Re: [Finale] RE: irregular divisi

2002-10-03 Thread Philip Aker
On Thursday, Oct 3, 2002, at 02:57 US/Pacific, David H. Bailey wrote: > I must say that for all the years I have been on this list I have > never had a problem with Andrew Stiller's attributions in his post. > It has always been clear to me, if it has ever been really important. > > I find tha

Re: [Finale] RE: irregular divisi

2002-10-03 Thread Phil Daley
At 10/03/2002 05:57 AM, David H. Bailey wrote: >I'll probably get yelled at because I had the nerve to place my reply >ABOVE the quoted material! Flame away! All the lists I have been on, always argue about whether quotes should be over or under. I think it depends on how the user's email p

Re: [Finale] RE: irregular divisi

2002-10-03 Thread David H. Bailey
I must say that for all the years I have been on this list I have never had a problem with Andrew Stiller's attributions in his post. It has always been clear to me, if it has ever been really important. I find that on this list (for me, anyway) it matters less who said what than what was sai

Re: [Finale] RE: irregular divisi

2002-10-03 Thread Philip Aker
On Wednesday, Oct 2, 2002, at 13:19 US/Pacific, Andrew Stiller wrote: > And BTW, apropos of another thread please note the "standard" quote > identifier at the top of this. Looks like I'm replying to my own > message, doesn't it? Very clear and useful--not. Pardon me if I > refrain. Looks li

Re: [Finale] RE: irregular divisi

2002-10-02 Thread Ken Durling
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 22:57:11 +0200, you wrote: >a2 should not appear in violin parts (at least not in good ones). A correct >phrase would be "2 soli" or similar. Right. "a2" is typical in wind and brass parts where two parts share a staff. Avoids double stemming notes. Ken ___

[Finale] RE: irregular divisi

2002-10-02 Thread Linda Worsley
At 4:24 PM -0400 10/2/02, Andrew Stiller wrote: [referring to] >>I've never, ever used "a2" to indicate that there are two parts. >>Yikes. I'd think that would be VERY confusing. >> >>Linda Worsley. >>-- > >And wrong. But now two different people thought I was saying >otherwise, so let me re

Re: [Finale] RE: irregular divisi

2002-10-02 Thread Jari Williamsson
Christopher BJ Smith writes: > Hmm, I will concede that you probably know what you're talking about > more than I do, but it seems to me that a2 appearing on a violin part > means two players only. I see a2 on staves where there are two > clarinetists, who happen to be playing in unison at tha

[Finale] RE: irregular divisi

2002-10-02 Thread Andrew Stiller
>At 2:09 PM -0400 10/2/02, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: >>At 11:12 AM -0400 10/02/02, Andrew Stiller wrote: 1,2. a2 > >I've never, ever used "a2" to indicate that there are two parts. >Yikes. I'd think that would be VERY confusing. > >Linda Worsley. >-- And wrong. But now two different peopl

[Finale] RE: irregular divisi

2002-10-02 Thread Andrew Stiller
>At 11:12 AM -0400 10/02/02, Andrew Stiller wrote: >>>1,2. a2 >>> >>>is wrong; it would mean only two players. >>> >>>1,2. unis. >>> >>>would be more correct, n'est-ce pas? >>> >>>Christopher >> >>Well, it's debatable I suppose. To me "a2" indicates that two parts >>(played by however many peop

[Finale] RE: irregular divisi

2002-10-02 Thread Linda Worsley
At 2:09 PM -0400 10/2/02, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: >At 11:12 AM -0400 10/02/02, Andrew Stiller wrote: >>>1,2. a2 >>> >>>is wrong; it would mean only two players. >>> >>>1,2. unis. >>> >>>would be more correct, n'est-ce pas? >>> >>>Christopher >> >>Well, it's debatable I suppose. To me "a2" ind

[Finale] RE: irregular divisi

2002-10-02 Thread Christopher BJ Smith
At 11:12 AM -0400 10/02/02, Andrew Stiller wrote: >>1,2. a2 >> >>is wrong; it would mean only two players. >> >>1,2. unis. >> >>would be more correct, n'est-ce pas? >> >>Christopher > >Well, it's debatable I suppose. To me "a2" indicates that two parts >(played by however many people) that are

[Finale] RE: irregular divisi

2002-10-02 Thread Andrew Stiller
> >1,2. a2 > >is wrong; it would mean only two players. > >1,2. unis. > >would be more correct, n'est-ce pas? > >Christopher Well, it's debatable I suppose. To me "a2" indicates that two parts (played by however many people) that are normally separate have been unified into a single line, whe

[Finale] RE: irregular divisi

2002-10-01 Thread Christopher BJ Smith
At 4:32 PM -0400 10/01/02, Andrew Stiller wrote: >>What is the best way to indicating a string divisi passage where 2/3 of the >>players are to play the top line, and 1/3 the bottom? >> >>- Darcy >> > >The key is treat it as a triple division in which two of the three >parts are in unison. The

[Finale] RE: irregular divisi

2002-10-01 Thread Andrew Stiller
>What is the best way to indicating a string divisi passage where 2/3 of the >players are to play the top line, and 1/3 the bottom? > >- Darcy > The key is treat it as a triple division in which two of the three parts are in unison. The instruction is "div. in 3" (not "a3" as several other fo