Don't forget that somebody writing an article for Britannica or any
other commercial encyclopedia may also have an axe to grind. My
impression is the articles in Wikipedia are about as accurate, and
often more complete, than those in the encyclopedias in the public
library.
In this particular case I think the Wikipedia article is basically
correct. As Robert says, the information about a whole note
occasionally being used like a whole rest to fill a measure of any
duration is a bit misleading. But we can edit the Wikipedia article:
maybe I'll do it myself. I'll wait to see if anybody else has
something to say about it here first.
Michael Cook
On 1 Jul 2006, at 06:26, Carl Dershem wrote:
Wikipedia is useful for some things, and completely useless for
others. In areas where there is very little reason to monkey with
what's posted (often technical articles) it's not bad. But
whenever it comes to biography, history, and the like, there are
far too many out there with an ox to gore, an axe to grind, or a
personal problem of another kind.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
