Re: [Finale] Organ dynamics
On 2010/04/18, at 21:56, Ryan Beard wrote: Perhaps I should clarify my situation. I'm engraving a piece for organ by a dead composer. He has marked dynamics in the music. Sometimes there's one marking under the top staff only. Sometimes there's a marking under all three staves. Sometimes there's a marking above the top staff only, because I assume there wasn't any room to put it elsewhere. I would leave them as they are. The composer might have meant different registrations per manual. Once again, I am so behind reading the posts. I was shocked no one mentioned the real organ, such as tracker or positive, can play crescendo even without swell. It's all about the speed of the release. This is why we, who likes organ music, hate listening to pianist playing organ, right? :-) On 2010/04/18, at 16:24, David W. Fenton wrote: If that's referring to me, I'll have you know that I studied organ at Oberlin for two years while get my degree in piano performance, Hi David, was Bill Porter teaching when you were there? I miss his performance. -- - Hiro Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Greater Boston http://a-no-ne.com http://anonemusic.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Organ dynamics
Am adding the earlier email, John. It seems to suggest that dynamics not be included in writing for the organ today. That was something I would like to make clear: that dynamics are important in indicating how a piece is to be interpreted, according to the composer. Have no idea why explicit dynamic writing should NOT be as important to an organist as to any other instrument. ??? Yes, consulting an organist about particulars would be a good idea if you are not an organist of some experience. best, tim On Apr 18, 2010, at 10:50 PM, John Howell wrote: I don't believe I would have suggested not using dynamic markings at all, although I can't quote what I DID write. Others have been much more clear on this point, as I figured they would be. And I deliberately mentioned that I'm not an organist to allow the reader to judge whatever I did say. The pipe organ and the harp are both terra incognita to me, and if I have to write for either I consult a player. Understanding the mechanics is NOT the same as understanding the instrument. All the best, John fo/finale previously: John Howell wrote: Yes, every organ is different. If it has a swell box, all the pipes inside that box are equally affected by the volume control. But there are often other ranks of pipes outside the swell box as well. I think, although I'm not an organist, that the player adjusts balance by choice of stops, not by having a separate volume control for each manual and another for pedals. Probably it's entirely different with an electronic organ, and you never know what the music will be played on. Unless the composer is an organist and writing for a broad range of possible organs, everything is best left to the player. And it isn't really something the engraver should worry about, EXCEPT that you should ask whether the inconsistent dynamic placement was actually done for a reason. John timothy.key.price timothy.key.pr...@valley.net ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Organ dynamics
It is reasonable to have different dynamics on different staves and even at different locations. On most most electronic organs all manuals (staves) and the pedal organ are under expression. Even without expression pedal(s), presets allow instantaneous registration changes to manuals which can change volume and tone dramatically. Roger -Original Message- From: finale-boun...@shsu.edu [mailto:finale-boun...@shsu.edu] On Behalf Of Ryan Beard Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 9:57 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Organ dynamics Wow. Didn't mean to start up such a debate! Perhaps I should clarify my situation. I'm engraving a piece for organ by a dead composer. He has marked dynamics in the music. Sometimes there's one marking under the top staff only. Sometimes there's a marking under all three staves. Sometimes there's a marking above the top staff only, because I assume there wasn't any room to put it elsewhere. Since I don't have much experience with organ music, I don't know if the placement of the dynamics is the result of a lazy copyist (very likely considering other aspects of the MS), or if the dynamics mean something specific to the performer when placed in a particular location. I'd prefer to place the dynamics consistently throughout the whole work. There are no indications for the stops. On Apr 18, 2010, at 6:29 PM, David W. Fenton lists.fin...@dfenton.com wrote: On 18 Apr 2010 at 19:58, timothy.price wrote: On Apr 18, 2010, at 4:24 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 18 Apr 2010 at 9:40, timothy.price wrote: On Apr 17, 2010, at 7:50 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: The player could tell from the content of the music what was intended in regard to all of those parameters. So can any properly-trained modern organist. I've often thought that a good way to test musicianship is to give a player a passage with no dynamics, tempo marking, articulations or bowings and see what they make out of it. From a performers perspective, what you have said is fine, no problem. But the question about indicating performance markings was from a composer who' apparently has ideas as to where he want dynamics. If he wants to have the piece performed with HIS interpretation, then he best place the marking in the score, IMHO. Again, you're mixing contexts. The comment you quote was from my post about Bach's music, not about the original question. Don't pay any attention to non-organist comments, they can be misleading. If that's referring to me, No, I was not referring to you, but to John Howell's previous comment about thinking it best not to include dynamic markings, but that he was not an organist. I think that in the present instance, if you're an engraver of a MS by a dead composer, it's best to leave it alone and let the performer decide, rather than introducing your own judgements on what the dynamics should be, which may or may not be what the composer intended. So, I would agree 100% with John's remarks, which are very much in line with normal practices in editing/engraving music of dead composers where there are ambiguities. If one were to choose to supply a dynamic marking anyway, I think it would be best to clearly indicate that it is an editorial edition, thus leaving it to the performer to choose to honor it or not. But I'd tend to lean towards just leaving it out entirely, as John suggests. Most importantly, some editorial principles transcend the specifics of the instruments involved, and the editorial philosophy behind John's suggestion is one such, in my opinion. Like any music for any instrumentation, write what you want to hear it sound like. Romantic period instruments may have swell boxes, making the stops of that manual capable of dynamics from p to f, and many organ have been adapted. Stops may be applied to only one manual or the pedals independently. There is usually a crescendo pedal which adds stops up to full organ. Usually? This sounds exactly like something a non-organist, or an organist of every limited experience, would say. A large number of instruments lack swell boxes and electronic assistance like pistons and toe studs and the like. Yes, in my experience organs usually do have a crescendo pedal. No? As I said, they only sometimes have swell boxes. Am not sure what you are finding fault with. Hah! I have played on far more instruments that lack any form of dynamic control, because I've been trained almost entirely in older music, and played on historical instruments. So, I've personally played on more organs *without* any expression pedals or toe studs or pistons. The point is that there is no usually about it. Each organ is different, but within a particular tradition of organ building, one is likely to find particular characteristics. I won't go into the details of which traditions are which, but if you're a non-organist composing
Re: [Finale] Organ dynamics
Thank you, Tim. I see the problem. When I wrote everything, I was referring to stop selection rather than to the use of dynamic markings, as the following sentence was intended to make clear. John At 7:05 AM -0400 4/19/10, timothy.price wrote: Am adding the earlier email, John. It seems to suggest that dynamics not be included in writing for the organ today. That was something I would like to make clear: that dynamics are important in indicating how a piece is to be interpreted, according to the composer. Have no idea why explicit dynamic writing should NOT be as important to an organist as to any other instrument. ??? Yes, consulting an organist about particulars would be a good idea if you are not an organist of some experience. best, tim On Apr 18, 2010, at 10:50 PM, John Howell wrote: I don't believe I would have suggested not using dynamic markings at all, although I can't quote what I DID write. Others have been much more clear on this point, as I figured they would be. And I deliberately mentioned that I'm not an organist to allow the reader to judge whatever I did say. The pipe organ and the harp are both terra incognita to me, and if I have to write for either I consult a player. Understanding the mechanics is NOT the same as understanding the instrument. All the best, John fo/finale previously: John Howell wrote: Yes, every organ is different. If it has a swell box, all the pipes inside that box are equally affected by the volume control. But there are often other ranks of pipes outside the swell box as well. I think, although I'm not an organist, that the player adjusts balance by choice of stops, not by having a separate volume control for each manual and another for pedals. Probably it's entirely different with an electronic organ, and you never know what the music will be played on. Unless the composer is an organist and writing for a broad range of possible organs, everything is best left to the player. And it isn't really something the engraver should worry about, EXCEPT that you should ask whether the inconsistent dynamic placement was actually done for a reason. John timothy.key.price timothy.key.pr...@valley.net ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Organ dynamics
Guess I got lucky when they recorded my organ piece--there was only one sound that I envisioned that the player oouldn't pull out of the instrument, and what he did find worked in very well with the rest of the texture. Aaron J. Rabushka who never has played the organ Roger Cain rogerc...@pstel.net wrote: It is reasonable to have different dynamics on different staves and even at different locations. On most most electronic organs all manuals (staves) and the pedal organ are under expression. Even without expression pedal(s), presets allow instantaneous registration changes to manuals which can change volume and tone dramatically. Roger -Original Message- From: finale-boun...@shsu.edu [mailto:finale-boun...@shsu.edu] On Behalf Of Ryan Beard Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 9:57 PM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Organ dynamics Wow. Didn't mean to start up such a debate! Perhaps I should clarify my situation. I'm engraving a piece for organ by a dead composer. He has marked dynamics in the music. Sometimes there's one marking under the top staff only. Sometimes there's a marking under all three staves. Sometimes there's a marking above the top staff only, because I assume there wasn't any room to put it elsewhere. Since I don't have much experience with organ music, I don't know if the placement of the dynamics is the result of a lazy copyist (very likely considering other aspects of the MS), or if the dynamics mean something specific to the performer when placed in a particular location. I'd prefer to place the dynamics consistently throughout the whole work. There are no indications for the stops. On Apr 18, 2010, at 6:29 PM, David W. Fenton lists.fin...@dfenton.com wrote: On 18 Apr 2010 at 19:58, timothy.price wrote: On Apr 18, 2010, at 4:24 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 18 Apr 2010 at 9:40, timothy.price wrote: On Apr 17, 2010, at 7:50 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: The player could tell from the content of the music what was intended in regard to all of those parameters. So can any properly-trained modern organist. I've often thought that a good way to test musicianship is to give a player a passage with no dynamics, tempo marking, articulations or bowings and see what they make out of it. From a performers perspective, what you have said is fine, no problem. But the question about indicating performance markings was from a composer who' apparently has ideas as to where he want dynamics. If he wants to have the piece performed with HIS interpretation, then he best place the marking in the score, IMHO. Again, you're mixing contexts. The comment you quote was from my post about Bach's music, not about the original question. Don't pay any attention to non-organist comments, they can be misleading. If that's referring to me, No, I was not referring to you, but to John Howell's previous comment about thinking it best not to include dynamic markings, but that he was not an organist. I think that in the present instance, if you're an engraver of a MS by a dead composer, it's best to leave it alone and let the performer decide, rather than introducing your own judgements on what the dynamics should be, which may or may not be what the composer intended. So, I would agree 100% with John's remarks, which are very much in line with normal practices in editing/engraving music of dead composers where there are ambiguities. If one were to choose to supply a dynamic marking anyway, I think it would be best to clearly indicate that it is an editorial edition, thus leaving it to the performer to choose to honor it or not. But I'd tend to lean towards just leaving it out entirely, as John suggests. Most importantly, some editorial principles transcend the specifics of the instruments involved, and the editorial philosophy behind John's suggestion is one such, in my opinion. Like any music for any instrumentation, write what you want to hear it sound like. Romantic period instruments may have swell boxes, making the stops of that manual capable of dynamics from p to f, and many organ have been adapted. Stops may be applied to only one manual or the pedals independently. There is usually a crescendo pedal which adds stops up to full organ. Usually? This sounds exactly like something a non-organist, or an organist of every limited experience, would say. A large number of instruments lack swell boxes and electronic assistance like pistons and toe studs and the like. Yes, in my experience organs usually do have a crescendo pedal. No? As I said, they only sometimes have swell boxes. Am not sure what you are finding fault with. Hah! I have played on far more instruments that lack any form of dynamic control, because I've been trained almost entirely in older music
Re: [Finale] Organ dynamics
At 3:30 PM -0700 4/17/10, Ryan wrote: Where is it necessary to place the dynamics when writing for organ? The manuscript I'm working from isn't consistent in the placement of dynamics. It also doesn't specify individual stops to use (for example, a trumpet stop that would naturally sound louder than a flute stop), so can one dynamic marking placed in between the top two staves suffice? Would the performer know that the dynamic also applied to the pedals? Are the pedals capable of playing at a different dynamic level than the manuals? I suppose that each organ is built differently, so it would be nearly impossible to prepare for every performance situation. Yes, every organ is different. If it has a swell box, all the pipes inside that box are equally affected by the volume control. But there are often other ranks of pipes outside the swell box as well. I think, although I'm not an organist, that the player adjusts balance by choice of stops, not by having a separate volume control for each manual and another for pedals. Probably it's entirely different with an electronic organ, and you never know what the music will be played on. Unless the composer is an organist and writing for a broad range of possible organs, everything is best left to the player. And it isn't really something the engraver should worry about, EXCEPT that you should ask whether the inconsistent dynamic placement was actually done for a reason. John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Organ dynamics
On Apr 17, 2010, at 7:50 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: The player could tell from the content of the music what was intended in regard to all of those parameters. So can any properly-trained modern organist. That may be the problem with the academic world view of music, thus one might read a book during a properly trained performance. But there is always the genius who comes along, like a Glenn Gould, and makes something his own of it. Bach is always open to interpretation, for sure. Don't pay any attention to non-organist comments, they can be misleading. Like any music for any instrumentation, write what you want to hear it sound like. Romantic period instruments may have swell boxes, making the stops of that manual capable of dynamics from p to f, and many organ have been adapted. Stops may be applied to only one manual or the pedals independently. There is usually a crescendo pedal which adds stops up to full organ. You may indicate different dynamic marking for each staff. Organs are closer to the nuances possible with an orchestra. The organist will be very creative in using the manuals and stops to get as close to your expression markings as he or she can on any instrument, or chose not to. The serendipity is often a pleasant surprise. On simpler, or older instruments, there may be much less control so the only a general form may be obtained. tim On Apr 17, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Ryan wrote: Where is it necessary to place the dynamics when writing for organ? The manuscript I'm working from isn't consistent in the placement of dynamics. It also doesn't specify individual stops to use (for example, a trumpet stop that would naturally sound louder than a flute stop), so can one dynamic marking placed in between the top two staves suffice? Would the performer know that the dynamic also applied to the pedals? Are the pedals capable of playing at a different dynamic level than the manuals? I suppose that each organ is built differently, so it would be nearly impossible to prepare for every performance situation. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale timothy.key.price timothy.key.pr...@valley.net ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Organ dynamics
On 18 Apr 2010 at 9:40, timothy.price wrote: On Apr 17, 2010, at 7:50 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: The player could tell from the content of the music what was intended in regard to all of those parameters. So can any properly-trained modern organist. Note that this comment is taken entirely out of context, where it was referring explicitly to the music of Bach, which had almost no performance indications in the original MSS/editions. What I have said is 100% true about that repertory, and should be true for other repertories, too. I've often thought that a good way to test musicianship is to give a player a passage with no dynamics, tempo marking, articulations or bowings and see what they make out of it. That may be the problem with the academic world view of music, Er, what? I stated FACTS. This isn't a matter of academia vs. the real world (and let me remind you that academics live in the real world, too). thus one might read a book during a properly trained performance. This is complete malarkey, and betrays your personal prejudices. But there is always the genius who comes along, like a Glenn Gould, and makes something his own of it. Bach is always open to interpretation, for sure. What you quote from me did *not* say that any particular performance style was more authentic, or superior to any other. You have read something into the discussion that was not there, and you've made yourself look really foolish. You seem not to have paid much attention to musical performance styles over the last 30 years or so. Practices that used to be limited to the early music movement are now heard in mainstream performances on modern instruments all the time. This is because it's good music making, not because it says so in a book. Don't pay any attention to non-organist comments, they can be misleading. If that's referring to me, I'll have you know that I studied organ at Oberlin for two years while get my degree in piano performance, and have held positions as organist and choir master in more than one church. I am an organist and know whereof I speak. Like any music for any instrumentation, write what you want to hear it sound like. Romantic period instruments may have swell boxes, making the stops of that manual capable of dynamics from p to f, and many organ have been adapted. Stops may be applied to only one manual or the pedals independently. There is usually a crescendo pedal which adds stops up to full organ. Usually? This sounds exactly like something a non-organist, or an organist of every limited experience, would say. A large number of instruments lack swell boxes and electronic assistance like pistons and toe studs and the like. You may indicate different dynamic marking for each staff. Organs are closer to the nuances possible with an orchestra. I don't know any organists who would agree with this. It's a red herring of the late 19th century. An exception, of course, would be the Wurlitzer theater organ of the early 20th century. To hear what's possible there, I'd recommend this program: http://pipedreams.publicradio.org/listings/2010/1014/ The organist will be very creative in using the manuals and stops to get as close to your expression markings as he or she can on any instrument, or chose not to. The serendipity is often a pleasant surprise. On simpler, or older instruments, there may be much less control so the only a general form may be obtained. Why didn't you just leave out all the polemics and veiled insults and post just this last passage? It's quite correct, and lacking details, doesn't make any actual factual mistakes. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Organ dynamics
On Apr 18, 2010, at 4:24 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 18 Apr 2010 at 9:40, timothy.price wrote: On Apr 17, 2010, at 7:50 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: The player could tell from the content of the music what was intended in regard to all of those parameters. So can any properly-trained modern organist. I've often thought that a good way to test musicianship is to give a player a passage with no dynamics, tempo marking, articulations or bowings and see what they make out of it. From a performers perspective, what you have said is fine, no problem. But the question about indicating performance markings was from a composer who' apparently has ideas as to where he want dynamics. If he wants to have the piece performed with HIS interpretation, then he best place the marking in the score, IMHO. That may be the problem with the academic world view of music, Er, what? I stated FACTS. This isn't a matter of academia vs. the real world (and let me remind you that academics live in the real world, too). thus one might read a book during a properly trained performance. This is complete malarkey, and betrays your personal prejudices. YES, It does show my personal prejudices. Don't pay any attention to non-organist comments, they can be misleading. If that's referring to me, No, I was not referring to you, but to John Howell's previous comment about thinking it best not to include dynamic markings, but that he was not an organist. Like any music for any instrumentation, write what you want to hear it sound like. Romantic period instruments may have swell boxes, making the stops of that manual capable of dynamics from p to f, and many organ have been adapted. Stops may be applied to only one manual or the pedals independently. There is usually a crescendo pedal which adds stops up to full organ. Usually? This sounds exactly like something a non-organist, or an organist of every limited experience, would say. A large number of instruments lack swell boxes and electronic assistance like pistons and toe studs and the like. Yes, in my experience organs usually do have a crescendo pedal. No? As I said, they only sometimes have swell boxes. Am not sure what you are finding fault with. You may indicate different dynamic marking for each staff. Organs are closer to the nuances possible with an orchestra. I don't know any organists who would agree with this. It's a red herring of the late 19th century. An exception, of course, would be the Wurlitzer theater organ of the early 20th century. To hear what's possible there, I'd recommend this program: http://pipedreams.publicradio.org/listings/2010/1014/ I do not know of any other solo instrument which compares in colors available or the control which is possible with a pipe organ. (not including digital keyboards of course) Do you? The organist will be very creative in using the manuals and stops to get as close to your expression markings as he or she can on any instrument, or chose not to. The serendipity is often a pleasant surprise. On simpler, or older instruments, there may be much less control so the only a general form may be obtained. Why didn't you just leave out all the polemics and veiled insults and post just this last passage? It's quite correct, and lacking details, doesn't make any actual factual mistakes. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale timothy.key.price timothy.key.pr...@valley.net ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Organ dynamics
On 18 Apr 2010 at 19:58, timothy.price wrote: On Apr 18, 2010, at 4:24 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 18 Apr 2010 at 9:40, timothy.price wrote: On Apr 17, 2010, at 7:50 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: The player could tell from the content of the music what was intended in regard to all of those parameters. So can any properly-trained modern organist. I've often thought that a good way to test musicianship is to give a player a passage with no dynamics, tempo marking, articulations or bowings and see what they make out of it. From a performers perspective, what you have said is fine, no problem. But the question about indicating performance markings was from a composer who' apparently has ideas as to where he want dynamics. If he wants to have the piece performed with HIS interpretation, then he best place the marking in the score, IMHO. Again, you're mixing contexts. The comment you quote was from my post about Bach's music, not about the original question. Don't pay any attention to non-organist comments, they can be misleading. If that's referring to me, No, I was not referring to you, but to John Howell's previous comment about thinking it best not to include dynamic markings, but that he was not an organist. I think that in the present instance, if you're an engraver of a MS by a dead composer, it's best to leave it alone and let the performer decide, rather than introducing your own judgements on what the dynamics should be, which may or may not be what the composer intended. So, I would agree 100% with John's remarks, which are very much in line with normal practices in editing/engraving music of dead composers where there are ambiguities. If one were to choose to supply a dynamic marking anyway, I think it would be best to clearly indicate that it is an editorial edition, thus leaving it to the performer to choose to honor it or not. But I'd tend to lean towards just leaving it out entirely, as John suggests. Most importantly, some editorial principles transcend the specifics of the instruments involved, and the editorial philosophy behind John's suggestion is one such, in my opinion. Like any music for any instrumentation, write what you want to hear it sound like. Romantic period instruments may have swell boxes, making the stops of that manual capable of dynamics from p to f, and many organ have been adapted. Stops may be applied to only one manual or the pedals independently. There is usually a crescendo pedal which adds stops up to full organ. Usually? This sounds exactly like something a non-organist, or an organist of every limited experience, would say. A large number of instruments lack swell boxes and electronic assistance like pistons and toe studs and the like. Yes, in my experience organs usually do have a crescendo pedal. No? As I said, they only sometimes have swell boxes. Am not sure what you are finding fault with. Hah! I have played on far more instruments that lack any form of dynamic control, because I've been trained almost entirely in older music, and played on historical instruments. So, I've personally played on more organs *without* any expression pedals or toe studs or pistons. The point is that there is no usually about it. Each organ is different, but within a particular tradition of organ building, one is likely to find particular characteristics. I won't go into the details of which traditions are which, but if you're a non-organist composing for a particular organ, find out what its capabilities are. A long crescendo on a tracker organ in 18th- century style may be something that a virtuosos is able to do -- I once heard Gerre Hancock do it in an improvization on the 1976 Flentrop at Oberlin (a tracker with entirely mechanical action and stops), managing a 4- or 5-minute crescendo just by gradually adding stops (without the assistance of a stop puller), but it's a virtuoso technique, and not one you'd put into a piece unless you knew the player was going to be able to pull it off. You may indicate different dynamic marking for each staff. Organs are closer to the nuances possible with an orchestra. I don't know any organists who would agree with this. It's a red herring of the late 19th century. An exception, of course, would be the Wurlitzer theater organ of the early 20th century. To hear what's possible there, I'd recommend this program: http://pipedreams.publicradio.org/listings/2010/1014/ I do not know of any other solo instrument which compares in colors available or the control which is possible with a pipe organ. (not including digital keyboards of course) Do you? No, but that's a very different statement than the one making bogus comparisons to the orchestra, which really doesn't have anything at all to do with the tonal world of organ playing in any but a very narrow period. The comparison to the orchestra
Re: [Finale] Organ dynamics
Wow. Didn't mean to start up such a debate! Perhaps I should clarify my situation. I'm engraving a piece for organ by a dead composer. He has marked dynamics in the music. Sometimes there's one marking under the top staff only. Sometimes there's a marking under all three staves. Sometimes there's a marking above the top staff only, because I assume there wasn't any room to put it elsewhere. Since I don't have much experience with organ music, I don't know if the placement of the dynamics is the result of a lazy copyist (very likely considering other aspects of the MS), or if the dynamics mean something specific to the performer when placed in a particular location. I'd prefer to place the dynamics consistently throughout the whole work. There are no indications for the stops. On Apr 18, 2010, at 6:29 PM, David W. Fenton lists.fin...@dfenton.com wrote: On 18 Apr 2010 at 19:58, timothy.price wrote: On Apr 18, 2010, at 4:24 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On 18 Apr 2010 at 9:40, timothy.price wrote: On Apr 17, 2010, at 7:50 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: The player could tell from the content of the music what was intended in regard to all of those parameters. So can any properly-trained modern organist. I've often thought that a good way to test musicianship is to give a player a passage with no dynamics, tempo marking, articulations or bowings and see what they make out of it. From a performers perspective, what you have said is fine, no problem. But the question about indicating performance markings was from a composer who' apparently has ideas as to where he want dynamics. If he wants to have the piece performed with HIS interpretation, then he best place the marking in the score, IMHO. Again, you're mixing contexts. The comment you quote was from my post about Bach's music, not about the original question. Don't pay any attention to non-organist comments, they can be misleading. If that's referring to me, No, I was not referring to you, but to John Howell's previous comment about thinking it best not to include dynamic markings, but that he was not an organist. I think that in the present instance, if you're an engraver of a MS by a dead composer, it's best to leave it alone and let the performer decide, rather than introducing your own judgements on what the dynamics should be, which may or may not be what the composer intended. So, I would agree 100% with John's remarks, which are very much in line with normal practices in editing/engraving music of dead composers where there are ambiguities. If one were to choose to supply a dynamic marking anyway, I think it would be best to clearly indicate that it is an editorial edition, thus leaving it to the performer to choose to honor it or not. But I'd tend to lean towards just leaving it out entirely, as John suggests. Most importantly, some editorial principles transcend the specifics of the instruments involved, and the editorial philosophy behind John's suggestion is one such, in my opinion. Like any music for any instrumentation, write what you want to hear it sound like. Romantic period instruments may have swell boxes, making the stops of that manual capable of dynamics from p to f, and many organ have been adapted. Stops may be applied to only one manual or the pedals independently. There is usually a crescendo pedal which adds stops up to full organ. Usually? This sounds exactly like something a non-organist, or an organist of every limited experience, would say. A large number of instruments lack swell boxes and electronic assistance like pistons and toe studs and the like. Yes, in my experience organs usually do have a crescendo pedal. No? As I said, they only sometimes have swell boxes. Am not sure what you are finding fault with. Hah! I have played on far more instruments that lack any form of dynamic control, because I've been trained almost entirely in older music, and played on historical instruments. So, I've personally played on more organs *without* any expression pedals or toe studs or pistons. The point is that there is no usually about it. Each organ is different, but within a particular tradition of organ building, one is likely to find particular characteristics. I won't go into the details of which traditions are which, but if you're a non-organist composing for a particular organ, find out what its capabilities are. A long crescendo on a tracker organ in 18th- century style may be something that a virtuosos is able to do -- I once heard Gerre Hancock do it in an improvization on the 1976 Flentrop at Oberlin (a tracker with entirely mechanical action and stops), managing a 4- or 5-minute crescendo just by gradually adding stops (without the assistance of a stop puller), but it's a virtuoso technique, and not one you'd put into a piece unless you knew the player was going to be able to pull it off. You may indicate different dynamic marking for each staff. Organs
Re: [Finale] Organ dynamics
On 18 Apr 2010 at 18:56, Ryan Beard wrote: Perhaps I should clarify my situation. I'm engraving a piece for organ by a dead composer. He has marked dynamics in the music. Sometimes there's one marking under the top staff only. Sometimes there's a marking under all three staves. Sometimes there's a marking above the top staff only, because I assume there wasn't any room to put it elsewhere. To me, most of the comments have been spot on for this situation -- you have a MS and no way to definitively recover the intentions of the composer. Since I don't have much experience with organ music, I don't know if the placement of the dynamics is the result of a lazy copyist (very likely considering other aspects of the MS), or if the dynamics mean something specific to the performer when placed in a particular location. I'd prefer to place the dynamics consistently throughout the whole work. There are no indications for the stops. While the dynamics may seem inconsistent to you, they may be completely consistent with what the composer intended. Now, you may choose to move all dynamics applying to the top staff underneath the staff (but not halfway between the top two staves), but that's not really changing anything. On the other hand, placing a dynamic marking that is only above the top staff in the MS halfway between the top two staves implies that the dynamic marking applies to both staves. To me, that is more likely than not a *change* to the copyist's (if not the composer's) intent. I would suggest you make a list of the places where you perceive inconsistency and ask an experienced organist to evaluate them. My bet is that some of them will not be seen as inconsistencies at all. But one caveat about what I'm suggesting about fidelity to the MS: I would consider it desirable in printed music to have the dynamic markings uniformly aligned vertically, rather than haphazardly placed (e.g., above the staff sometimes and below at others). But I would also be careful not to imply things that aren't intended, e.g., placing a marking in a location such that what originally clearly applied to one staff now appears to apply to more than one. In other words, some inconsistencies in the original MS are likely incidental, and don't mean anything, while others are significant. The hard part is distinguishing the two, and I have found that modern editors want to regularize everything so that dynamic markings are vertically consistent. I think this tendency to regularize things vertically (particularly dynamics transferred between instruments in an orchestral score, and, likewise, transferred between staves of an organ part that may be different stops) should be resisted, and all the inconsistencies retained. The most significant parts subtleties of the composer's work may be found in those seeming inconsistencies (such as would be the case with careful balancing of instrumental groups with different simultaneous dynamic markings), and it would be a shame to wash away those niceties in a futile search for engraver's consistency. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Organ dynamics
At 7:58 PM -0400 4/18/10, timothy.price wrote: Don't pay any attention to non-organist comments, they can be misleading. If that's referring to me, No, I was not referring to you, but to John Howell's previous comment about thinking it best not to include dynamic markings, but that he was not an organist. I don't believe I would have suggested not using dynamic markings at all, although I can't quote what I DID write. Others have been much more clear on this point, as I figured they would be. And I deliberately mentioned that I'm not an organist to allow the reader to judge whatever I did say. The pipe organ and the harp are both terra incognita to me, and if I have to write for either I consult a player. Understanding the mechanics is NOT the same as understanding the instrument. All the best, John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html We never play anything the same way once. Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Organ dynamics
Ryan, If you are not familiar with the conventions of music notation for the organ in the place and at the time the composer lived, the best thing to do is to consult with someone who is. Take the MS, or a printout of your notesetting effort to an experienced organist, and get their opinions. What seems confusing to you, might in fact be part of an intelligible convention. If you are preparing something that is to be published, this person might also be able to give you registration suggestions to make your material more usable for less experienced organists. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Organ dynamics
Ryan wrote: Where is it necessary to place the dynamics when writing for organ? Based upon my study of the organ, it varies depending upon the location, period and style in which the work is written, and in more recent years, even from one composer to another. . The manuscript I'm working from isn't consistent in the placement of dynamics. It also doesn't specify individual stops to use (for example, a trumpet stop that would naturally sound louder than a flute stop), so can one dynamic marking placed in between the top two staves suffice? One would often expect that a trumpet stop would sound larger than a flute stop, but this is not necessarily always true. A large organ will have loud flute stops, which might in some cases be as loud, or louder than a trumpet. Are the pedals capable of playing at a different dynamic level than the manuals? Yes. Would the performer know that the dynamic [given for the manuals] also applied to the pedals? Most knowlegable organists will be able to recognize when the pedals should be at the same dynamic level as one or both manuals, and if only one, then which one, but it would be wise to assume that not everyone will. I suppose that each organ is built differently, so it would be nearly impossible to prepare for every performance situation. This is a good supposition. My recommendation is to engrave what you have, then consult with the composer, or if it is not possible to consult with the composer, to solicit the advice of an experienced organist as to how to clarify the intentions of the composer. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Organ dynamics
Thanks for your advice. The composer is deceased, so I can't consult with him. Would I be safe in supplying one dynamic for the manuals' staves and a separate dynamic for the pedals? Most passages in this work will show the same dynamic in both places. On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Noel Stoutenburg mjol...@ticnet.comwrote: Ryan wrote: Where is it necessary to place the dynamics when writing for organ? Based upon my study of the organ, it varies depending upon the location, period and style in which the work is written, and in more recent years, even from one composer to another. . The manuscript I'm working from isn't consistent in the placement of dynamics. It also doesn't specify individual stops to use (for example, a trumpet stop that would naturally sound louder than a flute stop), so can one dynamic marking placed in between the top two staves suffice? One would often expect that a trumpet stop would sound larger than a flute stop, but this is not necessarily always true. A large organ will have loud flute stops, which might in some cases be as loud, or louder than a trumpet. Are the pedals capable of playing at a different dynamic level than the manuals? Yes. Would the performer know that the dynamic [given for the manuals] also applied to the pedals? Most knowlegable organists will be able to recognize when the pedals should be at the same dynamic level as one or both manuals, and if only one, then which one, but it would be wise to assume that not everyone will. I suppose that each organ is built differently, so it would be nearly impossible to prepare for every performance situation. This is a good supposition. My recommendation is to engrave what you have, then consult with the composer, or if it is not possible to consult with the composer, to solicit the advice of an experienced organist as to how to clarify the intentions of the composer. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Organ dynamics
Ryan wrote: Where is it necessary to place the dynamics when writing for organ? The manuscript I'm working from isn't consistent in the placement of dynamics. It also doesn't specify individual stops to use (for example, a trumpet stop that would naturally sound louder than a flute stop), so can one dynamic marking placed in between the top two staves suffice? Would the performer know that the dynamic also applied to the pedals? Are the pedals capable of playing at a different dynamic level than the manuals? I suppose that each organ is built differently, so it would be nearly impossible to prepare for every performance situation. As I was writing this I see that Noel Stotenburg beat me to a reply, but since I've written this, here it is. When there is very specific registration (usually placed at the upper left above the first staff), I rely on that and don't worry about dynamics that are in the music since the organ is like an on/off switch -- sound on or sound off with the volume relative to the stop chosen (except the swell manual, see below). Each stop or combination of stops has its own volume and each manual and pedals can have its own volume. If the registration is vague, say: Sw. Solo 8' Gt. Strings, Flute 8' Ped. 8' then I look to see if there are any dynamics in the music and choose stops that are close to the dynamics. (In this example, some solo stops could be louder than others, while some flutes might be louder than the other). Sometimes composers will just put an f or mf in the music and not indicate registrations leaving it up to the organist to choose the appropriate registration. If I remember correctly, some, if not most of Bach's organ music doesn't have registrations or dynamics. As to placement of dynamics: If you want the top staff to be a different dynamic than the lower manual staff (2nd staff down) -- which also implies the two staves will be played on different manuals -- indicate the dynamic above the top staff and above, but close to the lower manual staff. Pedal dynamics are few and far between in my experience, but often are above the pedal staff (between the lower manual staff and pedal). If you want the two manual staves to played on the same manual, indicate which manual (eg. Sw or Gt or Ch, for Swell, Great and choir respectively) you want to be played and include a piano brace going from near the top of the top staff down to near the bottom of the lower manual staff. If you want the top staff to be one manual and the lower manual staff to be played on a different manual, place the indications in the same place you would the dynamics. On all organs I've played, the Swell manual has the ability to have a slight variation in volume levels, On a pipe organ, the Swell pipes are often enclosed in a box with a venetian blind, usually vertical, than can open or close to allow the slight variation in volume. (In a few rare cases, I've run across a similar situation with the choir or positiv manuals). You can use hairpin cresc. dim. symbols to indicate the opening and closing of the shutters. (Sometimes the registration will indicate open or closed swells). As you mentioned, each organ is different. I often find myself having to use different stops than called for or I have to adapt a piece written with 3 manuals in mind to a 2-manual organ. James Gilbert www.jamesgilbertmusic.com Organist, Church of the Mediator Episcopal, Micanopy, Florida PS. On my website, in the music catalog, the visual example for the organ arrangement of 'At The Cross' contains examples of all of the above (except pedal dynamics). (Click on the title name in the catalog, then on the graphic for a bigger sample). ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Organ dynamics
On 17 Apr 2010 at 19:11, James Gilbert wrote: If I remember correctly, some, if not most of Bach's organ music doesn't have registrations or dynamics. Absolutely none of Bach's organ music has registration or dynamics or tempo markings, and so far as I can recall, no articulations, either. There might be a slur or two. This was completely normal for the time period. The player could tell from the content of the music what was intended in regard to all of those parameters. So can any properly-trained modern organist. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Organ dynamics
On 17 Apr 2010 at 15:30, Ryan wrote: Where is it necessary to place the dynamics when writing for organ? There is simply no cut-and-dried answer to this question. Each manual and pedal could have a different registration and thus, different dynamics. A single staff in the score could indicate any manual. If the organ has a swell division, the dynamics (including crescendo and diminuendo) would apply only to the stops inside the swell box. It's up to the composer to specify the desired stops (in general) and desired dynamics where they are not implied. To write Full Organ and pianissimo is going to puzzle most people. The dynamic marking is probably irrelevant in that case, in any event. If both staves are the same manual (or coupled), then, sure, a single dynamic mark between staves would suffice. If they are playing different stops, I'd suggest that unless the registration is very specific, a dynamic mark be provided for each staff (if necessary at all, of course -- depends on how specific the registration instructions are). Pedal is separate, though it can be coupled to the manuals and be playing the same stops as those on the manuals. The manuscript I'm working from isn't consistent in the placement of dynamics. Seems to me that's likely normal. It also doesn't specify individual stops to use (for example, a trumpet stop that would naturally sound louder than a flute stop), so can one dynamic marking placed in between the top two staves suffice? Would the performer know that the dynamic also applied to the pedals? Does it apply to the pedals? There's really not enough information to answer the question. Are the pedals capable of playing at a different dynamic level than the manuals? Naturally -- the pedal division has its own pipes, completely separate from those of the manuals (though certainly the ranks might be used on more than one manual, and the pedals can be coupled to the manuals). But all of that depends on the style of organ. A 1937 Moeller is going to be very different from a 1976 Flentrop. The composer's job is to provide enough information about what's intended musically so that the performer can decide how to achieve the desired effect on a particular instrument. I suppose that each organ is built differently, so it would be nearly impossible to prepare for every performance situation. If the composer is an organist, I would put the dynamics exactly where the composer put them. If not an organist, maybe not, but only if there's something nonsensical (e.g., different dynamics within one manual, unless, of course, it's intended for a Wurlitzer theater organ...). In other words, unless you really understand the instrument and see something nonsensical, just engrave what's in the MS. Chances are good that it will be sufficient for any decent musician to understand what's desired. Remember that organists are accustomed to playing music with absolutely no dynamic marks in it and have no trouble whatsoever figuring out from the scores what dynamics are appropriate. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
