Re: [Finale] Re: Tuplet notation
On Jun 28, 2006, at 6:50 PM, Williams, Jim wrote: I have been told by drummers to put the pattern at the beginning of each line. I'd say that milepost numbers are desirable, especially if phrase lengths are in any way irregular. Chuck...weigh in, please!! Jim Weighing in at some 20 lbs too heavy! Jim, this sounds appropriate to me. It can actually be easier to read one and two bar repeat symbols, once a pattern has been memorized (than looking to see if the pattern is the same, I mean). Putting a written out measure at the beginning of each line is a nice courtesy, and the only time I think it might be counter-productive is if there is a small change in the pattern occurring at the beginning of a subsequent line (3 or 4 lines down) where the reader might logically overlook the change thinking that it is another courtesy "written out" measure. If such a change happened in another place in the line, the written out measure in that new location would attract attention and be unlikely to be misread. Ways around such a problem include an eyeglass symbol over the changed measure, or not "writing out" the measures at the beginning of the lines. Bill Duncan - "Be impossible to misunderstand." Chuck From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Rudolf van Berkum Sent: Wed 28-Jun-06 21:40 To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: [Finale] Re: Tuplet notation On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:55:58 -0400 John wrote: In manuscript I used a LOT of one-bar and two-bar (and sometimes four-bar) ditto marks, but it is child's play today to copy the notation in those measures throughout the passage. But that may not be the clearest way to indicate consecutive measures with a repetitive pattern. Which brings up other decisions, when using ditto marks: (1) Should the figure be re-notated at the beginning of each line? (My answer, an unequivocal "NO"!) (2) Should milepost numbers be shown every 4, 8, etc. bars of dittos, when each bar is clearly numbered in the first place? (My answer, an unequivocal "YES"!!) - To which my response is: for (1) a tepid yes as long all the repeated bars/measures are numbered consecutively, ie if there are eight bars repeated and four of them are on one line then the figure at the beginning of the next line carries the number five. I've often wondered whether it is really necessary to make the bar at the beginning of the line carry the full notation, but I've gone along with the convention. It's analagous to the convention of starting a new page with the clef when it has been left out on all but the first bar of the previous page. For (2) also yes. Regards, Rudi vB. ___ 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 Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Re: Tuplet notation
I have been told by drummers to put the pattern at the beginning of each line. I'd say that milepost numbers are desirable, especially if phrase lengths are in any way irregular. Chuck...weigh in, please!! Jim From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Rudolf van Berkum Sent: Wed 28-Jun-06 21:40 To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: [Finale] Re: Tuplet notation On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:55:58 -0400 John wrote: In manuscript I used a LOT of one-bar and two-bar (and sometimes four-bar) ditto marks, but it is child's play today to copy the notation in those measures throughout the passage. But that may not be the clearest way to indicate consecutive measures with a repetitive pattern. Which brings up other decisions, when using ditto marks: (1) Should the figure be re-notated at the beginning of each line? (My answer, an unequivocal "NO"!) (2) Should milepost numbers be shown every 4, 8, etc. bars of dittos, when each bar is clearly numbered in the first place? (My answer, an unequivocal "YES"!!) - To which my response is: for (1) a tepid yes as long all the repeated bars/measures are numbered consecutively, ie if there are eight bars repeated and four of them are on one line then the figure at the beginning of the next line carries the number five. I've often wondered whether it is really necessary to make the bar at the beginning of the line carry the full notation, but I've gone along with the convention. It's analagous to the convention of starting a new page with the clef when it has been left out on all but the first bar of the previous page. For (2) also yes. Regards, Rudi vB. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale I have been told by drummers to put the pattern at the beginning of each line. I'd say that milepost numbers are desirable, especially if phrase lengths are in any way irregular. Chuck...weigh in, please!! Jim From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Rudolf van Berkum Sent: Wed 28-Jun-06 21:40 To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: [Finale] Re: Tuplet notation On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:55:58 -0400 John wrote: In manuscript I used a LOT of one-bar and two-bar (and sometimes four-bar) ditto marks, but it is child's play today to copy the notation in those measures throughout the passage. But that may not be the clearest way to indicate consecutive measures with a repetitive pattern. Which brings up other decisions, when using ditto marks: (1) Should the figure be re-notated at the beginning of each line? (My answer, an unequivocal "NO"!) (2) Should milepost numbers be shown every 4, 8, etc. bars of dittos, when each bar is clearly numbered in the first place? (My answer, an unequivocal "YES"!!) - To which my response is: for (1) a tepid yes as long all the repeated bars/measures are numbered consecutively, ie if there are eight bars repeated and four of them are on one line then the figure at the beginning of the next line carries the number five. I've often wondered whether it is really necessary to make the bar at the beginning of the line carry the full notation, but I've gone along with the convention. It's analagous to the convention of starting a new page with the clef when it has been left out on all but the first bar of the previous page. For (2) also yes. Regards, Rudi vB. ___ 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] Re: Tuplet notation
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:55:58 -0400 John wrote: In manuscript I used a LOT of one-bar and two-bar (and sometimes four-bar) ditto marks, but it is child's play today to copy the notation in those measures throughout the passage. But that may not be the clearest way to indicate consecutive measures with a repetitive pattern. Which brings up other decisions, when using ditto marks: (1) Should the figure be re-notated at the beginning of each line? (My answer, an unequivocal "NO"!) (2) Should milepost numbers be shown every 4, 8, etc. bars of dittos, when each bar is clearly numbered in the first place? (My answer, an unequivocal "YES"!!) - To which my response is: for (1) a tepid yes as long all the repeated bars/measures are numbered consecutively, ie if there are eight bars repeated and four of them are on one line then the figure at the beginning of the next line carries the number five. I've often wondered whether it is really necessary to make the bar at the beginning of the line carry the full notation, but I've gone along with the convention. It's analagous to the convention of starting a new page with the clef when it has been left out on all but the first bar of the previous page. For (2) also yes. Regards, Rudi vB. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
