placing tempo markings in a score

[MichelRE]

I have a question about tempo markings in orchestral scores (and it applies in a smaller way to chamber music as well.)

In a large orchestral score I understand that it's normal to have a tempo marking repeat at the top staff of every instrument group (woodwinds, brass, percussion, strings), which is clear for the conductor to quickly be able to scan any important markings in a score.

But what if you have a work for small orchestra, for example a soloist and strings? It would seem normal to have a tempo marking above the soloist's staff... but then, does one immediately repeat the marking above the 1st violins? it seems rather close and repetitive. But on the other hand it looks funny to have the tempo over either the soloist or the section strings, but not the other.

This becomes an issue if one does any heavy compression in the score (like removing staves for almost an entire section. I tend to avoid doing this, preferring to leave blank staves to fill out as much as possible a similar amount of space on each page.)

The same goes for chamber music... for example, a piano trio. Does a tempo mark go over the violin AND the piano? only the violin?

Gould doesn't seem to mention this in her chapter on tempo markings, though I may simply not have found where she talks about it elsewhere in the book.

[John Ruggero]

I've often wondered the same, because you see this many different ways.

When it comes to sonatas with piano accompaniment, I prefer to see a tempo indication over both instruments. In trios the piano would gets one and the other is at the top.

I just looked over a number of large and small orchestral scores with and without soloists. A number of systems have been used. One on top only. One at the top and one above the strings. One at the top and one at the bottom. One above very section. One at the top and one above the solo piano etc. There may not be a standard, even today. The goal would seem to be visibility without cluttering up the score.

[MichelRE]

that has also been my experience, John. I'm finding it difficult to get any sense of a consensus.

There are so many times where having markings over soloist AND strings looks clutter-ish. Yet removing one of those seems to be lacking something.

I had an orchestral score where it had condensed down to a single flute, a single horn, and strings... and having tempo markings on flute, horn AND strings just made it look ridiculous. (this was about the time I decided to do away with such extreme condensing of orchestral scores. I had confirmation from a conductor that he was one who preferred to see a bunch of empty staves rather than have to hunt down on each page where the tops of various sections were placed. The exception for me to this was where there was a prolonged section of only strings. I permitted, in that specific instance, the removal of all empty staves, which laid out a nice set of three systems of only string on a single page.)

(LOL, edit: I corrected a typo, where it said I used a single "lute"... yeah, I haven't done any baroque music in ages.)

[JJP]

I find it often depends on how the score is going to be used. If it’s an orchestral work where only a conductor will be viewing it, usually a top line plus strings is enough. However, if there is a soloist, like a concerto, it can also be helpful to have a tempo indication over the soloist. Sometimes the conductor may be following the solo line for phrasing, and it can be useful to have a tempo indication on that line.

For chamber works, it can also depend on the size of the page for the score. If it’s a smaller-sized page, a single tempo at the top may be sufficient. The eye can easily take in the tempo indication at the top even when looking elsewhere. The exception to this may be when the score will also be used to accompany rehearsal, or one of the instrumentalists (usually keyboard) will be reading from the score, perhaps while cueing the ensemble. Then it is imperative to have the tempo markings on that performer’s part.

However, conductors often have their own things they like to see, and will mark up their scores as they like. As long as tempi are clear, they may be satisfied. Thus, none of these are rules. They come from my experience. Context and judgement always rule the day!

[JJP]

One more thought… The advice about leaving empty staves in the score is definitely well-heeded. Unless it’s a quite long section that is only one or a few instruments (like a cadenza or an entire movement), it can be quite disorienting to flip a page and suddenly have a completely different stave layout. The conductor must quickly read the staff labels to understand exactly who is playing. Leaving all the staves in place makes it abundantly clear who is playing and who is resting simply by the shape of the music on the page. It looks more like it sounds.

[OCTO]

In a large orchestral score I understand that it's normal to have a tempo marking repeat at the top staff of every instrument group (woodwinds, brass, percussion, strings), which is clear for the conductor to quickly be able to scan any important markings in a score.

Actually, the tempo is placed only at the top of the first group and at the top of the Strings (last group), and nowhere else, by default.  I don't say that there are no other solutions.  For instance Prokofiev Violin Concerto 1 (while a large orchestra is used, it is quite chamber-orchestrated) at Boosey have one tempo marking at the top of the whole system and below the system (!), while at Muzgiz there is at the top and at the Strings, I prefer Muzgiz, and I get confused by Boosey.

Having a soloist doesn't make any difference, I would say. If you compress the score, put above the last group your "secondary" tempo indication.