NOTATIO

The problem is that there is simply no tradition of exactitude regarding the Ped. marking. It originated as a kind of "clarification", telling the player that the pedal IS to be used and in the "normal" way that experienced players understand.

Here is a link to the current Henle edition of the Chopin Etudes. Note that in demo pages 1 and 4, the position of the Ped. markings vary considerably, and that the "P" rarely aligns with the note that the marking is intended for. Alignment is not necessary, because everyone knows what is meant.

http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/look_inside?R=3764818

The Ped. was never intended for the kind of precision sometimes required in complex contemporary piano music. For this reason, I think that the standard all-bracket system is best for any music with exacting pedal requirements.

And if one wanted to create a new standard of precision for the Ped. marking, the "P" in the Ped. symbol is amorphous and just the wrong shape to pin anything down with certainty. Is it the central post of the P that is the marker? The curving left outside edge? No one will know without a rather embarrassing explanation.

John Ruggero wrote:The Ped. was never intended for the kind of precision sometimes required in complex contemporary piano music. For this reason, I think that the standard all-bracket system is best for any music with exacting pedal requirements.

And if one wanted to create a new standard of precision for the Ped. marking, the "P" in the Ped. symbol is amorphous and just the wrong shape to pin anything down with certainty. Is it the central post of the P that is the marker? The curving left outside edge? No one will know without a rather embarrassing explanation.

I find it very hard to disagree with a competent pianist such as yourself on piano specific notation, and I've honestly never thought about the fact that the shape of the might be more unfit for exact placement than any ordinary text indication. I guess I've never encountered spacing so tight that this would be a problem. Even so, Gould does not specifically advocate using the traditional, stylized marking together with a bracket. In fact, all supporting examples in her book feature the text indication in a regular serif font.

In your Henle example there is an abundance of space, and it would not be possible to misunderstand the exact pedal entry without very inaccurate placement. Similarly, in in such cases, there is no need, neither is it particularly common, to left align any other text indication exactly. My feeling is that in very tight situations, however, it would become clear that the leftmost vertical stem or bowl of the first letter (or shape) in any text indication marks the entry point of that particular technique, tempo or expression, simply because any other alignment would be ambiguous.

You have a very good point about the regular font Ped, Knut. It can be more accurate than the traditional one. And as you say, Gould shows both, but only the Ped. with a bracket.

However, there is yet another issue: the sustaining pedal may be depressed on, before or after a tone, which creates quite different effects. I think that the all-bracket system is a simpler, cleaner, and more precise way to notate this as well.

And I think that a simple bracket is more aesthetically pleasing than a symbol consisting of text plus a solid line, which is too busy, especially en masse.

But as I mentioned, I prefer the traditional symbols Ped. * to all bracket systems, since I only indicate pedaling for special effects and leave the rest to the player's judgement.

John Ruggero wrote:However, there is yet another issue: the sustaining pedal may be depressed on, before or after a tone, which creates quite different effects. I think that the all-bracket system is a simpler, cleaner, and more precise way to notate this as well.

And I think that a simple bracket is more aesthetically pleasing than a symbol consisting of text plus a solid line, which is too busy, especially en masse.

Your first point is an issue I haven't really thought about, but I do agree that when there is a need for the pedaling to reflect such detail in the context of very tight spacing, using brackets only seems like a better option.

I totally agree with your second point.

BTW, in Sibelius the default pedaling styles are the traditional with either asterisk or bracket.

If Sibelius doesn't offer the plain text plus line, it would cast some doubt on whether Gould's version is really so prevalent in Britain. Or is Sibelius just as clueless about pedaling as Finale, which relegates pedaling brackets to an option two layers deep?

I just downloaded the trial version of Sibelius to see for myself the advantages and disadvantages of this software vs. Finale.

Gould's pedaling and the all-bracket systems are both missing in Sibelius. Only the traditional symbol is used with solid and dashed lines and the traditional asterisk. However, I was able to piece together standard pedaling brackets by modifying the normal brackets. It is amazing how a musical notation used daily by many thousands of students as well as thousands of professionals in the US has to be constructed by the user, yet obscure symbols employed by a specialists are there in spades.

I don't see Finale as being clueless about pedalling. there is an option to use the classic ped and asterisk as articulations (pre set in all files), as expressions (needs to be set up) or the more modern lines and brackets (preset as smart shapes in all new files)

Perhaps these don't affect playback, I don't know, though I'd have thought HP would correctly interpret them in a Piano part.

Graphically however, everything necessary seems to be in place.

Finale Help on bracket pedal marks:

http://www.finalemusic.com/UserManuals/ ... dal_on_off

There is no mention of the fact that, as far as I can make out, three symbols must be used for pedal brackets, a bracket with a left hook, a bracket with a right hook, and a bracket with an inverted v hook at one end. And a fourth bracket double-hooked bracket would also also convenient. These must all be assigned to various smart shape icons and then laid in, piece by laborious piece.

What is needed is a smart shape "piano pedaling tool" that would allow bracket pedal marks to be inserted by double-clicking to start, dragging and single-clicking to insert v wedges, and then double-clicking to end. If this actually exists, I will retract my too hasty description of Finale as "clueless" about piano pedaling

And in playing back, Finale needs to allow a series of traditional Ped. markings (Ped. Ped. Ped. etc.) to cancel each other without intervening asterisks, as described in my original post. Then I would describe Finale as "intelligent" about piano pedaling.

Hmmm, I'm not really sympathetic with the "laborious" implied criticism, probably because I began setting scores using notaset when i had to measure out and draw every staff line and bar line and stem, line by laborious line.

I suppose people who began their music setting on computer have a different perspective.

I guess at least one who started out as a hand copyist (me) and switched to a computer is now spoiled! However, couldn't one say that about so many aspects of computer engraving? Why have smart shapes, keyboard shortcuts, or whatever? Isn't this all just coddling? No, I think that when a computer can save us pointless labor, it should.

Actually, I can draw piano pedaling brackets much faster by hand than I can with Finale, but, of course, not of autography quality. Maybe that is another reason I liked the all-bracket system for indicating intricate pedaling in editions I prepared for my students: it was so much faster by hand without Ped.s to worry about.