On 18 Mar 2005 at 14:08, Christopher Smith wrote: > On Mar 18, 2005, at 12:50 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > On 18 Mar 2005 at 7:58, Christopher Smith wrote: > > > >> I'm thinking of one piece in particular of mine that I started with > >> a 7 eighth-note pickup, but then amended later to be 9 > >> eighth-notes, which of course took up one measure and an eighth > >> note (over two measures), neither of which I chose to number. > >> Seemed silly to me. > > > > Maybe musically, but measure numbers are not for musical analysis, > > but for ease of rehearsing. Having more than one measure before > > measure 1 means that talking about the first full measure means > > *not* using simple measure numbers. The other issue is that your > > score will be forced to not follow the usual practice of having no > > measure numbers on the first system, since you have to indicate that > > it's the third frame that is actually numbered measure 1. > > I understand that, and I forced the measure number to appear in that > case on my bar 1. > > Then why the convention of not numbering incomplete pickup measures?
Well, er, because THEY ARE INCOMPLETE. You number complete bars. The measure number is an accounting of the number of downbeats. > If numbering is ONLY for keeping everyone in the same place, why > shouldn't an incomplete pickup bar have a number? Why number solo > works, since only one person is playing it? Er, many soloists work on their pieces with teachers or coaches, so they need to communicate. Likewise, if people are discussing a solo piece of music, it's much easier to refer to measure numbers. > 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. . . . Well, it would also be played differently from a partial 4/4 measure by any musician who has any sensitivity whatsoever to meter. I'm surprised a composer would even consider the two options equivalent. > . . . So since that pickup > measure is notated as a FULL measure of 4/4 (starting with an eighth > rest), should it have a number? I didn't think so at the time, 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. Well, if it's got a downbeat, even if that downbeat is a rest, it should be numbered measure 1, in my opinion. I think notating 7 8th notes as an incomplete bar would be *very* confusing, though, as it's too easy to mistake it for a full measure (though beaming in groups of 4 rather helps with that). On the other hand, notating it as a full measure with a rest would tend to obscure the "upbeatness" of the entire measure. I'm not entirely convinced that an upbeat *can* be that long, in any perceptible sense, except in very fast tempos, but that's an esthetic argument that gets into personal tastes. -- 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
