Standards of notation: who, what, when, where, why

Here is the thread to discuss the issue of notation standards.

I'm sure that a lot of you have lots of ideas related to this topic, so go at it.

If you have any questions they can be posted here, and anything myself or anyone else on this forum don't specifically know, I can arrange to contact a few professional engravers and get the information needed.

One important thing to note: when discussing engraving standards, there is a certain amount of leeway for "opinion" and "personal preference", but the publishing industry itself doesn't actually give a hoot. Each publisher has its specific standards (most are shared by all major publishing firms) and will not (or only in extremely rare cases) break from those standards.

Generally speaking, notational standards were established to make scores easier to read. This really should be the first preoccupation of any engraver (whether you are someone who does engraving for a living, or are a composer engraving your own music). So far, I've come across very few "engraving rules" that are truly arbitrary. They all really do have some foundation in clarity. After all, making your score as legible as possible should be your primary goal.

For Pedalling. The * and the ___/\ is that just a preferential thing, or is there a reason for that? I'll readily admit I don't know a great amount about standard notation.

Also, is there any significance in vocal music, where a line of notes (say semiquavers) aren't beamed together? What's the reason for that?

For Pedalling. The * and the ___/\ is that just a preferential thing, or is there a reason for that? I'll readily admit I don't know a great amount about standard notation.

Also, is there any significance in vocal music, where a line of notes (say semiquavers) aren't beamed together? What's the reason for that?

I think using the "ped ....*" markings versus the ____/\ marking is a question of preference. Generally speaking, scores rarely include extremely detailed pedal markings unless very specific effects are required. If you've ever tried marking the pedalling of a piano part, it gets VERY cluttered VERY fast !

In vocal music, yes there is a significance.

The standard has historically been if there there are two words (or syllables) attached to two consecutive notes that would normally be beamed, then the beam is broken.

If multiple notes go over one syllable, then they are all beamed together.

I hope I got that detail across, it's not easy to put into words.

In other words, if each eighth note has a distinct syllable to it, then each note is unbeamed.

If one syllable has a run of eighth notes associated with it, then those eighth notes are all beamed.

The reasoning is that a singer has to read the notes AND the words below. The beaming helps to make it clear as to where exactly there will be a "new" syllable to pronounce.

The standard about beaming versus unbeamed notes in vocal music is slowly losing ground however. We are finding more and more editors are returning to the same conventions as instrumental music to decide on beaming and beam breaks.

Additionally, normally multiple notes over one syllable or word will be slurred, even when a phrase marking covers the entire musical phrase.

yet another detail related to vocal music: traditionally, in vocal music the dynamics, hairpins, expressive markings, etc... go ABOVE the music, rather than below. This is to keep the lyrics clearly seperate from the musical detail.

in my example here I have the soprano notated the traditional way, while what the alto has is being used more and more in modern scores.

Haha, thanks for that. Yea, I understand what you mean about the melismas, and the unbeamed notes for new syllables.

Say a passage of unbeamed notes is written with a slur over them all, and a passage of beamed notes, with the slur. These would sound the same?

Haha, thanks for that. Yea, I understand what you mean about the melismas, and the unbeamed notes for new syllables.

Say a passage of unbeamed notes is written with a slur over them all, and a passage of beamed notes, with the slur. These would sound the same?

yes

I would avoid placing slurs other than for melismatic passages in vocal music, however.

Normally in vocal music, it would be expected that a phrase marking would follow the punctuation. Don't treat vocal music like string or woodwind music. A slur over a few words in a sentence will not make as much sense.

Generally speaking, slurs in vocal music are reserved for melismatic passages. Many scores (if not most) even avoid the use of phrase markings entirely in vocal parts.

With string instruments, slurs indicate the changes of bow. This has a marked effect on the sound.

With woodwinds, the slurs indicate the sort of tonguing. Again, this has a marked effect on the sound.

in vocal music, the only thing that will affect the sound will be the syllables that are being sung. A sequence of syllables whether slurred or not, will sound the same from a singer.

UNLESS you are indicating specifically an effect with articulations such as staccatos and tenutos.

It's actually pretty easy to test. write a short vocal phrase and try to sing it yourself.

Would you actually sing it any differently if it were marked with a long slur?

Would you automatically assume that no slur meant detached notes?

I have a good many vocal scores here from various periods, and I think that there is an almost equal amount of scores with phrase markings as without. And I can add that the majority of those WITH phrase markings could probably have been written without and it would probably have made no difference to interpretation.

Remember that vocal music has the added "clutter" of lyrics underneath and dynamics and other markings overhead... so actually precious little room for slurs on top of that.

Clarity.

The "Prime directive" of notation.