|
|
| MakeMusic Forum > Public Forums > Finale - Macintosh > Shouldn't a Fermata be a note-attached expression? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Writer of Music
Registered Member
      
Date Joined Aug 2011
Total Posts : 314
| Posted 9/14/2012 12:02 AM (GMT -5) |   | The first line of the attached image tells me to play a note of three quarters and add some duration at the end of that note because of the fermata. The conductor (if there is one and he does give beats) will give me three beats of a quarter and hold that last one until he gives me a cue to continue with the fourth beat. And when the conductor does not give beats or there is no conductor at all, he (conductor, leader, anyone in charge of interpretation) will give me a signal when to continue with the fourth beat.
The second line tells me to play a note of a total of three quarters and add some duration at the end of that note because of the fermata. The conductor (if there is one and he does give beats) will give me three beats of a quarter and hold that last one until he gives me a cue to continue with the fourth beat. And when the conductor does not give beats or there is no conductor at all, he (conductor, leader, anyone in charge of interpretation) will give me a signal when to continue with the fourth beat.
The third line tells me to play a note of a total of three quarters and add some duration at the end of that note because of the fermata. The conductor (if there is one and he does give beats) will give me three beats of a quarter and hold that last one until he gives me a cue to continue with the fourth beat. And when the conductor does not give beats or there is no conductor at all, he (conductor, leader, anyone in charge of interpretation) will give me a signal when to continue with the fourth beat.
The fourth line tells me to play a note of a total of three quarters and add some duration at the end of that note because of the fermata. The conductor (if there is one and he does give beats) will give me three beats of a quarter and hold that last one until he gives me a cue to continue with the fourth beat. And when the conductor does not give beats or there is no conductor at all, he (conductor, leader, anyone in charge of interpretation) will give me a signal when to continue with the fourth beat.
It may well be that I’m deaf, dumb, blind, thickheaded and pedantic, but to me all four lines give the exact same result and will be treated the exact same way by me and any other player on this globe. And that is because of the fact that the fermata takes place at the end of the note, not the beginning. Whether the note with a fermata is the dotted half or the 32nd, the lengthening of that note is not before the total duration of that note has passed. As a player you will have to count the full length of three quarters for whatever subdivision of notes is given to you and add some extra duration after that — as a conductor you will have to beat (in gesture or in mind) three quarters to the full extend and hold after those three quarters for as long as you want the fermata to be; you'll give a signal when to continue with the fourth beat.
The only difference is that the first notated line is the least cluttered one of all and therefor the most clear one. May well be that that is the reason why we, dinosaurs, still use this method of notation for over four hundreds years, because it did make sense then and still makes sense now.
The fermata in between rests in Motet’s example simply says that rests have to be lengthened/added as needed in order to give the singer (or in similar examples: soloist) room to sing/play his part a piacere. It doesn’t refer to any particular beat and is not directly related to the fermata in the singer’s part. The ‘in between rests’ kind of fermata is often seen in rubato passages, cadenza-like passages, etc. It should not be 'corrected' as in Motet's b-example.
Finale 2012b.rc1
Mac OS X 10.8, 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8 GB 1067 MHz DDR3Post Edited (Writer of Music) : 9/13/2012 11:11:28 PM (GMT-5)
Image Attachment :
Example.png 16KB (image/png)This image has been viewed 47 time(s). | | | |
| | Back to Top | |
 |
tbmartin
Yuba-Meister
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 1576
| Posted 9/14/2012 2:10 PM (GMT -5) | | Ok, folks: I’m going to ask you to change the lens though which you’re looking at this issue for just a minute. Bear with me for a moment:
Cue notes that help you make an entrance (ignore the “substitute for a missing instrument” use for now): They tell you nothing about your part. You’re going to be silent until you reach the first full-sized note. What they DO tell you is what’s happening in the other part(s), so that you have the best chance of entering correctly. If a part has 48 measures of rest, the score could have 48 measures full of cue notes (cluttered, but 100% correct), or it could simply have a 48-bar-multi-measure rest (concise and 100% correct, but risks a missed entrance), or a 47-bar-multi-measure rest, plus 1 measure of cues (a 100% correct middle position that balances clutter with extra information to help the player’s entrance). Every player around the globe would play each version exactly the same. The conductor may or may not cue your entrance, but even if he does, having the cue notes helps avoid mistakes.
So cue notes are unnecessary and add clutter, but provide some information about the other parts that might be useful. So where is the dividing line? How long or short should a period of rest be before you consider adding cue notes? How many cue notes should a part have? Just the final beat? One full measure? Two? The answer totally depends on what’s happening in the music and striking a balance between the extra clutter and the extra information that helps the player make a correct entrance.
Now go back to subdivided notes: They tell you nothing about your part. You’re going to hold until cued by the conductor. What they DO tell you is what’s happening in the other parts (specifically that other parts keep moving and join the hold later), so that you have the best chance of ending correctly, and making your next entrance correctly. Every player around the globe would play each of Maker of Music’s examples exactly the same. With a fermata, the conductor MUST cue the end of the note, but having the subdivided notes might help avoid mistakes.
A 48-bar rest with no cues might mean “Don’t worry, your entrance will be blindingly obvious,” or it could mean “Errors-be-damned, any dolt who can’t count measures of rest should be fired!”
A single note with a fermata might mean “Don’t worry, a few parts move a bit while you’re holding, but they’ll all stop and hold in a second,” or it could mean “I don’t care if everyone around you is playing lots of different notes and the conductor is still moving his arms, you just hold your stinking note until told otherwise!”
So subdivided notes, just like cue notes, are unnecessary and add clutter, but provide some information about the other parts that might be useful. So where is the dividing line? Just like with cue notes, it totally depends on what’s happening in the music and striking a balance between the extra clutter and the extra information that helps the player make a correct cutoff and entrance. “Maker of Music” believes that the extra information is of very little value (perhaps even zero value) and does not justify the added clutter. Fine. Don’t subdivide the notes and your music will be 100% correct. Others out there believe that there might be some situations where the added information about the other parts is worth a small increase in clutter. Fine. Subdivide as you see fit, and your music will be 100% correct.
So, Maker of Music, you are NOT a dinasaur, you are simply deciding that the information conveyed by subdivided notes is less valuable than the cost of the extra clutter. Many composers and printers, past and present, agree with that assessment. Other people are finding (or envisioning) some situations where the extra information is worth the extra clutter. You like your beer warm and dark. I like mine cold and amber. Great! Let's knock back a few and enjoy the music!
Terence
Saxophone Quartet Arranger
Using Finale 2003a, Windows XP Pro and Vista Post Edited (tbmartin) : 9/14/2012 1:13:37 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | |
|
Writer of Music
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2011
Total Posts : 314
| Posted 9/14/2012 2:42 PM (GMT -5) | | @ Christopher Smith:
I would never write this down in either of these ways. You shouldn’t use a number of fermatas in a row. A fermata is used for a single note that has to be held longer than its normal duration. Several longer held notes in a row is a passage in a lower tempo, a tempo change. In such a case it is far more preferable to write the tempo change (however brief) in words (e.g. “broader”, “ritenuto”), in a lower metronome number, etc.
See for example a very similar passage to that effect in Mahler’s 4th (first movement, m.3), where Mahler writes sehr zurückhaltend, molto ritenuto, which is quite sufficient.
Finale 2012b.rc1
Mac OS X 10.8, 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8 GB 1067 MHz DDR3 | | Back to Top | |
|
Writer of Music
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2011
Total Posts : 314
| Posted 9/14/2012 3:10 PM (GMT -5) | | @ tbmartin:
I would love to sample cold and amber beer, but despite asking all waiters several times I have yet to be presented one, so I'm bereft of the opportunity to judge for myself whether that beer will be to my taste or not. Still, in this case my taste is not up for discussion.
I'm not asking people to break the spines of their precious scores for scans; neither did I — all scans are taken from imslp.org. I don't even expect an example in literature (because I know it will be very, very hard to find one), but please cook up a hypothetical example in which subdividing a note with fermata does make sense. I assure you, I will be the first to acknowledge that there are indeed instances where this way of notation may be preferable and will be grateful for having learned something. Simply saying: "you're wrong and I'm right" isn't going to cut it.
What I still do not appreciate is being prosecuted, judged and executed without a shred of evidence to the contrary. Very, very unfortunately this happens a lot on this board (and just about any other board on the internet). Would this board be so much nicer if we all allow each other to learn and accept that none of us is omniscient? But please teach us by showing us and explaining to us, not by saying: "no, you're wrong".
Finale 2012b.rc1
Mac OS X 10.8, 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8 GB 1067 MHz DDR3Post Edited (Writer of Music) : 9/14/2012 2:15:52 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | |
|
tbmartin
Yuba-Meister
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 1576
| Posted 9/14/2012 4:03 PM (GMT -5) | |
Writer of Music said...
...
... please cook up a hypothetical example in which subdividing a note with fermata does make sense. .... Simply saying: "you're wrong and I'm right" isn't going to cut it.
What I still do not appreciate is being prosecuted, judged and executed without a shred of evidence to the contrary. ...
A slow 4/4, everyone's parts has running 16ths. My part also has running 16ths, but it's a bit repetitive such that it's possible to either miscount or otherwise lose your place. The next measure, my part is a dotted quarter with a fermata, but everyone else keeps playing running 16ths until beat 3. Speaking personally, I would appreciate a half tied to a quarter with a fermata as confirmation that, yes, my part holds steady but the other players and the conductor will join me on beat 3. Without that marking, during the first rehearsal I would take my trusty pencil and write the numeral "3" and put a fermata over it. Yes, I've actually done that in my music at times.
When I perform, I value that information, but that's a personal statement. You believe that the added information is not worth the extra clutter, and that's a personal statement too. You are leaving that choice to the performer. Some might make a mark like what I do, or something else, and many would be just fine with it exactly as printed. Neither is wrong, just different. I don't think I ever said you were wrong, and I believe I said you were right several times. I'm sorry for any offense you took from my posts, because that was not the intent. Now, about that beer.....
Terence
Saxophone Quartet Arranger
Using Finale 2003a, Windows XP Pro and Vista | | Back to Top | |
|
Flint
silly bear
Date Joined Oct 2006
Total Posts : 2393
| Posted 9/14/2012 4:04 PM (GMT -5) | | You're not going to find examples on IMSLP because the music there by-and-large is old music no longer in copyright, and therefore presented in old-fashioned notation. I'm sure none of the sacred cows available there would merit any reproach from one decrying "interesting-looking" music. 
Terrence has made a perfectly decent assessment of the situation, and so far WoM is just continuing to be obtuse and dismissive (purposely or otherwise). Obviously there are situations where subdivision creates clarity, and personally, in my music I prefer to be consistent, therefore I notate my music with clarity in mind.
I wish you well in your endeavors, and pity your performers (if there are any). Good day.
woodwind specialist and doubler - Finale 2011b using Speedy Entry - no capslock, GPO 2nd ed. Full version, Garritan Jazz & Big Band, Garritan Concert and Marching Band, Windows 7 64-bit SP1, 4GB RAM, Soundblaster Audigy II zs
If the composer says in effect to the performer: "I do not care whether you perform my music or not," we cannot argue the matter. But if he indicates: "I want you to perform and respond to this music," then his fundamental duty is to write his music so that it is accessible to interpretation. When the performer cannot approach the composer's meaning because of capriciously obscure notation, he may in effect say to the composer: "Why should I bother to puzzle out your music?" - Gardner Read
"Finale 2012 ate my bay-bay." | | Back to Top | |
|
Writer of Music
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2011
Total Posts : 314
| Posted 9/14/2012 5:13 PM (GMT -5) | | @Flint:
As long as you are not willing to give one single example of when subdivision is clearer than a single note, but insist on vague statements as "obviously there are situations", please stay out of the discussion. You are not helping anyone, least of all yourself. It's awfully easy to be a nay-sayer, but could you please vouch for your opinion with examples, evidence or at least a solid and sound reasoning?
I'm still not charmed by your derogatory talk.
@Christopher Smith:
I just said how they are wrong. Why do you insist I have to repeat everything over and over again? You cannot mix signs with different meanings and have them act as substitutes for each other. Who do you expect to understand that you see them as substitutes for each other? Clarity is the essence, but only if all is clear to everyone. Either all parts show the caesura, or all show the fermata.
@tbmartin:
I'm not sure how the other parts, continuing to do what they (and you) were doing before, could possibly confuse you on the first half of that second measure. Your part shows a dotted quarter with fermata, which means you have to play a note with the duration of three quarters, which will be lengthened at the end for as long as required by he who is in charge of the interpretation. What all other parts do during that dotted half is of no effect to you — they, in turn, play their notes (regardless of how many) for the duration of those exact same three quarters and will lengthen their last note (the one that has their fermata) for as long as required.
Please explain to me how you could possibly get confused while playing a dotted half?
Finale 2012b.rc1
Mac OS X 10.8, 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8 GB 1067 MHz DDR3 | | Back to Top | |
|
tbmartin
Yuba-Meister
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 1576
| Posted 9/14/2012 6:13 PM (GMT -5) | |
Writer of Music said...@tbmartin: I'm not sure how the other parts, continuing to do what they (and you) were doing before, could possibly confuse you on the first half of that second measure. Your part shows a dotted quarter with fermata, which means you have to play a note with the duration of three quarters, which will be lengthened at the end for as long as required by he who is in charge of the interpretation. What all other parts do during that dotted half is of no effect to you — they, in turn, play their notes (regardless of how many) for the duration of those exact same three quarters and will lengthen their last note (the one that has their fermata) for as long as required. Please explain to me how you could possibly get confused while playing a dotted half?
Because everyone else still has moving parts and conductor is still waving his arms during what might be expected to be a stop in the action, I might have, just maybe, miscounted my repetetive part and might be off by a measure. Or two. Just knowing that my part is supposed to stop before the others is reassuring that I may, in fact, be in the correct place. I am not at all confused about how to play the dotted half. Or when it starts. And yes, everyone here understands that it will be lengthened at the end for as long as required by he who is in charge. The only thing that might be in doubt is whether I am on the same measure as everyone else.
If you have never doubted what measure you should be in while playing in a group, or wondered whether you've miscounted a multi-bar rest, or never over- or under-repeated a repetitive pattern, then I am an idiot and I bow to your obvious superiority. (I have a great amount of patience, but I have now reached the end of it. So yes, please DO take offense at that last statement.)
Terence Saxophone Quartet Arranger Using Finale 2003a, Windows XP Pro and Vista | | Back to Top | |
|
Writer of Music
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2011
Total Posts : 314
| Posted 9/14/2012 7:06 PM (GMT -5) | | @tbmartin:
Surely, you will have played long notes before while others had a lot going on? Did that ever make you confused — I'm sure, it didn't. Why, then, does it make you insecure when there is a fermata over that note? Nothing changed: without the fermata you counted your three quarters and moved on (referring to above examples), with the fermata you count your three quarters, respect the hold with all other players and move on. Better yet, when you have a long note with a fermata you can stop counting, because all you need to do is catch the conductor's cue for continuation.
As such, I would rather have a note with a fermata, because it certifies that the conductor will give me the fourth beat. As we have seen before, many conductors do not gesticulate beats, so, without the fermata, I may very well never 'see' that fourth beat and will have to rely entirely on my own to get it in place.
It doesn't mean there is a stop in the action as soon as you get a note with fermata. Your part does not stop before the others. It may be your last note, but doesn't mean it is everyone else's last note before the music moves on. And, again, the fermata-part of a note only kicks in at the end of the note, not at the beginning. So, a dotted half with a fermata is a normal dotted half, but with an extension in duration after the three quarters. That extension after the three quarters is equal for every other player in the orchestra/ensemble: you all make the same hold together. Your part stops with the others. What happens during the normal three quarters is not different from what may be happening during any other three quarters in the piece.
This is why I say there should not be any confusion. If you strip the fermata from all parts, you will get the exact same music as you will play with the fermata, only after beat three, but before beat four we all hold our respective notes. The fermata is not on beat three, or on beat one (in your part). The fermata, the hold, is after beat three, before beat four. Because that's when they all hold, regardless of what their last notes before that are like. That's all there is to it. This is also why it is irrelevant to know what other parts are doing during your long note, before the hold.
We have been giving very simple examples. Think of a fermata in a Ferneyhough score. Which one of all the extremely busy parts would you like be shown as cue notes or as subdivision of your long note in your part? Or, less extreme (and already Jurassic): think of a fermata in an Ives score. Which of all the parts in a different time signature would you like to see as cue notes or subdivision in your part? I can assure you: you really don't want to see any of them, because they will throw you more off course than a simple dotted half could possibly do.
When you realise that it doesn't matter what others are playing, because you simply need to play your note and hold it at the end until given the cue (just as all the others will have to do as well), fermatas are a piece of cake.
Finale 2012b.rc1
Mac OS X 10.8, 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8 GB 1067 MHz DDR3Post Edited (Writer of Music) : 9/14/2012 6:18:02 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | |
|
Charles Lawrence
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2009
Total Posts : 1095
| Posted 9/14/2012 9:01 PM (GMT -5) | | | Writer of Music,
You are a piece of work! Who are you anyway? Are you for real, or just an anonymous pseudonym? Who do you "write music" for? I pity your clients, if you really have any. Who do you teach? Woe be unto them!
As I have said, I am an amateur musician with 55 years of playing horn experience, do not write music or engrave for a living. I do not teach any students. My use of Finale is a hobby. I pride myself on having patience, tolerance, understanding, and common sense, character traits which you have failed to demonstrate by the tone of your diatribes. I said I understand your point and agree with it mostly, as others have also said, but your intolerant, pedantic, pig-headed stubborness in refusing to accept the common sense idea that subdividing fermatas can improve clarity in many cases has tried mine, and the patience of many others following this thread, to the point that we are giving up trying to carry on with this dialog. Take offense if you must, but know, that before this last post, none was intended. Good day to you sir.
I called for civility and here I am being uncivil and intolerant. I apologize to all the readers of this thread, and to the moderators, and hope that I am not banned!
Dell XPS 600, GenuineIntel Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.00GHz [Intel64 Family 15 Model 4 Stepping 4] (2 processors)
8GB Ram
HT Omega Striker 7.1
MSI N430GT 2GB GPU
1TB x 4 internal HD's
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Edition, (06.01.7600.00)
Finale 2012b.r1Post Edited (Charles Lawrence) : 9/14/2012 8:56:20 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | |
|
Writer of Music
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2011
Total Posts : 314
| Posted 9/14/2012 10:03 PM (GMT -5) | | Once more: please give one single example of the "common sense idea that subdividing fermatas can improve clarity in many cases". It has been asked over and over again, page after page, not just by me, but by others as well, and you and all the other nay-sayers have produced nothing but baked air. It is mathematically evident that subdivision of the note has no meaning whatsoever.
Please do not try to use such a stale technique as turning tables; it will never win you any dispute. I have illustrated my point with a number of examples and am quite willing to give ample more. I have not been given one single actual or hypothetical example from you or the others, yet you have the nerve to call me “intolerant, pedantic, pig-headed and stubborn”. I DO take offense by your abusive language and demand an apology.
I have been patient enough to try and explain to you, page after page, why there is no need for any subdivision of notes to clarify a fermata, and why this notational convention makes as much sense now as it did in the days of Monteverdi, but you have proven to not even be willing to be taught. Who, I pray, is ‘pedantic, intolerant, pig-headed and stubborn’?
I have not once in this discussion stooped to the level of belittling any of you, not as a person, not as a professional, but have taken time and effort to explain the same thing over and over again in hopefully more clear wordings. Yet, I receive line after line, post after post in which you and the others prove to ridicule me, look down on me, a person you yourself claim not to know. I once more DO take offense and demand an apology.
If you value this board in any way, I strongly beg you and the others to adjust your argumentation manners.
Conclusion: The effect of a fermata does not take place during the note the fermata is on. The effect of a fermata takes place after the full length of the note it is placed on and is equal for all players. Since the note a fermata is on is not effected and both the subsequent moment and length of the hold is equal for all players, it makes no sense whatsoever to subdivide the note that proceeds the hold. This will only lead to cluttering and has no meaning whatsoever.
Finale 2012b.rc1
Mac OS X 10.8, 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8 GB 1067 MHz DDR3 | | Back to Top | |
| 150 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:17 AM (GMT -5)
There are a total of 350,091 posts in 52,949 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 28 new threads and 223 reply posts. View Active Threads
| | Who's Online | This forum has 29771 registered members. Please welcome our newest member, yaadoo.
14 Guest(s), 1 Registered Member(s) are currently online. Details
Michel R. E. |
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2013 |
|
|