Re: [Finale] Slurring grace notes
Notation: okay I'll accept that you don't need any advice for standard notation (your "post-Breitkopf" stuff). I don't either. Specifics of engraving style, maybe. (This is very different than notation.) Ross addresses engraving, not notation, and if you are not familiar with him, or with some other similar treatise, you probably would find quite a lot in there that you had not previously thought about. I found Ross, despite the lack of academic polish in his style, to be invaluable. Obviously, if you have already studied engraving as a separate topic than notation, you may not need any more advice there. Where Stone excels is when you need a notation you've never seen before. Cases where I have either taken his recommendations, or used them as the basis of a notation of my own devising: * indication of specific locations on gong to strike (side, top, center, etc.) * blowing air through a horn mouthpiece without pitch. * playing specific strings below the bridge of a string instrument, and/or mixing that with normal playing * making a circular motion on a drum head or gong * various inside the piano effects * percussion battery score order. I can conceive that you may never have need for this kind of advice, but the above list barely scratches the surface of what's in there. And Stone didn't just produce it like Athena out of Zeus's brow. His book is basically the minutes of an international conference in 1980 of interested parties who came together to come up with these recommendations. It represents a fairly broad consensus for that time. If you don't need it, fine. But lumping it in with "the notation guides", like it was some sort of "dummy's" book, shows a surprising lack of appreciation for the contents. It makes me wonder if you've looked at it. On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:50 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > But I'm not engraving post-1840s music, other than my own, and in > that case, I know what the correct notation is without having to look > it up in a book! > > ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Slurring grace notes
On 20 Jul 2010 at 15:33, Robert Patterson wrote: > I don't even think of something like Ted Ross as a "rule book". I > think David's point is well-taken that every piece (and project) has a > context for knowing how the "rules" apply. One can never view these > texts as more than recommendations informed by a particular point of > view. But I use the word "informed" purposefully. I find the > recommendations are frequently excellent if they are applied in the > right context, and sometimes they transfer very effectively to other > contexts. "Completely disregarding" strikes me as a surprisingly > dismissive attitude for such often valuable, pertinent, and > time-saving advice. I have never found a single one of the recommendations in any of the notation guides useful for anything at all, except what is already obvious as standard notational practice in modern post-1840s engraving (Breitkopf & Härtel house style and all its descendents). But I'm not engraving post-1840s music, other than my own, and in that case, I know what the correct notation is without having to look it up in a book! -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Slurring grace notes
To be fair, Kurt Stone is not addressing compositions of all periods. It is specifically a set of recommendations for notation of music "in the 20th century." (In his case, the 20th century seems on average decidedly more avant-garde than the 21st, so I accept it for 21st century compositions too.) Secondly, it is by no means a "rule book". It is, rather, a collection of recommendations. I find the most interesting recommendations in it are for notations of special effects: the more unusual the special effect the more interesting is the recommendation. What Kurt Stone is decidedly *not* is a treatise about past notational practice, so any statements in it about past notational practice must be understood as ad hoc comments mostly related to a past that dates no further back than mid-19th century. Refuting the particulars of his statements about the past is almost never relevant to what Stone is trying to say. To the extent that he makes such statements, they serve only as a spring board for recommendations for future practice. I don't even think of something like Ted Ross as a "rule book". I think David's point is well-taken that every piece (and project) has a context for knowing how the "rules" apply. One can never view these texts as more than recommendations informed by a particular point of view. But I use the word "informed" purposefully. I find the recommendations are frequently excellent if they are applied in the right context, and sometimes they transfer very effectively to other contexts. "Completely disregarding" strikes me as a surprisingly dismissive attitude for such often valuable, pertinent, and time-saving advice. As to the specific point about slurred grace notes, I find myself in disagreement with Kurt Stone's recommendation. I guess I am a traditionalist, even if said tradition dates back only to ~1820. But ultimately performers will probably survive any notation you choose. As long as it requires no explanation, you are good to go. On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 2:44 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > This is why, in general, I completely disregard all the notataional > rule books. I encounter way to many cases in real historical sources > where the modern engraving rules make a hash of what is crucial > information for the performer. > > ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Slurring grace notes
At 2:18 PM -0500 7/20/10, Paul Hayden wrote: Kurt Stone in "Music Notation in the Twentieth Century" (page 22) says: 1. "It used to be customary to slur grace notes to the main note, but since such slurs are superfluous it is recommended that they be omitted." 2. Traditional practice is to start the main legato slur on the first main note (not the grace note) of the phrase. "This practice should be revised to include the grace note(s) in the slurs." I've always notated the traditional way (small slur from grace to first main note). I'm afraid that careful performers will see no slur (#1 above) and actually articulate both the grace and the following main note. Stone says to put a staccato mark on the grace if that's what you want. #2 is logical but looks a little strange to me. What do you think about this? I've adopted (without really thinking about it!) the no-slur option in my own music. And no musician with any experience would ever articulate the grace note UNLESS it's a unison with the main note and obviously intended as an articulated anticipation. (See "circus chord" as well as "Poet & Peasant Overture.") Speaking strictly for string players, we'll always slur the grace note to the main note--again unless the situation is pretty clearly different, but that would normally be indicated by up and down bow markings. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html "We never play anything the same way once." Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Slurring grace notes
On 20 Jul 2010 at 14:18, Paul Hayden wrote: > Kurt Stone in "Music Notation in the Twentieth Century" (page 22) > says: > > 1. "It used to be customary to slur grace notes to the main note, but > since such slurs are superfluous it is recommended that they be > omitted." This was not really true, ever. There are a number of different kinds of things that are referred to by the 19th-century term "grace notes." In 18th-century notation, appoggiaturas (I never know how to spell that damned word), which are not the same thing as grace notes, demonstrate variable practice in terms of slurs or no slurs. Some copyists/engravers put them on as a matter of course, others only when a bowing or slur is actually intended. Which is in use is highly dependent on the period, the geographic location/training of the copyist/engraver, and the particular repertory involved. > 2. Traditional practice is to start the main legato slur on the first > main note (not the grace note) of the phrase. "This practice should be > revised to include the grace note(s) in the slurs." Again, this is a practice the ignores everything before approximately 1820, likely because people just didn't notice that there were distinct notational practices in different repertories. > I've always notated the traditional way (small slur from grace to > first main note). I'm afraid that careful performers will see no slur > (#1 above) and actually articulate both the grace and the following > main note. Stone says to put a staccato mark on the grace if that's > what you want. That sounds completely crazy to me. What does "articulate" mean? Even with a stringed instrument, there's no reason that two unbowed notes cannot be played legato, so a staccato would imply something distinct from what two unbowed notes would implied (and distinct in turn from two bowed notes). > #2 is logical but looks a little strange to me. > > What do you think about this? I think the rules are completely wrongheaded. There can be no rule to cover such a huge number of possibilities and myriad different notational/performance traditions. The answer will not come from a rule in a book, but from what makes sense in the particular repertory/period you are engraving. This is why, in general, I completely disregard all the notataional rule books. I encounter way to many cases in real historical sources where the modern engraving rules make a hash of what is crucial information for the performer. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
