# Name of this music symbol



## handel_afficionado (Jun 8, 2022)

Hello everyone!

I'm playing this piece in the piano but I don't understand this symbol.
Does anybody know the name of this music symbol and his meaning? I have highlighted the symbol in yellow in the attached PDF. The symbol appears more than once in the piece.
Odd enough my piano teacher doesn´t know the name either.

Thanks!


----------



## RogiervG (Jun 8, 2022)

often this means: gentle accent. in context of e.g piano


----------



## Rasoul Morteza (Jun 8, 2022)

It's a flying saucer...


----------



## Arbee (Jun 8, 2022)

I've seen this only a few times in my life on piano parts (as opposed to messa di voce_). _The best description I could find aligns with RogiervG above - "...for piano it means you sort of "lean" into the note and then back off for the next". But I've never seen a specific name for it on piano (source https://music.stackexchange.com/que...k-to-back-crescendo-decrescendo-markings-mean)


----------



## R.G. (Jun 8, 2022)

It's an agogic accent. A sudden broadening of the pulse which then reverses itself at roughly the same rate back to tempo, used in this case to articulate the end of the phrase. Many players do this naturally nowadays anyway of course. It was a 19th century thang and now considered obsolete, and not everyone interprets this symbol according to the ways of the ancients.


----------



## Arbee (Jun 8, 2022)

I also suspect it might be the moment when you softly accent and hold a note while you raise your eyebrows


----------



## youngpokie (Jun 8, 2022)

The Brahmsian hairpin

I remember this from years ago, quite a debate. The description I've seen that makes most sense to me is "to swell", which would be achieved on the piano most easily with tempo and accenting.


----------



## sinkd (Jun 8, 2022)

It is probably not possibly to overestimate the level of musical erudition and knowledge that is accumulated in the combined membership here at VI-Control. Better than a musicology seminar at any elite institution.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 9, 2022)

This symbol is a hybrid of the crescendo symbol and the decrescendo symbol. Atypical for piano sheet music. However, I see this symbol extremely often.


----------



## R.G. (Jun 9, 2022)

SteveC said:


> This symbol is a hybrid of the crescendo symbol and the decrescendo symbol.


That would be true for pretty much all works of the last roughly 100 years, but the further back you go before that, hairpins, whether single or back-to-back, very often expressed agogic stress, sometimes with a corresponding swell or dip (depending on whether it was diamond or bowtie hairpins), and sometimes without.

It all comes down to the musical context, the instrument(s), the composer, the period, and the region, even. This is the challenge of performing old pieces: understanding the stylistic interpretations of the given notation.

In the piano example posted by the OP, the diamond hairpins are centered on a single beat, which can't be swelled on a piano of course, but an agogic stress there perfectly aligns with that part of the phrase. (All this is assuming that the engraver matched Tchaikovsky's most recent edit of the piece.)

When you're looking at an old piece of music for the first time, the first thing to do is find an authoritative urtext if possible and determine to what extent your performing edition has been edited. This is true even if it's from the original first edition plates, which is mostly what you get on IMSLP. From there you continue your research of the composer's notation predilections, the period/region's stylistic norms if you are unfamiliar, the piece's performing history, and arrive at your decisions one by one through experimentation as measured against the musical context by considering the wide view of the piece as a whole, a zoomed-in closeup view at the phrase level, and a sectional view in between.


----------



## handel_afficionado (Jun 9, 2022)

youngpokie said:


> The Brahmsian hairpin
> 
> I remember this from years ago, quite a debate. The description I've seen that makes most sense to me is "to swell", which would be achieved on the piano most easily with tempo and accenting.


When I have the piece more well played can I send you a recording of that phrase? Just to check If I'm respecting the true meaning of the sign.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 9, 2022)

R.G. said:


> That would be true for pretty much all works of the last roughly 100 years, but the further back you go before that, hairpins, whether single or back-to-back, very often expressed agogic stress, sometimes with a corresponding swell or dip (depending on whether it was diamond or bowtie hairpins), and sometimes without.
> 
> It all comes down to the musical context, the instrument(s), the composer, the period, and the region, even. This is the challenge of performing old pieces: understanding the stylistic interpretations of the given notation.
> 
> ...


I know this symbol from the Romantic era like Tschaykovsky. I've never seen this symbol in older music. The sheet is probably not very good, the symbol probably means crescendo and decrescendo for the whole measure. There is no "Urtext". This word is a marketing invention by Henle. If you are unsure, you should consult the facsimile if there is one. There are often some surprises to be found there. The crescendo symbols in the autographs are not always easy to read.


----------



## R.G. (Jun 9, 2022)

SteveC said:


> I know this symbol from the Romantic era like Tschaykovsky.


Your creative spelling of _Tchaikovsky_ kind of sets the stage for the remainder of your post.

As for applying the modern, _narrow_ interpretation of hairpins (which is period-neutral, stylistically ignorant, contextually unaware, inflexibly dogmatic, and contrary to interpretive scholarship) to instances found in some older music, a musically serious performer or conductor would have a very tough time of it in many cases. I wouldn't know where to begin with examples, but Chopin comes to mind. Contradictions abound. And how did Chopin intend for his phrase marks to be played? It's a known thing, but it's not evident from the score since such subtleties change over time.

One could also talk about the Classical period where, for example, you would have a group of four even notes (usually 8ths), the first two slurred, the second two not. Playing that notation literally will not quite do it, because of a stylistic practice of the time. That's why I earlier stressed that understanding the relevant context(s) are crucial to musical interpretation.



SteveC said:


> There is no "Urtext". This word is a marketing invention by Henle.


The word _urtext_ is legitimate, as is the concept, and its known use predates the founding of Henle's firm by up to a few decades. Here is a brief and clear definition of the concept.


A lot of very accomplished performers, conductors, musicologists, and serious-minded editors would find your assertion that _There is no "urtext"_ (urtext being placed in scare quotes no less) to be a silly statement. Its goals are clear, and the means to move towards those goals are established.

When I referred to urtext in my original and still unedited post, I used the following wording:

_"...authoritative urtext if possible..."_

I worded it that way in the ill-fated hope to communicate that I wasn't recommending just anything labeled Urtext Edition by any of the publishers that use that term.

There _are_ some misconceptions about urtext that people should be aware of if they're going to use urtext editions (but I have no interest in covering those misconceptions in this already overlong post), and there are problems that sometimes prevent a definitive, critical edition urtext. One such problem is when there is no known facsimile (autograph) or proofread copyist's version signed off on by the composer (the latter which is sometimes required by publishers for composers with sloppy writing).



SteveC said:


> If you are unsure, you should consult the facsimile if there is one. There are often some surprises to be found there.


Facsimiles may or may not be the final word. Even when there is a facsimile, there are sometimes fragments by the composer that may or may not be dated or otherwise discernible in that regard, but that show or suggest a revision was or may have been intended. Bits of Beethoven 5 have some ambiguity in that regard, once all the textual evidence is examined.

Another issue with Beethoven is that he was known to have visited the engraver's office to communicate last minute alterations before it was too late. So if one goes on the facsimile alone, there are many cases where that will not reflect the composer's ultimate intentions.

Or take Mahler, who made many revisions to his symphonies in the course of conducting them (mainly reducing the thickness of some of his textures and rescoring certain bits), but no facsimile exists for most of those revisions, only the original, unrevised autograph. The critical editions of his symphonies—which costs hundreds of dollars and are different from the free IMSLP editions and from most recordings—were put together largely from the assembled, altered parts per Mahler's direct instructions, and notes he made on the podium to the published score.

A similar example is the matter of _The Rite of Spring_. There are two facsimile versions, plus undated snippets, and the first published edition was altered several times by Stravinsky over the course of his life (mainly meters, notation, scoring, percussion and timpani assignments). The last edition he personally signed off is from the late 60's, for which there is no facsimile.

The good news for everyone is that musicians are free to interpret according to their own preferences—responsibly or carelessly—and unfortunately many famous conductors (and some musicians) do the latter for career building or at the insistence of the recording label (euphemistically referred to as "bold and creative", and such).


----------



## SteveC (Jun 10, 2022)

R.G. said:


> Your creative spelling of _Tchaikovsky_ kind of sets the stage for the remainder of your post.
> 
> As for applying the modern, _narrow_ interpretation of hairpins (which is period-neutral, stylistically ignorant, contextually unaware, inflexibly dogmatic, and contrary to interpretive scholarship) to instances found in some older music, a musically serious performer or conductor would have a very tough time of it in many cases. I wouldn't know where to begin with examples, but Chopin comes to mind. Contradictions abound. And how did Chopin intend for his phrase marks to be played? It's a known thing, but it's not evident from the score since such subtleties change over time.
> 
> ...


"There is no original text. This is a dubious marketing invention by Henle." Prof. Dr. Zywietz 

Of course I pay attention to musical symbols, but I don't overinterpret their origin. I do not know this symbol in works before the romantic era. If you have an accurate description of this symbol from a composer, bring it on. Until then, it is a sign of credendo and a sign of decrescendo for me, whatever you make of it. In this case I believe in a sloppy translation.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 10, 2022)

Another version:


----------



## R.G. (Jun 10, 2022)

I don't think the professor, whatever his musical qualifications, has the authority to wipe something out of existence that manifestly does exist, particularly when many thousands of conductors, players, musicologists, editors, and _other_ professors, past and present, would find that to be a bizarre statement, so he is the odd one out. I made this point prior.

This is tedious. You're saying the same things over now while seemingly not comprehending much, if anything, that I've said.

I see that you found another edition, but of course. Multiple editions exist for nearly all repertory works that are not in the public domain. There are other editions of the same piece that remove the hairpins altogether. They are labeled as urtext, but I haven't the time or the inclination to ascertain their validity. It is a process.

Overall you don't seem to understand that you're denying known things, simply, it would seem, because you're ignorant of them. Some people want to learn, and some don't. If you don't care about the subtleties of context, notation usage throughout its history, the process of interpretation, and the stylistic norms of different periods, that is fine, for you, but there are many circles of accomplished musicians that would not regard that as a serious position.

Anyway, I don't have anymore time for this, so I'll just leave you with a handful of performances of the piece in question. I listened to most of the ones that YT seems to have. Some play right on through the bar with no alteration of anything in that bar, but the ones posted below _do_ play the agogic accent; some are obvious, some are subtle.

I didn't hear _any_ that played a crescendo/diminuendo, but I didn't necessarily hear every example. In any event, there's not much at all you could on piano to make a dynamic swell happen there, since all you'd have for the cresc. is the D in the lefthand (which is actually _deemphasized_ in some performances as you will hear), and for the diminuendo, the G in the righthand.


----------



## Roger Newton (Jun 10, 2022)

It's an apoplectic parallelogram.

Play furiously - then really quiet.

Loads of apoplectic parallelograms in this piece of Handel.

View attachment Handel Furious.mp4


----------



## SteveC (Jun 10, 2022)

R.G. said:


> Overall you don't seem to understand that you're denying known things, simply, it would seem, because you're ignorant of them. Some people want to learn, and some don't. If you don't care about the subtleties of context, notation usage throughout its history, the process of interpretation, and the stylistic norms of different periods, that is fine, for you, but there are many circles of accomplished musicians that would not regard that as a serious position.


Okay, maybe you want to learn:
"Urtext" is a misleading word. In Germany, we use the word "historisch kritische Ausgabe". "Urext" = misleading marketing word. Sometimes it stands for: In the background is a "historically critical edition", and sometimes not.

I'm not against historically informed interpretation, but good sources are rare and many things are copied uninformed. Like the word "Urtext".
If you have a good source, I'm happy to learn.


----------



## Roger Newton (Jun 10, 2022)

Arbee said:


> I also suspect it might be the moment when you softly accent and hold a note while you raise your eyebrows


Yes indeed. Especially if there are any women in the audience you suddenly take a liking to. For example......


----------



## youngpokie (Jun 10, 2022)

For the benefit of the OP and without participating in the totally unnecessary fight - here's the copy of the page from manuscript, in Tchaikovsky's own hand (the last staff):






It is believed to be the version Tchaikovsky sent to the publisher (as it was discovered in their archives in the 1920s and it contains many modifications in the blue pencil which were usually done by his editor). There are differences between this manuscript and the printed editions, including the order of the pieces, the title, the dedication and of course notation.

Out of interest, I looked at the various versions on IMSLP and even the version included in the Soviet "Complete Works" edition from 1948 has some differences from the manuscript. It's quite possible there has been an even more authoritative edition since then, but I haven't heard about it. And unfortunately, the IMSLP scan of the 1948 edition doesn't include commentary, so I don't have any idea if they had access to the engravers' copies, proofs and corrections in Tchaikovsky's own hands.

In the end there are two points to take away from this discussion, in my view:

- the "Brahmsian hairpin" is an interesting phenomenon, proven to be used intentionally and agogically in the works Brahms, and highly likely in Chopin, Schumann and others from the era. This hairpin (the swell) is instinctive and natural in many instruments, especially strings, but it is achieved indirectly on the piano for obvious reasons.

- still, while the hairpin is important, we now also have highly authoritative conventions and traditions on how this music is interpreted in performance, including the instrument, tempo and often even phrasing. These become a kind of "anchors" that underline the identity and character of the music today, from Bach to Mozart's sonatas to many works of Tchaikovsky.

As you work on the piece, my suggestion would be to study the recordings for these anchors to absorb or reject them and so develop your own interpretation, that speaks to you personally. Good luck and I'd be interested to hear how you interpret it.

EDIT: Well, it turns out there was a new "academic" edition of Tchaikovsky's complete works in the 2010s!


----------



## handel_afficionado (Jun 10, 2022)

Another example found in the Schumann- Album for the Young, Piece number 3.


----------



## Dave Connor (Jun 10, 2022)

Crescendo/Decrescendo - equally for the length of the note.


----------



## ReleaseCandidate (Jun 11, 2022)

If that were (modern  guitar notation, that would be a volume swell - either using the volume knob or a pedal.



Many did it, but Yngwie has been the most obnox^H^H^H^H^Hknown:
(At 1:44 without Echo)


----------

