In a piece I have sections that recur (rondo-like) throughout. Each of those sections has a piano-bass ostinato (“vamp” — it’s a jazz work) based on 2-bar patterns. For the piano pedaling I use “sim.” after the first instance within the first of the sections.
But…
has anyone ever seen something like “sempre sim.” applied in a case like this, meaning that whenever this same pattern returns in future sections, the pedaling should be the same? (I’m tempted just to write nothing special and leave it to the player’s musicality to recognize the return, but what would y’all do?)
I’d just leave it to the player – especially if you’re writing for engraving, not playback. If you want it to be more clear, maybe just write “ped sim.” or something to designate that the section is supposed to be pedaled the same way.
I’ve never heard of that. Good to know. Although it’s less likely (though not unlikely) that a jazz musician would understand a rarely used Italian term. No offense to the jazz players out there
I thought about writing as above or come sopra, @Sergei_Mozart (quite familiar to me), but this “rondo-y” section returns often enough that I didn’t want to be overly “precious” at the expense of both the score’s and part’s clarity and the musician’s intelligence (which is what I think you’re obliquely getting at, @hamsandwichnow).
Jazz players will see the same figuration and play it the same way unless instructed otherwise. I don’t think they would ever read the absence of markings to mean Do it differently.
