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 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!
That's normally a convention on lists which have blind members who listen to email via speech. I don't have a problem with that. In many cases it is the right choice for the convenience of your readers. Point is that you have observed the quoting convention. And have probably done so since your first post to this list. No fuss. No mess. No bother. Why buck the convention of millions of email users? Huh? Andrew could have simply replied something like "Oops" to D. Fenton's recent request, and proceeded to make an effort to follow the convention. Philip > > > 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] > > Philip Aker http://www.aker.ca _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
