Finale SmartMusic
  Home | Log In | Register | Search | Help
   
MakeMusic Forum > Public Forums > Finale - Macintosh - FORUM HAS MOVED! > Please share your opinions  Forum Quick Jump
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum. You cannot reply to topics in this forum. Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

migman
Registered Member

Click to send migman email.Personal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to migmanAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Apr 2000
Total Posts : 2432
 
   Posted 5/20/2002 8:35 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I'd like to get some opinions, if anyone is
willing. There's a really, really simplified
visual example attached, but I'll also write
out the question. Suppose you have a
piece in 4/4 with a quarter note pickup to
each of several sections. Would you
rather:

Ex. 1) use a mid-measure repeat. In other
words, make the last measure of the A
section three beats long, followed by a
backward repeat to the top, and a one
beat measure as a pickup to the B
section, etc. Or…

Ex. 2) duplicate the first pickup note as
the fourth beat of the last measure of A,
and use first and second endings, etc.

One reason I'm asking, is that I would like
to know how those of you who like
example 1 would treat measure
numbers. If the one-beat measure that
follows a three-beat measure (which
seems to be the way you need to do
mid-measure repeats in Finale) falls as
the first measure in a system, would you:

a) use actual measure numbers (i.e. in
example 1, the pickup note to the A
section is the first measure of the piece,
and the pickup to B is the fourth, but you
would normally count the first full
measure as measure one, and the
pickup to the B section would be the last
beat of measure two).

b) don't count the pickup measures as full
measures, and number both the
three-beat and one-beat measures with
the same number (essentially they are
the same measure) and, when it is the
first measure in a new system, show the
one-beat measure's number. Confusion
could arise if you called "take it from
measure X," and some went to the
one-beat measure, while others went to
the three-beat measure.

c) use real measure numbers (as in
example b), but instead of numbering the
pickup measure, number the first full
measure (which would be unusual, and
might look a little odd not having measure
numbers at the start of every system).

Any other thoughts are also welcome.
Thanks in advance.
Back to Top

Jim Coull
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to Jim CoullAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jun 1999
Total Posts : 2723
 
   Posted 5/20/2002 1:47 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Michael,

Example 2 gets my vote hands down. I have had to direct band scores written like example 1 and they rarely go smoothly during the reading sessions.

Just my 2¢ worth.

Jim Coull
Back to Top

Tim Rowland
...Rowland...Rowland, though the streams are...



Email Address Not AvailableClick to visit Tim Rowland's website.Send a Private Message to Tim RowlandAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Dec 1998
Total Posts : 1250
 
   Posted 5/20/2002 2:14 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Michael,

I agree with Jim - example 2 is much easier to read (with respect to playing it), and also more visually appealing. Measure numbering would also be a nightmare in the first example (for two split-measure repeats, you would needed 3 measure regions). Another consideration is the measure widths - should split measures of 3 and 1 beats be the same width as 4 beats in one measure? With the double sided repeat taking up additional space, I would think not...and I wouldn't like that very much!

Cheers,

Tim
Back to Top

duser
Registered Member

Click to send duser email.Personal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to duserAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jan 2001
Total Posts : 929
 
   Posted 5/20/2002 3:16 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Anyone with good musicianship skills should be able to handle either one. I actually prefer version 1 because it has fewer measures and looks less cluttered. But I must admit that in the 'real world', you would be more likely to get a correct first reading with version 2.

On the subject of measure numbers, there is really no doubt about what is correct. You have to remember two things:

(1) Pickup measures are always unnumbered. Numbering starts with the first complete measure. The logic is that the material in the pickup measure 'belongs' to the complementary incomplete measure at the end of the section, and that measure does get a number.

The one case where a pickup measure would get its own number would be if it were written as a completely full measure with leading rests and a few notes at the end, but of course then it isn't really a pickup measure.

(2) A repeat sign is NOT a barline. It can go anywhere in a measure. Unfortunately, Finale treats repeat signs like barlines, especially where measure numbers are concerned.

With those two facts in mind, the first example should be numbered as follows: The pickup is unnumbered, the CDEF is measure 1, The GFE :||:G is measure 2, the CBAG is measure 3, the AGF:||:B is measure 4, and the C is measure 5.

In the second example, the pickup measure is unnumbered, the following measures are numbered sequentially from 1 through 7.
Back to Top

Bill Stevens
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to Bill StevensAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jun 2000
Total Posts : 5408
 
   Posted 5/21/2002 5:16 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
The only time I would use example 1
would be on a hymn, where the pickup
would be placed on the line with the rest
of its phrase.
Back to Top

migman
Registered Member

Click to send migman email.Personal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to migmanAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Apr 2000
Total Posts : 2432
 
   Posted 5/21/2002 5:36 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Thanks for all the opinions so far. To
Anonymous and William, If the pickup to B
were at the beginning a new system,
would you show measure number 2 at
the start of the system (even though the
rest of measure two would be on the end
of the previous system)?
Back to Top

Peter Thomsen
Registered Member

Click to send Peter Thomsen email.Personal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to Peter ThomsenAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jun 2000
Total Posts : 8331
 
   Posted 5/21/2002 7:49 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Michael,

You wrote:

"b) don't count the pickup measures as full
measures, and number both the
three-beat and one-beat measures with
the same number (essentially they are
the same measure) and, when it is the
first measure in a new system, show the
one-beat measure's number. Confusion
could arise if you called "take it from
measure X," and some went to the
one-beat measure, while others went to
the three-beat measure."

As Anonymous pointed out, a repeat sign is not a barline. Therefore, the one-beat measure normally should not be the first measure in a new system, since that would split a 4/4 measure across a system break.

See the attached example, which, I believe, should be easy to read for the performer.

And pay attention to the measure numbers.

Peter
Back to Top

migman
Registered Member

Click to send migman email.Personal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to migmanAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Apr 2000
Total Posts : 2432
 
   Posted 5/21/2002 8:52 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Peter,

I agree with you that the one-bar
conclusion to a measure shouldn't
normally be at the beginning of a system,
but normally isn't the same as never. If it
were at the beginning of the system, as
William suggests he might do in a hymn,
what do you think would be the way to
treat the measure numbers?

I'm working on a book of
baroque/classical music, and I tried to
talk the author out of the use of
mid-measure repeats, but that's how he
wants it (and with some pickups at the
beginning of the system). I don't have a
solution that isn't in some way
problematic, but so far, I'm going with
showing the measure number for the
pickup (except the first in the piece). So
there will be (for instance) a measure 22
at the end of a system, and one at the
beginning of the next. That seems to be
the best solution from a list of bad
solutions.
Back to Top

duser
Registered Member

Click to send duser email.Personal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to duserAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Jan 2001
Total Posts : 929
 
   Posted 5/21/2002 9:46 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
This is an interesting problem -- music notation seems to be a never-ending source of them  8¬)

As Michael points out, it is common to engrave hymns so that each line of music corresponds to one complete line of text, and this often requires splitting measures. However, hymns are usually so short that they don't require measure numbers, in fact I can't find a single example in my library of a hymn with numbered measures.

If the piece you are engraving is not a hymn, though, I would strongly advise against splitting measures. If you must split measures, I wouldn't number the partial measure at the beginning of the system, but rather the measure following it (the first complete measure of the system). And, if you must split measures, make sure there is no 'barline' at the right edge of the first half of the split measure, the staff lines should be open.

BTW, another place you see split measures a lot is in cadenzas, just because the measures can be so long. Unfortunately, all the examples I have readily at hand are in pieces which don't have any measure numbers, so I'm not sure what is considered good common practice in that situation. Anyone else?
Back to Top

Graeme Gilmore
Registered Member

Click to send Graeme Gilmore email.Personal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to Graeme GilmoreAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Aug 2000
Total Posts : 371
 
   Posted 5/21/2002 10:40 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I can’t recall seeing how a published score with measure numbers at the start of each system handled this situation. The few times I’ve had a measure split like this, I came up with a slightly different solution than those posted so far. For what it’s worth, here it is.

Using Staff Styles, I suppressed the automatic measure number at the beginning of the line and showed it at the beginning of the first complete measure on the line.

There were two reasons. First, I expect the measure number to be at the beginning of a measure. Second, the main performance use of measure numbers is to locate a measure during rehearsal. It just seemed to me that psychologically my solution was closer to what players would expect and be able to interpret with little conscious thought.


Graeme
Back to Top

mknoll
Registered Member

Email Address Not AvailablePersonal Homepage Not AvailableSend a Private Message to mknollAIM Not AvailableICQ Not AvailableY! Not AvailableMSN Not Available
Date Joined Mar 2000
Total Posts : 207
 
   Posted 5/24/2002 6:10 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
This situation comes up a lot in 18th-century music, for example a theme and variations movement where the theme begins with an upbeat. In such situations it is usual to try to start each variation at the beginning of a system, so that means starting systems with pick-up measures. Here I give the normal measure number at the beginning of the system for the pick-up measure AND I force the display of the measure number for the first full measure in the system. I think that this alerts to players to the fact that something is different (if they haven't already taken note of the fact that the first measure on the line is a partial measure).

I haven't found any way around setting up multiple measure number regions to get the measure numbers right. I'm working on a 120-measure theme and 5 variations movement right now where the theme and each variation is 8 + 8 measures, each half repeated and each starting with a pick-up. I had to use 14 measure number regions.

Cheers,

Mark
Back to Top
You cannot post new topics in this forum. You cannot reply to topics in this forum. Printable Version
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Tuesday, December 10, 2019 11:25 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 403,820 posts in 58,165 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads