Hello, I am copying a score from around 1920.
The composer uses accents that resemble an upbow (but they are definitely accents).
Searching through the articulation section of SMUFL I could not find a glyph specific to this case: Articulation - Standard Music Font Layout (SMuFL)
I am sure, these accents are being used elsewhere, may be in wind band music?
The middle one:
Here my example from a string quartet:
Yes, but here staccatissimo does not make sense:
It must be a variant of notating accents.
After having done some googling, there are other occurrences it seems:
Asking the bible Gardner Read, this could be also a more avant-gardist notation a lĂĄ Stockhausen.
People like him used it as a per note dynamic marking which meant: one degree louder.
If I were this composerâs teacher, Iâd strongly advise them never to use bow markings for other purposes⌠In this case, upbows donât seem very likely, but theyâre not impossible either.
In the past (classical period, notably with Haydn), âstaccatissimoâ wedges seem to not always have been signs of extreme shortness, but rather a form of âsharpâ articulation, like a short accent, or starting a note with a more audible âconsonantâ. They could occur on longer notes. In the manuscripts, they mostly look like short vertical lines, though, never like upbows. In 19th century editions, these wedges were (too) often simply replaced by staccato dots, which are not really the same thing. Fortunately, modern-day Urtexts correct this.
What Iâd like to suggest here is investigating other manuscripts and editions by this composer, to find out if this is really their idiosyncratic accentuation style, or maybe a bowing after all.
Yes, I was just hoping to find someone who has come across this way of notation yet. Somewhere in the depths of the internet I found some (not very reliable) hints, that these accents were used in marching band music.
Youâre right, now that we can see more of it, I agree we can rule out bowing marks. For the sake of being true to the original (and not rewrite anything just like that), Iâd keep the âupbowâ notation, and definitely add an editorial comment to the score.
As also a string player myself, I would prefer to see the bowing marks used only for bowing, and only sparingly at that. Players will want to mark their parts with their own bowings, and, in this case, if they see a printed bowing mark, will have to do a double take to remind themselves that it means something else.
If you can find any indication of the performance practice at the time of these pieces, you might use a modern symbol for the equivalent, including a text note. Per @benwiggyâs observation, you will likely have some âsplaininâ to do anyway.
I would use the marcato (below) glyph. (To my eye the upbow just looks wrong)
If there are no traditional marcato articulations in the original, you could simply redefine the marcato (above) music symbol for this project to use the marcato (below) glyph.
FWIW Stravinsky uses a breath mark for the chorus in Symphony of Psalms which looks like an up bow - Dorico includes this glyph under breath marks in Fermatas.
Good question! But I guess this marking is common enough that the team has included it under Breath Marks, even though I donât remember seeing it in other pieces. I sang the piece with a choir a couple of years ago and didnât notice it then, until I engraved it!
Especially since the text is Latin, I could see asking for a breath/slight pause just before a final syllable to give it a slightly extra âattackâ (which could be likened to an accent, but the mark is before rather than on the note).
(Stravinsky, I understand, once said he liked setting Latin texts because there was no convention to the accent pattern (or something like that) suggesting he enjoyed the extra flexibility the Latin text provided.)
