Why do we start counting beats in a measure with "one" and not "zero"?

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-09-21 10:52 a.m.

To provide an easily confusing example, consider a half-note. One naturally assumes that because a half-note is 2 beats long, that it ends when I count to "two". If I start counting at zero, this is true:

"zero" (note starts)

"one"

"two" (note ends)

However, the standard convention I've always seen to start counting at one means that the half-note actually ends at "three". It's the common "fencepost" problem in counting. I think that a lot of people find this to be pretty confusing.

The problem is exacerbated by the standard terminology to refer to subunits of beats: when someone says "the 'and' of one" what they mean is the 2nd eighth note in the measure, not the 4nd eighth note in the measure.

Wilktone · by **Wilktone** » 2025-09-21 10:57 a.m.

For the same reason we don't count the first mile as zero.

The issue you're describing is confusing the beginning of the beat with the end of the beat. Beat one starts at the beginning of the measure and ends when beat two begins. The first mile begins as you start your journey and ends when you begin the second mile.

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-09-21 11:04 a.m.

[quote="Wilktone"]For the same reason we don't count the first mile as zero.

The issue you're describing is confusing the beginning of the beat with the end of the beat. Beat one starts at the beginning of the measure and ends when beat two begins. The first mile begins as you start your journey and ends when you begin the second mile.[/quote]

Another great example! :good:

We also don't say that we've gone "one" mile when we take the first step.

claf · by **claf** » 2025-09-21 11:51 a.m.

Because a beat is a discrete concept (even if it can be subdivised, it is usually done by powers of 2, with a notable exception with the triplets/quintuplets/...).

While a mile (or a second) is a continuous concept (we can subdivide a mile by what we want, either a quartet, a tenth, a thousandth).

Thinking about it, we can approach it differently depending on the system we use: metric is continuous while imperial could be considered discrete.

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-09-21 12:04 p.m.

I believe most people here know what the "fencepost problem" is, but just in case for those who haven't heard that term before:

~~[url]~~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-by-one_error

A fencepost error (occasionally called a telegraph pole, lamp-post, or picket fence error) is a specific type of off-by-one error. An early description of this error appears in the works of Vitruvius.[1] The following problem illustrates the error:

If you build a straight fence 30 feet long with posts spaced 3 feet apart, how many posts do you need?

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2025-09-21 12:24 p.m.

The issue is that we are taught to count starting at 1. The idea of starting at zero seems to have begun with the Scientific Revolution in the 17th or 18th Century, but was not adopted universally.

A half note lasts for two beats and (in 4/4 time) ends at beat 3. So the start of the note is on 1 and the end of the note should be on 3. If we considered the start of the measure to be zero, the end of the note would be on beat 2. And we would be counting measures as "0, 1, 2, 3" instead of "1, 2, 3, 4".

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-09-21 12:27 p.m.

I have the same problem with musical intervals. A "second" is at a distance of one note.

Wilktone · by **Wilktone** » 2025-09-21 12:46 p.m.

[quote="Wilktone"]For the same reason we don't count the first mile as zero.[/quote]

I realized shortly after I made this post what a poor analogy that was, but I was already out of the house and couldn't correct myself.

I think the analogy of counting miles (or laps, or whatever) holds, but since we tend to describe distances as the *end* of the unit that it gets confusing. For example, if I'm swimming laps I might say I'm "on lap 20," meaning that I've completed 19 laps and am finishing up the 20th lap.

The other posts are better than my analogy.

I think probably a more clear way of teaching this might be to draw rectangular blocks, say four of them for 4/4 meter. Each block is a representation of the full rhythmic value for a "beat."

When we say "beat one" we're counting "one" at the beginning of the first block of sound. We've got four blocks, for four beats. We're "on beat one," but we haven't yet completed the full block of sound, sort of like we're on the 20th lap after completing 19 laps.

[quote="AndrewMeronek"]One naturally assumes that because a half-note is 2 beats long, that it ends when I count to "two".[/quote]

Yeah, I think that the way we traditionally describe things may lead to this confusion. So using my block analogy, you could teach that a half note is two full blocks and that rhythm should end when the second block ends, which happens to be right where the third block begins (where we count "three").

When we count using rhythmic solfège (such as "one and two and..." the number lands on the beginning of the block. As claf pointed out, a beat is a discrete point, not a rhythmic value.

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2025-09-21 1:16 p.m.

The problem arises from the fact that beats are both something we count the number of, and something we count the length of. It's impossible to avoid the fencepost problem and the potential confusion.

If we started measures on "beat 0", we would simply shift the problem in the other direction. Now you would have 4-beat measures where the last beat is called "3rd beat". In my opinion that would be more confusing than how we currently count them.

Mamaposaune · by **Mamaposaune** » 2025-09-21 1:44 p.m.

Somewhat related, I think it was alluded to in an earlier comment, is counting dotted quarter notes and why it can be confusing to students. We tell them it gets 1 1/2 beats, then tell them to count "one and two and" making it seem as though it is longer than a half note.

Intervals are similar, one ex. being major/minor scales and how they relate. I'll tell students to go down a 3rd or up a 6th, but in almost every case they will count the 2nd note as one - i.e. CM - Am: C is one, but students counting down will call the B one.

GabrielRice · by **GabrielRice** » 2025-09-21 2:04 p.m.

Why does a sharp sign look so much like a natural sign, which looks so much like a flat sign?

Why don't we repeat the time signature at the beginning of every new line of manuscript like we do the key signature?

Why do we have both different clefs and transpositions in orchestral scores?

Why are there 2 (3?) different systems for reading bass clef on the French horn?

And the most important question of all: why is tuba always a principal position (with overscale) in orchestras but not bass trombone?

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-09-21 2:24 p.m.

[quote="Wilktone"]I realized shortly after I made this post what a poor analogy that was, but I was already out of the house and couldn't correct myself.[/quote]

I don't think that it's not a poor analogy, I think it's interesting. You describe both the "first mile" and counting miles after completion of said miles. Maybe there is some similar language we can clarify when measuring beats, whether we mean "the end of beat 1" or "the start of beat 1" or "in-between the start and end of beat 1" ?

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-09-21 2:30 p.m.

For a bit more context:

What got me thinking about this is watching this video about reading rhythms. I was curious to see how she would approach talking about it, and I noticed that she marked the beats with her vertical green lines (and referred to the beats while talking) specifically at the end of the beats, not at the beginning. I think that at least part of what this means is that we can't assume that it's universal (in English) to assume that when someone says "beat 1" that they mean either the start or the end, without clarification.

<YOUTUBE id="qhK1TTmMxWc">~~[media]~~https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhK1TTmMxWc</YOUTUBE>

FYI Sarah Jeffrey makes excellent music education videos. :good:

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-09-21 2:33 p.m.

[quote="GabrielRice"]And the most important question of all: why is tuba always a principal position (with overscale) in orchestras but not bass trombone?[/quote]

Now you're getting to the truly important questions!

robcat2075 · 2025-09-21 3:18 p.m.

It's the difference between cardinal numbers (1, 2, 3, 4...) and whole numbers (0, 1, 2, 3...) and our practical sense of when to use one or the zother.

We call the initial beat "beat one" because we regard it to be something rather than nothing, the first of a set rather than a zeroed-out scale about to weigh something.

I'll note that in my year of teaching public school band I encountered zero students who, even in their most manufactured moments of cluelessness, asked why the first beat wasn't "beat zero".

Imagine telling fifth graders, "Listen everyone, this piece is in 4/4 time! 0, 1, 2, 3, 0, 1, 2, 3..."

brassmedic · 2025-09-21 4:36 p.m.

I agree with robcat. Zero means non-existent. If I have zero apples, I don't have any apples. That's why we count things starting with one. Talking about a 0th beat is nonsensical. A quarter note that starts on beat one ends on beat two. It ENDS there; it does not occupy any part of beat 2. I've never been confused by that. It is perfectly logical to me. I don't see it as being a fencepost problem. A fencepost is a physical structure that has a physical width and occupies physical space. There is no analogous structure for beats. I thought the mile analogy was good. The second mile starts exactly where the first mile ends. The first mile does not occupy any part of the second mile.

If a teacher is really bothered by, say, a half note and counting to 3, they can always say, "one and two and off". I've definitely heard that before.

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2025-09-21 6:22 p.m.

An exercise I do for shoulder impingement is to hang from a chinup bar for a set number of seconds.

To count seconds, I turn on metronome set to 60. When my position is correct I start my count at "zero."

If you're hanging for 30 seconds the difference between starting at 1 versus 0 is meaningless, but if you're doing 5 seconds of isometrics it might be huge. Either way though, zero is more precise.

I didn't invent the "start at zero" idea, it came from some fitness site and was common practice among some set of athletes. .

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2025-09-21 11:14 p.m.

[quote="timothy42b"]An exercise I do for shoulder impingement is to hang from a chinup bar for a set number of seconds.

To count seconds, I turn on metronome set to 60. When my position is correct I start my count at "zero."

If you're hanging for 30 seconds the difference between starting at 1 versus 0 is meaningless, but if you're doing 5 seconds of isometrics it might be huge. Either way though, zero is more precise.

I didn't invent the "start at zero" idea, it came from some fitness site and was common practice among some set of athletes. .[/quote]

It depends on whether you're measuring elapsed time (start at zero) or entities lined up in space or time (start at one). Nurses are trained to take a pulse for 15 seconds and then multiply by 4 to get the "beats per minute" figure. Unfortunately, they typically start counting (incorrectly) at "one" when they start their stop-watch, so their pulse measurement can be four beats too high if there's a pulse detected right at the 15-second point.

If I clap my hands 20 times in 4 seconds, the clap frequency is the number of claps divided by the elapsed time: 20/(4 s) = 5/s = 5 Hz. Do I start counting claps at "one" and not count the last clap that occurs right at the 4-second point; or start counting at "zero" and include the last clap?

There is a well-known "mathematical" joke. In the old days (when you could check a lot of bags on a flight), a professional mathematician and his wife arrive at check-in, with the bags neatly lined up in a row before they're to be loaded onto the scale. The mathematician exclaims to his wife, "Oh no! You said we had four bags. We must have left one in the car". His wife responds, "No, dear, there are four bags there." The mathematician is insistent, "No, look! Count them: zero, one, two, three!"

claf · by **claf** » 2025-09-22 2:08 a.m.

It does not start at zero.

It's at zero before starting.

After it has started, it's not zero, it's 0 point something, or some milliseconds, which is a lot more than 0.

I hope nobody counts millibeats.

LeTromboniste · 2025-09-22 4:01 a.m.

I know Gabe's post was all tongue-in-cheek, but,

[quote="GabrielRice"]Why does a sharp sign look so much like a natural sign, which looks so much like a flat sign? [/quote]

The natural sign and the flat sign are both originally different shapes of the letter b, so it's not surprising that these two symbols look similar. On the other hand, the earlier versions of the sharp sign were much less similar, with the parallel lines much closer together, and the whole thing rotated 45 degrees (but today that would create confusion with the double sharp symbol, well as require different half-sharp and sharp-and-a-half symbols).

The natural sign has corners, and is originally a "square" or hard b indicating that it's to be sung as "mi", a half-step below C (sung "fa"), while the flat sign is a "round" or soft b indicating it's sung "fa", a half-step above A (sung "mi", or eventually "la").

The modern German nomenclature has kept some remnants of these notions. Germans call B natural "H" (with B meaning Bb) because the natural sign ressembles the lowercase h of their Fraktur script (which they still used in everyday printed writing well into the 20th century)

Also, as an extension to the original idea of hexachords containing Bb being called soft or "mollem", and B natural hard or "durum", they call major tonalities "dur" and minor tonalities "moll".

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2025-09-22 8:11 a.m.

[quote="Sesquitone"]

It depends on whether you're measuring elapsed time (start at zero) or entities lined up in space or time (start at one). Nurses are trained to take a pulse for 15 seconds and then multiply by 4 to get the "beats per minute" figure. Unfortunately, they typically start counting (incorrectly) at "one" when they start their stop-watch, so their pulse measurement can be four beats too high if there's a pulse detected right at the 15-second point.
[/quote]

Ah ha!

Long ago I worked in a hospital. Among messier tasks, I took pulse and blood pressures on incoming mental patients.

I was taught to start counting at zero.

I had forgotten that over the years. My job at a state mental hospital was 1982 to 1990.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-09-22 9:14 a.m.

You all are way overthinking this.

In music we count the start of the beat, NOT the completion of the beat. There is no reason to stop doing this or question why we do this. You're counting the downbeats. I know foot tapping is taboo ... but if you try it ... the first tap happens right at the very beginning of the measure, it starts the measure, and that beat is over once the second foot tap happens. Your foot going up and then back down constitutes the upbeat into beat two.

The downbeats, which are what is being counted, happen precisely at the start of the measure, are evenly spaced throughout the measure according to the time signature, and by themselves have zero temporal length.

Now, if you want to get into what "three measures after 'A'" means ... I'll bring the popcorn. The A is on the barline ... is bar "A" one after "A"? Is "A" the barline?

Who knows.

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2025-09-22 9:33 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]Now, if you want to get into what "three measures after 'A'" means ... I'll bring the popcorn. The A is on the barline ... is bar "A" one after "A"? Is "A" the barline?

Who knows.[/quote]

This legit is something good conducting teachers teach their students in the first week of conducting seminar. As a conductor you may say "n measures before X" when counting backwards, but when counting forwards the word "after" is forbidden and you must always say "nth measure of X"

JTeagarden · by **JTeagarden** » 2025-09-22 11:04 a.m.

Wow, just when it seemed a topic couldn't be more tedious.

Wilktone · by **Wilktone** » 2025-09-22 11:08 a.m.

[quote="JTeagarden"]Wow, just when it seemed a topic couldn't be more tedious.[/quote]

I've found that the best things for my musicianship are often the things that are tedious. They're not enjoyable, but the results usually are.

JTeagarden · by **JTeagarden** » 2025-09-22 11:35 a.m.

[quote="Wilktone"]<QUOTE author="JTeagarden" post_id="286016" time="1758553499" user_id="19182">
Wow, just when it seemed a topic couldn't be more tedious.[/quote]

I've found that the best things for my musicianship are often the things that are tedious. They're not enjoyable, but the results usually are.
</QUOTE>

This is generally true, not sure about discussing the convention of starting to count with one, though.

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2025-09-22 3:48 p.m.

[quote="timothy42b"]<QUOTE author="Sesquitone" post_id="285982" time="1758510897" user_id="15151">

It depends on whether you're measuring elapsed time (start at zero) or entities lined up in space or time (start at one). Nurses are trained to take a pulse for 15 seconds and then multiply by 4 to get the "beats per minute" figure. Unfortunately, they typically start counting (incorrectly) at "one" when they start their stop-watch, so their pulse measurement can be four beats too high if there's a pulse detected right at the 15-second point.
[/quote]

Ah ha!

Long ago I worked in a hospital. Among messier tasks, I took pulse and blood pressures on incoming mental patients.

I was taught to start counting at zero.

I had forgotten that over the years. My job at a state mental hospital was 1982 to 1990.
</QUOTE>
I don't get this. You would be counting heartbeats, wouldn't you? A heartbeat being an event, you are counting how many events take place in a given time period, so wouldn't you start counting at one? There is no 0th heartbeat. As for the elapsed time, you would be using a stopwatch, which DOES start at zero, wouldn't you? So under what scenario would you want to begin counting at zero? The stopwatch does that automatically.

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2025-09-22 3:58 p.m.

[quote="JTeagarden"]Wow, just when it seemed a topic couldn't be more tedious.[/quote]

Perhaps this will liven things up a bit. I have mentioned "Libet time" before. Basically, this means that the "real world" is happening about 500 ms before we (humans) are aware of it—including things happening inside our own body, in particular, decisions we make and actions based on those decisions. So you're playing quarter notes in 4/4 at a tempo of quarter-note = 120. You're thinking: "one, two, three, four, . . ." as you play. But, in the "real world", you're actually playing notes required on "two, three, four, one, . . ."—i.e half-a-second ahead of what you're aware of what you're actually doing. If you're improvising, and decide to make a little four-note run in sixteenth notes, you've actually played all of those notes before you are aware of deciding which notes to play!

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2025-09-22 4:29 p.m.

[quote="brassmedic"]I don't get this. You would be counting heartbeats, wouldn't you? A heartbeat being an event, you are counting how many events take place in a given time period, so wouldn't you start counting at one? There is no 0th heartbeat. As for the elapsed time, you would be using a stopwatch, which DOES start at zero, wouldn't you? So under what scenario would you want to begin counting at zero? The stopwatch does that automatically.[/quote]

Okay, so wait until you're feeling the pulse "beats". Assuming the pulse is fairly uniform, you can anticipate subsequent beats. Click on the stop-watch synchronised with any beat. Click it off synchronised with the very next beat. You have measured the time interval between two consecutive beats—i.e. ONE pulse period. Did you count "one, two" or "zero, one"? Frequency is the reciprocal of period, so the pulse frequency is the number 1 (not 2) divided by the stop-watch measurement (presumably in seconds), giving the frequency in hertz. Multiply by 60 to give the frequency in (so-called) Beats Per Minute (BPM). If you count beats over a fixed time interval (e.g. 15 s) and you count the beat nearest in time to the end of that 15 s interval, you want to know the number of periods for that time interval—the number of "spaces between fence posts", not the total number of fence posts (which is one more). That's why you (should) start counting pulse beats at zero, not one. Then divide by the time interval (to give frequency in hertz) then multiply by 60. [Equivalent to multiplying the beats you counted (starting at zero) by 4.]

JTeagarden · 2025-09-22 4:53 p.m.

Now I've gone from bored to thoroughly confused, I get this a lot :cool:

The idea that we perceive the world only after it takes place is an interesting one, ideally we all have about the same lag time...

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-09-22 4:54 p.m.

[quote="Sesquitone"]<QUOTE author="JTeagarden" post_id="286016" time="1758553499" user_id="19182">
Wow, just when it seemed a topic couldn't be more tedious.[/quote]

Perhaps this will liven things up a bit. I have mentioned "Libet time" before. Basically, this means that the "real world" is happening about 500 ms before we (humans) are aware of it—including things happening inside our own body, in particular, decisions we make and actions based on those decisions. So you're playing quarter notes in 4/4 at a tempo of quarter-note = 120. You're thinking: "one, two, three, four, . . ." as you play. But, in the "real world", you're actually playing notes required on "two, three, four, one, . . ."—i.e half-a-second ahead of what you're aware of what you're actually doing. If you're improvising, and decide to make a little four-note run in sixteenth notes, you've actually played all of those notes before you are aware of deciding which notes to play!
</QUOTE>

<YOUTUBE id="wo_e0EvEZn8">~~[media]~~https://youtu.be/wo_e0EvEZn8?feature=shared</YOUTUBE>

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-09-22 5:41 p.m.

There is another parallel in motoring. The "three second rule" is one of the methods of finding a safe following distance. But if you don't start counting at zero, you're only measuring two seconds.

Of course, that only works when your road network ISN'T congested and overloaded. Sigh.

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2025-09-22 5:58 p.m.

First: when measuring a person's pulse, you are counting heartbeats in a particular time period. Starting the stopwatch on a pulse is as good a start time as any, and that is pulse 1. You will measure for a fixed time, not a number of pulses. Multiplying the result by whatever it takes to make one minute will be accurate enough except in the (rare) case that another pulse occurs exactly at your stop time. In this latter case your result will be off by the factor you used to make the minute. For example, you measure pulse for 15 seconds (¼ minute) and you get 21 pulses, but no pulse occurred on the 15th second. You get a pulse of 84. If you get a pulse of 21 but the first and last pulses occur exactly on the start and stop of your timing, your 84 should actually be 80. This is a pretty small error in pulse value, so counting starting on 1 is perfectly valid. Also, worrying about whether the last pulse occurred exactly on your stop point is kinda immaterial. Note that the error gets larger if your measurement is based on 5 seconds, where an error of 1 translates to 12 beats per minute, which is a much bigger factor.

Remember, we are counting beats, not marking their location. Beat one starts at location zero; beat two starts at location 1, etc.

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2025-09-22 9:56 p.m.

[quote="Sesquitone"]<QUOTE author="brassmedic" post_id="286031" time="1758570532" user_id="4102">
I don't get this. You would be counting heartbeats, wouldn't you? A heartbeat being an event, you are counting how many events take place in a given time period, so wouldn't you start counting at one? There is no 0th heartbeat. As for the elapsed time, you would be using a stopwatch, which DOES start at zero, wouldn't you? So under what scenario would you want to begin counting at zero? The stopwatch does that automatically.[/quote]

Okay, so wait until you're feeling the pulse "beats". Assuming the pulse is fairly uniform, you can anticipate subsequent beats. Click on the stop-watch synchronised with any beat. Click it off synchronised with the very next beat. You have measured the time interval between two consecutive beats—i.e. ONE pulse period. Did you count "one, two" or "zero, one"? Frequency is the reciprocal of period, so the pulse frequency is the number 1 (not 2) divided by the stop-watch measurement (presumably in seconds), giving the frequency in hertz. Multiply by 60 to give the frequency in (so-called) Beats Per Minute (BPM). If you count beats over a fixed time interval (e.g. 15 s) and you count the beat nearest in time to the end of that 15 s interval, you want to know the number of periods for that time interval—the number of "spaces between fence posts", not the total number of fence posts (which is one more). That's why you (should) start counting pulse beats at zero, not one. Then divide by the time interval (to give frequency in hertz) then multiply by 60. [Equivalent to multiplying the beats you counted (starting at zero) by 4.]
</QUOTE>
You sure made that unnecessarily complicated. If you don't try to synch a heartbeat with starting the stopwatch, then you don't have to count from zero. Just start the stopwatch and count the heartbeats as they come.

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2025-09-22 10:43 p.m.

[quote="AtomicClock"]There is another parallel in motoring. The "three second rule" is one of the methods of finding a safe following distance. But if you don't start counting at zero, you're only measuring two seconds.

Of course, that only works when your road network ISN'T congested and overloaded. Sigh.[/quote]
I think you're supposed to say "one one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand" so the duration of each second is accounted for.

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2025-09-22 11:00 p.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]

Now, if you want to get into what "three measures after 'A'" means ... I'll bring the popcorn. The A is on the barline ... is bar "A" one after "A"? Is "A" the barline?

Who knows.[/quote]
A isn't a bar. A is a rehearsal letter that falls on the barline. "One after A" is the bar immediately after the letter A. Of course you would never say that because you would just say "Start at A". Better yet, as pointed out, you should say, "The fourth bar of A", or whatever the case may be. It's like if you said, "My house is on the first block after the stop sign. The stop sign isn't a block; it's a point of reference.

Why do whole rests and half rests look exactly the same and are just in slightly different locations?

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-09-23 12:18 a.m.

Except that "the fourth bar of A" implies A is not a singular location, but a range of measures starting at the symbol A and going up to (presumably) the B. So depending on how the instruction is phrased, you have to change your whole context before finding the spot.

In some Grainger band music, the rehearsal marks (numbers, I think) are centered over the measure, not over a barline. Ugh!

brassmedic · 2025-09-23 12:51 a.m.

[quote="AtomicClock"]

In some Grainger band music, the rehearsal marks (numbers, I think) are centered over the measure, not over a barline. Ugh![/quote]
But those are measure numbers, correct? Measure numbers DO indicate measures. So if 15 is centered over the bar, you could either say, "Start one bar after 15", or "Start at measure 16". In fact, measure numbers should never be placed directly over or under a barline, because that would be confusing. And BTW, when measure numbers are used, the first measure is always one, not zero.

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-09-23 1:23 a.m.

The rehearsal numbers have the same value as the measure number of the measure they hover over. But they are still rehearsal numbers, not measure numbers.

brassmedic · by **brassmedic** » 2025-09-23 3:30 a.m.

[quote="AtomicClock"]The rehearsal numbers have the same value as the measure number of the measure they hover over. But they are still rehearsal numbers, not measure numbers.[/quote]
I disagree. Measure numbers are measure numbers, and rehearsal numbers are rehearsal numbers. Not the same thing at all.

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-09-23 6:37 a.m.

[quote="JTeagarden"]Wow, just when it seemed a topic couldn't be more tedious.[/quote]

:lol:

As an engineer, I take pride in this observation!

:pant: :cool:

bwilliams · by **bwilliams** » 2025-09-23 8:18 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]<QUOTE author="Sesquitone" post_id="286032" time="1758571082" user_id="15151">

Perhaps this will liven things up a bit. I have mentioned "Libet time" before. Basically, this means that the "real world" is happening about 500 ms before we (humans) are aware of it—including things happening inside our own body, in particular, decisions we make and actions based on those decisions. So you're playing quarter notes in 4/4 at a tempo of quarter-note = 120. You're thinking: "one, two, three, four, . . ." as you play. But, in the "real world", you're actually playing notes required on "two, three, four, one, . . ."—i.e half-a-second ahead of what you're aware of what you're actually doing. If you're improvising, and decide to make a little four-note run in sixteenth notes, you've actually played all of those notes before you are aware of deciding which notes to play![/quote]

<YOUTUBE id="wo_e0EvEZn8">~~[media]~~https://youtu.be/wo_e0EvEZn8?feature=shared</YOUTUBE>
</QUOTE>

I've taken to my bed.

JTeagarden · by **JTeagarden** » 2025-09-23 8:33 a.m.

[quote="AndrewMeronek"]<QUOTE author="JTeagarden" post_id="286016" time="1758553499" user_id="19182">
Wow, just when it seemed a topic couldn't be more tedious.[/quote]

:lol:

As an engineer, I take pride in this observation!

:pant: :cool:
</QUOTE>

I have plenty of geek-out triggers: When the sound track of a scene in rural France includes the sounds of blue jays, for instance, or when the trombonist in the the house band in a roaring 20's drama is playing a horn with an f attachment, it's a long list, really.

Wilktone · by **Wilktone** » 2025-09-23 10:49 a.m.

[quote="AndrewMeronek"]What got me thinking about this is watching this video about reading rhythms. I was curious to see how she would approach talking about it, and I noticed that she marked the beats with her vertical green lines (and referred to the beats while talking) specifically at the end of the beats, not at the beginning. I think that at least part of what this means is that we can't assume that it's universal (in English) to assume that when someone says "beat 1" that they mean either the start or the end, without clarification.[/quote]

I finally watched (or rather, scanned through while skipping ahead) this video.

I'm not really so sure that she intended for the first beat to imply zero.

<ATTACHMENT filename="Screenshot 2025-09-23 at 9.42.39 AM.png" index="0">~~[attachment=0]~~Screenshot 2025-09-23 at 9.42.39 AM.png</ATTACHMENT>

She didn't mark a line at the beginning of beat one, nor did she mark one at the end of the measure. Maybe because the bar line at the end already implied an end to the beat and the time signature at the beginning already visually delineate the beginning and end of those beats. And she ignores beat 4 anyway in most of her discussion on how to count and learn the rhythms.

Visually, I think the way she's marking off the sheet music makes for a similar analogy to the block analogy I made above. Glancing at the above screen shot does show four distinct "blocks" of each beat.

[quote="AndrewMeronek"]FYI Sarah Jeffrey makes excellent music education videos.[/quote]

I haven't (yet) watched any more of her videos, but I agree that this was a good one.

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2025-09-23 3:53 p.m.

Sarah Jeffrey made some great videos on recorders (the "blockflote"). I'll have to watch this one sometime.

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-09-23 4:44 p.m.

There are other time-related things we count from one...

Football quarters. The moment the game begins, you are in "Quarter 1"

Days of the month. The first day of any month is "1" and is so immediately upon the midnight after the previous day even though a full day has not elapsed yet.

Years. The Gregorian calendar Anno Domini era begins counting with a Year 1. Likewise for the Jewish Anno Mundi calendar.

I recall after Y2K the "Prince Valiant" comic strip had an appearance by Dionysius Exiguus to discuss his calendar that begins with a Year One.

https://comicskingdom.com/prince-valiant/2000-01-02

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2025-09-24 10:06 a.m.

[quote="BGuttman"]Sarah Jeffrey made some great videos on recorders (the "blockflote"). I'll have to watch this one sometime.[/quote]

Their personality is about as opposite as you can get, but the two best youtube recorder sites seem to be Sarah Jeffrey and Lobke Sprenkeling.

There is one technique difference. Lobke supports buttress finger and Sarah opposes it. Otherwise their approach seems similar and they recommend some of the same method books.

JohnL · by **JohnL** » 2025-09-24 1:06 p.m.

In general, when you are counting things (beats, measures, the number of posts to this discussion), you start at one. When you are measuring something (how many miles from your home to your next gig, how much your horn weighs), you start at zero.

mwpfoot · by **mwpfoot** » 2025-09-24 3:27 p.m.

Why is "first" position not "zeroth" position?

Sometimes I don't even unlock the slide. Zero effort!

:idk:

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2025-09-25 9:02 a.m.

[quote="JohnL"]In general, when you are counting things (beats, measures, the number of posts to this discussion), you start at one. When you are measuring something (how many miles from your home to your next gig, how much your horn weighs), you start at zero.[/quote]

This!

But then why do we start numbering octaves at C instead of A?

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2025-09-25 9:35 a.m.

[quote="mwpfoot"]Why is "first" position not "zeroth" position?[/quote]

Same reason as the "first" fence-post is not the "zeroth" fence-post.

By the way, what about birthdays?

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2025-09-25 11:18 a.m.

[quote="JohnL"]In general, when you are counting things (beats, measures, the number of posts to this discussion), you start at one. When you are measuring something (how many miles from your home to your next gig, how much your horn weighs), you start at zero.[/quote]

When I am slicing up half a banana onto my morning cereal, I can estimate the necessary slice thickness so that I can count off exactly one dozen (things) as I slice: "1, 2, 3, . . . , 12". However, I invariably end up with thirteen slices of banana in the bowl. Is this just a matter of "bad luck"?

JohnL · by **JohnL** » 2025-09-25 12:16 p.m.

[quote="Sesquitone"]When I am slicing up half a banana onto my morning cereal, I can estimate the necessary slice thickness so that I can count off exactly one dozen (things) as I slice: "1, 2, 3, . . . , 12". However, I invariably end up with thirteen slices of banana in the bowl. Is this just a matter of "bad luck"?[/quote]
If it happens every time? You've developed a process that consistently yields thirteen slices (i.e., twelve cuts). You can either modify the process to yield 12 slices or you can leave the process as is and adjust you desired result.

In my kitchen, the dog would get the thirteenth slice. He would also get several others. He's demanding.

imsevimse · by **imsevimse** » 2025-09-25 5:37 p.m.

[quote="AndrewMeronek"]To provide an easily confusing example, consider a half-note. One naturally assumes that because a half-note is 2 beats long, that it ends when I count to "two". If I start counting at zero, this is true:

"zero" (note starts)

"one"

"two" (note ends)

However, the standard convention I've always seen to start counting at one means that the half-note actually ends at "three". It's the common "fencepost" problem in counting. I think that a lot of people find this to be pretty confusing.

The problem is exacerbated by the standard terminology to refer to subunits of beats: when someone says "the 'and' of one" what they mean is the 2nd eighth note in the measure, not the 4nd eighth note in the measure.[/quote]

"Why do we start counting beats in a measure with "one" and not "zero"?"

Because we are only counting beats. Every bar starts on the first beat, ONE and if we play before that first beat then we also play before the start of the bar. Think of the bass drum on first beat. That's a loud strong beat ONE. It's over and done after less than a split second. Everything after is > 1. When you hear the sound of an apple hit the ground after falling from a tree you note the sound and count ONE apple. You wait and when next apple falls you count TWO. Between the two apples there are no beats but the space can still be imagined and must be somewhere in between 1 and 2. That's the length if ONE. If apples do fall regularly you can expect when next apple falls and we get a steady beat. If you play an halfnote and start when the first apple hits the ground you should hold it until just before the third apple hits the ground. You could try that analogy with your students :hi:

/Tom

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-09-27 2:24 p.m.

[quote="AtomicClock"]I have the same problem with musical intervals. A "second" is at a distance of one note.[/quote]

You're right! :horror:

I guess it amounts to our musical language and maybe at least in some cases it's become archaic and not the best way to describe what we're doing, but we continue to use that language anyway . . .

Speaking of intervals, here's another case where zero-based counting shouldn't be used:

Our "first" partial is pedal B-flat, after which the "second" is this :bassclef: b :line2:

This language makes perfect sense because it can be used as a direct translation to the math: fundamental pitch (frequency, in Hz) multiplied by the partial "number" gets the frequency of the desired partial.

However, to calculate the frequency of an interval the way that we actually use pitch in 12ET, we start at zero for n:

F*2^(n/12)

where F is the starting frequency and n is the interval distance. N=0 means you get back your starting frequency. For example, for A=440Hz, C# is:

440*2^(4/12)=554.365 Hz

and of course noting that multiplying by one is VERY different from having one in an exponent. Here, literally a "second" is setting n=1 . . .

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-09-27 2:30 p.m.

[quote="AndrewMeronek"]Here, literally a "second" is setting n=1 . . .[/quote]

Well, that gives a minor second. A major second uses n=2 (which almost makes sense).

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-09-27 2:42 p.m.

[quote="AtomicClock"]<QUOTE author="AndrewMeronek" post_id="286364" time="1758997472" user_id="268">
Here, literally a "second" is setting n=1 . . .[/quote]

Well, that gives a minor second. A major second uses n=2 (which almost makes sense).
</QUOTE>

I stand clarified!

andym · by **andym** » 2025-09-27 9:24 p.m.

In English it is convenient that one through six are all single syllables. Start at zero and you’ve screwed it up.

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2025-09-28 3:27 p.m.

[quote="mwpfoot"]Why is "first" position not "zeroth" position?[/quote]

Why is there no calendar year "zero" between 1 BCE and 1 CE?

.

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-09-29 9:41 a.m.

[quote="Sesquitone"]<QUOTE author="mwpfoot" post_id="286203" time="1758742026" user_id="142">
Why is "first" position not "zeroth" position?[/quote]

Same reason as the "first" fence-post is not the "zeroth" fence-post.

By the way, what about birthdays?
</QUOTE>

Birthdays are simple too-just like a bar. I full bar is bar 1. A full year is year 1. LOL

This thread cracks me up.

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-09-29 6:14 p.m.

[quote="andym"]In English it is convenient that one through six are all single syllables. Start at zero and you’ve screwed it up.[/quote]

There is the not-often-used but convenient "nil". :cool:

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-09-29 10:04 p.m.

[quote="WGWTR180"]Birthdays are simple too-just like a bar. I full bar is bar 1. A full year is year 1. LOL[/quote]
Only for some cultures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_age_reckoning

it starts at 1 at birth and increases at each New Year

I believe South Korea only transitioned to the Western system a few years ago.

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-09-29 10:23 p.m.

[quote="AtomicClock"]<QUOTE author="WGWTR180" post_id="286445" time="1759153266" user_id="7573">
Birthdays are simple too-just like a bar. I full bar is bar 1. A full year is year 1. LOL[/quote]
Only for some cultures.

Well for the purpose of this thread I’ll go with what I said. Always exceptions, right?</QUOTE>

Nomsis · by **Nomsis** » 2025-09-30 7:36 a.m.

Not having read the entire thread I just want to make a short comment. This question seems very made up to me. There is no sense in talking about the zeroth beat, there is just the first beat in a bar. If you count apples there is no zeroth apple either. Some things in life get counted when they start, like beats in a bar: you say one when beat one starts. Some things are counted when they are finished, eg. years in life or hours in a day because you want to signal that it is now fully completed. But when counting beats you rather want to mark the start of it. So everything makes sense to me.

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2025-09-30 8:04 a.m.

Actually hours in the day (clock time) starts at zero, or midnight (12:00 AM for those on 12 hour clocks). More like measuring things than counting things.

Nomsis · by **Nomsis** » 2025-09-30 9:23 a.m.

But measuring is just counting with floating point precision ;) So it doesn't matter if we see it as assigning that number 'at start' or 'end' of an unit if the unit is 'infinitesimal' (whatever precision that might mean in a given context). But I still would say measuring is more like counting "afterwards", because we want to know what we have already achieved.

For time, at least in Germany, we can say something like "the third hour has struck" so it means already three hours are 'full', have passed.

WGWTR180 · 2025-09-30 9:34 a.m.

[quote="Nomsis"]But measuring is just counting with floating point precision ;) So it doesn't matter if we see it as assigning that number 'at start' or 'end' of an unit if the unit is 'infinitesimal' (whatever precision that might mean in a given context). But I still would say measuring is more like counting "afterwards", because we want to know what we have already achieved.

For time, at least in Germany, we can say something like "the third hour has struck" so it means already three hours are 'full', have passed.[/quote]

Agreed with everything you've said. There will be a day when one of the "zero" folks will start teaching band kids to start at zero. That should be fun too.

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-09-30 11:48 a.m.

[quote="Sesquitone"]Why is there no calendar year "zero" between 1 BCE and 1 CE?[/quote]

A part of the answer is that Roman math didn't use or need a zero to represent anything. Roman numerals didn't use "places" to denote powers of ten and so didn't need a zero to hold an unused place in a number.

I... X... C... M... all powers of 10 but no zero needed.

They also probably had few occasions to have a zero in any calculation they did. And so, counting with a zero was not a custom.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-10-01 4:55 p.m.

[quote="Sesquitone"]<QUOTE author="mwpfoot" post_id="286203" time="1758742026" user_id="142">
Why is "first" position not "zeroth" position?[/quote]

Why is there no calendar year "zero" between 1 BCE and 1 CE?

.
</QUOTE>

(I know that you're not arguing for a year zero and that you've posed a rhetorical question. But to answer it, because it answers the OP)

Because, like in music, you are counting the entire period of time as "one". And the start of that period of time as "one".

1CE is the entire first year of the common era.

1 BCE is the entire first year before the common era starts.

Beat 1 is the start of and the entire first beat that starts a measure. Not the completion of a beat starting at zero.

There was no entire year zero that separated the two, because the start of the common era was similar to the start of the first beat -- you tap your foot and you're inside that first period of time. Tap your foot again and you're inside the second period of time. Throw your calendar away and you're in the third period of time. You don't get that whole period only once it ends. You experience it while you're inside of it.

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-10-01 10:03 p.m.

I blows my mind that this has so many replies. :D

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-10-02 10:06 a.m.

[quote="tbdana"]I blows my mind that this has so many replies. :D[/quote]

Well you have to admit this thread is much more entertaining than "what mouthpiece helps me hit low notes."

GabrielRice · by **GabrielRice** » 2025-10-02 12:59 p.m.

[quote="WGWTR180"]Well you have to admit this thread is much more entertaining than "what mouthpiece helps me hit low notes."[/quote]

Seriously, Bill, what mouthpiece helps me hit low notes?

<ATTACHMENT filename="Screenshot_20251002_102153_Dropbox.jpg" index="0">~~[attachment=0]~~Screenshot_20251002_102153_Dropbox.jpg</ATTACHMENT>

Sesquitone · by **Sesquitone** » 2025-10-02 1:16 p.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]<QUOTE author="Sesquitone" post_id="286426" time="1759087648" user_id="15151">

Why is there no calendar year "zero" between 1 BCE and 1 CE?

.[/quote]

(I know that you're not arguing for a year zero and that you've posed a rhetorical question. But to answer it, because it answers the OP)
</QUOTE>

Yes, thank you! Going back to counting slide positions starting at "one" at an extension of "zero", Jeffrey Clymer has a handy algorithm for Calculation of Trombone Slide Positions, which depend on the (average) temperature inside the instrument. Some harmonics (e.g. the fifth and tenth)—in theory—require a slide contraction relative to the reference positions based on the fundamental. So, for example, on a trombone in Bb, the fifth harmonic D4 requires a contraction of 12 mm. If position 1 is at an extension of 0 mm, the nominal position is then "0.86", according to Jeff's algorithm. [Note the (very slight) extension for the sixth harmonic and the (significant) contraction for the seventh.]

.

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-10-02 1:37 p.m.

[quote="GabrielRice"]<QUOTE author="WGWTR180" post_id="286632" time="1759414017" user_id="7573">
Well you have to admit this thread is much more entertaining than "what mouthpiece helps me hit low notes."[/quote]

Seriously, Bill, what mouthpiece helps me hit low notes?

Screenshot_20251002_102153_Dropbox.jpg
</QUOTE>
Hah!! I have some ideas but no one will agree with me. LOL

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-10-02 5:37 p.m.

It turns out, for the vast masses on this forum who love the number zero, there is a Wikipedia entry that is not insignificant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0

For the European tradition, Fibonacci as a big reason why zero got adopted in Europe, and the Arabic numerals in general. It's probably had a much bigger impact than his more famous Fibonacci Sequence.

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-10-02 5:41 p.m.

"The arguments in academics are so intense precisely because the stakes are so small," said Henry Kissinger.

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-10-02 5:43 p.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]1CE is the entire first year of the common era.

1 BCE is the entire first year before the common era starts.[/quote]

I suspect it's because the Gregorian Calendar was designed by the Catholic Church, and for whatever reason (I don't know) really didn't like zero despite Fibonacci's influence on that subject three and a half centuries earlier.

However, there is this modern calendar that does include year zero:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-10-02 6:15 p.m.

I'm sure Gregory and his monks were trying to keep their calendar as close to the Julian as possible. And that one definitely predates Fibonacci.

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-10-03 12:41 a.m.

The Gregorian calendar doesn't happen until the 1500s. It was instituted to correct the drift of the calendar year vs. the solar year, but is not the reform that gave us AD and BC.

In principle, the Romans counted years from the founding of Rome but in practice they had a confusing manner of counting years by when some official had been in office. None of this seems to have been standardized across the empire.

This continued into Christian times and somehow it became popular in some regions to count years from the reign of Diocletian who had martyred many Christians. It was this odd custom that Dionysius Exiguus sought to replace with his Anno Domini scheme that retains the Julian calendar's system of months, days and leap years, but defines an end to Diocletian Era years and begins counting further years with a reckoning that 525 years had already passed since the birth of Jesus.

Apparently Exiguus never really specified a Year 1, he was only interested in numbering years yet to come. The placement of AD 1 was inferred by later writers and chroniclers.

Anno Domini seems to have never been officially imposed by the Church or any regime, it just slowly became customary over several centuries.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-10-03 7:15 a.m.

[quote="AndrewMeronek"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="286593" time="1759352155" user_id="3642">
1CE is the entire first year of the common era.

1 BCE is the entire first year before the common era starts.[/quote]

I suspect it's because the Gregorian Calendar was designed by the Catholic Church, and for whatever reason (I don't know) really didn't like zero despite Fibonacci's influence on that subject three and a half centuries earlier.

However, there is this modern calendar that does include year zero:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601
</QUOTE>

No. It really is because when you're in the first year of a new time period, you call that first year ... the first year. You don't call the first year the zeroth year. That doesn't make sense.

You asked why we count music the way we do, and it's been answered. Now this thread has turned into "wouldn't it be good if". No, it wouldn't be good if we can't the first beat the zeroth beat. It doesn't make sense to do it that way or change it at this point.

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-10-03 4:44 p.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]You asked why we count music the way we do, and it's been answered. Now this thread has turned into "wouldn't it be good if". No, it wouldn't be good if we can't the first beat the zeroth beat. It doesn't make sense to do it that way or change it at this point.[/quote]

My point is NOT to change to start counting at zero. My point is that our language makes it harder than it needs to be, and all the ways people here have noted different ways we count things proves it. My point is to not dismiss weird things like this because it's "too pedantic" and that we sometimes need to have tools to clarify what we're talking about.

Examples:

When I say "start on beat 3" I mean the beginning of beat 3.

When I say "end on beat 3" I mean end on the beginning of beat 3, which also means the end of beat 2.

et cetera.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-10-04 6:43 a.m.

I think the language can get in the way, especially with measures and rehearsal letters. Beats should be a little less muddy though.

The beat is always counted on an infinitely small starting point. The metronome beat/click doesn't take up the entire space of "the beat", but it's what you count. So when you "take the note all the way to three", you take it all the way until the met clicks "three". "The end of two" is not as clear, and not as defined.

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2025-10-04 8:46 a.m.

[quote="harrisonreed"]

The beat is always counted on an infinitely small starting point. The metronome beat/click doesn't take up the entire space of "the beat",[/quote]

The beat is infinitely small, right?

But the metronome click has a duration; while short, it is finite and hearable.

So now we have an additional problem: is it the start of the click, or the end?

(we are perilously close to Zeno's paradox)

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-10-04 9:25 a.m.

And when one has to think this hard about HOW to count it ceases to be music and more about math.

harrisonreed · by **harrisonreed** » 2025-10-04 10:52 a.m.

[quote="timothy42b"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="286756" time="1759574601" user_id="3642">

The beat is always counted on an infinitely small starting point. The metronome beat/click doesn't take up the entire space of "the beat",[/quote]

The beat is infinitely small, right?

But the metronome click has a duration; while short, it is finite and hearable.

So now we have an additional problem: is it the start of the click, or the end?

(we are perilously close to Zeno's paradox)
</QUOTE>

<ATTACHMENT filename="giphy (1).gif" index="0">~~[attachment=0]~~giphy (1).gif</ATTACHMENT>

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-10-04 11:03 a.m.

Last night rehearsing Tchaikovsky Symphony #4 the principal trumpet player requested that the brass section cut a certain chord off on beat 2. Somehow a major debate did not ensue as to whether he meant beat 2 or the end of beat 1.

elmsandr · by **elmsandr** » 2025-10-04 11:15 a.m.

[quote="WGWTR180"]Last night rehearsing Tchaikovsky Symphony #4 the principal trumpet player requested that the brass section cut a certain chord off on beat 2. Somehow a major debate did not ensue as to whether he meant beat 2 or the end of beat 1.[/quote]
And all that matters is that the entire low brass was behind in the finale; regardless of where they were in relation to the actual beat and tempo. (According to every conductor… I think this is actually printed in the score)

Cheers,

Andy

Nomsis · by **Nomsis** » 2025-10-04 11:17 a.m.

If you want to be precise you should note that when you start at beat/click one and want to hold a half note for full value you should not end it on beat/click three but right before. So on click three you should already have ended the note. So not quite sure if "ending on beat three" is even correct language. It is like open and closed intervals in maths. Although it is just one infinitesimal difference and thus strictly speaking the exact same length it's more of a conceptual importance.

Considering that we do not play with infinite mathematical precision anyways, it maybe doesn't matter to much. I would still not really use the language of "ending on beat three", because that would mean on exactly click three there is still some note. And we should definitely be prepared for the next note starting on click three instead to start it in time.

I think rhythm is more about when a note starts and feeling the "pulse" and though not completely unimportant I think we should worry less about when the note stops compared to when the note starts. Percussion instruments which are undoubtedly the most rhythmic instruments of all have usually a very defined start to a note but a much more undefined end. Many instruments are like that and although wind instruments can certainly end a note pretty precisely the start is still much more defined and of greater importance to the rhythm in my opinion.

Saying all this just to say that I think a language centered around the start of the beat is quite right in my opinion :)

In certain contexts surely it can be helpful to use language considering the end of a beat/bar. Eg given you might say to your student: The accidentals are valid until the end of the bar.

robcat2075 · by **robcat2075** » 2025-10-04 11:24 a.m.

A true instant of sound is impossible since any sound wave form must have a beginning and end... a departure from zero pressure and a final return to zero.

However, our mind can understand it to point to an instant.

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-10-04 12:06 p.m.

[quote="Nomsis"]If you want to be precise you should note that when you start at beat/click one and want to hold a half note for full value you should not end it on beat/click three but right before. So on click three you should already have ended the note. So not quite sure if "ending on beat three" is even correct language. It is like open and closed intervals in maths. Although it is just one infinitesimal difference and thus strictly speaking the exact same length it's more of a conceptual importance.[/quote]

I think there is performance practice to consider here, and adjusting to the acoustics of specific performing environments. For example, if I'm in a reverberant church performing Gabrieli, yes it can definitely be appropriate to kind of "pre-shape" the ends of notes before the next beat arrives. But if I'm playing funk in a jazz club, absolutely the better decision is to be crisp and clear and end notes right where the next beat starts.

Thus: there also appears to be historical and practical drift on what all this means, which also reinforces how it is important to know when to clarify things.

WGWTR180 · by **WGWTR180** » 2025-10-04 12:07 p.m.

[quote="elmsandr"]<QUOTE author="WGWTR180" post_id="286768" time="1759590213" user_id="7573">
Last night rehearsing Tchaikovsky Symphony #4 the principal trumpet player requested that the brass section cut a certain chord off on beat 2. Somehow a major debate did not ensue as to whether he meant beat 2 or the end of beat 1.[/quote]
And all that matters is that the entire low brass was behind in the finale; regardless of where they were in relation to the actual beat and tempo. (According to every conductor… I think this is actually printed in the score)

Cheers,

Andy
</QUOTE>
Not this low brass section. 😉

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2025-10-04 1:25 p.m.

Note that as brass players (and especially trombone players) we can't really play a full length note up to the next beat. We have to allow time to adjust the slide and set the embouchure for the next note. This can be a remarkably short time for really good players, but many of us need more time. Is is usually important to start the note exactly on the beat (some Big Bands used to start a little early or a little late, but the whole band did this).

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-10-04 2:03 p.m.

I kind of think we should look at the number of measures in a piece and count backwards. Like, if a piece has 430 measures, you start counting the first bar as -430, then go to -429, etc., and when we reach 0 the piece ends.

This is The Way.

timothy42b · by **timothy42b** » 2025-10-06 8:00 a.m.

[quote="tbdana"]I kind of think we should look at the number of measures in a piece and count backwards. Like, if a piece has 430 measures, you start counting the first bar as -430, then go to -429, etc., and when we reach 0 the piece ends.

This is The Way.[/quote]

What if the first measure, last measure, either or both, is only a partial measure? Start at 429.75?

AndrewMeronek · by **AndrewMeronek** » 2025-10-06 5:36 p.m.

[quote="tbdana"]I kind of think we should look at the number of measures in a piece and count backwards. Like, if a piece has 430 measures, you start counting the first bar as -430, then go to -429, etc., and when we reach 0 the piece ends.

This is The Way.[/quote]

Got an arrangement of Countdown that does this? :lol:

VJOFan · by **VJOFan** » 2025-10-09 11:31 a.m.

I had a music history prof who during a lecture one day mused about how music was the only art form that deliberately marks off time. He was sadly battling a terminal illness at the time so was perhaps more focussed than most on the finite nature of things.

I don’t think I could stomach always being reminded by a counting system that at the end of a piece there is just nothing….

[ed. Note. I know the above discussion is lighthearted. I just forgot the wink emoji]

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2025-10-09 12:18 p.m.

[quote="VJOFan"]I had a music history prof who during a lecture one day mused about how music was the only art form that deliberately marks off time. He was sadly battling a terminal illness at the time so was perhaps more focussed than most on the finite nature of things.

...[/quote]
I guess he didn't consider Dance an art form... ;)

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2025-10-09 1:44 p.m.

Isn't it interesting that in many (most?) countries outside the United States, multi-story buildings have a "zero" level (ground floor); you have to climb up to the "first" floor. Counting from zero is alive and well!

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-10-09 5:40 p.m.

[quote="BGuttman"]<QUOTE author="VJOFan" post_id="287041" time="1760023874" user_id="2988">
I had a music history prof who during a lecture one day mused about how music was the only art form that deliberately marks off time. He was sadly battling a terminal illness at the time so was perhaps more focussed than most on the finite nature of things.

...[/quote]
I guess he didn't consider Dance an art form... ;)
</QUOTE>

Or plays. Or movies.

tbdana · by **tbdana** » 2025-10-09 5:49 p.m.

[quote="Posaunus"]Isn't it interesting that in many (most?) countries outside the United States, multi-story buildings have a "zero" level (ground floor); you have to climb up to the "first" floor. Counting from zero is alive and well![/quote]

Well, ya know, those backward countries don't even use the imperial measuring system, so...

VJOFan · by **VJOFan** » 2025-10-09 7:55 p.m.

Like I said the man was actively dying so many of his thoughts weren’t entirely clear that term. However, I don’t think he was entirely wrong. Dance and similar arts depend on music so really they are music? As for any dramatic art, yes they occur over a period of time and then stop. However, the effect is generally that of seeing a section of life which leads the mind to ponder the before and after. A good drama can create almost a feeling of infinity with that imagined origin and destiny of the characters. The point, I think, is that music is subdivided time and to play it one must actively count the beats even as the musician’s heart and breath rhythmically continue to an inevitable ceasing. There is a certain profundity to the end of a live performance of a great piece of music.

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2025-10-09 8:56 p.m.

[quote="Posaunus"]Isn't it interesting that in many (most?) countries outside the United States, multi-story buildings have a "zero" level (ground floor); you have to climb up to the "first" floor. Counting from zero is alive and well![/quote]

I think that's more of a linguistic thing than a math thing. In English, you use the words "floor" and count the number of floors, as in literally the thing you walk on, and the ground level obviously has a floor, and therefore is counted as a number. In most other languages that's not the case, we give names to the levels first, not numbers, and the ground level is not called "floor 0“, but simply "ground level", and the floors above or below the ground level are called exactly that. For example, take a building that has 3 levels, one at ground level, one above and one below is often not numbered at all. In German it's not - 1, 0 and 1. Ground level is called Erdgeschoss, that literally translates to "the earth level". The floor below is Untergeschoss, "the level under". And the floor above is Obergeschoss, the "overlevel". Or in French, rez-de-chaussée, translates as "level with the street". The basement is sous-sol, meaning "the underground" and the uper level is simply l'étage, originally meaning "the dwelling", as people living in two-story buildings tended originally to live on the upper level, the lower being used for storage, or shops. We only number them when there are more than one. I.e. just as nobody would call the basement of a simple house the "first basement" (it's just "the basement"), we don't call the level above the ground level "first overlevel" either, it's just "the overlevel". If there are two or more , then yes, first overlevel, second overlevel, etc. It makes complete sense linguistically. More sense, I would dare say, than calling the middle floor of a 2-storied house with a basement (three floors in total) the "first floor" when there indeed is one below it. Bit weird to call the middle of three items "the first", no?

The one case where I find it does make total sense to number floors the American way, using numbers and starting from 1, is when buildings are built on uneven elevation and different floors are at ground level in different parts of the building. Then you often see 1 assigned to the very lowest floor. Ground level can be 3 or 5 or whatever, and it doesn't matter. That I like.

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-10-09 9:32 p.m.

The American building I'm in right now is built on uneven land, and the top ground floor is 1. Below it, leading to the parking lot is not zero, it is T for "Terrace". :idk:

LeTromboniste · by **LeTromboniste** » 2025-10-10 3:56 a.m.

[quote="AtomicClock"]The American building I'm in right now is built on uneven land, and the top ground floor is 1. Below it, leading to the parking lot is not zero, it is T for "Terrace". :idk:[/quote]

Well that's just plain silly

Posaunus · by **Posaunus** » 2025-10-10 2:56 p.m.

[quote="LeTromboniste"]<QUOTE author="Posaunus" post_id="287048" time="1760031872" user_id="158">
Isn't it interesting that in many (most?) countries outside the United States, multi-story buildings have a "zero" level (ground floor); you have to climb up to the "first" floor. Counting from zero is alive and well![/quote]
I think that's more of a linguistic thing than a math thing.
</QUOTE>

But my point was indeed about "the math thing." You can name the building levels - at ground, above ground, or below ground - anything you want. But when the levels above the street are numbered 1, 2, 3, ... and the lower levels are noted as B1, B2, ... or PI, P2, ... or -1, -2, ... - then the street level (rez-de-chaussée or Erdgeschoss) is effectively Level Zero. Look at the elevator (lift) buttons. Named that way or not, the concept of zero lives on.

AtomicClock · by **AtomicClock** » 2025-10-10 3:20 p.m.

Does anyone have the 0th trombone part to Bruckener's Die Nullte Symphony?

BGuttman · by **BGuttman** » 2025-10-10 4:39 p.m.

[quote="AtomicClock"]Does anyone have the 0th trombone part to Bruckener's Die Nullte Symphony?[/quote]

No, but I'm sure PDQ Bach would have written one ;)

Quick Links

Instruments

Marketplace