Timeline for How to write string divisi sections w/ different instructions correctly
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 10, 2019 at 21:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackMusic/status/1182400563968970759 | ||
| Oct 10, 2019 at 18:02 | comment | added | Walter | In fairness, film scores are specifically the kind of music I compose (well, as an amateur at home, anyway). | |
| Oct 10, 2019 at 13:05 | comment | added | jjmusicnotes | I would not use a film score as an example for engraving. Film scores have a slightly different notation style / shorthand to reflect the work being done on soundstages. Such shorthand doesn't typically translate well to performers outside film. | |
| Oct 9, 2019 at 18:32 | history | edited | Walter | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Clarified a point.
|
| Oct 9, 2019 at 18:29 | comment | added | Walter | Thanks for clarifying. Re: the first example, I wrote it that way based on how a similar instruction – “½ ord., ½ trem.” – appears in the Edward Scissorhands score published by Omni, and I tried to adapt it to my own score where the same split happens, but with both playing sul pont.. I’ll give the double-noteheads trick a try, see how it looks. Thanks again. | |
| Oct 9, 2019 at 13:24 | comment | added | jjmusicnotes | Re: "soli", was just an example since I obviously wouldn't know the proper context. Your updated example looks much clearer. Re: first example, I will amend my previous comment by saying that: in the score, you could likely get away with using a double notehead, labeling it "div. sul pont", and then labeling the bottom side of the staff "trem." with added tremolo articulation markings on the doubled notehead to be clear. In the score, you could leave this on one staff. In the parts, you would want to create two staves for that section. No matter what you do you will have questions. | |
| Oct 9, 2019 at 12:59 | answer | added | MattPutnam | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 9, 2019 at 10:44 | answer | added | guest | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 9, 2019 at 3:36 | comment | added | Walter | @jjmusicnotes Thanks for the feedback. Re: the second example, I’ve edited the OP with a new version that specifies the number of players for each section; is it clearer this way? (I’m not sure about using “soli” since that implies to “play in a soloistic manner” (Gould, Behind Bars) and that’s not the sound I’m going for. | |
| Oct 9, 2019 at 3:31 | history | edited | Walter | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added an update.
|
| Oct 9, 2019 at 3:05 | comment | added | jjmusicnotes | As 2nd example is currently written: you have marked that you want 1st viola part divided 3 ways, but played in unison. You want the 2nd viola part divided three ways. These directions are confusing. If you do not yet own a copy of Elaine Gould's Behind Bars, I highly recommend adding it to your library. | |
| Oct 9, 2019 at 3:03 | comment | added | jjmusicnotes | For the first example, I'd separate the staves. To be clear, you're going to want to show the exact difference. As it currently stands the directions to a performer would be very confusing. Other solutions that come to mind would be equally confusing, so it's just not worth it. For the 2nd example, the first viola section (melody) should just be labeled "soli" or however many violas you want playing that melody. The 2nd line should be just labeled "div.". Players will automatically split the notes accordingly. No "div." label means you want each performer to play both notes. | |
| Oct 9, 2019 at 2:46 | history | asked | Walter | CC BY-SA 4.0 |