At 06:44 AM 3/20/05 -0500, dhbailey wrote:
Owain Sutton wrote:
Slight hijack: Why is it that choirs never seem to be able to use bar
numbers, even when provided in their edition? Why do conductors always
seem to need to say Orchestra, from bar 68, choir, from 'Qui tollis'...?
Either that,
Owain Sutton wrote:
Harold Owen wrote:
On Mar 19, 2005, at 6:31 AM, dhbailey wrote:
I've also played from published music where only half of the parts
had measure numbers (actual counting numbers) and the other half
didn't have anything.
I am currently rehearsing for a performance of the
On Mar 19, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
There's a break in the third bar of A. I
That brings up another source of confusion: is 3 after A the same
measure as the third bar of A, or is it a bar later?
It's a rhetorical question, so for heaven's sake, don't answer! I'm
just
Jim Williamson wrote:
It may not define form and I don't care. However, I've seen it that way a
million times and I like it.
Jim
I see from your e-mail address that you're from Nashville -- I've always
heard that Nashville musicians have their own way of doing things, and
with the fantastic
A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Darcy James Argue / 05.3.18 / 05:26 PM wrote:
No. Chris and Hiro are, with due respect, not adhering to standard
jazz practice here.
Ha-ha,
Let me ask you this.
A 32 bar standard jazz form with two bars of pickup measures,
Do you call this a 34 bar form?
I still call it 32
On 19 Mar 2005, at 12:10 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
I was ready to capitulate on the numbering-all-complete-measures
issue, but this went over the edge. You can say
Measure numbers have NOTHING TO DO with the form.
all you like, but in standard even-numbered forms, especially when
written in
dhbailey / 05.3.19 / 06:31 AM wrote:
We definitely travel in different circles -- if I called out Start at
measure 7 everybody I've ever worked with would start counting from the
first printed measure and count until they got to the 7th printed
measure. I would have to say Start at the 7th
On Mar 19, 2005, at 6:31 AM, dhbailey wrote:
I've also played from published music where only half of the parts
had measure numbers (actual counting numbers) and the other half
didn't have anything.
I am currently rehearsing for a performance of the _Missa Solemnis_.
The chorus and orchestra
On Mar 19, 2005, at 8:26 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 19 Mar 2005, at 12:10 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
I was ready to capitulate on the numbering-all-complete-measures
issue, but this went over the edge. You can say
Measure numbers have NOTHING TO DO with the form.
all you like, but in
On Mar 19, 2005, at 6:31 AM, dhbailey wrote:
I've also played from published music where
only half of the parts had measure numbers
(actual counting numbers) and the other half
didn't have anything.
I am currently rehearsing for a performance of
the _Missa Solemnis_. The chorus and orchestra
At 12:45 PM 3/19/05 -0500, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 19 Mar 2005, at 12:19 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Why?
Because consistency is good, and a lack of consistency invites
confusion.
Or happy creative accidents. :)
Happy today,
Dennis
___
Finale
On 19 Mar 2005 at 0:31, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Mar 18, 2005, at 5:22 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 18 Mar 2005 at 14:08, Christopher Smith wrote:
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
A-NO-NE Music wrote:
dhbailey / 05.3.19 / 06:31 AM wrote:
We definitely travel in different circles -- if I called out Start at
measure 7 everybody I've ever worked with would start counting from the
first printed measure and count until they got to the 7th printed
measure. I would have to
Carl Dershem wrote:
dhbailey wrote:
How do you handle those situations, say with a 6-bar intro, and 2
written-out choruses of a 32 bar song form? If you ask for bar 7,
which do you mean: the first bar of the first time through the
song-form, or the 7th bar of the first time through the song
dhbailey wrote:
How do you handle those situations, say with a 6-bar intro, and 2
written-out choruses of a 32 bar song form? If you ask for bar 7, which
do you mean: the first bar of the first time through the song-form, or
the 7th bar of the first time through the song form or the 7th bar
dhbailey wrote:
Carl Dershem wrote:
dhbailey wrote:
How do you handle those situations, say with a 6-bar intro, and 2
written-out choruses of a 32 bar song form? If you ask for bar 7,
which do you mean: the first bar of the first time through the
song-form, or the 7th bar of the first time
On Mar 19, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 19 Mar 2005, at 12:19 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
Your point about the New Real Book not having measure numbers
illustrates my point even better than it does yours.
How, exactly? My point is that proper layout and use of rehearsal
Harold Owen wrote:
On Mar 19, 2005, at 6:31 AM, dhbailey wrote:
I've also played from published music where only half of the parts
had measure numbers (actual counting numbers) and the other half
didn't have anything.
I am currently rehearsing for a performance of the _Missa Solemnis_.
The
In a message dated 19/03/2005 23:45:10 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Slight
hijack: Why is it that choirs never seem to be able to use bar
numbers, even when provided in their edition? Why do conductors
always seem to need to say "Orchestra, from bar 68, choir, from
I think you guys should realize that you are arguing a pop vs. serious
thing and leave it at that.
This discussion rang a bell at rehearsal today. We were rehearsing for
a pop concert tonight with The Fifth Dimension (pop group from the 60's
- still going strong[?] after all these years,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I sat in the orchestra in front of the ladies of the choir in a gig a
while back. One of the many highlights of the rehearsal was when the
lady directly behind me turned to her neighbour and referring to the
conductor said, Look, he's doing it again - he keeps going
On 19 Mar 2005, at 5:45 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
in a rehearsal. Say to the musicians, I would like the rhythm
section to break in bar 3. Which bar are they going to break on,
the 3rd bar of the form, or the 3rd full bar (which is the 2nd bar
of the form)?
If the chart had been properly
Carl Dershem wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I sat in the orchestra in front of the ladies of the choir in a gig a
while back. One of the many highlights of the rehearsal was when the
lady directly behind me turned to her neighbour and referring to the
conductor said, Look, he's doing it
On Mar 19, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Written measure numbers are not usually found on lead sheets anyway.
We started this discussion talking about arrangements, and somehow we
segued into lead sheets -- two very different situations.
OK, I thought we WERE talking about lead
dhbailey / 05.3.19 / 03:50 PM wrote:
What do you do with music you haven't written, or arranged, or engraved?
Say, when we play standard song, which my band usually use for closing
the set, we don't rehears. I mean, it's standard! We know it by heart,
and how we begin and end a standard song
I AM arguing for consistency. I expect NO pickup measures to be
numbered, no matter whether they are complete or not.
What's the difference between a complete pickup measure and a
one-bar intro?
For any of the tunes I cited, is there any question? They are all
clearly pickups.
None of the tunes
The pick up measure, or the section that anticipates the first beat of
the measure which coincides with the beginning of the rhythmical -
harmonical structure of the musical phrase is also called anacrusis.
The original Greek term anákrousis generated from anakrooûn, which
meant 'to take back', to
Christopher Smith wrote:
On Mar 17, 2005, at 3:54 PM, Eric Dussault wrote:
We normally count the measure from the first complete measure in a
piece or section. I think I remember reading something about a rule
that makes the pick-up measure by part of the measure count when it
has a certain
Thanks everyone for your opinions. It fortunately confirms the practice
I always did.
There is one situation where I don't know for sure what to do :
considering that the duration of the anacrusis is substracted to the
last measure, what are you doing when you have a five quarter notes
On Mar 18, 2005, at 5:20 AM, dhbailey wrote:
Christopher Smith wrote:
On Mar 17, 2005, at 3:54 PM, Eric Dussault wrote:
We normally count the measure from the first complete measure in a
piece or section. I think I remember reading something about a rule
that makes the pick-up measure by part of
Hi Chris,
Not numbering the first full measure because you consider it part of
the pickup is a bad idea, I think. Every full measure needs a
measure number, regardless of any phrasing issues. This is a good rule
of thumb and I don't see any good reason to go around creating
exceptions.
-
At 7:46 PM -0500 3/17/05, Christopher Smith wrote:
I even see from time to time works where an entire introduction is
not numbered, or numbered with a, b etc., or i ii in lower
case Roman numerals, like a book preface, though this might only be
because the intro was added later and they needed
Darcy James Argue / 05.3.18 / 08:52 AM wrote:
Not numbering the first full measure because you consider it part of
the pickup is a bad idea, I think. Every full measure needs a
measure number, regardless of any phrasing issues. This is a good rule
of thumb and I don't see any good reason to
At 7:53 AM -0500 3/18/05, Eric Dussault wrote:
Thanks everyone for your opinions. It fortunately confirms the
practice I always did.
There is one situation where I don't know for sure what to do :
considering that the duration of the anacrusis is substracted to the
last measure, what are you
On 18 Mar 2005, at 9:17 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
It just doesn't make sense to me to number from bar one on this song.
Of course it does. Measure numbers have nothing to do with phrasing.
If it *really* bothers you that the top of the form is labeled m.3
instead of m.1, you can label the two
Somebody wrote (too many overlapping quotes to figure it out!):
I'm confused -- how can there be more than one measure as a pickup?
Not at all unusual in Berlioz, who was certainly not constrained by
barlines, and present in Tchakovsky as well (I'm thinking of the
pickups to the 5/4 waltz
Hi Hiro,
Standard practice is to number repeated measures (including measures
with only slashes) *above* the bar, in a large and visible font -- and,
of course, to restart the numbering after each new section. I don't
think it's a good idea to force your drummer to rely on regular measure
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
Darcy James Argue / 05.3.18 / 09:24 AM wrote:
It just doesn't make sense to me to number from bar one on this song.
Of course it does. Measure numbers have nothing to do with phrasing.
I guess everyone has different needs.
My drummer, Harvey Wirht who lives in NY and tours a lot, is not
On Mar 18, 2005, at 10:18 AM, John Howell wrote:
At 7:53 AM -0500 3/18/05, Eric Dussault wrote:
Thanks everyone for your opinions. It fortunately confirms the
practice I always did.
There is one situation where I don't know for sure what to do :
considering that the duration of the anacrusis is
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
At 2:29 PM -0500 3/18/05, Darcy James Argue wrote:
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
It has been my observation that the rule that the final measure have
the remaining beats so that when combined with the pickup beats they
form one complete measure is observed maybe 90% of the time. Other
times, people write complete final measures.
Leave it as it is. People will figure out
A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Darcy James Argue / 05.3.18 / 08:52 AM wrote:
Not numbering the first full measure because you consider it part of
the pickup is a bad idea, I think. Every full measure needs a
measure number, regardless of any phrasing issues. This is a good rule
of thumb and I don't
John Howell wrote:
At 2:29 PM -0500 3/18/05, Darcy James Argue wrote:
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
On Mar 17, 2005, at 9:45 PM, Chuck Israels wrote:
On Mar 17, 2005, at 4:46 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
I have always NOT included any pickup measures in the measure count, even when there is more than one measure as a pickup. ...
This has always been my practice, and I've had no reason to
On Mar 18, 2005, at 12:24 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
The first measure is the beginning of the harmonic
rhythm, and should be dictated by the composer's intention.
This is by no means necessarily the case. Partial measures are not
numbered precisely because they are not full measures. This is made
On 18 Mar 2005, at 5:06 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
This seems to be yet another difference between jazz and classical
notation practices.
No. Chris and Hiro are, with due respect, not adhering to standard
jazz practice here.
In the classical world, the first full measure is number 1, period.
On 18 Mar 2005 at 14:15, Chuck Israels wrote:
The tendency to do things in ways that delineate the formal outline
surely stems from the necessity for the jazz musician to be fully and
quickly aware of these parameters in order to function well. I have
no argument with those who choose to to
Andrew,
The tendency to do things in ways that delineate the formal outline surely stems from the necessity for the jazz musician to be fully and quickly aware of these parameters in order to function well. I have no argument with those who choose to to things differently, but I find it useful
Hi Chuck,
Measure numbers don't delineate form. We have other, better tools for
that.
That said, I don't particularly *object* to your practice of using A,
B, C etc. so long as every complete measure has a unique ID. I just
don't think it's particularly helpful, either. Why not just start
@shsu.edu
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
Hi Chuck,
Measure numbers don't delineate form. We have other, better tools for
that.
That said, I don't particularly *object* to your practice of using A,
B, C etc. so long as every complete measure has
dhbailey / 05.3.18 / 03:40 PM wrote:
It may not make sense to you, but will it make sense to your musicians,
when you call out Bar 7 and everybody plays from bar 7 while you
really meant bar 9?
That's exactly the point.
The musicians I play with last 17 years in this country,
Bar 5 means the
Darcy James Argue / 05.3.18 / 05:26 PM wrote:
No. Chris and Hiro are, with due respect, not adhering to standard
jazz practice here.
Ha-ha,
Let me ask you this.
A 32 bar standard jazz form with two bars of pickup measures,
Do you call this a 34 bar form?
I still call it 32 bar form.
--
-
Hiro,
I don't know how many times I have to say this.
Measure numbers have NOTHING TO DO with the form.
You keep confusing two completely unrelated issues.
In a 32-bar AABA tune with a two-bar intro, you delineate the form with
double bars and rehearsal letters or numbers, NOT measure numbers.
On 18 Mar 2005, at 7:01 PM, Jim Williamson wrote:
I don't know what you mean by everybody else.
I mean every professional copyist in New York.
Especially in show music,
production music, and on a great many recording sessions, the intro's
are
likely to be lower case a, b, ect.
No. Not anymore,
On Mar 18, 2005, at 5:09 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Mar 18, 2005, at 12:24 AM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
The first measure is the beginning of the harmonic
rhythm, and should be dictated by the composer's intention.
This is by no means necessarily the case. Partial measures are not
numbered
On Mar 18, 2005, at 10:44 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Hiro,
I don't know how many times I have to say this.
Measure numbers have NOTHING TO DO with the form.
You keep confusing two completely unrelated issues.
In a 32-bar AABA tune with a two-bar intro, you delineate the form
with double bars
It may not define form and I don't care. However, I've seen it that way a
million times and I like it.
Jim
- Original Message -
From: Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: finale@shsu.edu
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
Hiro,
I don't
On Mar 18, 2005, at 5:22 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 18 Mar 2005 at 14:08, Christopher Smith wrote:
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
We normally count the measure from the first complete measure in a
piece or section. I think I remember reading something about a rule
that makes the pick-up measure by part of the measure count when it has
a certain length (like more than half of a measure).
I can't find any reference to this
Sorry I meant be part of the measure
Le 05-03-17, à 15:54, Eric Dussault a écrit :
by part of the measure
Éric Dussault
Les Productions d'OZ
1367, rue du Cran
Saint-Romuald (Québec)
Canada G6W 5M7
http://www.productionsdoz.com
Tél. 418 834-8384
Fax. 418 834-3522
It sounds like a logical principle - but I'm racking my brains to think
of an example where this would be relevant. 'Over half a measure' means
three beats in 4/4, or two in 9/8, or some other arrangement that I'd
consider to be a rather confusing arrangement.
Eric Dussault wrote:
We normally
On Mar 17, 2005, at 3:54 PM, Eric Dussault wrote:
We normally count the measure from the first complete measure in a
piece or section. I think I remember reading something about a rule
that makes the pick-up measure by part of the measure count when it
has a certain length (like more than half
Eric Dussault wrote:
We normally count the measure from the first complete measure in a piece
or section. I think I remember reading something about a rule that makes
the pick-up measure by part of the measure count when it has a certain
length (like more than half of a measure).
I can't find
Le 05-03-17, à 19:46, Christopher Smith a écrit :
I have always NOT included any pickup measures in the measure count,
even when there is more than one measure as a pickup. I may be wrong
there, but it's what I have always done. I only count from the first
measure of the phrase, regardless of
Christopher Smith / 05.3.17 / 07:46 PM wrote:
My gut feeling is not to number a pickup measure, no matter what the
length.
I am the same way. The first measure is the beginning of the harmonic
rhythm, and should be dictated by the composer's intention.
--
- Hiro
Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE
67 matches
Mail list logo
