. In the
part, I'd like a two bar rest to show for Clarinet 1, but it's showing the
music in Layer 2 (because that's how it's defined). If I enter real whole
rests in layer one, then the music in Layer 2 won't display (which is what
I want) but then I can't get a multimeasure rest.

Aside from extracting the parts, is there a solution to this?
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests with undefined length

[Christopher Smith]

The way I usually indicate something like this is to put an entered  
whole rest in the other parts with a fermata and "(Drum solo)" (no  
quotes) over it. In the drum part it would be a whole note, changed  
to Rhythmic Notation staff style, also with a fermata over it and the  
indication "Open solo" (no quotes) over it. Since it isn't really a  
multimeasure rest, but an indefinite rest for everyone except the  
drums, this is actually more correct.


But, if you REALLY want the multimeasure rest indication, change the  
measure to Blank Notation to hide the default rest (or enter a real  
whole rest and hide it with O in Speedy) and create an expression  
that is the multimeasure rest symbol (In the JazzFont, I found in the  
Help menu the Jazz Character Set and the second line (opt-sh-B on the  
Mac) is a good one. Windows I don't know; you should be able to find  
it easily.) In Maestro or Engraver I don't see a ready-made symbol,  
so you might have to build one in the Shape Designer (sigh) or nab  
one as a graphic off an actual part with the staff lines hidden and  
import it to make the expression (sigh again).


If this seems like quite a kludge, it is. Another way that springs to  
mind is to make the drum solo two REAL measures, so that the  
multimeasure rest symbol actually shows up, and then edit the number  
to be something other than 2 (say, blank, then add in the text  
indications as expressions.) If you want your measure numbers to be  
"correct", then you choose the second measure and turn off "Include  
in measure numbering," but maybe this feature doesn't exist in 2007  
yet, so you would have to mess with measure number regions.


Christopher



On Jan 7, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Dan Tillberg wrote:



Hi all,

I have a "free" drum solo in a chart. Free meaning no specific  
length or

over any well defined multiple of a period.

If I had written the parts (both other parts and the drum part) by  
hand I
would have drawn a multimeasure rest in one measure and write "Drum  
solo
open" or something like that. No repeat markings or anything like  
that.


Is there any good way of doing this in Finale 2007 or otherwise any  
good

advice on how to do this?

Thanks
/D
___
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

[Finale] Multimeasure rests with undefined length

[Dan Tillberg]

Hi all,

I have a "free" drum solo in a chart. Free meaning no specific length or
over any well defined multiple of a period.

If I had written the parts (both other parts and the drum part) by hand I
would have drawn a multimeasure rest in one measure and write "Drum solo
open" or something like that. No repeat markings or anything like that.

Is there any good way of doing this in Finale 2007 or otherwise any good
advice on how to do this?

Thanks
/D
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[David W. Fenton]

On 29 Sep 2007 at 23:38, Aaron Sherber wrote:

> At 10:45 PM 9/29/2007, David W. Fenton wrote:
>  >Having looked at the score, I would say that I think the score is
>  >wrong (it's bowed as 2+3 quite regularly -- I can only hear the
>  >triplet as upbeat of 3, not as downbeat of 3). 
> 
> Okay, well, I know this is a silly argument, since clearly 
> Tchaikowsky had a good idea of what he was doing. 

You're assuming, of course, that the score represents what 
Tchaikovsky intended (which may or may not be the case -- I know 
nothing at all about the relationship he had with his publishers nor 
what the source situation is for his symphonies).

> And I did say 
> earlier that the melody all by itself could be heard the way you 
> describe. But look at the accompaniment in the clarinets at the 
> beginning. Or better yet, the horns after the first repeat. Hearing 
> the melody as 3+2 | 2+3 requires a quite willful shift in how that 
> accompanying figure is perceived.

Oh, not necessarily. I don't see the clarinets as changing things at 
all (or the horns at the beginning) -- they both fit quite well into 
the 3+2 or the 2+3, though they have different rhythmic meaning in 
the two subdivisions. But, well, so what? Brahms did that kind of 
thing all the time.

As to the horns, I just don't see anywhere at all in the first 7 or 8 
pages where there's anything at all that would make it completely 
impossible to hear it as 3+2 | 2+3 with the occasional Brahmsian 
cross rhythm thrown in in order to keep you guessing.

I have always heard the whole thing as completely *irregular* with 
constantly shifting patterns of accent, and looking at the score, I 
see lots of possible ambiguity in any number of places, just exactly 
the way I've always heard it (with the exception of the bowing of the 
main theme, which is quite regular in maintaining the 2+3 pattern).

This is one of the first symphonies I got in my head, having gotten a 
recording of it back when I was in junior high school, and so my 
impressions of what it sounds like come from that LP that I 
practically wore out the grooves on. I can't even say who it was 
playing (the LP is in storage right now, so I can't check) -- might 
have been Stokowski (which might explain a lot! ;).

In any event, I've often had trouble hearing a triplet on the 
downbeat as anything but an upbeat, instead. The Lohengrin 3rd Act 
Prelude is another example that I always had difficulty with (the 
triplet is on the downbeat, but my ear always wants to push it before 
the downbeat to make it an upbeat, with the  actual 2nd beat ending 
up as the downbeat), and that dates back to playing the damned thing 
in high school band, long before I'd heard the opera as a whole (or 
had any real exposure to the complexities of Wagner's rhythm). 
Perhaps the players in my HS band were accenting that 2nd beat and 
that's why I heard it that way, but that tendency is still there.

In the Tchaikovsky, I somehow tend to group the quarter notes into 
pairs, and that seems to outweight anything that the triplet does.

If I were a conductor, I think I'd want to bring out all the rhythmic 
ambiguities, rather than trying to get everyone to slavishly play 2+3 
throughout (which would be very boring to my ear). But I'm not, so I 
won't! :)

-- 
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] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[John Howell]

At 11:38 PM -0400 9/29/07, Aaron Sherber wrote:

At 10:45 PM 9/29/2007, David W. Fenton wrote:

Having looked at the score, I would say that I think the score is
wrong (it's bowed as 2+3 quite regularly -- I can only hear the
triplet as upbeat of 3, not as downbeat of 3).


Okay, well, I know this is a silly argument, since clearly 
Tchaikowsky had a good idea of what he was doing. And I did say 
earlier that the melody all by itself could be heard the way you 
describe. But look at the accompaniment in the clarinets at the 
beginning. Or better yet, the horns after the first repeat. Hearing 
the melody as 3+2 | 2+3 requires a quite willful shift in how that 
accompanying figure is perceived.


With respect for my colleagues opinions, and with thanks to Ray for 
providing the score, this is an interpreter's question and therefore 
a conductor's question.  And different conductors may differ in their 
interpretation.  I would have to put more time into studying that 
score than I have available, but I must say that not only the string 
bowings but the woodwind slurs (all of which I assume were original) 
do support the 2 + 3 hypothesis and suggest what the composer had in 
mind.  But there may be shifts of where the secondary beat falls on 
more careful study.


John


--
John R. 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] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[Aaron Sherber]

At 10:45 PM 9/29/2007, David W. Fenton wrote:
>Having looked at the score, I would say that I think the score is
>wrong (it's bowed as 2+3 quite regularly -- I can only hear the
>triplet as upbeat of 3, not as downbeat of 3).

Okay, well, I know this is a silly argument, since clearly 
Tchaikowsky had a good idea of what he was doing. And I did say 
earlier that the melody all by itself could be heard the way you 
describe. But look at the accompaniment in the clarinets at the 
beginning. Or better yet, the horns after the first repeat. Hearing 
the melody as 3+2 | 2+3 requires a quite willful shift in how that 
accompanying figure is perceived.


Aaron.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[David W. Fenton]

On 29 Sep 2007 at 21:55, John Howell wrote:

> At 3:21 PM -0400 9/29/07, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >On 29 Sep 2007 at 13:45, John Howell wrote:
> >
> >>  The
> >>  5/4 Tchaikovsky waltz is written in 5/4, but is consistently 2 + 3
> >>  beats.
> >
> >It's been a long time since I looked at the score, but in my head, I
> >hear:
> >
> >||: 3 + 2 | 2 + 3 :||
> >
> >Am I misremembering the theme entirely?
> 
> You may be entirely correct.  I don't have the score at hand, either. 
> I do remember that it's regular, but that might be its regularity. 
> Thanks!  I may be misremembering it through Peter Nero's adaptation 
> of Richard Rodgers' "Dancing On The Ceiling" from the mid-'60s.

Having looked at the score, I would say that I think the score is 
wrong (it's bowed as 2+3 quite regularly -- I can only hear the 
triplet as upbeat of 3, not as downbeat of 3).

This is a weird position for a musicologist to take, but so be 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] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[John Howell]

At 3:21 PM -0400 9/29/07, David W. Fenton wrote:

On 29 Sep 2007 at 13:45, John Howell wrote:


 The
 5/4 Tchaikovsky waltz is written in 5/4, but is consistently 2 + 3
 beats.


It's been a long time since I looked at the score, but in my head, I
hear:

||: 3 + 2 | 2 + 3 :||

Am I misremembering the theme entirely?


You may be entirely correct.  I don't have the score at hand, either. 
I do remember that it's regular, but that might be its regularity. 
Thanks!  I may be misremembering it through Peter Nero's adaptation 
of Richard Rodgers' "Dancing On The Ceiling" from the mid-'60s.


John


--
John R. 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] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[Raymond Horton]

David W. Fenton wrote:

On 29 Sep 2007 at 13:45, John Howell wrote:

  
The 
5/4 Tchaikovsky waltz is written in 5/4, but is consistently 2 + 3 
beats.



It's been a long time since I looked at the score, but in my head, I 
hear:


||: 3 + 2 | 2 + 3 :||

Am I misremembering the theme entirely?

  


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[Aaron Sherber]

At 03:21 PM 9/29/2007, David W. Fenton wrote:
>It's been a long time since I looked at the score, but in my head, I
>hear:
>
>||: 3 + 2 | 2 + 3 :||
>
>Am I misremembering the theme entirely?

In and of itself, the melody could be heard that way. But the 
phrasing (and beaming) makes it clear that it's 2+3 throughout.


Aaron.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[David W. Fenton]

On 29 Sep 2007 at 13:45, John Howell wrote:

> The 
> 5/4 Tchaikovsky waltz is written in 5/4, but is consistently 2 + 3 
> beats.

It's been a long time since I looked at the score, but in my head, I 
hear:

||: 3 + 2 | 2 + 3 :||

Am I misremembering the theme entirely?

-- 
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] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[Barbara Touburg]

I must admit I didn't try it first.
You're right, it messes up the existing measure expressions, but not how 
I expected it (overwriting, thus deleting them). It overwrites the m.e. 
only in the stave _in which I did the copying_, i.a.w. it changes the 
assignment list! So if you do this from a scratch staff, it might work. 
Haven't tried that out either!


Darcy James Argue wrote:
Doing that would destroy all my existing measure expressions. I would  
also have to rebar all the music, which is always fraught with peril.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY



On 29 Sep 2007, at 2:20 PM, Barbara Touburg wrote:




Darcy James Argue wrote:


Hey Chris,
The dotted barline thing would be too much of a kludge right now,  I  
think, especially since the music is already entered and the  parts  
need to get out the door today.



It should be easy. Define a vertical dotted line, measure-assign it  
very carefully the first time and copy it to the rest of the music.  
Or am I missing something?


Barbara


___
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






___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[Darcy James Argue]

Doing that would destroy all my existing measure expressions. I would  
also have to rebar all the music, which is always fraught with peril.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY



On 29 Sep 2007, at 2:20 PM, Barbara Touburg wrote:




Darcy James Argue wrote:

Hey Chris,
The dotted barline thing would be too much of a kludge right now,  
I  think, especially since the music is already entered and the  
parts  need to get out the door today.


It should be easy. Define a vertical dotted line, measure-assign it  
very carefully the first time and copy it to the rest of the music.  
Or am I missing something?


Barbara


___
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] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[Barbara Touburg]

Darcy James Argue wrote:

Hey Chris,

The dotted barline thing would be too much of a kludge right now, I  
think, especially since the music is already entered and the parts  need 
to get out the door today.


It should be easy. Define a vertical dotted line, measure-assign it very 
carefully the first time and copy it to the rest of the music. Or am I 
missing something?


Barbara


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[Darcy James Argue]

Hey Chris,

The dotted barline thing would be too much of a kludge right now, I  
think, especially since the music is already entered and the parts  
need to get out the door today.


I'm not afraid of 7/4 and have notated several works in 7, but this  
piece has a lot of flowing, rhapsodic sixteenth-note subdivisions and  
_definitely_ needs to be notated in alternating bars of 4 and 3. I  
think numbering the consecutive empty measures is the best solution,  
even though it makes the parts longer than I'd like.


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY



On 29 Sep 2007, at 9:27 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:

I was faced with this exact situation once in a piece, and I ended  
up notating it in 7/4 with a dotted barline between the 4 part and  
the 3  (added as an expression) in the bars that had music in them.  
It was surprisingly easy to read, as musicians can deal with this  
sort of thing more easily than I had foreseen. We pretty much sight- 
read it with no problem. It was back in the days of extracted  
parts, so the score had the dotted barlines added in EVERY measure  
after part extraction. I guess this particular example doesn't help  
you in linked parts.


In Altsys Jazz Orchestra we play some wacky stuff, including a  
piece by Robin Eubanks called World Citizen that starts in 7 and  
gets into bigger prime-numbered metres as it progresses. The part  
in 7 Bill Mahar (the arranger) didn't even use dotted barlines and  
we read it fine. For the parts in 11 and 17 he did use dotted  
barlines, but at the end in (I think) 33 it is divided into smaller  
measures with no ill effects as to length.


Christopher

___
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] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[John Howell]

At 11:29 PM -0400 9/28/07, Darcy James Argue wrote:


1) Would you consider it acceptable to force multimeasure rests in 
this situation (provided they always begin on the first measure of 
the 4+3 pattern)? Otherwise, I think the parts will be needlessly 
long and difficult to follow.


Agreed, counting individual measure rests would be difficult.  But if 
I were sightreading, I would also find what you suggest just as 
difficult, and twice as confusing.


Perhaps Tchaikovsky and Dave Brubeck could suggest an answer.  The 
5/4 Tchaikovsky waltz is written in 5/4, but is consistently 2 + 3 
beats.  "Take 5" is in 5/4, but is consistently 3 + 2 beats.  Would 
not writing in 7/4 solve your problem?


I don't think this is necessarily a Finale problem.  The same 
decision would have to be made even if you were hand copying.


John


--
John R. 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] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[Raymond Horton]

Speaking as an orchestral musician, I don't like it. 



One piece, extremely well known, that does this, is Bernstein's _West 
Side Story_, alternating 4/4 and 2/4 but using block multimeasure 
rests.  When we play it, I lightly pencil in each 4/4 and 2/4 
underneath, and I've been around the block a few times. 



It just works differently than the way the brain works.  If your 4/4 
plus 3/4 were 7/4, that would be a different story.   



Raymond Horton
Bass Trombonist
Louisville Orchestra


Darcy James Argue wrote:

Hello list,

I have a piece that alternates measures of 4/4 and 3/4 throughout. The 
pattern does not vary at all -- it's always one measure of 4 followed 
by one measure of 3.


My questions are about multimeasure rests in the parts. Obviously, by 
default, Finale won't create any multimeasure rests, because the meter 
changes every measure.


But:

1) Would you consider it acceptable to force multimeasure rests in 
this situation (provided they always begin on the first measure of the 
4+3 pattern)? Otherwise, I think the parts will be needlessly long and 
difficult to follow.


2) If I do decide to do this, how do I go about it in Finale?

Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY



___
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] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[A-NO-NE Music]

Darcy James Argue / 07.9.28 / 11:29 PM wrote:

>I have a piece that alternates measures of 4/4 and 3/4 throughout.  
>The pattern does not vary at all -- it's always one measure of 4  
>followed by one measure of 3.

I'd definitely do 7/4 or 4+3/4.  It is easier to feel the groove if jazz
piece.  If classical, and if there is firm reason to do 2 bars pattern,
I won't us multimeasure rests but put a lot of cue notes every where.

-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[Robert Patterson]

If you want to force multimeasure rests in this case, the meter itself 
should show the alternation (e.g., 4/4 + 3/4), so that in neither score 
nor part are any further meter changes notated. A good example of this 
in standard orch. rep. is the Overture to Westside Story. It starts out 
in 4/4+2/4. That is the meter given at the front, and there are no 
further meter changed given until it switches to steady 4/4.


About the "Start with 999 always show last 999" in my Measure Number 
plugin. FBOW, the Measure Number plugin started out as an enhanced 
"Number Repeated Measures" plugin (which comes with Finale). That means 
it adds measure number regions in the Measure Number tool to show the 
measure count. If I were doing it now, I might use expressions instead.


Anyway, numbers in the measure number tool show on every staff that has 
measure numbers enabled (and not on those that don't). That worked 
pretty well in the world before linked parts, but it is fairly 
incompatible with linked parts. However, forced measure numbers work 
well with linked parts because they are associated with specific staves.


I originally added "Start with [...] Always Show Last [...]" to allow 
for a situation in something like a drum part where there are dozens of 
identical measures in a row. Instead of putting a number over every bar, 
you could put one over every 5 bars to make it easier to read. Then you 
could have a count-off at the end with numbers over each of the final N 
bars. Since "Always Show Last [...]" is not a native option in Finale's 
measure number regions, I had to implement it with forced numbers, which 
turned out to be lucky.


When you say "Start With 999" you are telling Finale you don't want any 
of the measure numbers to appear automatically. (You would need to 
specify a bigger number if your selected region contained more than 999 
measures.)


When you say "Always Show Last  999" you are essentially saying you want 
to force a number on ever measure in the selected region. Voila, a 
little used feature request suddenly became indispensable in the new 
world order, mostly by accident.


--
Robert Patterson

http://RobertGPatterson.com

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[Christopher Smith]

On Sep 28, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:


Hello list,

I have a piece that alternates measures of 4/4 and 3/4 throughout.  
The pattern does not vary at all -- it's always one measure of 4  
followed by one measure of 3.


My questions are about multimeasure rests in the parts. Obviously,  
by default, Finale won't create any multimeasure rests, because the  
meter changes every measure.


But:

1) Would you consider it acceptable to force multimeasure rests in  
this situation (provided they always begin on the first measure of  
the 4+3 pattern)? Otherwise, I think the parts will be needlessly  
long and difficult to follow.


I wouldn't force multimeasure rests here, for the usual reasons of  
clarity, etc.


I was faced with this exact situation once in a piece, and I ended up  
notating it in 7/4 with a dotted barline between the 4 part and the  
3  (added as an expression) in the bars that had music in them. It  
was surprisingly easy to read, as musicians can deal with this sort  
of thing more easily than I had foreseen. We pretty much sight-read  
it with no problem. It was back in the days of extracted parts, so  
the score had the dotted barlines added in EVERY measure after part  
extraction. I guess this particular example doesn't help you in  
linked parts.


In Altsys Jazz Orchestra we play some wacky stuff, including a piece  
by Robin Eubanks called World Citizen that starts in 7 and gets into  
bigger prime-numbered metres as it progresses. The part in 7 Bill  
Mahar (the arranger) didn't even use dotted barlines and we read it  
fine. For the parts in 11 and 17 he did use dotted barlines, but at  
the end in (I think) 33 it is divided into smaller measures with no  
ill effects as to length.


Christopher

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[dhbailey]

Darcy James Argue wrote:

Hello list,

I have a piece that alternates measures of 4/4 and 3/4 throughout. The 
pattern does not vary at all -- it's always one measure of 4 followed by 
one measure of 3.


My questions are about multimeasure rests in the parts. Obviously, by 
default, Finale won't create any multimeasure rests, because the meter 
changes every measure.


But:

1) Would you consider it acceptable to force multimeasure rests in this 
situation (provided they always begin on the first measure of the 4+3 
pattern)? Otherwise, I think the parts will be needlessly long and 
difficult to follow.


2) If I do decide to do this, how do I go about it in Finale?



I would never think multimeasure rests would work in that situation -- 
almost every musician I know would automatically assume that any 
multimeasure rest indication would mean that many rests in whatever 
meter was active in the preceding measure.


If you have a totally repeating 4 + 3 pattern and want multi-measure 
rests, I suggest changing the meter to 7/4 and adding a note to the 
effect that they are all to be played with strong accents on 1 and 5. 
That way everybody would just count all multimeasure rests the same.


Of course, if it's meant for your own ensemble and not meant for 
publication and performance by groups far removed from you by musicians 
of unknown sophistication, you can do what you want since you'll be able 
to explain things in person.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[Aaron Sherber]

At 11:29 PM 9/28/2007, Darcy James Argue wrote:
>1) Would you consider it acceptable to force multimeasure rests in
>this situation (provided they always begin on the first measure of
>the 4+3 pattern)? Otherwise, I think the parts will be needlessly
>long and difficult to follow.

Personally, no. Which also means I don't need to try to find an 
answer to the second part of your question. 


Aaron.

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[Darcy James Argue]

These settings are required if you want to use the plugin on a linked  
part. Otherwise, the plugin-created numbers show up on all parts +  
score.


- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY



On 29 Sep 2007, at 4:55 AM, Johannes Gebauer wrote:


On 29.09.2007 Darcy James Argue wrote:
(By the way, that "Beginning with Measure [999], [Check] Always  
Show Last [999]" tip works like a charm when dealing with linked  
parts.)


Tell us, what it does, I have forgotten.

Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

___
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] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 29.09.2007 Darcy James Argue wrote:

(By the way, that "Beginning with Measure [999], [Check] Always Show Last 
[999]" tip works like a charm when dealing with linked parts.)


Tell us, what it does, I have forgotten.

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] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[dennis]

> I'd prefer a solution that works with linked parts.

I figured you might. I've been so wary of Finale's bugs for so long that I
use as few automated features as possible.

I've never used linked parts or even Finale's old part extraction. In the
kind of stuff I mostly do, those features require a lot of pre-planning to
work, and I hate pre-planning around things that are supposed to make my
life easier. I still keep separate copies of parts made by deleting the
unused staves.

So for me, special cases are easy. They're all special cases. :)

Dennis


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[Darcy James Argue]

Hey Dennis,

Hmm. I'd prefer a solution that works with linked parts. For now, I'm  
just using Robert's Measure Numbers plugin to number the empty  
measures when there are more than four of them in a row. The parts  
still run long that way, but at least they are unambiguous.


(By the way, that "Beginning with Measure [999], [Check] Always Show  
Last [999]" tip works like a charm when dealing with linked parts.)


Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY



On 29 Sep 2007, at 3:04 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


1) Would you consider it acceptable to force multimeasure rests in
this situation (provided they always begin on the first measure of
the 4+3 pattern)? Otherwise, I think the parts will be needlessly
long and difficult to follow.


I have done this by showing the pattern as a repeat with a number
bracketed above, rather than a multimeasure rest symbol. I also use  
this
same method for repeated patterns across time changes. Sort of like  
this

if you display monospaced:

|-- 6 --|
||: 4/4  =  | 3/4  =  :||

This means parts are different from score, as you suggested. (And I  
used

this same technique in the old pen & ink days, too.)

Dennis


___
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] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[dennis]

> 1) Would you consider it acceptable to force multimeasure rests in
> this situation (provided they always begin on the first measure of
> the 4+3 pattern)? Otherwise, I think the parts will be needlessly
> long and difficult to follow.

I have done this by showing the pattern as a repeat with a number
bracketed above, rather than a multimeasure rest symbol. I also use this
same method for repeated patterns across time changes. Sort of like this
if you display monospaced:

|-- 6 --|
||: 4/4  =  | 3/4  =  :||

This means parts are different from score, as you suggested. (And I used
this same technique in the old pen & ink days, too.)

Dennis


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Multimeasure rests in mixed meter pieces

[Darcy James Argue]

Hello list,

I have a piece that alternates measures of 4/4 and 3/4 throughout.  
The pattern does not vary at all -- it's always one measure of 4  
followed by one measure of 3.


My questions are about multimeasure rests in the parts. Obviously, by  
default, Finale won't create any multimeasure rests, because the  
meter changes every measure.


But:

1) Would you consider it acceptable to force multimeasure rests in  
this situation (provided they always begin on the first measure of  
the 4+3 pattern)? Otherwise, I think the parts will be needlessly  
long and difficult to follow.


2) If I do decide to do this, how do I go about it in Finale?

Cheers,

- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY



___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

[Finale] Multimeasure Rests

[Bruce E. Clausen]

Solved my problem.  Mirable dictu.
Bruce Clausen
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests problem

[David W. Fenton]

On 24 Oct 2006 at 14:19, John Howell wrote:

> I admit that I am puzzled by the coloration in measure 12, since as
> realized the black semibreve and breve have exactly the same value as
> it they were normally white. 

I can answer that one. Black notation was used in these contexts (pre-
cadentially) all the time whether needed or not. It was, apparently, 
a holdover from older practice. It's in the two Carrissimi cantatas I 
transcribed a couple of years and also used throughout the many 
Charpentier pieces I've transcribed in the last couple of years. 

The Charpentier also has some idiosyncratic use of cut time to mean 
something rather different than how we'd interpret it in modern 
notation (which is what we'd expect for this period), but that makes 
perfect sense (he uses 4/2 + 2/2 to get what could have been written 
as a 3/2 measure (if they'd been able to interpret 3/2 in the modern 
sense) for the pre-cadential big 3, which I can only see as an effort 
to put in place a slowdown of motion as something approaching a 
ritard; see http://www.dfenton.com/Collegium/Scores/Charpentier-
TenebraeLessons.pdf p. 3, second system and forward). It's a case of 
old practice intruding again on more modern notation, and can really 
throw you for a loop. The funny thing is that all the performers 
intuitively did it right and it was our coach who told us we were 
supposed to interpret according to modern rules. We voted and the 
performers won. :)

-- 
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] Multimeasure rests problem

[David W. Fenton]

On 24 Oct 2006 at 9:08, Ken Moore wrote:

> "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > My guess is that it's a holdover from the days when multimeasure
> > rests actually represented the number of rests involved. That meant
> > in 4/4 two measures of rest would be represented by a double whole
> > rest (i.e., a block filling an entire space rather than just half of
> > it), four by two-lines filled in, etc. Since we've abandoned that
> > for the modern multimeasure rest symbol with a number over it, I
> > don't see why the standard couldn't be just to use a whole rest.
> 
> Your "we" doesn't include me.  I use the old mixture for up to 12
> measures, and am always pleased to see it in parts from which I play. 
> They are especially helpful in French music (Franck and Saint=Saens
> symphonies in recent memory) in editions that make 3 and 5 almost
> indistinguishable. 

If you have that problem in Finale, then you need to use a different 
font for the numbers.

I, too, have encountered numbers in old engravings that I could only 
decipher by counting the double whole rests, but that's just not an 
issue in modern engraving, ever, so I don't see any point in using 
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] Multimeasure rests problem

[David W. Fenton]

On 24 Oct 2006 at 8:53, dc wrote:

> David W. Fenton écrit:
> >But haven't you created the problem for yourself by halving the 4/2
> >section and leaving the 3/1 section in its original meter? If you
> >were moving from 3/1 to 4/2 it would be the original ratios and you
> >wouldn't have the spacing problem.
> >
> >This is something I see in editions all the time -- halving only the
> >meters in 4 because apparently people are afraid of 4/2 or 4/1. The
> >latter bothers me (as does 3/1), but it shouldn't -- it's absolutely
> >one of the most standard meters in all music before 1700, and in
> >liturgical music right into the 19th century.
> >
> >I would likely have halved both, with 3/2 and 4/4.
> >
> >But maybe I'm guessing wrong about the original mensuration sign
> >(which I assume was a C).
> 
> No, you're completely wrong, I haven't halved anything. This is
> exactly the original notation. All the "time signatures" are those of
> the source. 4/2 certainly isn't a standard meter in the music of this
> period (Italian early 17th century).

You're saying the time signature C at this time was used to mean 4/4? 
I've never heard of that.

And you're right -- I haven't done much work with the music of that 
era (some Carissimi copied from MS, but not much else).

-- 
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] Multimeasure rests problem

[Robert Patterson]

Andrew Stiller:
> 
> Even more sensible would be to leave empty measures empty--as in fact 
> has been done in most music of the last fifty years and more.

By this do you mean cutaway scores? If so, they not only leave the measure 
empty but also remove the staff-lines as well. I would dispute the adjective 
"most". Cutaway staves and empty empty bars have certainly been adopted in many 
scores, but if you consider all styles I doubt it is most. Nor do I perceive 
any consensus that it is "best practice".

Scores provide more options than extracted parts. Leaving empty measures empty 
in an extracted part is a very bad idea, because an empty bar is ambiguous as 
to whether it was a mistake or intentional. Even for recent compositions with 
cutaway scores, the extracted parts usually deploy whole rests in single empty 
measures.

BTW: Finale makes empty empty measures really easy. What is difficult is common 
practice notation (for 4/2 and larger meters). The origin of this thread is 
about how to reproduce this common practice in Finale, rather than what the 
convention should be or might become. I for one think Finale ought to be able 
to reproduce a score by Brahms as easily as one by Stockhausen.





___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests problem

[John Howell]

At 9:47 AM +0100 10/24/06, Ken Moore wrote:
"David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 23 Oct 2006 
at 22:52, dc wrote:



 > > The 3/1 sections use mostly double whole notes and whole notes,

 whereas the C sections use up to 16th notes.
 > See for example

 > 

 > where I multiplied the "reference duration" by two for the 3/1
 sections.


I am puzzled by this.  If the incipit is correct, and if the 
statement that all note values are the same as the original, then 
what is it, exactly, that has been "multiplied by two"?  What, in 
other words, is the "reference duration"?





DWF:
But haven't you created the problem for yourself by halving the 4/2 
section and leaving the 3/1 section in its original meter? If you 
were moving from 3/1 to 4/2 it would be the original ratios and you 
wouldn't have the spacing problem.

[...]

But maybe I'm guessing wrong about the original mensuration sign 
(which I assume was a C).


The example looks odd to me, because I would expect the 3/1 to be 
one beat per measure and alternated with a 4/2 minim beat at the 
same beat speed.  If you try the C section with a minim beat, it has 
to be at a different speed.


OK, what we have here is confusion between the use of old note names 
and new ones, and between UK and US modern names.  What I see in the 
example is clear enough (assuming that it does keep original note 
values).  The tempus imperfectum mensuration seems to govern, with 
the 3:1 clearly not a "meter" or "time" signature but a proportion in 
the older style--3 semibreves in the time of 2 semibreves.


I admit that I am puzzled by the coloration in measure 12, since as 
realized the black semibreve and breve have exactly the same value as 
it they were normally white.  But at measure 14 the restatement of 
the original mensuration, cancelling the 3:1 proportion, would seem 
to give a double-time result, since it calls for 2 semibreves in the 
time of 3 semibreves under the 3:1.  And that certainly seems to fast 
for this parlando to go.  So my question would be, is that C in 
measure 14 actually a mensuration sign in the original or is it a 
modern 4/4 indication?  In other words, what is original and what is 
not.


The "Presto" indication in measure 20 seems to have no justification 
in the original, or at least none that is indicated in the edition.




I had some difficulty reading the example, because of my browser's 
scaling of it, but Rovetta could have written it as late as 1662, by 
which time there was greater notational variation than the 1590 +- 
25 period with which I am most familiar, so my assumptions are not 
necessarily appropriate, but I would still prefer the relationship 
that David suggests.


--
Ken Moore


Oh, no question at all that his lifetime was one of transition in 
many aspects of music, and not least in notation conventions.


As to the use of semibreves (modern whole notes) in a fast-moving 
context, it doesn't bother me a bit, nor would it bother anyone used 
to reading Monteverdi and others with original note values, but it 
would certainly puzzle partially-trained choral conductors who do not 
understand the mensuration/proportion conventions of the 15th and 
16th centuries.


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] Multimeasure rests problem

[Andrew Stiller]

On Oct 23, 2006, at 5:10 PM, Robert Patterson wrote:



One of the overriding concerns of music notation thru the ages, and 
esp. engraving, seems to have been the elimination of the need to 
AssUMe anything. It is, of course, a never-ending quest, but in this 
case the convention is quite sensible. The glyph for an empty measure 
never appears in any situation other than an empty measure. Which is 
practical for the whole rest until you get to 8/4 or larger meters.




Even more sensible would be to leave empty measures empty--as in fact 
has been done in most music of the last fifty years and more. Another 
sensible approach (also recent, but rarer) would be to fill empty 
measures with exactly the rests required to fill them (as: a half rest 
and a quarter rest in a 3/4 bar).


All of which is just my roundabout way of pointing out that this entire 
thread has been about historical practices and older music. It would 
seem to me that in all such cases, one ought to either a) treat empty 
measures exactly as they are treated in the source(s), or b) to follow 
the known conventions of the time and place in and for which the music 
was originally created, or c) follow the best *modern* usage and leave 
the measures empty. Which of these one chooses is a matter of one's 
editorial philosophy and/or mandate.


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] Multimeasure rests problem

[Ken Moore]

"David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 23 Oct 2006 at 
22:52, dc wrote:


> 
> The 3/1 sections use mostly double whole notes and whole notes,

> whereas the C sections use up to 16th notes.
> 
> See for example

> 
> 
> where I multiplied the "reference duration" by two for the 3/1

> sections.
  

DWF:
But haven't you created the problem for yourself by halving the 4/2 
section and leaving the 3/1 section in its original meter? If you 
were moving from 3/1 to 4/2 it would be the original ratios and you 
wouldn't have the spacing problem.

[...]

But maybe I'm guessing wrong about the original mensuration sign 
(which I assume was a C).


The example looks odd to me, because I would expect the 3/1 to be one 
beat per measure and alternated with a 4/2 minim beat at the same beat 
speed.  If you try the C section with a minim beat, it has to be at a 
different speed.


I had some difficulty reading the example, because of my browser's 
scaling of it, but Rovetta could have written it as late as 1662, by 
which time there was greater notational variation than the 1590 +- 25 
period with which I am most familiar, so my assumptions are not 
necessarily appropriate, but I would still prefer the relationship that 
David suggests.


--
Ken Moore

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests problem

[Ken Moore]

"David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

My guess is that it's a holdover from the days when multimeasure 
rests actually represented the number of rests involved. That meant 
in 4/4 two measures of rest would be represented by a double whole 
rest (i.e., a block filling an entire space rather than just half of 
it), four by two-lines filled in, etc. Since we've abandoned that for 
the modern multimeasure rest symbol with a number over it, I don't 
see why the standard couldn't be just to use a whole rest.


Your "we" doesn't include me.  I use the old mixture for up to 12 
measures, and am always pleased to see it in parts from which I play.  
They are especially helpful in French music (Franck and Saint=Saens 
symphonies in recent memory) in editions that make 3 and 5 almost 
indistinguishable. 


--
Ken Moore

___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests problem

[David W. Fenton]

On 23 Oct 2006 at 22:52, dc wrote:

> David W. Fenton écrit:
> >I've done quite a bit of such music and never felt I had a problem.
> >What is the spacing issue that bothers you in that context?
> 
> The spacing of the 3/1 sections ends up much too wide compared to that
> of the C sections if you use the same spacing options. (When I started
> to work on this repertoire some six years ago, I recall that this was
> one of my first questions to the Finale list.)
> 
> The 3/1 sections use mostly double whole notes and whole notes,
> whereas the C sections use up to 16th notes.
> 
> See for example
> 
> 
> where I multiplied the "reference duration" by two for the 3/1
> sections.

But haven't you created the problem for yourself by halving the 4/2 
section and leaving the 3/1 section in its original meter? If you 
were moving from 3/1 to 4/2 it would be the original ratios and you 
wouldn't have the spacing problem.

This is something I see in editions all the time -- halving only the 
meters in 4 because apparently people are afraid of 4/2 or 4/1. The 
latter bothers me (as does 3/1), but it shouldn't -- it's absolutely 
one of the most standard meters in all music before 1700, and in 
liturgical music right into the 19th century.

I would likely have halved both, with 3/2 and 4/4.

But maybe I'm guessing wrong about the original mensuration sign 
(which I assume was a C).

-- 
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] Multimeasure rests problem

[Robert Patterson]

You may opt for it, but try putting that in front of a professional 
orchestra that costs many $100's per minute of rehearsal, and see how 
much time you waste explaining it.


The current system may be imperfect, but it is perfectly workable, and 
it won't cost you even $0.05 worth of rehearsal time. Anyway, your 
suggestion even less Finale-friendly than the double-whole rest.


dhbailey wrote:



I would opt for a shortened version of the multiple measure rest. 
Without a number overhead (or with a 1) it would be a single measure 
entirely silent, and with numbers it would indicate multiple measures of 
rest.





--
Robert Patterson

http://RobertGPatterson.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests problem

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 04:35 PM 10/23/06 -0400, dhbailey wrote:
>That's the part which baffles me -- when I see a single rest in an 
>otherwise empty measure I assume it's the full measure since there's 
>nothing else to play.

Yes, I agree. It seems this complaint may be a false expectation of
specificity, unless it's a conscious imitation of an earlier style. An
empty measure may as well contain no rest (some composers do that) or
simply white space (others do that). If a notational style is being
emulated, sure, include the funky rests.

But I actually remember being mocked by the brass players in an ensemble
when I used larger rest values early in my copying life. I was told to
'just write a doggone (euphemized) whole rest in the measure, what are we,
stupid?' 

To use value-specific rests in an empty measure is redundant to the
existing time signature. For that matter, a time signature is redundant if
the consideration is merely to play the patterns of notes as written.
Musicians are notoriously terrible at counting, but not that bad!

Dennis





-- 

Please participate in my latest project:
http://maltedmedia.com/waam/
My blog:
http://maltedmedia.com/bathory/waam-blog.html
Composer "buy local" bumpersticker:
http://maltedmedia.com/people/bathory/bumpersticker.jpg
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/80570307/




___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests problem

[Robert Patterson]

dhbailey wrote:


That's the part which baffles me -- when I see a single rest in an 
otherwise empty measure I assume it's the full measure since there's 
nothing else to play.




One of the overriding concerns of music notation thru the ages, and esp. 
engraving, seems to have been the elimination of the need to AssUMe 
anything. It is, of course, a never-ending quest, but in this case the 
convention is quite sensible. The glyph for an empty measure never 
appears in any situation other than an empty measure. Which is practical 
for the whole rest until you get to 8/4 or larger meters.


If there's a rest for a half-measure, there's stuff in the other 
half-measure to play.




Unless there is a mistake in the part, in which case one is left 
confused. If I'm playing a part in 2/4 (in an orchestra) and see nothing 
but a quarter rest, I know there is a mistake. This has happened many 
times in real life in my career to me or to colleagues.


If you use a whole rest symbol both for a half-bar and whole-bar rest, 
then an empty bar in an extracted part looks like it could be a mistake. 
This is neither a hypothetical nor a fringe issue. The problem would 
exist in as commonly performed a piece as the Brahms Requiem if the end 
of the 3rd movement did not use double-whole rests for empty bars. In 
fact the end of the 3rd movement has 3/2 and 4/2 measures next to one 
another. The 3/2 empty bars have whole rests while the 4/2 empty 
measures have double-whole rests.


--
Robert Patterson

http://RobertGPatterson.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests problem

[dhbailey]

Noel Stoutenburg wrote:

dhbailey wrote:
I've never understood the need for a different whole-rest for empty 
measures in meters larger than 4/4.  We have no problem using them in 
meters smaller than 4/4, so why not just keep the traditional 
whole-rest for all meters?
It seems to me that it would be the exact same problem as using only a 
half note rest in a 4/4 measure to indicate that sometimes there are two 
beats of pitch in the other half, and other times, that there is no 
music at all.  If one is going to standardize on a single glyph to 
indicate that a measure is empty, a whole rest is too short to do that, 
in my opinion.





I would opt for a shortened version of the multiple measure rest. 
Without a number overhead (or with a 1) it would be a single measure 
entirely silent, and with numbers it would indicate multiple measures of 
rest.



--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests problem

[dhbailey]

Johannes Gebauer wrote:

On 23.10.2006 dhbailey wrote:
I've never understood the need for a different whole-rest for empty 
measures in meters larger than 4/4.  We have no problem using them in 
meters smaller than 4/4, so why not just keep the traditional 
whole-rest for all meters?



Because otherwise you get the exact same rest representing both a half 
measure and a full measure, and I certainly would find that very confusing.


Johannes



That's the part which baffles me -- when I see a single rest in an 
otherwise empty measure I assume it's the full measure since there's 
nothing else to play.


If there's a rest for a half-measure, there's stuff in the other 
half-measure to play.


When I see notes and rests in a measure I play them, when I see nothing 
but a rest in a measure I play nothing.


I realize that for many people the traditions of the genre or period are 
very important, and I'm not meaning to suggest that there's anything 
foolish about any of them, just that I find it curious.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests problem

[Noel Stoutenburg]

dhbailey wrote:
I've never understood the need for a different whole-rest for empty 
measures in meters larger than 4/4.  We have no problem using them in 
meters smaller than 4/4, so why not just keep the traditional 
whole-rest for all meters?
It seems to me that it would be the exact same problem as using only a 
half note rest in a 4/4 measure to indicate that sometimes there are two 
beats of pitch in the other half, and other times, that there is no 
music at all.  If one is going to standardize on a single glyph to 
indicate that a measure is empty, a whole rest is too short to do that, 
in my opinion.


ns


___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests problem

[David W. Fenton]

On 23 Oct 2006 at 21:58, dc wrote:

> David W. Fenton écrit:
> >Ideally, it could be implemented as a staff style that could be
> >applied to a region. That would alleviate any need to enter real
> >rests, and entirely take care of the problem with parts and
> >multimeasure rests.
> 
> Still, there are a certain number of document options which
> desperately need to be applied to sections only: default measure rest,
> and, especially, to mention only one other, spacing options. A lot of
> 17th century music constantly alternates between C and 3/1, and it's
> impossible to get a decent spacing using the same options for both
> time signatures.

I've done quite a bit of such music and never felt I had a problem. 
What is the spacing issue that bothers you in that context?

-- 
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] Multimeasure rests problem

[dhbailey]

dc wrote:
Thanks, Chuck and David for your suggestions. In the meantime, I've 
found a workaround that seems to do the trick without too much trouble: 
instead of actually entering the rests in the C sections, I use measure 
attached expressions in the score and a staff style to hide the normal 
default rest.


Too bad metatools can't be assigned to an expression associated to a 
staff list.


Dennis
P.S. The choice of the default whole measure rest is another issue. 
Regardless of what might be preferable, I want to decide myself, and not 
let Finale decide for me.



I realize that P.S. but couldn't help expressing my opinion on the 
subject.  I agree wholeheartedly that it should be your decision and not 
the program's.


As to metatools and expressions and staff-lists, what I have found works 
great is to use the metatool then right-click and in the Expression 
Assignment dialog assign it to the staff list.  It just seems to work 
better for my work flow. Probably ends up being the same number of 
mouse-clicks and expletive-utterances but somehow it works for me.


--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests problem

[David W. Fenton]

On 23 Oct 2006 at 21:19, dc wrote:

> P.S. The choice of the default whole measure rest is another issue.
> Regardless of what might be preferable, I want to decide myself, and
> not let Finale decide for me.

Ideally, it could be implemented as a staff style that could be 
applied to a region. That would alleviate any need to enter real 
rests, and entirely take care of the problem with parts and 
multimeasure rests.

-- 
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] Multimeasure rests problem

[Johannes Gebauer]

On 23.10.2006 dhbailey wrote:

I've never understood the need for a different whole-rest for empty measures in 
meters larger than 4/4.  We have no problem using them in meters smaller than 
4/4, so why not just keep the traditional whole-rest for all meters?



Because otherwise you get the exact same rest representing both a half 
measure and a full measure, and I certainly would find that very confusing.


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] Multimeasure rests problem

[Robert Patterson]

dhbailey wrote:



I've never understood the need for a different whole-rest for empty 
measures in meters larger than 4/4.


According to Ross, you use double-whole rests for meters larger than 
6/4. Actually, I believe he mispoke. One uses a whole rest in empty 
measures for any meter smaller than 8/4 (4/2). Furthermore, in meters 
like 3/2 and 7/4 one avoids using whole rests for anyting other than 
whole measure rests, using 2 half-rests for 2 beats rather than a whole 
rest.


This explains why one uses a double-whole for entire-meas rests in 4/2 
because the whole rest is required for 2-beat-rests in quadruple time. 
In an extracted part the difference is by no means obvious. See, e.g., 
Brahms Requiem 3rd Movement. The final section is in 4/2, and using 
whole rests for whole-meas rests would be quite confusing in an 
extracted part.


I would extrapolate this rule to add that 4/1 meter probably requires a 
double-double-whole rest for empty measures. The reason being that the 
double-whole rest is required for a half-meas rest. But I have never 
written any music in 4/1. Nevertheless, I'll bet such music exists, esp. 
recent editions of early music.


--
Robert Patterson

http://RobertGPatterson.com
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests problem

[David W. Fenton]

On 23 Oct 2006 at 13:14, dhbailey wrote:

> I've never understood the need for a different whole-rest for empty
> measures in meters larger than 4/4.  We have no problem using them in
> meters smaller than 4/4, so why not just keep the traditional
> whole-rest for all meters?  It's painfully obvious that that's the
> only thing in the measure, so anybody who can't keep their place
> through a single measure of 3/1 meter with a single whole rest in it
> shouldn't be playing the music.  And any rests longer than 1 measure
> would be part of a multiple measure rest anyway, so it isn't as if
> someone's going to have to look at a string of whole-rests in 3/1
> time.

My guess is that it's a holdover from the days when multimeasure 
rests actually represented the number of rests involved. That meant 
in 4/4 two measures of rest would be represented by a double whole 
rest (i.e., a block filling an entire space rather than just half of 
it), four by two-lines filled in, etc. Since we've abandoned that for 
the modern multimeasure rest symbol with a number over it, I don't 
see why the standard couldn't be just to use a whole rest.

In old music, with its longer beat values, I might be tempted to go 
with a double whole rest for the default for everything, but that 
only works well if you're not halving the duple sections. There's a 
definite problem with 2/2 in that context, but not if it's 4/2.

-- 
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] Multimeasure rests problem

[dhbailey]

dc wrote:
Here's my problem. I have a certain number of pieces that need a 
different default whole measure rest (alternating 3/1 and C sections). 
So what I do, since this is unfortunately impossible in Finale, is use 
the double whole note rest as default, and add whole note rests where I 
need them (in the C sections). But, strangely enough, though the rest 
fills the whole measure, these don't get included in multimeasure rests. 
I used to delete these rests after extracting the parts. But now, with 
linked parts, how can I both keep the score right and have my 
multimeasure rests?


Thanks to those who have read this far and who might have a bright idea.



This might simply be a case where linked score/parts won't work.

I don't know of a workaround, except one that might be too painful to 
use, which would be to leave the empty measures empty (i.e. don't fill 
them with those "fake" default whole rests), and then put whatever rest 
you want in as a text block in each measure needed in each part, since 
text blocks entered in the parts don't link back to the score.


Or you could try simply using your default whole-rest for the entire 
work and see what comments you get.


I've never understood the need for a different whole-rest for empty 
measures in meters larger than 4/4.  We have no problem using them in 
meters smaller than 4/4, so why not just keep the traditional whole-rest 
for all meters?  It's painfully obvious that that's the only thing in 
the measure, so anybody who can't keep their place through a single 
measure of 3/1 meter with a single whole rest in it shouldn't be playing 
the music.  And any rests longer than 1 measure would be part of a 
multiple measure rest anyway, so it isn't as if someone's going to have 
to look at a string of whole-rests in 3/1 time.




--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests problem

[cisraels]

Hi Dennis,

I don't see a way to have actual rests in meausers in the score that will 
convert into mm rests in parts, as long as the parts are linked.  I may be 
missing some idea, but that's how it looks to me and, if I were facing that 
problem, I'd be thinking about extracting separate parts.

Chuck


 -- Original message --
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Here's my problem. I have a certain number of pieces that need a different 
> default whole measure rest (alternating 3/1 and C sections). So what I do, 
> since this is unfortunately impossible in Finale, is use the double whole 
> note rest as default, and add whole note rests where I need them (in the C 
> sections). But, strangely enough, though the rest fills the whole measure, 
> these don't get included in multimeasure rests. I used to delete these 
> rests after extracting the parts. But now, with linked parts, how can I 
> both keep the score right and have my multimeasure rests?
> 
> Thanks to those who have read this far and who might have a bright idea.
> 
> Dennis
> 
> ___
> 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] Multimeasure rests

[Chuck Israels]

It may be possible to remove the MM rest shape from the spot in which it appears in the shape selection window and replace it with a new shape copied from another place.  At least I'd try this in one document to see if that solved the problem.

Chuck


On Dec 6, 2004, at 1:00 PM, d. collins wrote:

I'm extracting parts from files that are a couple of years old, and I'm getting the numbers for the multimeasure rests, but not the shape, although it is duly selected (117) in the Document Options, and all the other settings are identical to those of other files where I don't have this problem.

Are there any other settings besides Document Options, Multimeasure Rests?

Any ideas or suggestions to solve this?

Thanks,

Dennis

___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale


Chuck Israels
230 North Garden Terrace
Bellingham, WA 98225-5836
phone (360) 671-3402
fax (360) 676-6055
www.chuckisraels.com
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests

[Jari Williamsson]

d. collins wrote:
I'm extracting parts from files that are a couple of years old, and I'm 
getting the numbers for the multimeasure rests, but not the shape, 
although it is duly selected (117) in the Document Options, and all the 
other settings are identical to those of other files where I don't have 
this problem.

Are there any other settings besides Document Options, Multimeasure Rests?
The "Multimeasure Rests" page in the Document Options dialog are just 
containing _default_ values (just like "Tuplets" page) used before the 
objects have been created.

Here's how to fix globaly:
Use "Settings Transfer" in Forza! Lite. When "Multimeasure Rests" is 
checked, there an option displayed called "Update existing Multimeasure 
rests to new defaults" - check that one. Click on Transfer.

Best regards,
Jari Williamsson
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale