[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: text categories in scores
From: |
Simon Albrecht |
Subject: |
Re: text categories in scores |
Date: |
Mon, 9 Jan 2017 21:51:43 +0100 |
On 09.01.2017 21:17, Noeck wrote:
Hi Simon, all,
next to the notes, there are usually these kinds of texts:
1 tempo: bold, above the staff
Above the top staff, that is, and maybe above other staves/staff groups
in larger scorings or piano reductions.
Agogic marks may all be bold, only some, or none.
2 dynamics: in italics, below the staff (depends on the instrument etc.)
3 articulation
4 other
Examples:
1 Allegro, Tempo I, …
2 dolce, dim., cresc., …
3 dolce, staccato, …
4 m.d., simile, …
As mentioned in this thread, some tempo-related expressions are often
written in a different category from what would be logical:
rit. accel. a tempo written like category-2-expressions.
a) Why is that the case? Is there a historical reason for that?
First of all: historically as well as in one piece, those categories are
(usually) difficult to entirely separate:
– Tempo markings as well as agogic markings may only appear on one
staff/part and not the others.
– Is ‘smorzando’ agogic or dynamic? There are different opinions.
– As you wrote yourself: ‘dolce’ affects more than one parameter as well.
&c.
b) Would you recommend to stick to this (rit = category 2) or would you
recommend to separate tempo from other categories?
I think one should strive for a semantic differentiation, i.e. use
MetronomeMark grobs for "rit." and the like, but within reason.
c) Are there correct/scientific categories and terms for these categories
close to mine above (1-4)?
I guess every typography teacher and every house style may have a
slightly different system of categories…
Just my 2cts :-)
Best, Simon