Can you start a piece of music with a rest?
This is not a question about MuseScore per se, but about music in general. I can't seem to find the answer by Googling, so I thought I'd ask here.
If a melody starts NOT on the first beat of the bar, but on the second or third, is it correct to start the musical score with a rest? Or does that make no sense, considering that everything that comes before the starting note is already "silence"?
Must I write the melody to start from the beginning beat, even if it messes up the notes, and turns all the minims into crotchets tied from one bar to the next?
I hope somebody understands what I mean.
It makes it harder for me to read because all the tied notes confuse me.
Comments
Yes you can start a melody with a rest. This will most likely occur becuase the accompaniment would start first then the melody could start (maybe a vocal or solo instrument).
For example, the treble clef could be the melody line for a singer and the bass clef could be a chord accompaniment.
The music starts with the accompaniment then the melody starts a bit later.
Is this what you mean?
Quite often the first bar of a piece will have only notes on the last beat or two of the bar and is often referred to as a pickup or pickup bar. If nobody is playing in the silent part of the first bar the rests are not visible on the score.
If the piece repeats back to the beginning such as with a DC mark the last bar will be incomplete because it contains the notes and rests that are the "silent" beats of the first bar. So when the last bar and the first bars are played the bar has the complete number of beats for a single bar.
You can start on any beat you wish, and if you choose to start somewhere other than "1", you don't have to show the leanings rests. As mentioned, the resultant income,eye measure is called a "pickup", or "anacrusis', and MuseScore allows you to specify that in the new score wizard. Or you can do this after score creation, by right clicking the first measure, choosing measure properties, and entering the "actual" time signature of that first measure. So if you want to start on beat 4 of a 4/4 measure, there will only be 1 beat in that measure, so you set actual time signature to 1/4. This is all quite common; I'd guess Abe half the pieces in world have pickup measures. Just look at any music you have and you're sure to find examples.
Thank you for the replies. I will see if I can figure out how to do what Marc says about modifying the first bar without actually changing it. Would that shift everything backwards and make all the long notes be whole ,and not split with ties over bars any more?
In reply to Thank you for the replies. I by Resopmoc
Changing the first bar won't affect anything else. If you want to shift music that has already been entered to new time positions, use copy and paste.
I would just like to add that if a piece (or tune, or song or whatever) starts with a pick-up bar, that bar is actually not counted as a bar. Counting begins on the first whole bar. I don't know how MuseScore deals with this, but I wanted to point this out because this can often result in confusion when rehearsing a piece and starting somewhere in the middle.
In reply to Bar counting by Natanael_
By default, MuseScore doesn't count a pickup measure if you created it with the new score wizard. You can also remove a measure from the count by right clicking it --> Mesure Properties -> "irregular"
Your music can start on any beat you like. The incomplete bar is called an anacrusis, as someone else has explained.
It is important that you do not just fill the partial bar with rests, especially in music with multiple parts. A musician sight-reading will only have their own part in front of them. If they see a rest, they will assume that someone else will start first, and wait. If every part starts with a rest, the music will not start, until they realise that the score has been badly written.
In reply to Starting an incomplete bar by ironss
Ha ha! That made me laugh. It conjured up a mental image of an entire orchestra sitting there waiting for the other half to start.
I still don't really understand it. Never mind. I think it has to do with time signatures. Does it? Or is it to do with the fact that my melody starts with a rest? Or both? I still don't really understand time signatures, (apart from the easy ones). But I don't need to understand things for them to work. They just work. I don't know why. I don't need to know.
I am still starting things right from the beginning bar, and it SOUNDS fine when played. It's just that it LOOKS harder than it is, due to not starting at the "right" place. The minims turn into tied crotchets, and the dotted notes are all split up over bar lines as well. It makes the notes look far more complicated.
Also, I don't know about everyone else, but my brain can't automatically recognise a dotted or tied note's value straight away when I read it, like it can with normal notes. I have to stop and think, and add them up, which slows down my sight reading. But I'm getting better at it. All this reading scores shifted backwards is rubbing off on me, perhaps.
*ends rambling*
In reply to Someone else will start first by Resopmoc
If things are not looking right because they aren't written right, even though computer playbacks sounds right, then that is all the proof you should need that yes, you *do* need to understand this stuff in order to write effectively. Reading music written the way you describe right now isli ketr yin gtore adas enten cew ritte nthewa ythi soneis (give yourself a moment...), so it's important to get it right.
However, at the core of this is something you need to understand that cannot be explained: how to "feel" what time signature a piece is in, and where beat one actually is. There's no way to get this understand by analysis; it's all about listening and feeling. Somehow, you just "know" where beat one is. Once you know what time signature the piece is in *and* you can say where beat one is, only then can you figure out what beat your song starts on.
In reply to If things are not looking by Marc Sabatella
I know where the beats are. I intuitively know" things, like you say. It's just I don't UNDERSTAND them.
I mean I don't understand what the two numbers in the time signature mean.
I am not very good at certain kinds of maths. I know one of the beats tells you how many beats are in the bar, and the other tells you what value the beat has. I know those two facts separately, but when my brain tries to combine them and understand them both as a whole, it can't. But as I said, it doesn't matter. I don't need to know WHY or HOW things fall into a certain pattern. It's just something you can TELL.
So I do know that, but it isn't helping me with my melodys til lbein gspli tupl ikey ous aid.
In reply to Oh, yes by Resopmoc
That much you should be able to look up, but to save you the trouble: top note is how many beats are in the measure, bottom is the note value that gets one beat (4 unless you have a specific reason to use something different).
So, if you know how many beats are in each measure, and you know which one is beat one, it is trivially simply to see how many beats before one your songs start, and make that happen. It's not complicated, and doesn't require any math beyond counting on your fingers. But it does require understanding what those two number in the time signature mean, and understanding how to count on your fingers to determine where your melody starts. Gaining some experience reading other people's music first is useful
In reply to That much you should be able by Marc Sabatella
Yes I already know everything there is to know about my melody. I know how many beats it has, how many bars, where the rests are, and everything. I have analysed it very thoroughly I assure you! :D
If I were not aware of the fact that it starts on a certain beat, I wouldn't be asking the question in the first place. :) I just wanted to tidy it up.
I have already read a lot about time signatures. Reading it doesn't do any good. As I explained, I know the facts about them. I just don't understand them. But like I said, it doesn't bother me. I don't need to understand WHY something works in order for it to work!!!
My comment that I don't understand time signatures was not an appeal for an explanation. It was merely a statement of fact.
I am autistic and hyperlexic. Assuming you're a neurotypical person, I probably understand a lot of things you don't, and don't understand a lot of things you do. My brain will never be like yours, and your brain will never be like mine. Everyone in the world is different because between us we can do all sorts of different things. (I am very impressed by all your amazing music that keeps showing up as demos in MuseScore when I open it)!
Back to the question: so should I just leave all the split notes the way they are?
In reply to Yes by Resopmoc
and see what people suggest? Great composers don't always write things down the way they sound. Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture is in 3/4 time. It begins with two crotchet rests and starts on the 3rd beat of the bar but it always sounds to me as if it starts on the first beat of the bar. Copland's El Salon Mexico is also in 3/4 and begins with two crotchets and a quaver rest and starts on the last quaver of the bar but it sounds like it's in 9/8! In fact his first sketch starts on the first beat of a 9/8 bar as does Bernstein's piano transcription.
So you can write whatever you want but it may be interpreted with a different feel to how you intended it. We're all keen to help as you can see from the replies you've had so if you'd like the musical opinions of the forum members I'm sure you'll get some feedback.
In reply to Yes by Resopmoc
Leaving it the way it is is exactly like leaving thi sente nceli keth isinst eadofle arningho wtof ixit. So the answer is; write it however you want, but if you want anyone else to read it, learn to do it correctly. It doesn't matter if our brains our different; notation works one way and one way only, and if you want to write music correctly, you need to learn that way.
I'm not trying to argue with you; I'm trying to help. You keep saying you don't need to understand, and that's true if you don't ever need to write your music in a readable form. You can make up all the music your want in your head without understanding certain concepts. You can even play it on an instrument without any additional understanding. But if you wish to *write* music - actually put it down in notated form so others can read it - then I'm sorry, but you *do* need to understand some things that you currently don't (or you wouldn't have asked these questions in the first place). So it is up to you: if you want to write readable music, you need to learn to understand some basic concepts about how music is written there is just no way around that; We're willing to help you learn if you're willing to accept help.
So long as the performers can understand and play your piece and the listeners enjoy it you can do whatever you want. If the performers can't play your piece without lengthy and/or complex explanation and the audience don't like it then you have - at some level, at least - failed. So, Yes! - you can start on a rest. An orchestra will have a conductor and (s)he will keep them right as to when and how to start.
"Must I write the melody to start from the beginning beat, even if it messes up the notes, and turns all the minims into crotchets tied from one bar to the next?"
- No, that would not be normal practice in writing music. You should consider altering the lengths of the measure to make it easier to read, You should consider a "pick-up" note/beat as is found in very many pieces of fine music.
Thank you for all the replies and trying to help me but I have figured it out now. It has to start on the note, not the rest. I can see that now.
Marc, I know you were not trying to argue, and neither was I. I was only trying to explain that I wasn't asking for help to understand, just a "yes / no" answer or a solution telling me what to do.
Being autistic means that if I want to find something out or understand it I will obsessively research it until I realise I can or I cannot. If I'm asking about how to do it, it's because I've tried to figure it out, and realised I cannot. Therefore, if I am not able to understand it via all my exhaustive research, it's no use people repeating the same facts I've already read because I will already have read everything you're telling me elsewhere, but failed to understand it.
Repeating words people don't understand isn't going to make them understand them. For example, if you asked me a question in English and I answered you in Japanese (assuming you don't speak it) you wouldn't understand me, even if I spoke slowly and patiently and raised my voice and said it over and over again. To you, it's just meaningless sound. To me, it isn't. Well, the same applies to certain concepts that I will just NEVER understand because I have a neurological difference in my brain. You don't speak Japanese; I don't speak the mathematics of time signatures - yet. But one can always start to learn a foreign language. I am learning a lot of music but so far I don't understand time signatures. I feel them instinctively but don't understand WHY the beat I am hearing is classified as what it is because I am no good at maths.
Like I said, I don't need to know. If we both hear a song in 4/4 and can correctly identify it as such, what does it matter how we are doing it? You might do it by understanding that X-4/Y*99 = 2Z, or some such elusive formula. I do it by hearing what it is. As long as we both get it right, it doesn't matter if we understand it or not, does it? As long as we both end up with the same notes on the page and the same time signature and key signature, what does it matter how we "heard" it?
Sorry for rambling about this but I am very interested at how people always fail to understand ME when I tell them I don't understand THEM. :D
In reply to Thank you for all the replies by Resopmoc
To be clear, no one figures out a song is in 4/4 by doing calculations. That's actually exactly what I said previously. The only way anyone ever figures out what time signature anything is in is by feeling - that's exactly what I said above, so we agree on that.
In reply to To be clear, no one figures by Marc Sabatella
Yes I know you said that but you also implied that in order to do things properly I need to understand them. You apparently seem to understand time signatures. I don't! (I mean I cannot understand what the second number means. I only understand the first one). But it doesn't seem to matter. It all works perfectly anyway.
In reply to Yes I know you said that but by Resopmoc
Well, I can't imagine that anyone else finds this discussion interesting or useful, so apologies to anyone else still following. But since I am still interesting in helping, I am continuing to try.
Yes, I said that to *write* music correctly - to actually produce correct readable notation - you do need to understand certain things. Just to figure out the time signature, or where beat one is, no understanding is required - that is done by feel. But when it comes to writing it down, there are rules that govern how rhythms are supposed to be notated, and it almost never happens that people get this right just by feel. Not all combinations of notes that add up to 4 beats are equally correct in 4/4 time. For example, sometimes it is OK to write a dotted quarter for a note that lasts a beat and half, sometimes the rules of notation require you to break it into a quarter tied to an eighth. Both sound exactly the same, but there are situations where one is the correct way to write it and the other isn't. If you don't understand how these rules work, it's easy to write music that sounds good but is almost completely unreadable. And from your description, it sure sounds as if this is exactly what happened here.
Unfortunately, the rules are sufficiently complex that I don't know that I can explain them to you over the forums. I can just try to impress upon you that understanding *is* important, so hopefully you will make the effort to seek out teachers and/or teaching materials that can work for you. If you want your music to be readable by others, anyhow.
In reply to Well, I can't imagine that by Marc Sabatella
Thank you for trying to help me. I know you are trying to help but I have a feeling we're not talking about the same kind of music. My music is a different kind so it has different rules.
Please don't worry about it any more. At least the notes are there and it sounds like it does in my head. Maybe a clever person can edit things for me afterwards if the tied notes and things are done wrongly.
I understand you are trying to be kind and help me and I am grateful to you for your kindness. :)))) You always seem to answer my questions (and lots of other people's as well). You are a very helpful contributor!
I have read this thread and it appears that it has been overcomplicated by a) the need for the score to be correct as per the rules of music, b) musescores user interface to enter the rest and c) the original poster not having a full command of writing music.
To start a piece with a rest is very simple in Musesocre. For this example the measure is 4/4 and I wish to enter 8 semi quavers on beats 3 and 4. Beats 1 and 2 are a rest. First enter a minim. This takes up 2 of the 4 beats in the measure. Next enter the semi quavers at beats 3 and 4. The measure is now full of notes. Select the minim and for windows users press DEL and for Mac's press fn and backspace. This action deletes the minim and replaces it with a half rest, which accounts for beats 1 and 2.
Simples.
In reply to Starting with a rest by derummer
Don't do that !
If you want to enter a rest, select where you want it, press N, select the duration, press 6 for a half note (minim) and press 0!
See Note entry
In reply to Starting with a rest by derummer
Actually, what complicated the thread wasn't anything strange about how MuseScore works, it is that the person trying to use it didn't know enough about the basics of music notation. Creating readable music in MuseScore still requires you to know the badics of how music nottion is written. If you can't write it by hand correctly, MuseScore won't magically do it for you. Just as no word processor will turn out a readable book for you if you can already write correctly. All the software really does is make the task easier in certain ways, and produce better looking results. So you have to know exactly how you want it to look in order for MuseScore to be of much use.
Anyhow, as lasconic says, what you are descibing definitely works, but it is unnecessarily complicated - why add notes then turn them into rests when you could just enter the rests directly in the first place? But if your song really doesn't start until beat three, you might consider whether yo shoukd be starting wth a full measure or not - you might be better off usng a pickup measure. That is, an initial measure with fewer than four beats. This is a standard musical concept, and MuseScore does support it - right click the measure, measure properties, set "actual" duration to 2/4. Then you can enter just your two beats worth of notes with no leading rests.
In reply to Actually, what complicated by Marc Sabatella
and set that measure to 'irregular'
In reply to pickup measure by Jojo-Schmitz
Yes, so the measure number will start at 1 on the first *full* measure rather than on the pickup.
I also should have mentioned that all this is necessary only if you change your mind after initial score creation about whether or not there shold be a pickup. If you know there will be a pickup when you first create the score, you cam simply check the appropriate box to create the pickup measure right in the same screen of he new score wizard where ou select the time signature. If you do that, then the pickup measure is created for you. You only need to mess with the right click, measure properties thing if you didn't do tell MuseScore you wanted a pickup when first creating the score.
Oh, and BYW, for anyone who doesn't know the term "pickup", I gather on some countries the term "anacrusis" is more commonly used for the same thing: a few notes to lead into the piece that don't add up to a full measure. Like the note that forms the word "Hey" in the song "Hey Jude" (trying to name as universally-known piece as I can).
In reply to Yes, so the measure number by Marc Sabatella
Yes, Hey Jude is a good example of a song with a pickup. Especially how Beatles does the song. No intro, just "Hey".
But not all bars are pickup bars, even though they don't start at beat 1. A pickup starts before beat 1 in bar 1 (starting in bar 0). Some songs start after beat 1 in bar 1. Like "Take me home, Country Roads". Or "A Natural Woman".
You count something like this:
1_____2_____3_____4_____1_____2_____3_____4
___Almost__hea-__ven,_____West Vir-gin-__ia
The 1 beat is the stronger beat, while the 3 beat is weaker, not the other way around. Terefore you get it all wrong, if you don't start the first bar with a rest on the 1 beat.
In reply to Actually, what complicated by Marc Sabatella
Thank you for your ever so condescending remarks. I am so glad that you pointed out that I must first be able to write before using a word processor let alone use Musescore to write my notation. I am fully aware that what I did worked else I would not have mentioned it. I was unaware that one could add a rest by typing zero, so I thank lasconic for pointing that out to me and he did so without a trace of sarcasm or a condescending remark. You should take note Marc Sabetella.
I suggest that before you start ranting about others lack of this or that, you should first brush up on your grammar and spelling, as even with a PC's spell check and grammar check you still submitted a poorly written comment. If your music is the same, do not give up your day job.
Finally, once again, you are guilty of over complicating things. The question and example was about starting with a rest. There was no mention in the original post nor in mine about pickup measures. I know exactly when to use a pick up measure thank you and I found it insulting that you assume that I do not.
I strongly suggest that if you wish to help others (and that is a fine thing to do) that you keep to the question and refrain from insulting the poster.
In reply to Condescending by derummer
You misunderstand. I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the previous disucssion that had become very complicated, precisely because it wasn't a disucssion of how to do X in MuseScore, but rather, how should something should be notated in the first place. And the person explicitly stated he/she didn't understand how time signatures worked. So no sarcasm was intended, toward you or anyone else. it was simple statement of fact regarding the nature of the previous discussion. Sorry if that wasn't clear and you took it personally.
In other words, I was just pointing that of the three observations you made in the first paragraph of your pevious post, it was really only c) that was relevant to why the thread took the shape it did. I was simply agreeing that part of what you wrote, not making any comment about you at all.
Ad BTW, sorry about the typos. It's hard typing on a touchscreen, and I'm not always very good about correcting mistakes.
These support forums are both entertaining and enlightening. I had followed this post from its beginning and recently noticed it had a few new postings, as it was listed near the top on the General Discussion page. If I may add my two cents...
Originally, Resopmoc lamented over whole notes being split into half notes with ties over barlines (and minims to crotchets, etc.). While the "music SOUNDS fine when played...it LOOKS harder than it is". "The notes look far more complicated." Resopmoc asked: "Must I write the melody to start from the beginning beat...?"
While it is true that musicians actually 'play the silence' vis-à-vis rests, (see John Cage's composition: "Four minutes, thirty-three seconds"), 'melody' usually means sounds - actual notes, as opposed to rests. (melody = a sweet or agreeable succession or arrangement of sounds)
So perhaps the question is: "Must I write the notes (sounds) to start from the beginning beat...?"
Then, Mark Sabatella mentioned the pickup measure's importance and even wrote about "knowing" where beat one is. How true this is. Resopmoc replied: "I know where the beats are". Then in another reply: "If we both hear a song in 4/4 and can correctly identify it as such, what does it matter how we are doing it?"
Alas! Knowing where one beat is (or even all the beats) is not necessarily knowing where beat one is. Here's a suggestion using an iterative process to help find the pickup note(s) and 'beat #1'. It can help with Resopmoc's dilemma: the music sounds ok on playback (so the beats may line up), but the notation looks confusing, like it needs to be a bit more 'tidy'.
I'll utilize Marc Sabatella's clever approach for this example:
Let's say you have written a score #1 "starting from the beginning beat", as per Resopmoc. (No pickup measure/anacrusis).
The beginning of score #1 may look something like this representative example:
Mydo gsli kefo od...etc.
Here each letter represents one beat, so there are 4 beats per measure (measures are separated by spaces instead of bar lines, 3½ measures are chosen here, but the music continues - so one doesn't have to fuss with the entire score).
Now, still using MuseScore, create a new blank score #2 with at least the same number of measures - 4 (a whole number). Again, with no pickup measure/ anacrusis.
Next, eliminate the first beat, "M", by copy and pasting from the second beat, "y", of score #1 into the beginning of this new score #2.
Score #2 will look something like this:
ydog slik efoo d...
The timing is still 4 beats per measure (thanks to Musescore). Also, playback sounds ok (although the "M" is missing).
The phrasing still looks wacky, so continue with the same process: open a new blank score #3, this time eliminate the "y" by copy and pasting from the second beat, "d", in score #2 onto the first measure of score #3.
Score #3 will look something like this:
dogs like food...
See? This phrasing is easier to read. Finally, create a pickup measure to restore the two beats that were eliminated, the "M" and "y". Here's the result:
My dogs like food...
Voila! So, the pickup measure has 2 beats in it, with nice phrasing and timing.
The power of MuseScore is that it will automatically fill each measure with the correct number of beats. The bar lines will eventually appear in the correct positions. Note: A simple word processor can not do that. It can't adjust the spaces. So please don't try it on this text example. (or try it and see)
In the above representation, each letter represents one beat's worth of notes. Thus, 4 letters might represent one whole note (semibreve), 1 letter may also represent 1 quarter note (crotchet), or 2 eighth notes (quaver), etc.) For instance, let's suppose the letters 'l' 'i' 'k' and 'e' taken together in Score #1 represent a whole note (4 letters = 4 beats). One can see that it would display as 2 tied half notes in Score #1 ('li' tied to 'ke'), and a dotted half tied to a quarter note in Score #2 ('lik' tied to 'e'). In score #3, it becomes a whole note, because all 4 beats are placed in the same measure ('like').
This behavior of Musescore exhibits the feature that some people have an issue with during note entry (re: Marc Sabatella, who has addressed this many times in the forums).
Now, just suppose, by accident, we were to continue the iteration and proceed further:
Score #4 becomes:
ogsl ikef ood...
See? The timing is still 4 beats per measure, although the "M", "y" and "d" beats have been removed. At this point, we have crossed to the other side, and the phrasing gets wacky again. (Technically, if one continues further, all will eventually line up again, but the pickup measure will be greater than 4 beats, so it really wouldn't be a 'pickup').
This method does not require "detailed understanding" in a similar sense, for instance, that a guitar player doesn't have to know that the 12th fret sounds an octave above the open (unfretted) string because mathematically the 12th fret divides the string into 2 equal halves, hence it vibrates at twice the frequency, thereby producing the higher octave. It simply 'works'. In fact, the guitar player can actually start anywhere on the fretboard and by iteration - moving one fret at a time - empirically find the octave to be at the 12th fret.
Although there is much math lurking behind the production and perception of music, I find it fascinating that most people have an innate feel for rhythm and harmony without the "X-4/Y*99 = 2Z, or some such elusive formula" light-heartedly mentioned here by fellow contributor Resopmoc.
Because the song "Hey Jude" has already been mentioned for having a one beat pickup, a good exercise for anyone interested would be to copy, for instance, the first 32 beats (not measures) of 'Hey Jude" onto a blank staff, 4/4 time, starting at the first beat of the first measure. (No pickup measure). Save it as "Hey Jude".
Then open a new blank staff, 4/4 time, with 8 measures and paste from the second beat of this "Hey Jude", (i.e. leave out the "Hey" note) into this new staff named "Jude". You will see MuseScore move everything around. The musical phrasing becomes clearer. After which one can restore the 'Hey", this time as a pickup measure containing a single beat (quarter note) at the very beginning. (See attachments)
With experience, the aim is to initially find "beat one" to determine whether the staff requires a pickup measure, before anything is even entered on paper (i.e. MuseScore).
P.S. humorous line from above: "Also, I ... can't automatically recognise a dotted or tied note's value straight away when I read it, like I can with normal notes. I have to stop and think, and add them up, which slows down my sight reading. But I'm getting better at it. All this reading scores shifted backwards is rubbing off on me, perhaps". - Resopmoc
Using MuseScore is a great way to become a better musician, even if one doesn't know all the tricks and shortcuts, or use all its capabilities. Heck, even sight reading backwards shifted scores with all the extra ties, dotted notes, etc. can make for a better (performing) musician! ;-) (BTW: Anyone ever try to sight read an imported midi file?)
Lastly, I regard these Musescore support forums as among the best on the Internet!
Just as a footnote: Although most pieces that doesn't start on the first beat of the bar use a pick-up bar for the notes before the first 1 beat, it is not necessary to do so. Many fuges have themes starting with a rest and that rest is usually printed to emphasise that the rest is to be felt.
In reply to Starting with a rest doesn't require a pick-up bar by Natanael_
You feel the beat of the rest, when you think of the tune. Of course the listener doesn't feel it, but the interpreter does. And that beat is the first beat of the first measure. Just as in a normal 4/4 meter you feel the 1st beat strong, the 3rd beat semi-strong and the 2nd and 4th beats weak, you can feel that in a four bar phrase the first bar is strong, the 3rd one semi-strong and the 2nd and 4th bars weak. Fugues that start with a rest, start like with the first, strong bar, the next bar being the weak one. These bars that start with rests are not (or should not be) called pickup bars. In Swedish a pickup bar is upptakt, in Finnish it's kohotahti. The bar beginning with a rest is in Swedish prokatalektisk takt, in Finnish vajaatahti.
Anyone know the English word? Procatalectic bar?
Typically, rests and notes in western music, right up until Bartok's time, were a function of the structure of harmony and melody. So, starting of piece of music with a rest was merely a way to incorporate the appropriate phrase structure within the melody or accompaniment. This changed of course radically with modernism, and unless you were Schoenberg (or strict pupil of his) it mattered not what beat you started on or whether or not you used a rest to begin.