How many slashes for unmeasured tremolos (including beamed)?

[John Ruggero]

I should also say that the use of measured, repeated 32nd-notes in a fast quarter-note pulse is unusual and would need the clarification that I used in the example.

[David Ward]

FWIW (very likely not much) I've experienced a measured tremolo being wrongly played as an unmeasured in my own music, but I have never experienced an unmeasured one being played as measured.

One example I can specify exactly is from a performance in 1987 (heavens! nearly 30 years since). For the SD and timpani I wrote out the first eight demi-semiquavers (32nds) and then the immediately following demi-semiquavers as a triple-slashed measured tremolo. However, as you can hear at 6:22 into this clip http://www.composers-uk.com/davidward/w ... gement.mp3 the first eight written out notes were indeed played as measured, but the remaining slashed ones were played as an unmeasured roll, even though all were supposed to be in the one continuous crescendo.

Since then, I think I've almost always written out measured tremolos in full, even for percussion.

[John Ruggero]

Your point is irrefutable, David! Murphy's Law holds in music as in science; if it can go wrong, it will go wrong.

In calling my own non tremolo marking "probably redundant", I failed to ask myself the basic question: if I actually wanted to notate a measured repetition leading into a tremolo, how else could I do it?

[Knut]

My own general rule (unlike the composer I cited a few days ago) for unmeasured trem. is simply about how fast the notes would be if you wrote it out. 3 slashes works for medium tempo; 4 for Adagio, as above; 2 is enough for Presto. And accounting for the number of beams, as in Knut’s example above. I also agree the verbal indication is sometimes warranted for clarification.

This is pretty much exactly in line with my thinking.

The "or' in Knut's submission would be very confusing to me, since I would immediately interpret the whole note as measured repeated notes.

Since I'm using an entirely unique symbol in this case, I'm curious as to with what frequency you think the notes should be repeated.

It is interesting that both approaches, as presented by Knut and myself, seem to lead to the same results. For this reason, I prefer my rules because they are rational and can be explained and understood clearly.

I resent the implication that my rules are irrational and can't be understood clearly.
But seriously, I think in the vast majority of cases this has more to do with philosophy than anything else, and I don't think it's that difficult to understand either of the approaches used here. That said, while you use four slashes in your example, most people following the same basic philosophy would likely treat three slashes as the maximum, in which case the potential for confusion would be much greater.

With the exception of my alternate solution for non measured tremolos, both our approaches convey exactly the same level of clarity, and have the same potential to be confusing at the very slowest and fastest of tempos. Therefore it would be wise to use a verbal indication if prior passages didn't make them redundant, regardless of the approach. I simply didn't include any here, since I interpreted the question as being concerned with the number of slashes only. I did, however, point out that they should be included if necessary.

[John Ruggero]

The following is tangential from David's post, but mercifully brief.

It is fascinating how a composer's clarification can actually lead to bad results. For example, Chopin preferred the older practice of beginning longer trills on the upper neighboring-tone and expected pianists to do this when playing his symbolized trills as in the first measure of the following example. To distinguish the exceptional principal-note starts, he used the notation shown in the second measure:

Chopin Trill 1.jpeg (18.26 KiB) Viewed 7790 times

Unaware of Chopin's system, several generations of professional pianists actually PLAYED the little clarifying note like this:

Chopin Trill 2.jpeg (8.12 KiB) Viewed 7790 times

Even today, there are those who haven't gotten the word. And all because Chopin wanted to be helpful!!!

Here is probably the most famous example, from the "Heroic" Polonaise:

Chopin Trill 3.jpeg (81.91 KiB) Viewed 7790 times

[Knut]

The following is tangential from David's post, but mercifully brief.

It is fascinating how a composer's clarification can actually lead to bad results. For example, Chopin preferred the older practice of beginning longer trills on the upper neighboring-tone and expected pianists to do this when playing his symbolized trills as in the first measure of the following example. To distinguish the exceptional principal-note starts, he used the notation shown in the second measure:

Chopin Trill 1.jpeg

Unaware of Chopin's system, several generations of professional pianists actually PLAYED the little clarifying note like this:

Chopin Trill 2.jpeg

Even today, there are those who haven't gotten the word. And all because Chopin wanted to be helpful!!!

Here is probably the most famous example, from the "Heroic" Polonaise:

Chopin Trill 3.jpeg

How interesting!

Do you know when the modern trill interpretation was established?

[John Ruggero]

Knut wrote:

Do you know when the modern trill interpretation was established?

This would make a great thread in itself. The short answer is that starting trills on the auxiliary died out during Beethoven's lifetime. So what about Chopin? He was a hold-out, considering himself not a Romanticist, but an heir of Bach and Mozart. For this reason, he used ornamentation much like these composers including various starts to trills. His contemporaries, Mendelssohn and Schumann, used less complex ornamentation and that included the trill which now always started on the principal tone. From that point on, the modern realization had become the standard. When exceptional starts on the auxiliary were called for, a little note was added before the trilled note. This only added to the confusion about Chopin's usage.

I must add that trills and other ornaments were not played by a rulebook in music before Beethoven, and trills could begin in many interesting ways. A case could be made for the fact that musicians before Beethoven were much more imaginative in their use of ornamentation than after him, when other musical values took over. Chopin was the lone exception.

[John Ruggero]

Knut, regarding the Z symbol, please note my edit in that post. I simply misread it.

I am very sorry about the poor choice words, Knut, and apologize if it was offensive. By "rational etc." I meant a series of simple rules that would lead everyone to a good result without much thought. In other words, something that I could quickly impart to a student. Could you present your approach in a similar way? I must confess that I really don't quite understand it, possibly because I do not have the book that you referenced earlier. This may also explain my poor choice of words.

MJCube wrote;

"3 slashes works for medium tempo; 4 for Adagio, as above; 2 is enough for Presto."

This sounds like the start of some rules, but I can't quite make it all out. Do you mean that two slashes on a non-beamed note are enough to show an unmeasured tremolo in a Presto?

[Knut]

Knut, regarding the Z symbol, please note my edit in that post. I simply misread it.

I am very sorry about the poor choice words, Knut, and apologize if it was offensive. By "rational etc." I meant a series of simple rules that would lead everyone to a good result without much thought. In other words, something that I could quickly impart to a student. Could you present your approach in a similar way? I must confess that I really don't quite understand it, possibly because I do not have the book that you referenced earlier. This may also explain my poor choice of words.

MJCube, Do you mean that two slashes on a unstemmed note are enough to show an unmeasured tremolo in a Presto?

Ah, I see. It might perhaps be a problem in some cases, but only because of my own design. In most situations, the consistent usage should make it clear enough, I think. Anyway thanks for the response, I'll look into it.

No offense taken. If you think it's hard to understand the quote, it might be because it references an earlier paragraph on measured tremolos that I had to implement as an i.e. in square brackets. My further edits may have made the text even more confusing. Sorry about that.

Anyway, Kurt Stone's approach is pretty much the same as MJCube's. The main point is to use the number of slashes for unmeasured tremolos which reflect note values more or less impossible to play as measured repetitions at a given tempo. To your question directed to MJCube about whether two slashes would be sufficient in presto, I would answer, no. It would (barely) be possible to play measured 16th notes in at least a slower presto, so to be sure, three slashes should be used. Then what about prestissimo, you might ask. And I would reply that yes, in theory this would be enough, but since three slashes is currently so thoroughly associated with unmeasured tremolo, it would be wise to stay with three to be absolutely clear.

I'm beginning to feel unsure of whether this debate has any practical purpose. As long as you stick with your modified rules of three slashes in fast and four slashes in slow tempos, I can't actually think of a single scenario where our results would differ. Between our respective understanding, I think it simply comes down to how the principles are conveyed, and my intention has been to explain the approach based on the physical and sonic conditions implied by the tempo instead of a fixed set of rules. This may not be a good way explain it, even if it makes sense to me.

[John Ruggero]

And I agree, Knut. This "debate" has no point if the two approaches yield the same result.

Actually, I was hoping that someone would come up with a situation where my rules would not work, so they could be modified, but instead, a debate ensued about the whole approach. Yet, the other apparently more complex approach yielded exactly the same result in a test example. This leaves me wondering why a complex approach would be preferable to one that can be formulated in a few rules?

Here again are the rules, as I amended them:

A. For all beamed or flagged notes:

1. one slash = measured repeated notes
2. two or more slashes = unmeasured tremolo

B. For all unbeamed notes:

1. one or two slashes = measured repeated 1/8- or 16th-notes
2. three slashes (or four in a slow tempo) = tremolo
3. three or more slashes with "non trem." indication = measured 32nd- 64th etc. repeated notes

If these rules actually work, it is what I would use henceforth. But one test example proves nothing. I still hope that these rules can be amended so that I, at least, have a correct but simple approach.