I just wanted to propose the idea to include pedal abbreviation or symbol to the bracket option for pedal lines:
In this case, the word or continuation symbol could be over the line:
I know that it may not be very common, but bracketed gradual tempo changes, could also be a good idea:
Are these ideas of your own invention, or are you following in the footsteps of particular composers/publishers?
As far as I know, they are my own ideas, but I can’t assure this. In any case, I think they are very logical and allow a more precise definition of the beginning and end of these markings. I also have some other ideas that you might find interesting. If you don’t mind, I will send you my last composition which I edited with a vectorial graphic editor as current music editors where too far from I wanted…
By the way, I think that the process in which software designers are after the composers/editors thoughts and ideas could be sometimes reversed. Your power is very high! If you offer a good idea to the creative community it will be spread with ease. In my opinion, your function is not only to serve to past notation needs, but also to impulse the future of notation! Dorico is already in the way, I’m just trying to help!
Adding new options for the appearance for standard notations is not a zero-cost activity. It costs serious time and money to provide completely general appearances for notations. In an ideal world we would provide that fullly general set of tools for every notation, but it takes enough time to support the commonly-used conventions that it is unfortunately not practical for us to go far beyond that point. I also think that there is a lot to be said for using established conventions wherever possible, as established conventions are by definition the most widely understood. That is not to say that there is no room for individual expression in notation on the part of composers, of course, but I think it should be limited to the areas where established conventions are insufficient.
Let’s leave the evolution of music notation alone, then. It will work as well and steady as always
The problem with all pedal “notation” is that the fine details of playing technique are can’t be notated in any practical way. The pedal isn’t a simple “on’-off switch” (unlike simple virtual instrument versions of it!) The speed of depression and release, and the relative timing of the notes and pedalling, is critical to the sound that is produced, and the difference between one effect and another is measured in milliseconds, not musical beats.
That’s why the Yamaha Disklavier pedal motors have an accuracy of 1024 position steps between “fully up” and “fully down” for recording human performances - the standard MIDI resolution of 256 steps wasn’t good enough to accurately capture how humans actually play.
(And may VST instruments only have two steps - “up” or “down”…)
Or you can give us lines, even if you can’t define all instances of a line semantically.
For pedalling in particular, I don’t really mind whether the score has “Ped”, the traditional curly “P”, or a bracket.
But I don’t see the point of using more than one, unless your notation uses the same shaped brackets for many different things and you need text to differentiate them - but that is a bigger “notation redesign” question than just pedalling.
Yes, of course, and you know that is our plan.
You are absolutely right, but this could be applied to almost every music parameter (for example, dynamics or position of the bow). This is because the indication of the evolution of these parameters with a “fuction” line is so important to me. Bracket lines are just the beginning of this idea. I think we should have absolute control of the lines, even to be able to curve them (straight glissandos?? why could we not indicate a glissando that speeds up with a curved line?). I show a pair of examples:
I think that this is not a personal desire, but an important way to show the evolution of musical parameters that much composers are already using. Brackets are a particular example of this, where the value changes abruptly at the beginning or the end of the passage. Dorico offers the possibility to change the inclination of the hook of the bracket to indicate a slow entering or leaving of the pedal. That’s very good! But, in my opinion, this is part of a larger concept that should be considered: to be able to control the extension lines and brackets of any parameter in a very free way, even allow to curve them. I imagine that this must be very difficult to implement, specially if one wants to affect playing…
Yes, I mentioned pedalling, but my ideas go beyond pedal notation…
Well, I don’t; I certainly wasn’t being flippant, and you are – rightfully – reserved about features you haven’t gotten around to. (Unless I missed or am forgetting any prior discussion here?) The team is obviously aware that there are a whole host of notational practices that need them, but I have no idea how much leeway you plan to give users when you get there. That was my original point, to clarify.
I think we also need to be careful, as composers, about trying to tyrannically dictate every micro breath/motion/whatever. You cannot remove the human element (indeed, one shouldn’t!). It is certainly right to have a clear idea of the “ideal” (intellectually speaking) and to want to be able to convey that graphically, but I’ve seen scores so bogged down by markings as to overtake the music itself and that’s a dangerous place to be.
I agree that live players need some flexibility for their own interpretation.
And computer performance is better dictated through controller lanes than being too precious with the notation.
I like this quote (from an 20th century composer) - especially the last sentence:
Oh, my God: not. this. again. You do not know what you are talking about. You do not know the music that is notated this way. You do not know its players and practitioners. You do not know its esthetic and poietic underpinnings. You’ve said it so yourself in past threads, all of you. Please stop treating others like children in matters where they have invested considerably more time in thought and practice than you. It is beyond condescending, and that hubris reflects poorly on your command of the admirable wealth of musical practices you all have shown to know intimately.
Quite right. My apologies.
I don’t see this as anything to do with esthetics and poesis. The issue is simply effective communication.
And when I read stuff like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poiesis from Wikipedia, I don’t see much evidence of a link between poesis and effective communication …
Furthermore, Dreyfus and Dorrance Kelly urge each person to become a sort of “craftsman” whose responsibility it is to refine their faculty for poiesis in order to achieve existential meaning in their lives and to reconcile their bodies with whatever transcendence there is to be had in life itself:
Must go now, there’s a tree in my garden that needs hugging.
Could you understand me if I replied to you in Mandarin, Rob? Does that make it a linguistic system incapable of conceiving and communicating meaning?
I assure you the matter here is entirely effective communication, yes. You just have little to no idea what’s being communicated, how it needs to be communicated, or why, or the alternatives, or who’s reading it. Just like a racecar, there can be such as thing as too little friction. In your case, there is so little friction that everything just slides past, and no information takes root.
And your quip about the wikipedia article for poiesis speaks volumes, Rob: you’ve taken as your example the very last paragraph of the article, entirely skipping or disregarding the basic definitions, context and reasoning that led there, and decided to present half a sentence of a conclusion of sorts (a paragraph that starts with “furthermore”!), for comedic effect, as the entirety of the argument. (It’s also quite funny because it’s perfectly readable
As does your Sorabji quote. You seemed very worried to assert that he’s very much a 20th century composer. Maybe you think the 20th century (last century, that is) was a uniform block of common practice in the arts. Maybe it was in case we noticed that he very much stands on top of a tradition that spans some 300 years of stable, consolidated notational and performance practices that informed what certain devices alluded to without specifically specifying them, and wanted to divert attention. Do you think that he actually means intelligence literally? Do you think you don’t get the music at hand because you’re not intelligent – or because the people writing and performing this music are less intelligent than yourself? But then again: your poster guy for clear communication was a secluded man whose pieces were performed by himself at first, who had famously bad performances of his music when it was first done by others, and later banned public performances of his music until late in his life.
Best regards to your tree. I’m sure it knows the importance of ecosystems.