Not an issue, but I haven’t seen this before and it made me curious enough to want to ask the experts.
I added a pick-up bar and noticed that it wasn’t given a unique bar number. I have two bars #66. Is this standard practice? Should it be consecutively numbered? Many thanks
Pick-up bars at the start of a piece (where they’re most commonly used) don’t contribute to the bar number count, so at the start of a flow a pick-up bar will be numbered 0.
It might look less ambiguous if, in cases like this, the bar number was omitted for the ‘embedded’ pick-up bar completely? To have a zero might also look confusing.
IME it’s irregular to have an anacrusis in the middle of music. What’s the previous meter? Is it a full bar? Perhaps it would make more sense if the pickup quarter were part of the previous bar (of whatever meter) and 4/4 (if it is a change) begins on the downbeat. The key change and/or double barline can still precede the pickup beat.
Pickup bars are also used to fake time signatures.
Is there any way of renumbering bars at the beginning or in the middle of pieces?
David
That’s pretty awesome, thank you Lillie!
In this particular case, the pick-up bar is at the start of the next segment of music, tracking the form of the piece. It follows the prior section without any gaps or pauses, only a tempo change. The previous meter is the same (4/4) and the previous bar is a full bar.
I inserted the change in bar numbering as suggested by Lillie, but now I’m wondering about another question: would this be the case where splitting music into flows would be more appropriate rather than joining the pick-up bar to the previous section?
It’s totally fine how you’ve done it.
You can use separate flows (or even “codas”) or you can just carry on with split measures. It looks funny in galley view but makes sense with system breaks on the final layout.
