Pickup measure should be automatically reflected in final measure as complement

• Apr 12, 2013 - 02:32

When a pickup measure is needed, the final measure in the score should have an actual duration of a full measure less the value of the pickup. I found that the only way to get a correct final measure is to manually change the measure property for that final measure, reducing the actual duration as required.

Example: Score set up in 4/4 time. Pickup is a quarter note. Final measure actual duration, therefore, is 3 quarter notes. Basically the final measure completes the count that the pickup started You should NOT have a full 4/4 measure at the end.


Comments

In reply to by Zoots

... maybe "lots of people" do it however they want. It doesn't make it right or logical. Just saying. But I don't want to get into an argument about it. Let's just call it artistic freedom and agree to disagree.

In reply to by MiniM

This argument has been waged here on and off. Basically some people were taught that this is the correct way to notate the final bar, others not. I was taught that way too, but you will not find any consensus here.

One of the problems that comes up with this is the appending of extra measures when needed. If the final measure is a special length because of the pick-up then the added measures will not be special and you will have to correct this situation yourself.

In reply to by schepers

I see what you mean -- a very important point. So the choice would be to have the final measure according to the pickup+final rule, but then you'd have to be careful to insert (not append) more measures before the final OR to accept the existing setup and remember, when completely finished with the work, to correct the final measure, which obviously would be easier.

So it's one of those either/or situations.

Thanks for pointing out appending comes into this issue. Well done!

In reply to by MiniM

It's not just a matter of being right or logical. Although I didn't explicitly state it, one of the common uses of MuseScore is to clean up existing music and this music may not adhere to the convention being discussed, The current program can handle the case of a short bar at the end.

It's *not* a question of one way being "right" and one being "wrong" - it's really just two different but equally valid conventions that both have a long and well-established history behind them. And then a question of to what extent it makes sense from a technical and usability to technical and usability perspective to try to *automatically* support the convention of subtracting beats from the final bar of a piece with a pickup.

I'm not a musicologist, but my understanding based on what I have learn and my reading of many different types of scores published over the last several centuries is this:

The convention of subtracting pickup beats (aka anacrusis, especially in the UK) from the final measure was most in vogue in the 17th-19th centuries. It was especially useful for short dance pieces (minuets, etc) to allow the musicians to easily repeat the whole form to extend the dance. Also, for hymns with multiple verses all printed below a single system of music, for the same reason. Basically, any piece of music where you might be inclined to repeat the entire form. Some publishers went ahead and also used this convention for other types of pieces, others did not. As longer and more complex pieces came to be published more regularly - consider the possibility of time signature changes within the piece! - the usefulness and wisdom of this particular convention diminished such that more and more publishers stopped using it in any but the shorter / simpler forms for which it was originally useful. And many publishers eventually stopped using it even for those shorter / simpler forms, choosing instead to represent even hymns with complete last bars that repeat the pickup - perhaps rendered smaller or in parentheses to indicate that it won't be played after the final verse, or perhaps with voltas.

Today, you see many publishers *never* using the convention of subtracting pickup beats from the final bar of a piece. Others use it on the type of music - short dance pieces, hymns - for which it originally made sense, but not on longer / more complex pieces. Some use it for reprints of pieces if they were originally published using that convention, but not for new pieces. Some publishers use this convention in their classical series but not their jazz or pop series. The bottom line, it is *far* from being universal today, and in fact, I'd say the majority of newly published music does *not* use this convention, although I will certainly concede that one's impression of what is most common today is largely affected by geography, style preference, etc.

Anyhow, just because the convention is an older one that may or may not be slowly dying out doesn't mean MuseScore shouldn't support it. And of course, it *does* support it - you just have to make the adjustment to the final bar manually. So the question is, should MuseScore support an *option* (because many users won't want to use this convention at all) to handle this more automatically.

And, indeed, the subject of implementing such an option for MuseScore has come up before, several times. There are definitely technical issues to deal with, though. There is the matter, as mentioned here already, of handling the appending of new bars (surely a very common case, as very often you would not know before starting a piece how many measures you'll need). There is also the question of what happens if you change your mind and alter the length of that pickup measure, or remove it entirely. And, as I mentioned above, what about pieces that change time signature over their duration? If a piece starts in 5/4 but ends in 6/8, and the pickup is two quarter notes in 5/4, exactly what do you propose doing to that final 6/8 bar to compensate?

So, given the fact that this convention isn't all that relevant to a great deal of music, the fact that many people have no desire to ever use it, the fact that many people who haven't specifically studied 17th-19th century classical music may have never even heard of it (since many modern publishers and instructional books no longer use it), and the fact there are technical issues with trying to make it work automatically - my opinion is that current approach is just fine. That is, those people who are aware of this historical convention and who are making a conscious choice to continue using it can do so by manually shortening the last measure.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

... altho I feel slightly bombarded. This was very thorough -- and I am a musicologist and feeling properly chastised by not having done the research myself on this practice (one cannot know everything) before commenting. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa!

The short story: This boils down to functionality and/or printing preferences. When musical shorthand can take care of repeating sections, the anacrusis subtraction applies. Otherwise, it is optionally used if one wants whole bars in total in the piece.

Happily, I know more now than I did a couple of hours ago. Maybe I'm just too buried in musical editions that observe the subtraction. Just checked my Urtext of Bach Motet II, and there it is in the chorale at the end!

So can we all take a breath now? And I'll go fix my score the old-fashioned way -- manually.

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.