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 said. We are, after all, purportedly trying to help each other with the operation of the notation program we all use. How old are you? Under 30, I'd guess? Get a life and stop obsessing about e-mail attributions! I'll probably get yelled at because I had the nerve to place my reply ABOVE the quoted material! Flame away! Philip Aker wrote: > 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 like you didn't follow the standard quoting convention in your > initial reply and now are using faux logic to obfuscate the issue. Kinda > like trying to justify driving on the wrong side of the street during > rush hour. > > How old are you anyway? Over 30 I'd guess. Couldn't you just clue in? > > > Philip Aker > http://www.aker.ca > > > > > On Wednesday, Oct 2, 2002, at 13:19 US/Pacific, Andrew Stiller 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" indicates that two parts >>>> (played by however many people) that are normally separate have >>>> been unified into a single line, whereas "unis." is solely for the >>>> cancellation of a divisi. Since this particular divisi is still in >>>> force, "unis." feels wrong to me, while "a2" feels right. But I >>>> concede it's a matter of personal choice since the meaning is clear >>>> in either case. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 that moment; >>> perhaps the term is misused there? >> >> >> No, that's absolutely correct, and typical. It fits the definition I >> proposed precisely: two parts normally separate have been unified into >> a single line. >> >> Normally, "a2" should never appear in an orchestral string part, and >> absolutely never by itself. If two soloists playing in unison were >> involved, it would be necessary to indicate the soli before using the >> a2, giving an instruction such as "2 soli, a2"). In the present case, >> I was suggesting the use of "a2" as a qualifier to the overriding >> instruction "divisi/1.2,/3." >> >> In Italian, "a due" means "for [the] two" or "for both," and as long >> as what the music is doing makes sense in light of such an >> instruction, then I think its use is appropriate. >> >> 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. >> >> -- >> Andrew Stiller >> Kallisti Music Press >> >> http://www.kallistimusic.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
