Help With Contemporary Symbols

Hi all

I have a question related the symbology in Contemporary Music.

I searched everywhere I could, without finding an answer and without finding a litterature.

Please have a look the attachment.

It rappresents 3 types of Fermata.

One square, and the other two are round but with 2 or 3 dots underneath.

I ask myself what's the meaning of them? I mean: how can I interpret them please?

Thank you very much

I've not encountered the double/triple dotted fermatas, but I expect it's a variation the dictate the length of the intended pause.

The square fermata does this as well, indicating a longer than normal pause.

http://donrathjr.com/fermata-music-theory/

What do the double-dotted fermatas mean? I've never seen that before.

Ok Thank you to everybody for your answers :)

There is something not so clear to me. the concept of fermata, the halfround with one dot, is clear: the length of the note should be not less than the value of the note itself and prolonged ad libitum by the executor.

Now the word "ad libitum" it means: whichever length more than the value of the note. And to me, "whichever" it means: I can prolong the note also infinitely. Thus I ask mysefl: why many signs to indicate the same substance?

Is there something missing to me?

I mean: isf I tell "infinite multiplied by 2" is always infinite. It doesn't make many sense but ok, it is good for the example.

Thus If I can prolong the sound as I want with the normal fermata, why the other symbols?

This question was creating to me several doubts. i was even thinking that they were not a fermata but perhaps something else.

Thus, I'm sorry if the question it seemed banal, at the first sight.

Those doubts where enhanced reading the score of Pierre Boulez "Imrovisation sur Mallarmè II" p.24 the Cello has a series of normal Fermata put on Rests then the Square one always on rests ...

If you want to extend a note by a certain amount in terms of beats or pulses, then just write the note longer. Fermatas are for *stoppages* of the *beat*, not time, hence their name meaning "stop" in Italian.

Right, being me italian I think the word "fermata" has its meaning :nod: ;)

Following the argument when you study music, really the basic, you study that a Fermata " is an element of musical notation indicating that the note should be sustained for longer than its note value would indicate." (I copied and paste it from Wikipedia). This is written in every book of music. Thus I can stop on the note as far as I want with the simple simble of fermata. It means: I prolongue his time. Wanted or no wanted: this is the final result. It is perhaps semantic but this is what it is. I was thus thinking that it's not necessary to invent new ones to apply what 's already stated and decleared.

That's why I was wondering to find those new symbles similar to Fermata. I was thinking they meant something else. And yes. If a fermata is over a Rest it means that you can prolongue the value of the Rest ad libitum. As far as you want. The confusion is created into the scores I mentioned, because normal fermatas over rests are followed by """strange""" fermatas over other rests.

This brought to me to conclude that effectively these signs were not fermata and/or they added some other meaning to the simple "fermata".

I started searching everywhere for the explanation to see the real facts in these things.

thank you thus to all of you :)

If I remember correctly the fermata couls also indicate shorted length. to make sure the performer made the fermata longer they added the indication lunga.

If I remember correctly the fermata couls also indicate shorted length. to make sure the performer made the fermata longer they added the indication lunga.

Fermata is minimum length: natural duration of the note. Maximum length: "ad libitum". You can keep the note as long as you want.

I've never seen double- or triple-dotted "fermatas;" B and C are the symbols I sometimes see for jeté /ricochet (bowed string techniques).

I've never seen double- or triple-dotted "fermatas;" B and C are the symbols I sometimes see for jeté /ricochet (bowed string techniques).

Interesting. This makes more sense, And it should be placed only on notes. While in the scores I told, Are put all on rests.

Perhaps they are not either called "fermata", but I have not clue about their real name and function.

Let me please make a consideration.

It's true that in Contemporary Music, each author creates is own code. Not all the authors, but a certain number of them: yes.

As far as I learned (because I'm approaching at the present time Contemporary Music), each author should explain also the meaning of the code he invented.

Well, I didn't found the explanation.

The issue is: I didn't found any book specialized on this semiography.

And I'm still looking for it on daily basis but unsucesfully :closedeyes: Believe me: it's quite frustrating

Right, being me italian I think the word "fermata" has its meaning :nod: ;)

Following the argument when you study music, really the basic, you study that a Fermata " is an element of musical notation indicating that the note should be sustained for longer than its note value would indicate." (I copied and paste it from Wikipedia). This is written in every book of music. Thus I can stop on the note as far as I want with the simple simble of fermata. It means: I prolongue his time. Wanted or no wanted: this is the final result. It is perhaps semantic but this is what it is. I was thus thinking that it's not necessary to invent new ones to apply what 's already stated and decleared.

That's why I was wondering to find those new symbles similar to Fermata. I was thinking they meant something else. And yes. If a fermata is over a Rest it means that you can prolongue the value of the Rest ad libitum. As far as you want. The confusion is created into the scores I mentioned, because normal fermatas over rests are followed by """strange""" fermatas over other rests.

But this definition is wrong, completely. There's a lot of things bad explained in musical elementary study. Fermata is a suspension of the beat, of the pulse. Staccato is a note that deserves a special articulation. If the composer wanted a longer or shorter note, he should notated this. There are fermatas that diminish the value of notes (Haydn, for example, has a lot in his symphonies), and over rests there's various interpretations, but you need always to look the context. Usually, the fermata over the rest is to hear the reverberation of previous sound across the room (Beethoven) or to detach parts (or motifs, pharses, periods etc etc) with a silence between.

The square fermata usually indicates a longer suspension than the round one, but you need the context to take a decision.

But this definition is wrong, completely. There's a lot of things bad explained in musical elementary study. Fermata is a suspension of the beat, of the pulse. Staccato is a note that deserves a special articulation. If the composer wanted a longer or shorter note, he should notated this. There are fermatas that diminish the value of notes (Haydn, for example, has a lot in his symphonies), and over rests there's various interpretations, but you need always to look the context. Usually, the fermata over the rest is to hear the reverberation of previous sound across the room (Beethoven) or to detach parts (or motifs, pharses, periods etc etc) with a silence between.

The square fermata usually indicates a longer suspension than the round one, but you need the context to take a decision.

As far as I see, all books of music are reporting exactly what I found on WikiPedia and I think to understand the reason.

You're right when you tell "suspension of the beat" BUT any suspension of the beat or whatever action, is made in the "time" (tempo). Because any action: requires time.

Thus, to give the idea of: how much the tempo should be suspended in terms of duration, I think they use the defintiion posted.

Now, you are also making me notice that:

There are fermatas that diminish the value of notes (Haydn, for example, has a lot in his symphonies)

ok, excellent. Considering that I have not here the scores to go to check: please; what symbols use he?

Where are the explanation of these symbols? Whe can I find a clear univocal explanation?

I mean: there should be some kind of: "this symbol means that and that' ... am I right?

because, I really think you do agree, that the frustration comes when it seems that I have to learn these things "from the air" and not from defined sources

Could you help me please on that?

As far as I see, all books of music are reporting exactly what I found on WikiPedia and I think to understand the reason.

You're right when you tell "suspension of the beat" BUT any suspension of the beat or whatever action, is made in the "time" (tempo). Because any action: requires time.

Thus, to give the idea of: how much the tempo should be suspended in terms of duration, I think they use the defintiion posted.

In almost all books you'll find this, it's simplifications and reductions to make easy for students to understand, but creates another problems by distorting original concepts.

Yes, is made in physical time, not musical one (since it's suspended). Think fermata as an Absolute Zero in music: it freezes what happening in that moment, until conductor chooses the "time to flow again". At first moment, it's ad libitum, but when studying, the musician should play based on the context - the suspension he chooses must be coherent in that speech. Specially at early music, when rhetoric is one of the most important aspects of musical craft.

Now, you are also making me notice that:

There are fermatas that diminish the value of notes (Haydn, for example, has a lot in his symphonies)

ok, excellent. Considering that I have not here the scores to go to check: please; what symbols use he?

Where are the explanation of these symbols? Whe can I find a clear univocal explanation?

I mean: there should be some kind of: "this symbol means that and that' ... am I right?

because, I really think you do agree, that the frustration comes when it seems that I have to learn these things "from the air" and not from defined sources

Could you help me please on that?

He used common fermata (the round one). I don't know a source you can check it, because this is achieved through analysis of the entire piece (even the entire language of Haydn). But a simple example found commonly in his music: forte and fortissimo chords for strings with long durations and fermata. It's impossible to a bow instrument to maintain in a single bowing a ff sound by longer times because of the bow pressure that players must apply. So, a wise conductor will observe the bows in that parts and cut the fermata before the sound begin to fade, even if the duration of actual sound is shorter than written one.

What Haydn want to do with this? Throw this effect in music (a forte and sustained chord), regardless of the actual duration. You need to think also that in Haydn time, the used bows (baroque ones) are even shorter than ours used today, so if we cannot do that ipsis litteris imagine them.

All features and symbols in a musical speech must be understood by its context.

He used common fermata (the round one). I don't know a source you can check it, because this is achieved through analysis of the entire piece (even the entire language of Haydn). But a simple example found commonly in his music: forte and fortissimo chords for strings with long durations and fermata. It's impossible to a bow instrument to maintain in a single bowing a ff sound by longer times because of the bow pressure that players must apply. So, a wise conductor will observe the bows in that parts and cut the fermata before the sound begin to fade, even if the duration of actual sound is shorter than written one.

What Haydn want to do with this? Throw this effect in music (a forte and sustained chord), regardless of the actual duration. You need to think also that in Haydn time, the used bows (baroque ones) are even shorter than ours used today, so if we cannot do that ipsis litteris imagine them.

All features and symbols in a musical speech must be understood by its context.

Where are you getting this from? I've never heard of this ever. And your example seems like a very weak one. Please cite it on the score.

In almost all books you'll find this, it's simplifications and reductions to make easy for students to understand, but creates another problems by distorting original concepts.

Yes, is made in physical time, not musical one (since it's suspended). Think fermata as an Absolute Zero in music: it freezes what happening in that moment, until conductor chooses the "time to flow again". At first moment, it's ad libitum, but when studying, the musician should play based on the context - the suspension he chooses must be coherent in that speech. Specially at early music, when rhetoric is one of the most important aspects of musical craft.

I agree because I followed a course of direction of music in classical way, but if I apply strictly the Fermata's concept: no way out. I can stop for the time I want (as Director) depending on my personal interpretation ...

And all the music books in whatever level, are expressing in this way. In italian (my origins) as well as in Dutch and French. They do affirm that the Fermata is a suspension of the time but they do specify: minimum length the note duration and you can keep the suspension as far as you want.

µit means: when you arraive on the note you do count his time duration THEN you suspend and keep as far as you want (ok I accept also: based on your interpretation etc... fully agree with .. this is the good sense's application of course).

The same concept is applied if I found or I write a Fermata on a rest. there's not anything is says something else in any music book (always as far as I saw)

At this point there is a semantic issue, I see.

He used common fermata (the round one). I don't know a source you can check it, because this is achieved through analysis of the entire piece (even the entire language of Haydn). But a simple example found commonly in his music: forte and fortissimo chords for strings with long durations and fermata. It's impossible to a bow instrument to maintain in a single bowing a ff sound by longer times because of the bow pressure that players must apply. So, a wise conductor will observe the bows in that parts and cut the fermata before the sound begin to fade, even if the duration of actual sound is shorter than written one.

What Haydn want to do with this? Throw this effect in music (a forte and sustained chord), regardless of the actual duration. You need to think also that in Haydn time, the used bows (baroque ones) are even shorter than ours used today, so if we cannot do that ipsis litteris imagine them.

All features and symbols in a musical speech must be understood by its context.

I agree but analysis often is not the expression of the will of the Author. Actually it doesn't. It express only what we think it should be and/or what , in the historical context, is accepted. But never be 100% sure about ..

I mean: if author signs a Fermata (round half-circle with a dot underneath) and he doesn't specify anything else: it is a normal fermata. And I apply the above concept. As far as he doesn't declare clearly something else on the music score. But it should be declared and in the scores I mentioned: i didn't find any mentions about the "square fermata" etc ...

if an author doesn't specify that the pitch of the note "B" he's writing is different that the standard pitch, it's quite hard to execute the piece as the author thought it. (I know it's extreme example but I had not any other one to make).

Thus, on my understanding, there should be somewhere (but I have not clue where). Her the origin of my question, thus.

If they use the square Fermata or the half-rounded ones with 2 or 3 dots: it's ever possible that not any book is explaining that ??

Different signs = different meaning but what are the "new ones" that are not personal opinions of the executors/conductors ?

having not explanation founded, from the Author, on the score ...

Where are you getting this from? I've never heard of this ever. And your example seems like a very weak one. Please cite it on the score.

From a Masterclass with a regent from the HIP movement. The same one who found Pergolesi's requiem lost in a library. When I have time, i'll search it.

If they use the square Fermata or the half-rounded ones with 2 or 3 dots: it's ever possible that not any book is explaining that ??

Different signs = different meaning but what are the "new ones" that are not personal opinions of the executors/conductors ?

having not explanation founded, from the Author, on the score ...

I don't think you can find this in a book. Maybe in Kurt Stone's, "Music Notation in Twentieth Century". Many of these symbols are new, if there's nothing in the labeling of the score, you may guess by the context. Or go to a fortune teller! :D

But usually you can take it by the context. Or talk to composer if he's alive! Always the best source.

I don't think you can find this in a book. Maybe in Kurt Stone's, "Music Notation in Twentieth Century". Many of these symbols are new, if there's nothing in the labeling of the score, you may guess by the context. Or go to a fortune teller! :D

But usually you can take it by the context. Or talk to composer if he's alive! Always the best source.

The I have to contact Pierre Boulez. Sorry but on my understanding this doesn't make any sense. I refuse this "logic" to work

The fact that not any semiography is in some way "standardized" ,and to "contact the author" without because there is not any explanation, is without any logic and the common sense. Thus if he's dead: the meaning of his code is gone...

As far as I remember, music notation was invented (like all the notations in many other fields) to transmit the work from the author to 3rd parties.

And the manner to work asking to the author otherwise I'm blind etc, sends me back into the middle age and even before Gregorian chants.

Let me run to find a way to contact Boulez :veryunsure: i hope I'll be lucky

Well, may be a "explanatory page", with the meaning of all unusual symbols used in this music somewhere. This is the standard for compositions using new or uncommon symbols. If you couldn't find for this work, try searching in another Boulez' works from same period. Or from his contemporaries, there's a chance these symbols been used again.

Well, may be a "explanatory page", with the meaning of all unusual symbols used in this music somewhere. This is the standard for compositions using new or uncommon symbols. If you couldn't find for this work, try searching in another Boulez' works from same period. Or from his contemporaries, there's a chance these symbols been used again.

I will certainly follow your indications.

Indeed I was looking for a way to contact Boulez directly but I didn't find any address/email.

Thank you Kenhimura :)