NOTATIO

I can consult Behind Bars, but I want to eventually get more information from your experience.

In Finale, the default tempo alterations (rit. accel. a tempo...) are TNR italic 12 pt. I find it to small, conflicting with expressions (the same font and size, and particularly in vocal music when expressions and dynamics are placed above the staff).

I want to change it but I am unsure to what style.

I know other forum members disagree with this practice, but I use the same font style for all tempo-related markings: Regular, bold, ± 14 pt. (dependening on font proportions). That way there is no conflict with other markings, and the score will seem more consistent overall.

Knut wrote:I know other forum members disagree with this practice, but I use the same font style for all tempo-related markings: Regular, bold, ± 14 pt. (dependening on font proportions). That way there is no conflict with other markings, and the score will seem more consistent overall.

I actually try to follow a similar approach. You're not alone, Knut. I put dynamic markings in italic, but not tempo markings.

That is something I believe is a very good solution. Thanks for your response.

Skickat från min GT-I9100 via Tapatalk

I follow older practice and use a roman font for markings that set the tempo and italics for tempo modifications.

MJCube wrote:I follow older practice and use a roman font for markings that set the tempo and italics for tempo modifications.

What sizes and styles you use? Italic = size, bold?

Sibelius’s default is Times 13-point relative to a 7mm staff. So I guess that would be 15¾ point on Finale’s 24-point staff. For tempos I prefer a less compact face than Times, such as Century or Oldstyle 7. Italics of the same point size are suitable. No boldface.

If I might also say my opinion,
I prefer the font sizes...

One for Tempo Markings: Century Expanded Bold 16pt
Other one for Expressions and so: Century Old Style Italic/Roman 14pt

These sizes correspond (almost) to spaces of a stave. Please see also a example.

Hey guys.. since it seems to be topic for it..

I found out that each publisher basically follows his own style, so I'm not sure there's 'standard' when it comes to it.. I'm talking about both positioning and appearance of tempo markings/alterations. The only common thing that everyone does seems to be putting explicit tempo markings (as in new segment of music with set tempo, often with M.M. mark) above the top staff..

What I'm curious about is positioning.. according to Gould, temp fluctuation such as "rit." should be put in roman font, despite 'old practice' doing it in italics. Also, when there's only one staff above the piano, tempo markings should appear only at the top. I checked some sheet music I have, and it seems to be the case, however some do include tempo markings right above the piano and above the cued solo part, even if it's a duet piece.

Some do put fluctuations above the top staff, some in between piano staves + in each instrument if there's more than one (so, "accel." in 3 staves in trio for example). Even the same publisher, depending on the composer will put stuff like ritardando with roman font above the staff. I feel confused about all this.. so I guess the question: since I'll engrave mainly piano + solo instrument pieces, what would you do? Currently I'm thinking about two options:

1) Explicit tempo segments of course above the solo part (3/4 size but font with normal size) in roman font; "rit." "a tempo" in italics and the same position - above the solo part.

2) Tempo the same, but fluctuations in between piano staves.. but then I'd still put "a tempo" above the piano..

Overall, the more scores I browse, the more I'm confused.. your thoughts on this?

UPDATE:

Oh, I somehow missed it, but G. Schirmer explains it pretty nicely!

So, they use 12 pt. bold font for tempo markings and all tempo fluctuations such as "rit." "rall." etc, are in 12 pt italics and are going above the same staves as the tempo indications.

Also "some terms, like piu mosso, can be used as an alteration of tempo ar as a new tempo. Often, if the tempo indication is accompanied by a metronome marking, it indicates a new tempo (and should be boldface). Ultimately, the editor must examine the context to make a final determination. Note that alterations of tempo align with the note, not the time signature."

I guess I answered my own question.. but I like Schirmer's approach. Tempo always above the staff, expressive markings always below. So if you don't see anything above, you can be sure you'll not be surprised by a wild tempo alteration. Paid a lot for it (rip international shipping, almost cost me twice the cost of the book), but it's definitely worth it. Simple and clear.. and I couldn't get anything useful from Gould or G. Read..

I agree with the practice of many members here of putting major alterations in roman and minor ones (rit., etc.) in italic. It helps one to easily differentiate between the two of them.

My usual sizes and typefaces are:
Roman: IM Fell Great Primer, 14pt
Italic: EB Garamond, 15pt

Regarding positioning, in a recent engraving of a contemporary composer's piano piece I placed all "major" alterations above both staves and "minor" ones between the staves.