Hello, I’ve looked to see if this is possible, but can’t seem to find anything.
For string parts, I’m looking for a way to apply a bowing for a single note, and then have all logically resulting bowings be assigned downstream, following the slurs, etc. If any particular bowing were changed, all subsequent bowings (downs and ups) would reflow accordingly. And of course, one could choose to show /hide particular bowings by default. It would function like the harp pedal calculator, which “keeps track” of the current pedal configuration at any moment.
This would be a great time saver, for me at least.
All right, but in that case, I would still not expect any software to mark all subsequent bowings. Such a feature is a recipe for a ruined part cluttered with wrong markings, in the hands of a user who doesn’t know better.
Except it’s anti-musical and not really how bowing is calculated.
Quite often while a non string player might think that a down bow is followed by an up bow, an actual string player might simply break the bow stroke and still do both notes as down (or up) bows.
Usually, the bowing will be calculated to musical effect, and not to mechanical considerations. (for example it might be unusual to start a strong crescendo with a down bow, or the effect might actually be what’s desired because of what follows.)
I certainly would never hand string players a part with every single note bowed. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
The thought of this arose when both the concert master and I were sitting over a Dorico score with some fairly complex bowings. We had made a single change on a particular note, and thought, wouldn’t it be cool if all the subsequent bowings could somehow reflow so we could see where a passage was ending up, bowing-wise.
It’s an interesting thought! How clever would it really need to be, I wonder? Would the expectation be that it could simply “flip” every subsequent upbow to a downbow or vice versa, or would you also expect it to try to work out by looking at which notes are not slurred and which are under slurs whether the bowing mark “matches” Dorico’s count of whether the bow should be moving up or down at that point? If the latter, how would Dorico account for held notes where the players tend to bow more freely? Would a note over a certain (real time) duration count as a sort of “reset”, with the assumption that the next note would be a downbow unless otherwise marked?
It is an intriguing idea, but I wonder how practical it would be for us to be able to make it work in a way that does what you expect every time?
String player here. No. Sometimes bowing is just run-of-the-mill easy, and you don’t notate it at all. Only notate what’s necessary, i.e. where things are unexpected or ‘special effect’. And for an experienced player, some effects will be associated with a certain bowing anyway.
I admit, in many orchestral parts lots of unnecessary bowings are added by the concert master/section leaders (in pencil, never printed! it makes a huge difference) just to be sure everyone is doing the same, but it often feels like overkill. Some bowings are just too obvious. I have a strong dislike of ‘printed’ bowings if they’re not musically relevant. They feel pedantic.
[Edit to add:]
I sometimes fantasise about a ‘penciled’ style for bowings (and fingerings), to use in orchestral parts that are distributed digitally among players. It really matters whether bowings are the composer’s impeccable Urtext, or just the preference of the fallible section leader. It would save the orchestra librarians a lot of time re-scanning the annotated parts.
And, of course, for educational material, things are totally different.
Daniel, thank you for your reply, and sorry if it’s a bother for anyone, not my intention. I’ll try to clarify even better:
I wasn’t suggesting putting lots and lots of bowings in each part (string player also here myself, and I understand how string parts should look and work).
In our case, my concert-master and I were preparing a part for a Fauré Requiem performance (see attached, with far more bowings than either of us would like to see): Requiem (Fauré) Vla 1 bowed.pdf (86.1 KB).
She had preferred bowings she’d used many times and wanted to have in the parts so we’d avoid using rehearsal time. (Like a lot of pick-up orchestra performances, we had only one dress rehearsal with the choir.) She acknowledged that some of them might seem complex, but that “they work every time.” I put them in, but then found myself having to mentally “bow through” a phrase to find out where subsequent bowings would land. And if I changed a particular bowing, I’d have to “mentally re-bow” the phrase.
I was simply thinking it’d be nice to have a utility in Dorico (for my eyes only, not the performers’) that would show where a single bowing mark would land you, two bars later, on a down-beat, for example. And if I wanted to, I could flip a switch on a given note, and the bowing WOULD become visible.
Hope that’s clearer. I seem to have generated more heat than light, so I’ll withdraw the question if it’s bothering people.
No, I think I now understand better why you suggest it. Your proposal is not bothering me at all. I just hope inexperienced orchestrators/copyists won’t ever be tempted to think they can ‘solve’ bowing this way.
I don’t think it bothers anyone, but this autobowing idea isn’t taking into account the dynamics and the tempo and possibly other few things, which begs its worth. Sounds better as a plugin.
I think there is a place for, select a few bars and toggle bowings for those bars. I used to play violin. I’m not sure I would use it very often at all however. I might use it in full awareness of knowing I might then have to change a few after doing this…
Maybe it is filter up and down bows, f to flip or switch.
For example you might add a bar somewhere and various things like bowing need swapping after that point.
