Didn't we cover this at the change of the millenium? On 2 Dec 2004 at 0:50, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> For the same reason there is no year 0. 0 is the point in between the > year -1 and the year +1. Midnight of the 31st December in the year -1 > _is_ zero, but one minute later is in fact the 1st January of the year > 1. > > The runner _starts_ at zero. But whichever way he goes he will run > more than zero meters. > > (I really wasn't all that serious anyway...) The difference here is between measuring continuously vs. counting whole units. At 12am of the year 1, 0 years have elapsed. At midnight July 1st, roughty speaking, .5 years have elapsed. But the year as a whole is the FIRST year and is numbered 1. In music we are numbering whole units, not parts, so a measure 0 would make sense only as something that comes before the beginning of the actual music. Of course, as with MIDI base (and bases in numbering array indexes in various programming languages), if one understands that 0-based systems are not countable without adding 1 (i.e., in a 0-based measure numbering system, the measured numbered 7 is the 8th bar), then it's no big deal. But I can't see a use for a measure 0 except for something that truly falls outside the realm of the playable. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
