NOTATIO

John Ruggero wrote:Knut, I don't have Kurt Stone's book and I don't have enough context to really understand the quote, but if his system is based on tempo and context, I think that this too indefinite and open to confusion.

So I need someone to tell me what is wrong with the simple system outlined above.

My problem with your system is that it defines a certain number of slashes to be unanimous with unmeasured tremolos, regardless of tempo or note values. I am a proponent of a more flexible system, based on musical judgement, and a dynamic relationship between measured and unmeasured tremolos. This might result in confusion if not handled properly, but if one overcompensates a bit, the number of slashes which at the given tempo is too fast to be effectively playable as measured tremolo, would to me be the appropriate indication for unmeasured tremolo. Normally, as Stone points out, the upper limit is four slashes (although, SMuFL recommends an upper limit of five).

For music requiring an extended number of slashes to clearly indicate unmeasured tremolo, or composers such as yourself, who want a firm separation between the repeated notes of a measured tremolo and the effect of an unmeasured tremolo, one should use one of the alternate symbols suggested by OCTO throughout the piece for unmeasured, and reserve the slashes for measured tremolos.

I agree with Knut about your system, John.
Here is a question to John and others too:

How would you notate:
1. (unmeasured) tremolo: 2. -measured repetitions ( -tremolo):

John, in your defense, it seems that your system, as supported by some earlier comments by others, (3 slashes (or sometimes 4 at slow tempos) indicate unmeasured tremolo, while any less than that indicate measured tremolo) probably is the most commonly used system for distinguishing between measured and unmeasured tremolos today. While this very broad based system can cause confusion in a number of scenarios, it's wide spread acceptance might result in some confusion with the system that OCTO and I agree upon as well, particularly when three slashes is meant to indicate measured 32nd notes.

Nevertheless, I think that a system based on tempo and context is able to convey more musical results in many cases, and when handled properly, should be without ambiguity, provided of course that it is not mistaken for a less flexible system.

OCTO wrote: Here is a question to John and others too:

How would you notate:
1. (unmeasured) tremolo:

shot 2.jpg

2. -measured repetitions ( -tremolo):

shot 1.jpg

Are measured 32nd notes at Presto even physically possible to play on any instrument, and would it's sound really be distinguishable from an unmeasured tremolo?

Knut wrote:

OCTO wrote: Here is a question to John and others too:

How would you notate:
1. (unmeasured) tremolo:

shot 2.jpg

2. -measured repetitions ( -tremolo):

shot 1.jpg

Are measured 32nd notes at Presto even physically possible to play on any instrument, and would it's sound really be distinguishable from an unmeasured tremolo?

We take it pure idealistic. If you prefer, use Allegro.

OK, since I think you would really need to go as slow as moderato to be able to hear any difference, I chose another solution.
Anyway, here's how I'd do it, using my relative system:
If other passages in the score didn't clarify the system, I'd probably add non term. above the last case.

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.

Sorry I am a bit late with this. It was done without reference to any of the latest comments, which I haven't read yet.

The non trem. in my submission is probably redundant, as is the trem.

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

Edit: Sorry for the error, Knut, the Z symbol looks like a double slash on my monitor and I only just caught it. But maybe that would be a problem with this symbol in actual use?

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 realize that the decision to use three or four slashes for unmeasured tremolos is not clearly spelled out in my rules. So I would add one more rule for non-beamed notes when notating unmeasured tremolos:

Use three slashes in medium and fast tempos and four slashes in slow tempos.