Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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, or Chorus, from page 3, second system. I came from an instrumental background, but have directed several choruses. In the beginning, I would give measure numbers to a chorus and expect to start. But there would be a rustle of pages and I'd hear in response what page is that? And if I gave the page, I would get where on the page?, accompanied by lots of looking at pointing fingers in neighboring folders. Slowly but surely I was trained away from giving measure numbers to singers and learned to give multiply-redundant instructions in one breath like, Pickup to measure 68, please. That's page 3, middle of the second system, 'peccata mundi' [my voice ending in a Gen-X raised-pitch semi-question]. Tenors first. Pickup to the beginning of the measure, please. Tenors? Peccata mundi? Here go. :) Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 _Missa Solemnis_. The chorus and orchestra have totally different sets of rehearsal letters, and the orchestra members have had to go thru their parts and pencil in all the choral letters, which are in different places than the orchestra's letters. Andrew Stiller We had the same problem with the choral scores and the instrumental parts for the Fouré Requiem. Hal 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'...? (Sorry, just got back from a choral-society gig...) ___ Either that, or Chorus, from page 3, second system. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 pointing out that people can mean different things by these expressions, and that it causes confusion in reh. sometimes. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 music that comes from there, you won't find me arguing with their methods! And as long as all concerned understand the same numbering system, there really isn't any problem with any of us doing it in an idiosyncratic way. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 bar form. I call it a 32 bar form with a 2-bar introduction. Why not be specific? 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 measure after the introduction to get to where it seems your musicians would naturally start when you ask them to start at measure 7. It really doesn't matter one iota how things are done, as long as everybody concerned understands them. My main concern would be for publishing arrangements where the numbering system isn't traditional. I've been involved in too many rehearsals where such is the case and it is so frustrating and time-wasting. I've played from published concert band arrangements where the score had rehearsal letters and the parts had rehearsal numbers which weren't measure numbers. 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. So these days all my music either has rehearsal letters (if the phrases are all short enough and varied enough for each phrase to get a letter and it's easy to say the 4th measure of D) or the music gets measure numbers, starting from the first full measure on the page, so there can be no confusion. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 lead-sheet format, many jazz musicians depend on the measure numbers to orient themselves. Do any of the tunes in The New Real Book series have any measure numbers at all? Is it hard to orient yourself when playing from a lead sheet from one of those books? Now, why is that? It's because the charts are laid out intelligently, with new sections beginning new systems, and proper use of double bars and rehearsal letters. Nobody minds the lack of measure numbers, because measure numbers don't actually do the work you are claiming they do. Or rather, they are only pressed into service for that purpose if the copyist did a lousy job with the layout and section markers (double bars, rehearsal letters). I know you understand about aligning the phrases with the beginnings of systems for readability; this is exactly the same. I disagree. The first -- aligning the beginnings of phrases with the beginnings of systems and marking them with double bars and rehearsal numbers/and or letters -- is absolutely standard practice, is instantly obvious at a glance, and is still useful in situations where you aren't shackled to cycling through a 32-bar AABA form. Measure numbers just can't do that kind of work. They are not instantly visible at a glance (even when every measure is numbered) and they aren't reliable indicators of where you are in the form, precisely because even in the arrangement of a standard, you may -- or, working today, you almost certainly will be -- dealing with all kinds of extended or truncated phrases, introductions, interludes, interjections, etc. Even if you have a chart that is absolutely slavishly literally 32-bar AABA all the way through, how many choruses does it take before the measure numbers cease to twig anything in the mind of a player? I'll accept that 1, 9, 17, and 25, but 73? 81? 113? Come on. Yet, as Hiro said, if one is not composing in symmetrical phrases, it won't matter. Again, I think it is an absolutely terrible idea to have one numbering system for pieces with symmetrical 8-bar phrases all the way through, and a different numbering system for pieces without. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 measure after the introduction to get to where it seems your musicians would naturally start when you ask them to start at measure 7. Ah, you don't number every measure then. I do. Bar 7 is where it says bar 7 :-) -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 have totally different sets of rehearsal letters, and the orchestra members have had to go thru their parts and pencil in all the choral letters, which are in different places than the orchestra's letters. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 standard even-numbered forms, especially when written in lead-sheet format, many jazz musicians depend on the measure numbers to orient themselves. Do any of the tunes in The New Real Book series have any measure numbers at all? Is it hard to orient yourself when playing from a lead sheet from one of those books? Now, why is that? It's because the charts are laid out intelligently, with new sections beginning new systems, and proper use of double bars and rehearsal letters. Nobody minds the lack of measure numbers, because measure numbers don't actually do the work you are claiming they do. Or rather, they are only pressed into service for that purpose if the copyist did a lousy job with the layout and section markers (double bars, rehearsal letters). Your point about the New Real Book not having measure numbers illustrates my point even better than it does yours. Turn to the Daahoud lead sheet in the original Real Book (sorry, not the New Real Book) 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)? Pretty much 100% of the musicians I play with are going to ignore the pickup bar completely for purposes of measure counting, despite it being notated as a complete measure. In fact, Finale-copied lead sheets that HAVE bar numbers sometimes serve to confuse the issue. In the case of Daahoud, if I referred to bar 3, they might ask back, Bar NUMBER 3, or the 3rd bar of the form? I know you understand about aligning the phrases with the beginnings of systems for readability; this is exactly the same. I disagree. The first -- aligning the beginnings of phrases with the beginnings of systems and marking them with double bars and rehearsal numbers/and or letters -- is absolutely standard practice, is instantly obvious at a glance, and is still useful in situations where you aren't shackled to cycling through a 32-bar AABA form. Measure numbers just can't do that kind of work. They are not instantly visible at a glance (even when every measure is numbered) and they aren't reliable indicators of where you are in the form, precisely because even in the arrangement of a standard, you may -- or, working today, you almost certainly will be -- dealing with all kinds of extended or truncated phrases, introductions, interludes, interjections, etc. Even if you have a chart that is absolutely slavishly literally 32-bar AABA all the way through, how many choruses does it take before the measure numbers cease to twig anything in the mind of a player? I'll accept that 1, 9, 17, and 25, but 73? 81? 113? Come on. One chorus. That's all it takes. It's important to musicians playing lead sheets, because they spend a lot of their careers playing standards with symmetrical forms. Not recognizing that fact might cause me to inadvertently create weirdness that reduces the readability of a lead sheet, instead of increasing it. If we are talking about a full-fledged arrangement, with extended intro, coda, yada yada, then I agree with you, of course the most important thing in measure numbering is that is all be the same and predictable for all players, rather than sticking to the basic form. Yet, as Hiro said, if one is not composing in symmetrical phrases, it won't matter. Again, I think it is an absolutely terrible idea to have one numbering system for pieces with symmetrical 8-bar phrases all the way through, and a different numbering system for pieces without. Why? The notation of a piece should reflect the clearest communication to the players, and having set measure numbers starting at the beginning of symmetrical phrases is the clearest way to communicate that in certain works. I'm stuck here defending a principle that I only apply myself rarely, as most of my music is NOT written in 32-bar lead sheets, and only one has ever had a measure or more pickup. But I think the principle is sound, nevertheless, when applied to that kind of music. Another aside: I was cranky yesterday when I answered you and David Fenton on this subject. I'm sorry for the tone I took (especially in David's case, as it was my fault for not being clear in the first place) and I apologise. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 have totally different sets of rehearsal letters, and the orchestra members have had to go thru their parts and pencil in all the choral letters, which are in different places than the orchestra's letters. Andrew Stiller We had the same problem with the choral scores and the instrumental parts for the Fouré Requiem. Hal -- Harold Owen 2830 Emerald St., Eugene, OR 97403 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit my web site at: http://uoregon.edu/~hjowen FAX: (509) 461-3608 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 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. I'm sure you understood me correctly; why are you giving me such a hard time about my nomenclature? Of course I have to tell Finale that it is a 7/8 bar, displayed as an incomplete 4/4 bar. Finale doesn't space it correctly if I don't do it that way. But I chose NOT to use an incomplete 4/4 bar (happy now?) for a pickup of 7 eighth notes, for reasons of clarity. Well, I didn't actually understand. I thought you meant a *notated* measure of 7/8. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 say Start at the 7th measure after the introduction to get to where it seems your musicians would naturally start when you ask them to start at measure 7. Ah, you don't number every measure then. I do. Bar 7 is where it says bar 7 :-) No, I don't number every measure. But I place enough measure numbers in the parts so people can all find the same measures. What do you do with music you haven't written, or arranged, or engraved? 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 of the second time through the song form? Especially if you get to the middle of the second time through the song form and things fall apart. Actually this is a very interesting discussion because I had no idea people ever started numbering from someplace other than the first full measure of a song. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 form or the 7th bar of the second time through the song form? Especially if you get to the middle of the second time through the song form and things fall apart. That's why I like rehearsal letters. Even when the form is irregular OK - start 2 after 'C' will (if the parts and score are copied properly, and match) lead everyone to the same place. Numbers, as we've shown here, can be confusing, but letters are arbitrary enough (not always a bad thing) that argument is less common. cd I agree, and best of all is when there are measure numbers AND rehearsal letters. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 of the second time through the song form? Especially if you get to the middle of the second time through the song form and things fall apart. That's why I like rehearsal letters. Even when the form is irregular OK - start 2 after 'C' will (if the parts and score are copied properly, and match) lead everyone to the same place. Numbers, as we've shown here, can be confusing, but letters are arbitrary enough (not always a bad thing) that argument is less common. cd ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 through the song form or the 7th bar of the second time through the song form? Especially if you get to the middle of the second time through the song form and things fall apart. That's why I like rehearsal letters. Even when the form is irregular OK - start 2 after 'C' will (if the parts and score are copied properly, and match) lead everyone to the same place. Numbers, as we've shown here, can be confusing, but letters are arbitrary enough (not always a bad thing) that argument is less common. I agree, and best of all is when there are measure numbers AND rehearsal letters. If done well, yes. I'm currently in a band that's doing a piece that has both randomly strewn about without apparent pattern or design (and the parts don't match each other, much less the score), and it's MADDENING! Method and pattern are USEFUL! cd ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 letters and double bars is *wy* more important to musicians keeping their place in the form than measure numbers. So much so that even when there are no measure numbers, it's perfectly easy to keep your place. I wasn't arguing against that at all. But calling bars out on a lead sheet, that's another story. 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 copied (according to the standards of the New Real Book), there would be no eighth rest in the pickup measure, and there would be a boxed rehearsal letter [A] in the first full measure. So you could say, There's a break in the 3rd bar of [A] -- or, even, There's a break in bar 3 -- without any confusion at all. You would have to say There's a break in bar FOUR if the measure HAD the eighth rest, which is what I was arguing against. Or if it had an 8-eighth note pickup instead of a 7 note pickup, which is not all that different from what is there already. I'm not sure musicians are aware enough of the rule about only numbering complete measures to make the distinction between the bar numbers with a 7 note pickup and an 8 note pickup. It's all the same to them (and to me too, pretty much, anyway.) Remember, most jazz musicians don't know that repeats are not supposed to occur on DSs, or that accidentals only apply in the same octave as they first appear in the measure, and they even have trouble keeping track of accidentals that have already appeared in the measure at times! A detail about the pickup bar being numbered if it is complete escapes them completely, I'm sure. Speaking of which, let's go back to the New Real Book. Open it up to Airegin. Are you going to tell the band The bass breaks on beat 4 of bar 2 or The bass breaks on beat 4 of the second bar of [A]? That lead sheet has a full written intro, in which case we seem to be in agreement. Let's keep the discussion to pickups, especially those of 1 measure more or less. In fact, Finale-copied lead sheets that HAVE bar numbers sometimes serve to confuse the issue. In the case of Daahoud, if I referred to bar 3, they might ask back, Bar NUMBER 3, or the 3rd bar of the form? That's an argument for *more* consistency, then, not less. I AM arguing for consistency. I expect NO pickup measures to be numbered, no matter whether they are complete or not. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 chorus and orchestra have totally different sets of rehearsal letters, and the orchestra members have had to go thru their parts and pencil in all the choral letters, which are in different places than the orchestra's letters. Andrew Stiller We had the same problem with the choral scores and the instrumental parts for the Fouré Requiem. Hal 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'...? (Sorry, just got back from a choral-society gig...) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 'Qui tollis'"...? It's in the nature of a choir, that's all. 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 faster than us!" All the best, Lawrence "þaes ofereode - þisses swa maeg"http://lawrenceyates.co.uk ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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, with two original members out of the original, uhh, five). Their charts are a mess, with cuts, tacets, new endings, etc., and every chart seemed to have a different length of intro from what was printed. After one false start, the leader/pianist stops, and shouts out, No, start at the very top - bar 9! Gave me a serious chuckle. Raymond Horton Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra 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. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
[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 faster than us! Do you now how bad it is for a keyboard to have hot tea spit into it forcefully? I do now! (And I have a strong feeling she's related to a sax player I work with occasionally.) cd ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 copied (according to the standards of the New Real Book), there would be no eighth rest in the pickup measure, and there would be a boxed rehearsal letter [A] in the first full measure. So you could say, There's a break in the 3rd bar of [A] -- or, even, There's a break in bar 3 -- without any confusion at all. You would have to say There's a break in bar FOUR if the measure HAD the eighth rest, which is what I was arguing against. No, not at all. You would say There's a break in the third bar of A. If the chart had been properly copied, there would actually be a rehearsal mark A at the beginning of the A section, but people know what you mean even on a sloppily copied chart with no rehearsal letters. 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. I'm not sure musicians are aware enough of the rule about only numbering complete measures to make the distinction between the bar numbers with a 7 note pickup and an 8 note pickup. It's all the same to them (and to me too, pretty much, anyway.) Remember, most jazz musicians don't know that repeats are not supposed to occur on DSs, or that accidentals only apply in the same octave as they first appear in the measure, and they even have trouble keeping track of accidentals that have already appeared in the measure at times! A detail about the pickup bar being numbered if it is complete escapes them completely, I'm sure. Okay, again, this is a completely different situation from a arrangement, where every complete measure is numbered (and labeled). Lead sheets usually don't have any measure numbers at all. When people are rehearsing from lead sheets, they usually use *relative* terms like Let's take it from the bar before the bridge or Let's take it from the second bar of the last A. (When working from a 32-bar AABA lead sheet, I have never in my life heard anyone say Let's take it from bar 26 instead of the second bar of the last A.) 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? And do you really want to spend rehearsal time splitting that particular hair? In an arrangement, the rule is you number from the first complete measure -- intro or not -- and show measure numbers on every bar. I'm still having trouble understanding why you are apparently so dead-set against following this convention, which works extremely well and does not rely on subjective judgment calls as to what's intro material and what's not. In a lead sheet, you don't need measure numbers at all, and even if you include them, people are vastly more likely to use relative terms like third bar of the second A. So if you don't feel good about assigning a number to a complete pickup measure on a lead sheet, why not just omit the measure numbers entirely? There's no need to include measure numbers on a 32-bar AABA lead sheet. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 again - he keeps going faster than us! Do you now how bad it is for a keyboard to have hot tea spit into it forcefully? I do now! (And I have a strong feeling she's related to a sax player I work with occasionally.) Nope, she was definitely singing in the sopranos with us today. Especially in the fugue. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 sheets. But I think the idea applies to all pickups. I'm not sure musicians are aware enough of the rule about only numbering complete measures to make the distinction between the bar numbers with a 7 note pickup and an 8 note pickup. Okay, again, this is a completely different situation from a arrangement, where every complete measure is numbered (and labeled). Right. Except I know that the NY and LA show and film standards are used in all local situations, where ALL measure numbers are labelled, but often that gets too cluttered for general use, especially with a rehearsed band that doesn't necessarily need ALL measures numbered. At the beginnings of systems and at double bars is generally enough for me in those situations. Lead sheets usually don't have any measure numbers at all. Mine do. But not usually EVERY measure, just starts of systems, as I said. When people are rehearsing from lead sheets, they usually use *relative* terms like Let's take it from the bar before the bridge or Let's take it from the second bar of the last A. (When working from a 32-bar AABA lead sheet, I have never in my life heard anyone say Let's take it from bar 26 instead of the second bar of the last A.) I put the measure numbers so that it will be easier to say, What are you playing on bar 26? than What are you playing on the second bar of the last A. It's for ease of rehearsing and playing, and for clarity. 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. And do you really want to spend rehearsal time splitting that particular hair? The hair I want to avoid splitting is the one where a 7-eighth-note pickup is NOT numbered (or maybe it is, if it is notated as a full measure?), whereas an 8-eighth-note pickup IS. But, as I said, it has only shown up once in twenty-odd years, in my case. In an arrangement, the rule is you number from the first complete measure -- intro or not -- and show measure numbers on every bar. I'm still having trouble understanding why you are apparently so dead-set against following this convention, which works extremely well and does not rely on subjective judgment calls as to what's intro material and what's not. I'm only set against it when it is clearly a pickup. In all other case, I always have and probably always will follow the number the first full measure rule. Do you put a double bar on the left side of measure 2 in that case, to keep the form clear? Say in the case of a 7-eighth-note pickup to an intro, where a rehearsal letter might not be warranted? I would. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 is up to the mood of the night. That's jazz to me. :-) Otherwise, all the selections are either my composition or my arrangement of standard, therefore every measures are numbered as I like the way it is. I really don't care what is the convention. I do what it works for me and what it works for musicians I gig with. One of the biggest reasons I chose Finale back when I bought version 1.0 was that I can create my own rit. sign, which is a slanted downward arrow with rit word above it, and is placed above measure(s). Where the arrow starts is where the rit starts, and where the arrow ends is where the rit ends. This might make people who doesn't approve unconventional notation uncomfortable on this list, but it works very well with the musicians I work with :-) -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 you mentioned have full 4-beat pickups -- they are all 3.5 beats or less, so they should be notated as incomplete -- i.e. pickup -- measures. That way, the first complete measure is also the first measure of the tune. See how easy that is? [In other words, Daahoud in the original Real Book is notated incorrectly. That initial eighth rest shouldn't be there.] I can't think of a tune that has a full 4-beat pickup starting with a note on beat one of the pickup measure. You mentioned that you wrote (or arranged?) a tune that had a 4.5 beat pickup. Like I said, it doesn't *really* matter to me what you call the first complete measure (which happens to be part of the extended pickup) -- 1 would be standard practice, and I wouldn't recommend anything else, but I suppose if you really wanted to be different, A would be all right, 0 would be idiosyncratic but acceptable, etc. Or, if it's just a lead sheet, you can dispense with measure numbers entirely, so long as you have rehearsal letters. But I really think you need to call it *something*, and indicate that on the part in some way. Every measure needs a unique ID, even if it's just the bar before A (or, in this case, you could also have the pickup to the bar before A). The hair I want to avoid splitting is the one where a 7-eighth-note pickup is NOT numbered (or maybe it is, if it is notated as a full measure?)' Pickups should not be notated as full measures. Do you put a double bar on the left side of measure 2 in that case, to keep the form clear? Of course. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 'prelude' (pre-play). Italian language is mainly a mix between Latin and Greek and the only term to describe a pick up measure, in Italy, is anacrusi. An anacrusis can be related to a measure as to a phrase as to short motives, depending on many factors, such as the deepness of level of analysis of the examined structure, etc... Generally speaking, an anacrusis would be compensated by a smaller measure ending the structural section (this happens in folk music and in the stylized dances developed since the pre-early Baroque period), thus justifying the way to count measure number one from the first complete measure. In Italian language, when the pick up measure is not compensated at the end of the section and the beginning of the same pick up measure coincides with the beginning of the rhythmical - harmonical structure of the musical phrase, it's not then defined as an anacrusis but it's called acefalo (which, coming from The Greek 'aképhalos' and changed in the Latin 'acephalum' means without head) and is considered as the first measure of the section. However, an acefalo beginning is not always very simple to state, and implicates an introspective voyage into style and harmonic - melodic - rhythmic structure. Giovanni Andreani ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 length (like more than half of a measure). I can't find any reference to this in Stone, Read, Blatter or Ross. Any clues? Thank you, Éric Dussault 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 any pickups. I'm confused -- how can there be more than one measure as a pickup? Pickups are those notes which make up an incomplete measure before the first measure of the work. The New Harvard Dictionary defines Pickup as one or more notes which precede the first metrically strong beat (usually the first beat of the first comlete measure) of a phrase or a section of a composition; anacrusis, upbeat. Complete measures as part of a pickup would be more of an introduction than a pickup. And measures of an introduction, in my experience, are part of the measure count. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 anacrusis and that the last measure has notes to fill, let's say, a half note? There is then not enough beats left on the measure to substract 5 quarter notes. Le 05-03-18, à 04:36, Giovanni Andreani a écrit : 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 'prelude' (pre-play). Italian language is mainly a mix between Latin and Greek and the only term to describe a pick up measure, in Italy, is anacrusi. An anacrusis can be related to a measure as to a phrase as to short motives, depending on many factors, such as the deepness of level of analysis of the examined structure, etc... Generally speaking, an anacrusis would be compensated by a smaller measure ending the structural section (this happens in folk music and in the stylized dances developed since the pre-early Baroque period), thus justifying the way to count measure number one from the first complete measure. In Italian language, when the pick up measure is not compensated at the end of the section and the beginning of the same pick up measure coincides with the beginning of the rhythmical - harmonical structure of the musical phrase, it's not then defined as an anacrusis but it's called acefalo (which, coming from The Greek 'aképhalos' and changed in the Latin 'acephalum' means without head) and is considered as the first measure of the section. However, an acefalo beginning is not always very simple to state, and implicates an introspective voyage into style and harmonic - melodic - rhythmic structure. Giovanni Andreani ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Éric Dussault ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 the measure count when it has a certain length (like more than half of a measure). I can't find any reference to this in Stone, Read, Blatter or Ross. Any clues? Thank you, Éric Dussault 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 any pickups. I'm confused -- how can there be more than one measure as a pickup? Pickups are those notes which make up an incomplete measure before the first measure of the work. The New Harvard Dictionary defines Pickup as one or more notes which precede the first metrically strong beat (usually the first beat of the first comlete measure) of a phrase or a section of a composition; anacrusis, upbeat. Complete measures as part of a pickup would be more of an introduction than a pickup. And measures of an introduction, in my experience, are part of the measure count. 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. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 18 Mar 2005, at 7:58 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: 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 the measure count when it has a certain length (like more than half of a measure). I can't find any reference to this in Stone, Read, Blatter or Ross. Any clues? Thank you, Éric Dussault 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 any pickups. I'm confused -- how can there be more than one measure as a pickup? Pickups are those notes which make up an incomplete measure before the first measure of the work. The New Harvard Dictionary defines Pickup as one or more notes which precede the first metrically strong beat (usually the first beat of the first comlete measure) of a phrase or a section of a composition; anacrusis, upbeat. Complete measures as part of a pickup would be more of an introduction than a pickup. And measures of an introduction, in my experience, are part of the measure count. 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. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 to keep consistency with some other version. This is especially prevalent in Broadway show books, where indeed there have been changes made from the original. Sometimes one finds cue letters omitted (or cue numbers when they are not used as bar numbers), and sometimes one finds sections that obviously have been inserted. It's just part of learning to decode those books. Intros are often numbered with lower case bar letters. In jazz or show charts, an intro is indeed often added ex post hoc, and that's also part of standard practice. My gut feeling is not to number a pickup measure, no matter what the length. That is what I would do and do do, but I would not extend that to a pickup phrase, for consistency. John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 go around creating exceptions. I have a piece called Ice Butt which my band has been playing for years as opening song, and has two full 2/4 measure of pickup. The 3rd bar is the beginning of the harmonic rhythm as Baiaõ groove starts there, and ends two bars before for next pickup in the 16 bars block. But the bridge doesn't have pickup because the groove changes to Frevo-like, which won't make sense if pickup. It just doesn't make sense to me to number from bar one on this song. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 doing when you have a five quarter notes anacrusis and that the last measure has notes to fill, let's say, a half note? There is then not enough beats left on the measure to substract 5 quarter notes. I consider that rule an anachronism, similar to the stacking up of breve and semibreve rests in an incomprehensible pile instead of simply writing in |21| ! Others may not agree, but the layout has to fit the music, not the other way around, and not all music lends itself to following that rule. John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 pickup measures A and B. But good practice is for every full measure to have some sort of measure number, and so far I'm completely unconvinced by the arguments that there ought to be exceptions to this rule. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 movement). Textbook rules are fine, but don't expect every composer to do what the rules expect. John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 numbers for this, which are usually in a smaller font, placed under the bar, and do not start again from 1 on each new section. It's about using the right tool for the job. Measure numbers aren't for delineating form or phrasing, they are about giving each measure a unique ID. If a drummer needs to know how many measures there are in a section, there are much better ways of indicating that than using measure numbers alone. This is all standard, time-tested copying practice, BTW -- there's no need for each individual to reinvent the wheel here. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 18 Mar 2005, at 12:16 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote: 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 always available for my shows in Boston. That's the way with jazz gigs. You can't keep the same musicians for every gigs so you have to expect sight reading rehearsals and gigs. Drummer, who is given a lot of slashes looks at the measure number at the double bar to confirm the even numbered harmonic rhythm. I of course put (n) under every 8 bars but these measure numbering effects psychologically in sight reading situation, as I believe. My arrangement of Summertime is 11 bars long form, yet no one has screwed the form on sight reading gigs so far, because I take care of psychological reading effects :-) -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up 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 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. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 always available for my shows in Boston. That's the way with jazz gigs. You can't keep the same musicians for every gigs so you have to expect sight reading rehearsals and gigs. Drummer, who is given a lot of slashes looks at the measure number at the double bar to confirm the even numbered harmonic rhythm. I of course put (n) under every 8 bars but these measure numbering effects psychologically in sight reading situation, as I believe. My arrangement of Summertime is 11 bars long form, yet no one has screwed the form on sight reading gigs so far, because I take care of psychological reading effects :-) -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 substracted to the last measure, what are you doing when you have a five quarter notes anacrusis and that the last measure has notes to fill, let's say, a half note? There is then not enough beats left on the measure to substract 5 quarter notes. I consider that rule an anachronism, similar to the stacking up of breve and semibreve rests in an incomprehensible pile instead of simply writing in |21| ! Others may not agree, but the layout has to fit the music, not the other way around, and not all music lends itself to following that rule. Umm, I was about to say the same thing, but John beat me to it. Christopher (that is to say, Me, too!) ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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? 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? 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? 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. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 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. The one situation in which I've been caught unaware is in the matter of bar numbering in repeated sections. Yes, the convention is to give a single identifying number to every measure, and the various options concerning the 1st and 2nd endings were discussed here a little while ago. But I've been caught in Broadway show books where the conductor's score, for example, has a repeated section, while either some of the individual books or all of the individual books have the passage written out completely with no repeat marks. In other words, the score does not show what the players see, which SHOULD be a no-no, but obviously wasn't for those particular copyists. Doing Oliver! this summer. Anybody happen to know whether the orchestra parts are manuscript or have been reengraved? John -- John Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up 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 how to play it just fine, since how they play the final measure really has no bearing on the pickup beats. David H. Bailey 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 doing when you have a five quarter notes anacrusis and that the last measure has notes to fill, let's say, a half note? There is then not enough beats left on the measure to substract 5 quarter notes. Le 05-03-18, à 04:36, Giovanni Andreani a écrit : 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 'prelude' (pre-play). Italian language is mainly a mix between Latin and Greek and the only term to describe a pick up measure, in Italy, is anacrusi. An anacrusis can be related to a measure as to a phrase as to short motives, depending on many factors, such as the deepness of level of analysis of the examined structure, etc... Generally speaking, an anacrusis would be compensated by a smaller measure ending the structural section (this happens in folk music and in the stylized dances developed since the pre-early Baroque period), thus justifying the way to count measure number one from the first complete measure. In Italian language, when the pick up measure is not compensated at the end of the section and the beginning of the same pick up measure coincides with the beginning of the rhythmical - harmonical structure of the musical phrase, it's not then defined as an anacrusis but it's called acefalo (which, coming from The Greek 'aképhalos' and changed in the Latin 'acephalum' means without head) and is considered as the first measure of the section. However, an acefalo beginning is not always very simple to state, and implicates an introspective voyage into style and harmonic - melodic - rhythmic structure. Giovanni Andreani ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Éric Dussault ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 see any good reason to go around creating exceptions. I have a piece called Ice Butt which my band has been playing for years as opening song, and has two full 2/4 measure of pickup. The 3rd bar is the beginning of the harmonic rhythm as Baiaõ groove starts there, and ends two bars before for next pickup in the 16 bars block. But the bridge doesn't have pickup because the groove changes to Frevo-like, which won't make sense if pickup. It just doesn't make sense to me to number from bar one on this song. 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? -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 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. The one situation in which I've been caught unaware is in the matter of bar numbering in repeated sections. Yes, the convention is to give a single identifying number to every measure, and the various options concerning the 1st and 2nd endings were discussed here a little while ago. But I've been caught in Broadway show books where the conductor's score, for example, has a repeated section, while either some of the individual books or all of the individual books have the passage written out completely with no repeat marks. In other words, the score does not show what the players see, which SHOULD be a no-no, but obviously wasn't for those particular copyists. Doing Oliver! this summer. Anybody happen to know whether the orchestra parts are manuscript or have been reengraved? John Lots of older band arrangements especially those where there is no separate conductor part, just a solo or Eb cornet part to direct from, have the same problems, where some of the band parts have repeated sections and others have them written out straight through, and further complicated by some of those with repeated sections having first/second endings while others are straight repeats. It's a nightmare trying to keep some of those old gems alive without spending a lot of time re-engraving the parts for consistency. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 change it (all of the above). Chuck Israels This seems to be yet another difference between jazz and classical notation practices. In the classical world, the first full measure is number 1, period. If it were any other way, there would be endless disagreements as to what constituted an introduction, and exactly where it ended in any given piece. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 particularly clear when there is a repeat sign back to the beginning, and the pickup forms the back end of a measure that has already been numbered, just before the repeat sign. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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. That's how it is in the jazz world as well, for precisely the reason you give here: If it were any other way, there would be endless disagreements as to what constituted an introduction, and exactly where it ended in any given piece. Exactly. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 things differently, but I find it useful to separate the intro elements from the start of the form so, when those measures need numbers, I use a,b,c, etc. and start the actual form with measure 1. As long as there's an identifier so people can find the place they need to locate in the occasional chaos of rehearsals and performances, it seems OK to me. I thought rehearsal letters were what one used for delineating form. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 to separate the intro elements from the start of the form so, when those measures need numbers, I use a,b,c, etc. and start the actual form with measure 1. As long as there's an identifier so people can find the place they need to locate in the occasional chaos of rehearsals and performances, it seems OK to me. Chuck On Mar 18, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote: 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 change it (all of the above). Chuck Israels This seems to be yet another difference between jazz and classical notation practices. In the classical world, the first full measure is number 1, period. If it were any other way, there would be endless disagreements as to what constituted an introduction, and exactly where it ended in any given piece. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
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 a unique ID. I just don't think it's particularly helpful, either. Why not just start numbering from 1 like everyone else? - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 18 Mar 2005, at 5:15 PM, Chuck Israels wrote: 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 to separate the intro elements from the start of the form so, when those measures need numbers, I use a,b,c, etc. and start the actual form with measure 1. As long as there's an identifier so people can find the place they need to locate in the occasional chaos of rehearsals and performances, it seems OK to me. Chuck On Mar 18, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote: 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 change it (all of the above). Chuck Israels This seems to be yet another difference between jazz and classical notation practices. In the classical world, the first full measure is number 1, period. If it were any other way, there would be endless disagreements as to what constituted an introduction, and exactly where it ended in any given piece. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
I don't know what you mean by everybody else. 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. One of the reasons is that, in many cases, intro's are changed (halfed, doubled, vamped, ect.) to fit time issues or voice overs, ect. In that case bar 1 begins the main body of the music for everyone regardlees of hackings. Also, in jazz, when letter A or the first bar of the TUNE is bar 1, it's easier to visualize the form. Jim - Original Message - From: Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: finale@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 a unique ID. I just don't think it's particularly helpful, either. Why not just start numbering from 1 like everyone else? - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 18 Mar 2005, at 5:15 PM, Chuck Israels wrote: 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 to separate the intro elements from the start of the form so, when those measures need numbers, I use a,b,c, etc. and start the actual form with measure 1. As long as there's an identifier so people can find the place they need to locate in the occasional chaos of rehearsals and performances, it seems OK to me. Chuck On Mar 18, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote: 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 change it (all of the above). Chuck Israels This seems to be yet another difference between jazz and classical notation practices. In the classical world, the first full measure is number 1, period. If it were any other way, there would be endless disagreements as to what constituted an introduction, and exactly where it ended in any given piece. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://home.netcom.com/~kallisti/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale Chuck Israels 230 North Garden Terrace Bellingham, WA 98225-5836 phone (360) 671-3402 fax (360) 676-6055 www.chuckisraels.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 middle of an 8 bars phrase section, Bar 9 means the middle of a 16 bars phrase section, Bar 17 means the middle of a 32 bars phrase section, And no one cares over number 32 :-) It's a lot faster for them to locate during rehearsal. If this is not conventional, that's fine with me. Of course it is not that common for me to write in conventional harmonic rhythm anymore so this might be a moot subject to me. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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. You still have to assign a unique number to each complete measure, though. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 18 Mar 2005, at 9:10 PM, 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 bar form. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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, at any rate. A, B, C are used only for practical reasons -- inserts, etc. They have nothing to do with the form, except incidentally (some intros are introduced after the fact as inserts). One of the reasons is that, in many cases, intro's are changed (halfed, doubled, vamped, ect.) to fit time issues or voice overs, ect. In that case bar 1 begins the main body of the music for everyone regardlees of hackings. Measure numbers have NOTHING to do with these issues. If a section is to be vamped, you write VAMP. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 precisely because they are not full measures. This is made particularly clear when there is a repeat sign back to the beginning, and the pickup forms the back end of a measure that has already been numbered, just before the repeat sign. As you mentioned, this may be yet another difference between classical and jazz conventions. I have never seen, not even once, a repeat in the middle of a measure in a jazz tune, even when it may have seemed obvious to have one, while I have seen them numerous times in classical works. DC's to partial pickup measures are not done in jazz, the pickup being part of the last measure before the DS. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 and rehearsal letters or numbers, NOT measure numbers. You still have to assign a unique number to each complete measure, though. - Darcy Darcy, 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 lead-sheet format, many jazz musicians depend on the measure numbers to orient themselves. I know you understand about aligning the phrases with the beginnings of systems for readability; this is exactly the same. It may not be THE conventional way, but it IS a way that many players are familiar with, particularly with regards to standards. These are probably the guys who also number 1st endings as measure 8 and 2nd endings as 8a, to preserve the numbering scheme from phrase to phrase. Yet, as Hiro said, if one is not composing in symmetrical phrases, it won't matter. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 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. You still have to assign a unique number to each complete measure, though. - Darcy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY On 18 Mar 2005, at 9:10 PM, 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 bar form. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 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. I'm sure you understood me correctly; why are you giving me such a hard time about my nomenclature? Of course I have to tell Finale that it is a 7/8 bar, displayed as an incomplete 4/4 bar. Finale doesn't space it correctly if I don't do it that way. But I chose NOT to use an incomplete 4/4 bar (happy now?) for a pickup of 7 eighth notes, for reasons of clarity. . . . 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. And in the opinions of others as well. I think I am in a minority on this one, along with Chuck and Hiro (although it's pretty good company to be in!) 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. That was also part of my dilemma about notating this pickup. 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. On the contrary, I think it can be very clear, even in slow tempos. Compare the 7 eighth-note beginnings to In a Sentimental Mood by Ellington, or Daahoud by Clifford Brown (clearly a pickup) to Someone to Watch Over Me by Gershwin or My One And Only Love by Wood and Melllin (clearly the first measure of an eight-bar phrase.) I can send you PDF's if you don't have copies nearby. No question in any of those cases. That's why I am so touchy about notating them in a way that the appearance on paper will jibe with the sound. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] pick-up measure
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 in Stone, Read, Blatter or Ross. Any clues? Thank you, Éric Dussault ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 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 in Stone, Read, Blatter or Ross. Any clues? Thank you, Éric Dussault ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 of a measure). I can't find any reference to this in Stone, Read, Blatter or Ross. Any clues? Thank you, Éric Dussault 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 any pickups. 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 to keep consistency with some other version. My gut feeling is not to number a pickup measure, no matter what the length. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 any reference to this in Stone, Read, Blatter or Ross. Any clues? I've never run into this, even with 7 8th-notes in a pickup measure in 4/4, the first measure of the counting is the first full measure. -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 any pickups. 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 to keep consistency with some other version. My gut feeling is not to number a pickup measure, no matter what the length. Christopher Le 05-03-17, à 20:11, dhbailey a écrit : I've never run into this, even with 7 8th-notes in a pickup measure in 4/4, the first measure of the counting is the first full measure. I've never done anything else than start numbering after the pickup measure too, but I only was wondering if there was any other documented way to do it. I was hoping to get a few references to it, as I did not succeed myself in finding some. 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 ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] pick-up measure
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 Music, Boston, MA http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
