The glissando can’t begin after the first note and end before the second note - as there is no space in between. So the gliss. would “borrow” some time of the first note and probably also a bit from the second note. The notation implies that one has an audible start- and an audible end-note. The glissando therefore must start somewhere in the middle of the first note and probably end on the last note or slightly later.
The procedure is so commonplace that it goes unnoticed.
It gets tricky, if the notation involves tied notes. Example: my composer wants to start his first note on the second sixteenth of the first beat - and the second note on the middle of beat two:
The problem is: one cannot properly notate the first note without a tied notation. This implies that the glissando will start very late. He does not want that, instead notate the first note as a double dotted eighth note or a double dotted quarter note - which is both wrong. I’m sure some people will argue that it’s possible in Finale – ouch!
I suggested to not use a regular notation, but a square note head instead (without a stem). But that is actually unclear to the player and therefore unsatisfactory:
There are some conventions for notating the progress of a glissando, including where to start it and how much of it should be done at different points along its length. Behind Bars has some things to say, but the most useful one for you is likely the recommendation to divide the initial note to indicate the start of the gliss precisely. If needed, you can gliss from a grace note that’s tied to the rest of the duration.
If the start point isn’t so precise, the gliss can start at an indeterminate point, rising to the terminal note from no real start point.
Thank you, yes Elaine Gould has a lot of good examples, but they offer the opposite of, what I am asked to do: use one note only at the beginning - instead of two, like here:
If I understand you correctly, you’re looking for an unconventional notation. While it may be bizarre to a player, it does give the composer’s intention more clearly… and it is not impossible.
Is this what you want?
I used lock duration on the sixteenth, entered the quarter, lock duration for the second quarter, and tied the sixteenth & quarter, then added the gliss line. My only thought (for clarity) might be to show the second quarter as tied eighths — but I’m no expert on this kind of thing!
— Jim
Either what Janus proposed or, perhaps, your original notation with the second note of the tie chain bearing a hidden notehead and the glissando line starting from the first note (through a custom horizontal line). I have recently used that in a real piece for a real customer!
I used a combination of Janus’s and Michele’s suggestions.
The grey parenthised note head helps, until the glissando line has to cross it (it will hide behind the grey note head). So the solid line is the way to go. It is slightly thicker (and I will still have to go into the line editor and make a thinner line).
Btw., the c# is an octave lower, I just put it up in the prior examples to give a clearer picture.
The square note head is supposed to let the string (gamba) player use a forced bow pressure and release it after the gliss.
Composer do love to go into these micro details:
