String Harmonic notation, help?

I was wondering if anyone could clear up on how to accurately notate artificial violin/cello harmonics? I keep either A) learning it just enough to work in my pieces then not retaining the information. B) getting the notation confused. C) getting confused in general.

So it would be greatly appreciated!

Like this:

the lower note is the note the first finger is fingering, the upper diamond shaped note is the harmonic node that the fourth finger is touching (but not depressing). The sounding pitch of the harmonic is generally not written.

Oh yeah, the upper stave is just for showing the sounding pitches, it isn't ususally included in the score.

Oh yeah, the upper stave is just for showing the sounding pitches, it isn't ususally included in the score.

thank you for replying!

So for clarification:

when the triangle (lack of better word) is a fourth above the written pitch -the art. harmonic is an octave above.

When it's a 5th-its an octave and a 5th.

When its a third- it's an octave and a 3rd.

Yeah? Sorry if the way I worded that is hard to understand.

It's a diamond shaped notehead.

It's a diamond shaped notehead.

...would that be the technical term?

no..it is called a harmonioniuminonioushead....

just kidding..

I don't think it has a technical term..but it is a diamond, not a triangle

So for clarification:

when the [diamond-shaped note] is a fourth above the written pitch -the art. harmonic is an octave above.

When it's a 5th-its an octave and a 5th.

When its a third- it's an octave and a 3rd.

You have the "touch 5th" harmonic right. For a touch 4th harmonic the sounding pitch is two octaves above the written pitch, and for a touch (major) 3rd harmonic the sounding pitch is two octaves and a major third above written.

Yes, diamond-shaped note or diamond-shaped notehead is the technical term. You could even say diamond note or diamond notehead.

You can also listen here

------

What about these ones ?

What about these ones ?

That's the common notation for natural harmonics, although the sounding note with the little circle above it also can be used in some cases for artificial harmonics (alongside the diamond noteheads) to indicate the sounding pitch in more unusual cases (harmonics that require touching two positions, harmonic glissandi, harmonics consisting of higher partials etc.), although often for these cases one just uses a smaller notehead, or a notehead in brackets.

For natural harmonics, just writing the sounding pitch like this, with the circle, is usually sufficient, as long as there is only one string on which it can be played. As soon as there are several possibilities (say, a D5 on a violin, which can be both a fifth harmonic on the G-string or an octave harmonic on the D-string), one should also indicate the string above said note (either with numbers I-IV or letters).

P.S. I don't actually know, but I could well imagine that the circle above natural harmonic notes is originally the same sign as the 0 designating notes to be played on an empty string, since natural harmonics are also played on empty strings, so to speak. Considering that, it would really make sense only using it for natural harmonics and not artificial ones. But as I said, that's just a random guess.

no..it is called a harmonioniuminonioushead....

just kidding..

I don't think it has a technical term..but it is a diamond, not a triangle

lol...yes. I will concede that it is not a triangle but is a diamond. Who has two thumbs and didn't think that one out.

You can also listen here

------

What about these ones ?

along side what others have said. I believe that is for natural harmonics. Also, where as the diamond shaped notehead indicated a pitch above the written pitch-this one shows the pitch that is to be played. ..yes?

Great thread guys, I'm just going to shift you over into Advice & Techniques which is where threads like this belong (as a note for the future). Carry on! :happy:

That's the common notation for natural harmonics, although the sounding note with the little circle above it also can be used in some cases for artificial harmonics (alongside the diamond noteheads) to indicate the sounding pitch in more unusual cases (harmonics that require touching two positions, harmonic glissandi, harmonics consisting of higher partials etc.), although often for these cases one just uses a smaller notehead, or a notehead in brackets.

For natural harmonics, just writing the sounding pitch like this, with the circle, is usually sufficient, as long as there is only one string on which it can be played. As soon as there are several possibilities (say, a D5 on a violin, which can be both a fifth harmonic on the G-string or an octave harmonic on the D-string), one should also indicate the string above said note (either with numbers I-IV or letters).

P.S. I don't actually know, but I could well imagine that the circle above natural harmonic notes is originally the same sign as the 0 designating notes to be played on an empty string, since natural harmonics are also played on empty strings, so to speak. Considering that, it would really make sense only using it for natural harmonics and not artificial ones. But as I said, that's just a random guess.

I'm afraid there is a little confusion about natural harmonics and their notation:Actually there are two kinds of natural harmonics.1°) those harmonics that need only one finger that sligtly touchs the string at specific place noted with a diamond that yields the triad of the string (ignoring octaves) .2°) the natural harmonics which are in unisson with the real sound which are specifically noted with a small circle .This mainly concernes the upper half of the string

It's not a confusion. There are simply different ways of doing it and I explained the way I learned it and do it (and the way I've seen in lots of scores). I have seen the practice you just explained quite a lot too, so it's definitely good to mention that, but it's not the only one.

What -I'm- used to is notating all natural harmonics as just notes with circles and an indication of the string to play on, designating the sounding pitch, and all artificial ones with the note-diamond combination, designating the touch-position.

There -are- certainly also other practices. There are composers who do what you just explained. And there are -also- composers who designate all harmonics simply by writing the sounding pitch and a circle above, without showing whether it's an artificial or natural harmonic, or which string it should be played on, leaving that all to the performer.

All those methods have their advantages and disadvantages:

- Writing merely the sounding pitch for any harmonics has the advantage that the performer can choose the execution that fits her or him best, but it has the disadvantage that the performer will first have to decide on a way to play it (i.e. it will be harder to sight-read) and that the composer doesn't have as much control over the outcome. (The latter doesn't matter much for some harmonics, but it does matter for natural harmonics that microtonally differ from normal tuning a lot, such as natural thirds, sevenths, etc.).

- Writing it in the way you indicated makes harmonics very easy to play, since in all cases one can directly read the finger positions from the score - while still keeping the advantage of designating natural harmonics as clearly different in the cases where finger position and sounding pitch coincide. The downside is that not all natural harmonics are written the same way, making the system appear less consistent - a natural harmonic may be mistaken for an artificial harmonic played on a different string for instance.

- Writing in the way I mentioned has the advantage of making a clear distinction between natural and artificial harmonics, making it clear immediately which one is wanted and on which string it is meant to be played (in the case of natural harmonics). It also has the advantage of showing a clear pitch for natural harmonics even in the more unusual cases where the player might not immediately see from the other kind of notation what pitch would result, making it easier for the performer to see the whole melodic contour of a line. It has the downside that it doesn't always show the performer where to place her or his fingers, so she or he might take a moment to figure this out.

- Lastly, there is, as mentioned, the possibility to simply do both: Writing notehead, a diamond notehead and the sounding pitch in brackets, or a smaller notehead. This has the advantage of combining all those other advantages, but may be overkill in most situations where only the normal harmonics are used, which any string player will be familiar with anyways. It will also clutter the score more and can be a bit troublesome in the case of harmonics that lie very much higher than the position where the string is touched (which is quite often the case).

It's not a confusion. There are simply different ways of doing it and I explained the way I learned it and do it (and the way I've seen in lots of scores). I have seen the practice you just explained quite a lot too, so it's definitely good to mention that, but it's not the only one.

What -I'm- used to is notating all natural harmonics as just notes with circles and an indication of the string to play on, designating the sounding pitch, and all artificial ones with the note-diamond combination, designating the touch-position.

There -are- certainly also other practices. There are composers who do what you just explained. And there are -also- composers who designate all harmonics simply by writing the sounding pitch and a circle above, without showing whether it's an artificial or natural harmonic, or which string it should be played on, leaving that all to the performer.

All those methods have their advantages and disadvantages:

- Writing merely the sounding pitch for any harmonics has the advantage that the performer can choose the execution that fits her or him best, but it has the disadvantage that the performer will first have to decide on a way to play it (i.e. it will be harder to sight-read) and that the composer doesn't have as much control over the outcome. (The latter doesn't matter much for some harmonics, but it does matter for natural harmonics that microtonally differ from normal tuning a lot, such as natural thirds, sevenths, etc.).

- Writing it in the way you indicated makes harmonics very easy to play, since in all cases one can directly read the finger positions from the score - while still keeping the advantage of designating natural harmonics as clearly different in the cases where finger position and sounding pitch coincide. The downside is that not all natural harmonics are written the same way, making the system appear less consistent - a natural harmonic may be mistaken for an artificial harmonic played on a different string for instance.

- Writing in the way I mentioned has the advantage of making a clear distinction between natural and artificial harmonics, making it clear immediately which one is wanted and on which string it is meant to be played (in the case of natural harmonics). It also has the advantage of showing a clear pitch for natural harmonics even in the more unusual cases where the player might not immediately see from the other kind of notation what pitch would result, making it easier for the performer to see the whole melodic contour of a line. It has the downside that it doesn't always show the performer where to place her or his fingers, so she or he might take a moment to figure this out.

- Lastly, there is, as mentioned, the possibility to simply do both: Writing notehead, a diamond notehead and the sounding pitch in brackets, or a smaller notehead. This has the advantage of combining all those other advantages, but may be overkill in most situations where only the normal harmonics are used, which any string player will be familiar with anyways. It will also clutter the score more and can be a bit troublesome in the case of harmonics that lie very much higher than the position where the string is touched (which is quite often the case).

Sorry to partly disagree:Natural and artificial harmonics can't be confused. Problem occurs with natural harmonics that sound in unisson with the real note(the fifth on a string is the octave on the other) because they appear on two adjacent strings so it's safer to indicated which string you want.Writing all natural harmonics with a circle above is objectionable because it may rise confusion between played note and desired note.Composers that use this method are sometimes juged "careless" by some authors.The safest method is to use normal (pressed down note ) for the root, topped by a diamond for slightly touched note. Absence of normal note below the diamond implies that the root is an open string. As a violinist a wrote an article on harmonics (unfortunately in French ) but you can consult the recapitulation of natural harmonics here "http://www.aprlmusic.com"/harmonics.pdf

Writing all natural harmonics with a circle above is objectionable because it may rise confusion between played note and desired note.

How so? If only a note with a circle above is written, it's clear that the sounding pitch is meant, not how it's to be played. There isn't any room for confusion.

The safest method is to use normal (pressed down note ) for the root, topped by a diamond for slightly touched note.

I never disagreed with that. If there -is- a pressed down note it's an artificial harmonic, not a natural one, and I always said I'd notate artifical harmonics like that.

I merely disagreed on the notation of natural harmonics. If you want to call this practice "careless", be my guest. But I assure you I do it for good reasons, and not because I don't care. I may, for instance, want a 7th natural harmonic and still leave it up to the performer which node to touch exactly. That way I get exactly the sound I want, but give the performer the possibility to find a fingering that suits him best. In cases where I clearly -do- want the performer to touch a -specific- node, I write it in diamond-heads like you do.

P.S. I -do- now understand how you meant the designation for natural harmonics exactly. That's a fair and reasonable practice, but as I mentioned, by far not the only valid one.

How so? If only a note with a circle above is written, it's clear that the sounding pitch is meant, not how it's to be played. There isn't any room for confusion.

I never disagreed with that. If there -is- a pressed down note it's an artificial harmonic, not a natural one, and I always said I'd notate artifical harmonics like that.

I merely disagreed on the notation of natural harmonics. If you want to call this practice "careless", be my guest. But I assure you I do it for good reasons, and not because I don't care. I may, for instance, want a 7th natural harmonic and still leave it up to the performer which node to touch exactly. That way I get exactly the sound I want, but give the performer the possibility to find a fingering that suits him best. In cases where I clearly -do- want the performer to touch a -specific- node, I write it in diamond-heads like you do.

P.S. I -do- now understand how you meant the designation for natural harmonics exactly. That's a fair and reasonable practice, but as I mentioned, by far not the only valid one.

Hi, I concede there are many methods to notate harmonics but sometimes very unclear to the performer.

Espacially with the Circle that also means open string on violin or harmonics in octave on harp for example but what does mean Bb with a circle on a violin?

Well, first of all, the symbol for open string I'm more aware of is an 0 rather than an o, which is a slight difference. But the similarity is even fitting: A natural string -is- being played on an open string after all, and there's no bowed string instrument where there's any note that could be played -both- as an open string -or- as a harmonic (unless there is a scordatura), so you can't really confuse them. (It would be slightly different on instruments like the guitar, where notes exist that could both be played on an open string and with a natural harmonic on a different string - but even then, designating the string to play the harmonic on will remove that doubt).

"What does a Bb with a circle mean on the violin?"

Well, if someone wrote it, then apparently a natural harmonic. If it is a Bb7, it might be the 13th partial of the D-string, for instance, or if it is a Bb8 (probably not so realistic), the 11th partial of the E-string (in both cases, the note would microtonally differ from the Bb though). But in none of these cases I would consider notating a mere Bb with a circle a good notation. First of all, I'd definitely indicate a string. I'd also notate it as a quartertone in the case of the 11th partial, respectively with a sign to indicate a microtonal difference in the case of the 13th. And, in the case of such high harmonics, I also always write something like "11th partial" or "13th partial" as a further help. All of this isn't needed for more common harmonics though (except indicating the string, which I always tend to do).

Now, if your mentioned "Bb with a circle" was a Bb4 for instance, well, it simply wouldn't mean much without further explanation…

"What does a Bb with a circle mean on the violin?"

Well, if someone wrote it, then apparently a natural harmonic. If it is a Bb7, it might be the 13th partial of the D-string, for instance, or if it is a Bb8 (probably not so realistic), the 11th partial of the E-string (in both cases, the note would microtonally differ from the Bb though). But in none of these cases I would consider notating a mere Bb with a circle a good notation. First of all, I'd definitely indicate a string. I'd also notate it as a quartertone in the case of the 11th partial, respectively with a sign to indicate a microtonal difference in the case of the 13th. And, in the case of such high harmonics, I also always write something like "11th partial" or "13th partial" as a further help. All of this isn't needed for more common harmonics though (except indicating the string, which I always tend to do).

Now, if your mentioned "Bb with a circle" was a Bb4 for instance, well, it simply wouldn't mean much without further explanation…

While I appreciate the attempt at taking into account the exact pitch (though the 11th isn't quite a quarter tone... you're not taking into account that 1.32 cents! :) ;)), I would advise against the microtonal accidentals for natural harmonics, especially if you're not writing a microtonal piece (which, with the exception of me and possibly one or two others, excludes everyone on this site). If you write the Bb and the string it'll come out as the correct harmonic no matter what. Throwing in that extra accidental only complicates things for the performer. It's kinda like Ben Johnston's notation system, yes it makes sense to have that accidental on an open E, but to the performer its just plain confusing. They're used to seeing a note, with a traditional accidental and a circle above it. It doesn't really matter, because with strings (sans piano, or another 12TET instrument), they're most likely playing Just intervals anyway.

But then again, the 11th and 13th harmonics really aren't the most practical to use.

Also, just to add to the "Bb with a circle" convo, in some instances -- such as with Milton Babbitt -- the composer doesn't really care whether or not the pitch is played as a natural or an artifical harmonic and thus just puts a circle over the pitch they want to sound, leaving its means-of-production up to the performer.

I didn't read this thread. Only the last post. So if I covered something that was already covered I appologize.

Also, just to add to the "Bb with a circle" convo, in some instances -- such as with Milton Babbitt -- the composer doesn't really care whether or not the pitch is played as a natural or an artifical harmonic and thus just puts a circle over the pitch they want to sound, leaving its means-of-production up to the performer.

Yeah, but exactly if a composer uses this notation like that, I'd definitely find it important to notate microtonal accidentals (or at least signs for "slightly lower" or "slightly higher") carefully, if you want them, since other than octave/fourth harmonics, the microtonal differences from natural harmonics will of course be quite strongly audible. If you don't clearly notate these things, one performer may play a written note exactly as written while another might use a third harmonic and produce a note 14 cents lower.

Otherwise, yeah, I usually don't notate the microtonal differences in natural harmonics. But the 11th (and to a lesser degree the 13th) is a bit a special case there, since it's so close to the exact quarter tone between two equal tempered notes, so not everyone rounds it in the same direction. I don't think a quartertone accidental hurts there. But it depends a bit on the context, I guess. If it's perfectly clear how the note is supposed to be played, there's no need to go much into the microtonal details on how it's going to sound.

I have actually written totally microtonal pieces (such as one for two horns) where I didn't use a single microtonal accidental whatsoever, since (for certain reasons) every single note was written with a specific fingering, so the microtonal details didn't have to be written down. (Of course - while it doesn't help the performer, it may at times help someone who just wishes to read the score and imagine how it's going to sound.)

P.S. Nice to see you around charlie!

Yeah, but exactly if a composer uses this notation like that, I'd definitely find it important to notate microtonal accidentals (or at least signs for "slightly lower" or "slightly higher") carefully, if you want them, since other than octave/fourth harmonics, the microtonal differences from natural harmonics will of course be quite strongly audible. If you don't clearly notate these things, one performer may play a written note exactly as written while another might use a third harmonic and produce a note 14 cents lower.

Otherwise, yeah, I usually don't notate the microtonal differences in natural harmonics. But the 11th (and to a lesser degree the 13th) is a bit a special case there, since it's so close to the exact quarter tone between two equal tempered notes, so not everyone rounds it in the same direction. I don't think a quartertone accidental hurts there. But it depends a bit on the context, I guess. If it's perfectly clear how the note is supposed to be played, there's no need to go much into the microtonal details on how it's going to sound.

I have actually written totally microtonal pieces (such as one for two horns) where I didn't use a single microtonal accidental whatsoever, since (for certain reasons) every single note was written with a specific fingering, so the microtonal details didn't have to be written down. (Of course - while it doesn't help the performer, it may at times help someone who just wishes to read the score and imagine how it's going to sound.)

P.S. Nice to see you around charlie!

If you write a natural harmonic with a quarter-tone flat, plus an arrow pointing down, someone is going to say "what the hell is that supposed to be?", not "oh, that's the 13th partial which is about 60 cents flat". Its not necessary.

To go back to your example, of the fifth harmonic (you said third, but since you said 14 cents and the fifth harmonic is a third above the fundamental, I assumed that's what you meant, since the third partial is only 2 cents above 12TET ;)), when was the last time that happened? Unless they're matching a piano, string players tend to gravatate more towards that pitch anyway. Not because its more "correct", but due to string instrument's tunings, its more resonant and sounds "better".

To your last little aside there, why would anyone worry about how easily someone could study the score and know how it sounds? I'm not going to notate a piece so Joe Anyone over there can pick it up and try and figure out what it'll sound like (though if he has knowledge of, say, the horn, he'd probably be able to understand your horn duo clearly), I'm notating a piece so that it is as clear as it can be for the performer. Sometimes those two things are the same, sometimes not. If I was using a retuned piano, I would notate the keys that are played, not the sounding pitch (unless the performer wanted it, which in my experence with retuned keybords is never).

P.S. - I've been lurking around, reading some posts here and there, not commenting on anything. I just couldn't help myself from coming out of hiding so that I could have a discussion with you though!

To go back to your example, of the fifth harmonic (you said third, but since you said 14 cents and the fifth harmonic is a third above the fundamental, I assumed that's what you meant, since the third partial is only 2 cents above 12TET ;))

Yeah, I mean the fifth partial. I meant "third" as in: "the harmonic that you get when you touch a third above the fundamental".

, when was the last time that happened? Unless they're matching a piano, string players tend to gravatate more towards that pitch anyway. Not because its more "correct", but due to string instrument's tunings, its more resonant and sounds "better".

Maybe if it's a totally isolated note. But if the note is standing in some context with other notes (be that as a note within a chord, or as a note within a twelve-tone row or whatever) we can't safely assume that they will play it 14 cents lower than the same note in equal temperament. All I can say is that to my experience, if a string player plays a certain note as the harmonic of the fifth partial it will in many cases sound decidedly lower than if you notated the same note without this instruction.

(Interestingly, even if you notate it as a harmonic on the third partial, the resulting intonation will deviate quite audibly for the same note being played normally, or as an octave/doubleoctave harmonic, and substantially more so than the theoretical 2 cents, which should be inaudible. I don't really know why this is the case.)

To your last little aside there, why would anyone worry about how easily someone could study the score and know how it sounds? I'm not going to notate a piece so Joe Anyone over there can pick it up and try and figure out what it'll sound like (though if he has knowledge of, say, the horn, he'd probably be able to understand your horn duo clearly), I'm notating a piece so that it is as clear as it can be for the performer. Sometimes those two things are the same, sometimes not. If I was using a retuned piano, I would notate the keys that are played, not the sounding pitch (unless the performer wanted it, which in my experence with retuned keybords is never).

Oh, I agree. Notating what should be played definitely has precedence for me. But I've still seen cases where it would have been more "comfortable" to read the score, if there had also been an indication of how it was going to sound. Not -just- for Joe Anyone, but also for the performers, who might want a clear idea of what the result is supposed to be. For the same reason some composers create "listening scores" for electronic works that don't actually require a score, one might also create "listening scores" for pieces that heavily employ a scordatura, simply for that purpose. But I agree that generally this isn't necessary. (In the example of my horn piece though it might have been quite useful to do that. It would be -very- tedious to read my score and clearly imagine every interval there, also because there are tons of notes. All you could say on the first glance is: "This is going to sound 'microtonal'".)

Yeah, I mean the fifth partial. I meant "third" as in: "the harmonic that you get when you touch a third above the fundamental".

Maybe if it's a totally isolated note. But if the note is standing in some context with other notes (be that as a note within a chord, or as a note within a twelve-tone row or whatever) we can't safely assume that they will play it 14 cents lower than the same note in equal temperament. All I can say is that to my experience, if a string player plays a certain note as the harmonic of the fifth partial it will in many cases sound decidedly lower than if you notated the same note without this instruction.

(Interestingly, even if you notate it as a harmonic on the third partial, the resulting intonation will deviate quite audibly for the same note being played normally, or as an octave/doubleoctave harmonic, and substantially more so than the theoretical 2 cents, which should be inaudible. I don't really know why this is the case.)

None of that is an issue. Whether its Brahms or Schoenberg natural harmonics are written and work out just fine.

Oh, I agree. Notating what should be played definitely has precedence for me. But I've still seen cases where it would have been more "comfortable" to read the score, if there had also been an indication of how it was going to sound. Not -just- for Joe Anyone, but also for the performers, who might want a clear idea of what the result is supposed to be. For the same reason some composers create "listening scores" for electronic works that don't actually require a score, one might also create "listening scores" for pieces that heavily employ a scordatura, simply for that purpose. But I agree that generally this isn't necessary. (In the example of my horn piece though it might have been quite useful to do that. It would be -very- tedious to read my score and clearly imagine every interval there, also because there are tons of notes. All you could say on the first glance is: "This is going to sound 'microtonal'".)

I'm not saying that you never have to notate sounding pitches, just that its not always necessary. Also, many composers don't create listening scores, and a lot of the listening scores out there weren't created by the composer. Ligeti, for example, did not create the listening score for Artikulation.

They certainly work out fine. But the point still remains that for natural harmonics, you don't have the same freedom of intonation you have for other notes, so you do direct intonation in a very specific direction if you write natural harmonics. So whether to notate a specific note as a natural harmonic of an uneven partial greater or equal to the fifth, or whether you write it, say, as an artificial double-octave harmonic, is still a question that has clearly audible effects on the music, so it makes sense if a composer makes it very clear what he wants there. That's all I was trying to say.

As for listening scores: I don't think it matters in the end whether it's the composer who creates them, or somebody else. The point is that they are, at times, appreciated, so there's nothing wrong with creating them. I entirely agree that it's often not necessary however.