On 18 Mar 2005, at 2:08 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Then why the convention of not numbering incomplete pickup measures? If numbering is ONLY for keeping everyone in the same place, why shouldn't an incomplete pickup bar have a number?
It *has* a unique ID -- it's the pickup measure.
If there are *two* pickup measures, then we don't have a unique ID for each measure anymore. Hence the convention that the first full measure is m.1.
Why number solo works, since only one person is playing it?
Well, for starters, measure numbers are essential for recording purposes.
For that matter, in the example I cited above (BEFORE the revision) I had a pickup measure with 7 eighths in it. I didn't bother making it a 7/8 bar, as that seemed needlessly fussy and would most likely interfere with reading, rather than helping it. So since that pickup measure is notated as a FULL measure of 4/4 (starting with an eighth rest), should it have a number?
You bet.
I didn't think so at the time,
Well, okay, but that's *not* the convention and could easily cause confusion. None of the copyists I know would consider that acceptable.
and saw no reason to change my mind in the revised version just because I had two extra eighths added onto the seven already there. The gesture was not different enough for me to see the difference.
Like I keep saying, it's not about the gesture, or the phrasing, or any of that stuff. Measure numbering follows a simple, objective, easy-to-understand and (almost) universally-applied rule. Every complete measure gets a unique measure number, and numbering begins with the first complete measure. I see no advantage to creating a bunch of exceptions to a well-established rule that happens to work quite well.
- Darcy ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
