Barbara Touburg answered:
Hear, hear! I've sung in a specialized Renaissance choir for several
years and I can testify that *not* reducing note values makes all of
the difference! We need to see the original notation.
David W. Fenton wrote:
So, this all depends on your repertory and the audienc
On 5 Jan 2004 at 13:52, Phil Daley wrote:
> At 1/5/2004 01:29 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> >When I lived in Cleveland, I had the good fortune to be involved in
> a >choir that sang Latin mass every Sunday, with a full polyphonic
> >ordinary (drawn from both the great Renaissance repertory an
On 5 Jan 2004 at 9:53, Harold Owen wrote:
> At 3:39 PM +0100 1/5/04, Barbara Touburg wrote:
> >Hear, hear! I've sung in a specialized Renaissance choir for
> >several years and I can testify that *not* reducing note values
> >makes all of the difference! We need to see the original notation.
>
>
At 3:39 PM +0100 1/5/04, Barbara Touburg wrote:
Hear, hear! I've sung in a specialized Renaissance choir for several
years and I can testify that *not* reducing note values makes all of
the difference! We need to see the original notation.
Dear folks,
Note the words "specialized Renaissance choi
Hear, hear! I've sung in a specialized Renaissance choir for several
years and I can testify that *not* reducing note values makes all of the
difference! We need to see the original notation.
David W. Fenton wrote:
...
So, this all depends on your repertory and the audience for your
edition.
I agree that the multimeasure rests should make sense with the phrasing
of the surrounding music, not some arbitrary grouping of 5 or 10
measures per rest. When I run into long groups of such I pencil in the
groupings of the rests that make the most sense musically.
John.Howell wrote:
At ho
Ultimately, your own opinion, your eye, and your experience is what
matters most. You should do as you feel works best.
I was just citing authorities to defend my statement that you said was
wrong.
It really makes no matter to me -- when I see an empty measure with a
whole rest in it, regardl
On 4 Jan 2004 at 8:51, Harold Owen wrote:
> I have to agree with Johannes. The normal "whole rest" can be very
> deceiving in 4/2, 3/1, and other signatures larger than 2/2 when used
> to indicate a measure rest because it must be available to indicate
> exactly 2 half notes' duration in a measure
On 04.01.2004 13:11 Uhr, d. collins wrote
Thanks, Johannes. This is indeed what I was wondering about (and, as I said
in another message, I made the mistake of quoting Ross from memory and
forgetting that he doesn't actually recommend the method he describes). But
I'm not sure the solution you
In a message dated 04/01/2004 23:08:38 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One very bad publishing idea that was popular in about the mid-20th
century was to break multimeasure rests every 5 or 10 bars, totally
ignoring the phrasing of the music
Yes! - it's appalling and offers no help
At how many measures should one start to convert to multimeasure
rests with numbers? I think Finale's default is 10. That sounds like
a lot. The Essential Dictionary of Music Notation says anything over
1 measure. Ted Ross gives a system with symbols for 2 to 8, and uses
numbers starting at 9.
That's all very well, but if you look at modern (European) editions of Early
music using such long measures you will find that the more authorative ones
all use double whole rests in longer measures than 2/2. As I said, I am not
entirely sure about 3/2, perhaps a single whole rest is correct here (
Gardner Read, in Music Notation -- A Manual of Modern Practice, at the
bottom of p. 97, continuing on the top of p. 98:
"Although the whole rest literally signifies only the value of a whole
note (or of two half-notes combines), it now commonly serves as the
symbol for any completely silent mea
From Johannes Gebauer:
On 04.01.2004 13:40 Uhr, David H. Bailey wrote
Actually, you CAN use the default whole rest, since its meaning is
two-fold: equal in length to a whole note, or, when the only thing in
the measure it represents a whole measure of rest. When it is the only
thing present
On 04.01.2004 13:40 Uhr, David H. Bailey wrote
> Actually, you CAN use the default whole rest, since its meaning is
> two-fold: equal in length to a whole note, or, when the only thing in
> the measure it represents a whole measure of rest. When it is the only
> thing present in the measure, its
On 04.01.2004 13:11 Uhr, d. collins wrote
> Thanks, Johannes. This is indeed what I was wondering about (and, as I said
> in another message, I made the mistake of quoting Ross from memory and
> forgetting that he doesn't actually recommend the method he describes). But
> I'm not sure the solution
At 04:20 AM 1/4/2004, d. collins wrote:
>I guess this refers to the parts that don't have the expression. Which
>makes sense.
Having this box checked for any given measure means that any MM rest which
would normally occur would be broken at that measure. Having it unchecked
means that MM rests w
At 03:48 AM 1/4/2004, d. collins wrote:
>At how many measures should one start to convert to multimeasure rests with
>numbers? I think Finale's default is 10.
I think you're misunderstanding. Finale will by default put a number over
all MM rests. The option "Use symbols for rests less than X measu
Actually, you CAN use the default whole rest, since its meaning is
two-fold: equal in length to a whole note, or, when the only thing in
the measure it represents a whole measure of rest. When it is the only
thing present in the measure, its meaning is clear to me.
d. collins wrote:
Johann
On 04.01.2004 9:48 Uhr, d. collins wrote
> At how many measures should one start to convert to multimeasure rests with
> numbers? I think Finale's default is 10. That sounds like a lot. The
> Essential Dictionary of Music Notation says anything over 1 measure. Ted
> Ross gives a system with symbol
I may be misunderstanding what you are asking about multi-measure rests and numbers -
If it's more than one bar rest I want a number with it.
All the best,
Lawrence
"þaes ofereode - þisses swa maeg"
http://lawrenceyates.co.uk
___
Finale mailing li
At 05:03 PM 1/3/2004, d. collins wrote:
>Is there any easy way to replace in an extracted part (after the part has
>been extracted) a certain number of measures with a multimeasure rest? (I
>have empty measures in which I had to put "expressions" in the score, but
>would like them to appear as mult
---Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
> Of d. collins
> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 2:03 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Finale] Multimeasure rests
>
>
> Is there any easy way to replace in an extracted part (after the
At 3:04 PM -0800 3/19/03, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
You're not selecting ALL the measures, then double-clicking to change
the maesure attributes, are you? This will change the attributes for
ALL the selected measures. Only select the last measure in the group.
Nope, that's
I know this has been discussed before, but a thorough search of the
archives
didn't bring up an answer to my specific question.
I know about the "Break Multimeasure Rests" check-box in
measure-attached
expressions, but that doesn't really do what I'd like it to. I have
checked
that option in a
> If it helps anybody, this was once an Encore file, and it was converted to
> Finale before it was given to me.
Aha! I found the answer. Well, actually, it was my editor's idea...
Anyway, we discovered that the composer had written the Encore file with
real whole rests. All I had to do was ru
Brad,
have a look to db 'Multimeasur Rest' (Options/Document Settings...).
What is written in the 'Start numbering at' field?
Greetings
Raimund
Brad Beyenhof schrieb:
> Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
> > You're not selecting ALL the measures, then double-clicking to change
> > the maesure attrib
Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
> You're not selecting ALL the measures, then double-clicking to change
> the maesure attributes, are you? This will change the attributes for
> ALL the selected measures. Only select the last measure in the group.
Nope, that's not what I'm doing. I'm merely changing t
At 12:38 PM 3/19/2003, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
>I know about the "Break Multimeasure Rests" check-box in measure-attached
>expressions, but that doesn't really do what I'd like it to. I have checked
>that option in all of my rehearsal numbers, but, when I extract the parts,
>the rehearsal numbers do
At 2:17 PM -0800 3/19/03, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
> Use the *barline* to break a multimeasure rest. Select the measure
tool, double-click the right barline of the bar before the rehearsal
number, and turn on "Break Multimeasure rests." So, for instance, if
you have a 32-measure rest with rehears
On 19 Mar 2003, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
> That didn't seem to work. I got the same
> "completely broken" behavior that happened
> when I asked the expression to break the rest.
> Is there another setting somewhere that I'm
> missing?
>
I can't reproduce your scenario either with meas exps or barline
> Use the *barline* to break a multimeasure rest. Select the measure
> tool, double-click the right barline of the bar before the rehearsal
> number, and turn on "Break Multimeasure rests." So, for instance, if
> you have a 32-measure rest with rehearsal numbers every eight measures,
> in the par
On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 12:59 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
So, for instance, if you have a 32-measure rest with rehearsal numbers
every eight measures, in the part you will get eight 8-bar rests and
the rehearsal numbers will display properly.
Er, that's *four* 8-bar rests. But you ge
On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 12:38 PM, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
Dear Listers:
I know this has been discussed before, but a thorough search of the
archives
didn't bring up an answer to my specific question.
I know about the "Break Multimeasure Rests" check-box in
measure-attached
expressions,
Dear Listers:
I know this has been discussed before, but a thorough search of the archives
didn't bring up an answer to my specific question.
I know about the "Break Multimeasure Rests" check-box in measure-attached
expressions, but that doesn't really do what I'd like it to. I have checked
that
Johannes Gebauer writes:
It's an idea. I now wonder, however, whether the number should in fact be on
both staves anyway. Or should it be in between the staves?
Yes. I believe I have seen keyboard parts where the multimeasure
rest number was between the staves. It certainly makes sense.
Inste
as far as I can remember these should go in between.
It's a nightmare in Finale. Sometimes is easier to edit a PDF file.
cheers,
Abel
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> It's an idea. I now wonder, however, whether the number should in
> fact be on
> both staves anyway. Or should it be in between the st
On 12.02.2003 18:41 Uhr, Harold Owen wrote
> Johannes Gebauer writes:
>
>> It's an idea. I now wonder, however, whether the number should in fact be on
>> both staves anyway. Or should it be in between the staves?
>
> Yes. I believe I have seen keyboard parts where the multimeasure rest
> number
Johannes Gebauer writes:
It's an idea. I now wonder, however, whether the number should in fact be on
both staves anyway. Or should it be in between the staves?
Yes. I believe I have seen keyboard parts where the multimeasure rest
number was between the staves. It certainly makes sense. Instea
I don't think it will do any harm to have it in both places -- less
likely to be overlooked or misread if the performer is keeping attention
on the bottom staff for whatever reason.
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 12.02.2003 13:51 Uhr, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote
Finale 2001d Windows:
Create an
IL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] Multimeasure rests question
> On 12.02.2003 13:51 Uhr, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote
>
> > Finale 2001d Windows:
> >
> > Create an opaque expression which consists only of an enclosed rectangle
On 12.02.2003 13:51 Uhr, Mr. Liudas Motekaitis wrote
> Finale 2001d Windows:
>
> Create an opaque expression which consists only of an enclosed rectangle
> with a line thickness of "0". Make sure to connect this expression to a note
> which is in a frame which comes *after* the multimeasure rest,
Finale 2001d Windows:
Create an opaque expression which consists only of an enclosed rectangle
with a line thickness of "0". Make sure to connect this expression to a note
which is in a frame which comes *after* the multimeasure rest, otherwise the
number will not get covered. Place this expressio
Is it possible to only display the multimeasure rest number on the top
system of a two staff group part (ie piano part)?
Johannes
--
http://www.musikmanufaktur.com
http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de
___
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mai
Are you sure the measures are really empty? Did you possibly put "real"
whole rests in those measures? One easy way to check is to go to the
Staff tool and double click the handle for that staff in the extracted
part and UNcheck the box "fill empty measures with rests." After you
exit that d
Lawrence David Eden writes:
> The score for my most recent work included a part for snare drum. The part
> was on a separate staff and looked fine in the score. However, when I
> extracted the parts, the snare drum part did not make use of multimeasure
> rests. No matter what I tried, I could n
Hidden layers? Staff styles? Worth a look. Cheers, Keith in OZ.
- Original Message -
From: Lawrence David Eden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FinaleList <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 11:20 PM
Subject: [Finale] multimeasure rests
> Got another que
Got another question regarding percussion parts:
The score for my most recent work included a part for snare drum. The part
was on a separate staff and looked fine in the score. However, when I
extracted the parts, the snare drum part did not make use of multimeasure
rests. No matter what I tri
48 matches
Mail list logo
