Tuesday, November 25, 2008

On Musical Detail (3)

I just finished going through a submitted score for this second project, and, in the interest of saving you all some time and potential grief, I'll share with you some of the detail issues that came up. You may be feeling as though you understand all that needs to be understood about musical detail ("I get it! My score must be really detailed!"), but your score may be suggesting otherwise. In no particular order, here are some of the issues that came up in the score I just saw:
  • Tempo indication (i.e., metronome marking, and/or tempo adjective like Moderato) and starting mood descriptor (e.g., "intense") should only be at the top of the first system (i.e., violin) in the score, and sometimes above the piano as well since piano usually reads from the score.

    • This applies to the score, but when generating parts each part gets its own tempo indication.

    • In orchestra scores, each instrument family gets its own tempo marking; the top woodwind instrument, top brass instrument, top percussion staff, and violin I all have tempo indications.

    • Tempo indications should be left-aligned with the metre indication; the start of the tempo indication should align with the metre.

    • It is good practice to indicate how much or an accell. or rit. you want by writing a target tempo.

    • If accell. and rit. move to a new tempo that is only slightly different from the previous tempo, use the "poco" modifier, eg, poco accell. or poco rit.

    • When the rit. or accell. is over, write "a tempo" to continue at the new tempo indicated by the target tempo referenced above.

    • If you want to return to the starting tempo, write tempo 1° (tempo primo).

    • If you change tempo, indicate the change using the same format used at the beginning of your score. In most cases, that will mean having a metronome marking ("quarter = 92") as well as a mood descriptor (e.g., "playful"). If the new tempo does not coincide with a metre indication, left-align the tempo indication with the start of the bar (as opposed to left-aligning it with the metre, which you do at the start of the composition).

    • A new tempo should not start in the middle of a bar; it must be at the start of a bar. If, for example, you want a tempo change to occur on beat 3 of a 4/4 bar, make it into a 2/4 bar so that the tempo change can occur on the downbeat of the next bar.

  • As mentioned above, the pianist typically reads from the score, presumably because someone in the ensemble needs to know how it all is supposed to fit together. Sometimes the instruments above the piano use slightly smaller staff sizes, in part to make it easier for the pianist to easily distinguish their part from the others, and in part to allow more systems per page. But don't try for, say, 3 systems on a page if doing so results in a cramped appearance.

  • EVERY entry following more than a bar of rest should get its own dynamic.

  • Hairpins should have a destination dynamic, like "f" if crescendo, or "pp" if diminuendo; don't write a hairpin with no indication as to how loud or soft you want to be at the end of the hairpin. They also need a starting dynamic, but it isn't necessary to write a starting dynamic if it is clear from the previous measures what the dynamic should be.

    • Hairpin lengths should be reasonable, taking into account the amount of dynamic change over the span of the hairpin. For example, an increase of one dynamic level, such as p to mp, is very small, so the corresponding hairpin should be very short. If the dynamic change is larger, such as p to f, the corresponding hairpin can be longer. But even with a p to f hairpin, the length should be reasonable. It is obviously difficult to exactly how long a hairpin can reasonably be, but I have seen hairpins spanning 8 or more bars with very little dynamic change, and this is definitely unreasonable!

    • If you want to write longer, more gradual crescendi and diminuendi, I recommend orchestrating the dynamic change. For example, if you want a long cresc. start with a very thin texture and a pp dynamic, then gradually add instruments and expand the register to include increasingly higher and lower notes, and this by itself will create an effective cresc. even if the dynamic remains at pp for the added instruments. Increasing the dynamic beyond pp in this fuller texture will result in a more dynamic crescendo

  • Don't attach dynamics to rests (!).

  • Make sure there are no improperly-grouped rests or beams. Groupings usually follow the basic beat structure of the metre and its subdivisions,

  • If writing for wind instruments, where do they breathe? If you whistle through the part at tempo (don't worry if you don't get all the pitches right!), it will make it easier to determine where the best places to breathe would be.

  • String bowings MUST be in the score. This doesn't mean the 'up' and 'down' direction indicators, necessarily (although you can put them in when there is some specific direction that you want, like a series of downbows, for example), but it does mean putting slurs over groups of notes that are to be played with one bow. How to do this if you're not a violinist? Go through your string part playing 'air violin' or 'air cello' (in other words, bowing through the music on an invisible instrument; probably best attempted in private!), and feel what the best way to group notes would be. Then, once you have marked in your bowings, take it to a string player and ask them to play through it with a real instrument, and figure out how close you came to achieving what you actually want. If you do this a lot, you eventually develop a natural feel for how best to bow your own music.

  • Don't create big, loopy slurs; they tend to collide with other score elements, like other slurs, dynamics, notes, accents, etc.

  • Speaking of collisions, AVOID THEM! Notation software sometimes creates (or at least allows) collisions between dynamics and articulations, or slurs and notes, or written instructions and slurs, etc. These must be fixed.

  • Be picky in your page layout. If using multiple systems per page (which applies to everybody), make sure the systems are far enough apart so that dynamics, articulations, slurs, etc. in the bottom line of one system do not collide with anything in the top line of the next system. There is sometimes slightly more space between the piano part and the instruments above it, again to facilitate reading from the score for the pianist.

  • Also, keyboard instruments only need one dynamic, in the space between the LH and RH, unless the LH and RH are playing different dynamics.

  • And don't forget to find the clearest enharmonic note spellings possible; notation software is notorious for occasionally making poor choices for you in this regard.

  • Proof-read everything, especially parts. It's amazing what you can miss if you don't go through every part, bar by bar, checking to make sure all dynamics and other score information are there.

17 comments:

Jessica Blenis said...

Heh....Good to see that my score went to good use! I got a lot of good stuff out of this particular blog entry, and learned some things about how to properly prepare a score before handing it in...What fun is life, though, if you don't make a bunch of mistakes along the way? Thanks for all the help!

Bus said...

As far as the formatting goes, does it matter if one page 3 systems and the following has a different amount? And when you say every entry after more then 1 bar of rest needs a dynamic marking is that completely nessecary? I ask because, in my piece when the clarinet is playing the solo line the tenor sax plays a background figure, then rests for one full bar, and then comes in with another background figure that is similar to the first, to me having an additional dynamic marking here seems redundant.

Oh, and do arco and pizz go above or below the staff? And when you have one of those and a dynamic which one is above the other?

Jill A. said...

I really appreciate this post as a good reminder of what should be included in the final scores of our compositions. I know it is very important to put in the details as you go, but when editing and trying to get your piece completed it is quite easy to forget something. Also, not everyone knows how to notate certain instructions on their scores.
Thanks for the all of the help and reinforcement!

Clark Ross said...

Neil, I only just saw your comment, so apologies for the delayed response... Briefly, 'pizz.' and 'arco' go above the staff, dynamics below. When an instrument comes in after a one-bar rest, and it continues in a similar way what was before the rest, a dynamic is probably not necessary, strictly speaking. But it is still a good idea.

It is not unusual in orchestral music to have pages with different numbers of systems, but it is less common in chamber music (but still possible, if one instrument is resting for a long time).

Unknown said...

mmmm, yes... proof reading. I always learn the hard way about proof reading. It really does help! And saves you a few dozen marks I would assume!
I have to remember that it is just like writing a paper. But writing a paper has been something I have been doing since high school, so proof reading is second nature to me now. I just need to remember that music is so much like writing. Its hard to see the similarities when you're new at it.

Thanks for the tips Dr. Ross!

Heidi said...

anyone have any idea how to switch instrumentation in the middle of a piece in the finale program? Me and my computer resourcefulness have completely failed at arriving at a solution for this problem. i've had to create two different staffs for "percussion" and "bells" even though it's the same player. Ptherwise does anyone know how you can change the name of the instrument on the side of the score?

Unknown said...

My scores always end up looking like a huge jumble. It is because of my whole written score vs. computer score dilemma. Do I have a weird looking, messy score? or Do I have a clean looking score that doesn't include everything I want?

James Bulgin said...

This is a very helpful and precise list of things to keep in mind when polishing up a score. I certainly found it helpful when going over mine (although I've doubtlessly overlooked stuff, nonetheless)

I found specifying bowings tricky, though. I think I just don't have enough experience with writing for the real thing or even hearing it played. After I read this post, I made a point to try to observe the bowing of other people's pieces as they were performed in class. Hopefully the ones I've notated in my own score are in reasonable positions.

Unknown said...

In response to James' post, I found the best thing to do for learning about bowings was to invite a string player over one evening and just go through the entire piece with all possible bowing solutions. It's amazing how changing an up bow here or a down bow there can complete change the sonority of the piece. In payment I usually offer a plate of cookies or food, haha.

Kate Bevan-Baker said...

I always think that the little details will take less time than they actually do. Bowings especially are tricky! I suppose it's easier for me since I'm a violinst, but I don't want to write too much in my scores because I hate getting music that has every single bowing written in. It's hard to find that good balance, especially when I'm dealing with violin and cello and I want them on the same bow for most of the piece. Dynamics are also tricky because of balance issues. It's hard to put all the dynamics in when you haven't heard your piece yet. You have to guess which instrument will be the loudest texturally and who you want to be heard the most.

I know I could have put in a lot more detail to my final score, but I think I got the main things in there!

squinlan said...

I kind of enjoy sifting through my work and making it all nice and uniform. Maybe it's because of my own OCD compulsions. But going through and ensuring all the dynamic markings, stylistic notes, and technique notes are there gives me great satisfaction!

Adam Batstone said...

This was probably the thing that I learned the most about. Musical Detail!!

Particualy fingerings and string markings for guitar. This can become quite tedious a you can imagine. I used much of the modern rep that I am studying as a reference for my scores.

Actually writing the music is only a small aprt of the compositional process. You have to constantly be editing and thinking about your potential preformers.

Unknown said...

This is so useful! This would be such a good final checklist before submitting a score.

I sometimes wish there was a "Writing Centre" for music that was like the Writing Centre on campus! Editing can be so time consuming and draining!

Thanks Dr. Ross!

Evan Harte said...

Every composer should have a copy of these guidelines on them at all times! I find that Sibelius especially (and probably finale too) doesn't always do these things right. For ex. sometimes, Sibelius will try to put expression markings above the staff and sometimes below. This is just a suggestion, but Dr. Ross, this might be a good thing to print off for the composition seminar class at the beginning of the year, just to have. Or at least, make the students aware of this blog entry!

Brad said...

I would definitely say one of the biggest, 'non-musical' things I have taken away from my study here is the importance of the musical detailing. I have seen it in action in the Tuckamore Festival when I had my piece performed there and just listening to the students practicing my piece. It's amazing how a little dynamic turn, or shape can completely lift a whole section into beauty! It is so important, so this is definitely a post to keep bookmarked when writing a future composition.

Unknown said...

Looking at this blog, it was really surprising that there are people out there who struggle with this type of thing. As a Double Bassist, for example, it is always good to include bowings in a part. Bowings not only detail which way you want the bow to go; it indirectly affects how the phrasing of notes, as well. So, it is important to include some bowings, since it affects the music more than what most people think.
Also, I have seen people not write a tempo in. Without a tempo, you are leaving your piece up to chance. There is an excellent chance that your piece will not sound as good as you wanted it to, because the person will be playing it too fast or too slow; the reason that they are playing it too fast and too slow is due to the fact that there is no tempo. So, INCLUDE A TEMPO MARKING!

Madison Braye said...

This list is super helpful for things that I wouldn’t have even thought of, like having the piano staff a little larger than the others in a score for easier reading, and I think it serves as a great check list when pieces get long and fill in and you’re not sure where to start with double checking! The one point that I do find hard to remember is always having a destination dynamic at the end of a hairpin, especially considering I frequently see crescendos and decrescendos back-to-back, without a destination dynamic, to indicate slight swells in phrasing within a lot of the pieces that I play.

Also, just thought I’d mention quickly since you mention breathing for wind instruments here, but I didn’t notice a post specifically for wind instruments, that a rest isn’t always necessary to indicate to wind musicians when to breathe, and it’s super important to consider the ensemble! Breath marks also exist, and most times look better in the score in the case of held notes or if you don’t want a full beat as a breath. And they’re helpful if you determine that the best place to breath is in the middle of a phrase, since if they’re placed in the middle of the phrase, a lot of musicians might take some extra time for the breath, work it in as a part of the music itself, and maybe add some extra performance nuance to the phrase. Also, if you’re writing for a large ensemble with multiple people to a part then it’s not really bad if you write long phrases without rests, since players can stagger breathe. It’s actually super common to see entire pages of music with maybe 3 rests total, especially in marches. And even in solo rep, it’s actually not uncommon to not indicate rests or breath marks at all if the phrases are marked clearly, because sometimes a clear phrase end can act as a really natural indication as to where to breathe. Others may disagree with me, but I know that personally, I would rather have clear phrases and logical places to grab an unwritten breath, than having breaths cued as rests, since then it’s clear that rests are written as intentional silences and not just breathing cues (aside from it being what I’m used to).