# Do you have any idea what the following notations mean?



## Illico (May 4, 2021)

I would like to understand the meaning of the following notations from an orchestral score.
This is the *[Cue]* notation on a Flute phrase bounded with dotes, following by the *[Play]* notation.





There are other similar parts later in the score (on woodwinds).
Regards.


----------



## Illico (May 5, 2021)

Are you agree with this:


> We use "cue" for a part that will not necessarily be recorded. It appears on the score, but the conductor will make the decision to play it, or not, during the recording."


----------



## Rob (May 5, 2021)

for all I know cue notes usually help an instrument entrance after a long pause, they reproduce the notes of another instrument who's playing at that moment so to have a secure reference. Sometimes the instrument could also be requested to play those notes, in case the original instrument is not available... they are usually in smaller size, these ones seem in normal notation size, not sure.
EDIT: the post above adds another meaning to the term, which I wasn't aware of...


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 5, 2021)

Illico said:


> Are you agree with this:


No, whoever said that was wrong, unless there is some confusion over the term 'cue' (eg. when it comes to soundtracks). Is there more context to the answer you've quoted?
@Rob 's answer is correct when it comes to notation, score and parts. If an instrument has a cue written into their part, then that cued part is deemed necessary enough to be written in for an alternative instrument and should not be missed out. 
I'd be mightily pissed if I'd gone to the trouble of cueing in a part only for a conductor to decide whether to play it or not.


----------



## South Thames (May 5, 2021)

> No, whoever said that was wrong, unless there is some confusion over the term 'cue' (eg. when it comes to soundtracks). Is there more context to the answer you've quoted?
> @Rob 's answer is correct when it comes to notation, score and parts.



They are both correct.

In strict musical terms, 'cue' in an instrumental part is music that's not intended to be played but rather is intended to guide the player as to where he/should enter, especially during lengthy rests or passages where entry points may otherwise be unclear.

However, in commercial music, film music especially, cueing has another specific meaning -- music that is 'cued' in parts to give the composer or conductor options on the recording stage. Eg. a melody might be played by first violins, but in case that's not powerful enough the orchestrator may 'cue the melody in the horns'. The horns won't play the cue unless told to do so, but it makes the change as easy as a verbal instruction vs. having to re-copy and re-tranpose the part.


----------



## mikeh-375 (May 5, 2021)

South Thames said:


> They are both correct. In strict musical terms, 'cue' in an instrumental part is music that's not intended to be played but rather is intended to guide the player as to where he/should enter, especially during lengthy rests.
> 
> However, in commercial music, film music especially, cueing has another specific meaning -- music that is 'cued' in parts to give the composer or conductor options on the recording stage. Eg. a melody might be played by first violins, but in case that's not powerful enough the orchestrator may 'cue the melody in the horns'. The horns won't play the cue unless told to do so.


I never had to do that, but that's a good point and I can see the practical value in that. Sort of like covering options in anticipation of problems. That gives me the background I was after..
I always think from a classical background first.....it's a curse.


----------



## South Thames (May 5, 2021)

> I never had to do that, but that's a good point and I can see the practical value in that. Sort of like covering options in anticipation of problems. That gives me the background I was after..
> I always think from a classical background first.....it's a curse.


It is confusing, although ultimately it amounts to the same thing - music written in parts that's not (necessarily) to be played, just for different reasons than is usually the case in classical music. So I can see why the same word is used.


----------



## Illico (May 5, 2021)

My thought, this is for textural purpose here.

In fact, in the screen-shot here, this is the first bar of the score.
The main melody is played on Piano track during first 12 bars, doubling with the same melody on Flute track.

Later (bar 46), similar notations appears on Woodwinds sections that are copy of Strings sections.
I suppose this is a composer annotation. Then now, I have to choose If I keep all instruments or select the right ones to get the desired sound texture.


----------



## JJP (May 5, 2021)

I could write a long post about cueing, so I'll try to keep this short.

In commercial recording, cues like the one you shared can be quite common with some orchestrators and composers. Sometimes it is to give different options for textures, sometimes it's because they are writing to a rough draft of something (usually picture) and there is concern that things may have changed by the time they get to the recording session. Sometimes it can be because the orchestrator is not the composer and is working from a transcription of a mockup so it may not be clear exactly what the composer will prefer in the session. 

This is why the cues like your example are shown on the score as well as the parts. Traditional cues to give a reference to the musician after a long rest are typically only shown on the part, not the full score.

I've also run copying teams where we've identified something in a score that we have reasonable certainty will be adjusted during the rehearsal or recording. We have added cues to instruments that are most likely to be asked to play in those parts. If the composer or conductor asks for it, the players already have it in cued their parts. That has saved time on more than one recording session. (We also very clearly mark to only play if requested.)

I know some people who HATE the idea of cueing to provide options because it can lead to unnecessary questions that slow down a recording. A player asks, "Do you want me to play this cue?" If the conductor isn't the orchestrator, they don't know because they didn't write the music; so they may ask the composer. The composer may not be sure because they wrote it all in a DAW where it sounds different, so naturally they say, "Let's try it with the cue." Then after hearing it the composer says, "No, I don't want that."

This wastes valuable minutes with a discussion and then a whole take just to determine we don't want the cue played. This all may have happened because an orchestrator was indecisive and chose to write a cue.

I also know of one old arranger who said, "Cues are for people can't hear what they are writing. Make a decision. It's in or out!" That may not always be the case, but it's a point of view worth considering. As you can see, the decision of whether or not to add a cue may be heavily influenced by understanding the situation in the recording or rehearsal.


----------



## JohnG (May 5, 2021)

JJP said:


> I also know of one old arranger who said, "Cues are for people can't hear what they are writing. Make a decision. It's in or out!"


"Old" is possibly telling, in your sentence JJP? I think it's rather harsh and arguably unfair to sneer at younger or inexperienced composers who are unaccustomed to live players. 

In the past five years or so I've arranged a few big orchestral works for composers who are just fine with their electronic versions but who write material that's either impossible to play live or will simply not sound the way the composer _really_ wants it to sound.

Why?

Maybe because, decades ago, school systems cut art, music, and theatre/dance? Maybe because the "sound" of media music has been weaving electronics into scores so long that a partly synthetic sound is often prized over an acoustic one? Maybe shows and movies are over-spotted?

*No Chance to Learn? *

But the main reason I think is that the "way up" for most composers is through electronically-generated scores. By the time they have a budget sufficient for an orchestra larger than a quartet, they may be thrust into a high-pressure show or game, in which they can't afford to experiment or have anything go wrong. Consequently, they are forced to hire you or someone like you @JJP , thus revealing their inexperience to the practitioners.

I don't really know how to fix it, either. I don't blame orchestrators for their pride in their work, and it is no doubt frustrating for some to see a "know-nothing" getting the gig. But those people of course do know _something_ or they wouldn't have the job in the first place.


----------



## JJP (May 5, 2021)

JohnG said:


> "Old" is possibly telling, in your sentence JJP? I think it's rather harsh and arguably unfair to sneer at younger or inexperienced composers who are unaccustomed to live players.


Oh my! That was not a sneer or a comment on composers' experience or abilities. I was sharing one of the opinions people have about cueing as a way to "hedge your bets" or put off making a decision.

As for "old"... I think it was Billy Beyers who said that, and he died about 25 years ago. I spent about a decade working under his copyist, so there are many stories and quotes handed down.

Please also consider the following sentences I typed, because I'm not saying he was completely right:


> I also know of one old arranger who said, "Cues are for people can't hear what they are writing. Make a decision. It's in or out!" That may not always be the case, but it's a point of view worth considering. As you can see, the decision of whether or not to add a cue may be heavily influenced by understanding the situation in the recording or rehearsal.


Billy's opinion stuck with me, and has often spurred me to avoid cueing out of indecision when arranging or orchestrating. It encouraged me take ownership of and responsibility for what I'm putting on the page, and that has made me better at my job.


----------



## Bollen (May 5, 2021)

JohnG said:


> "Old" is possibly telling, in your sentence JJP? I think it's rather harsh and arguably unfair to sneer at younger or inexperienced composers who are unaccustomed to live players.
> 
> In the past five years or so I've arranged a few big orchestral works for composers who are just fine with their electronic versions but who write material that's either impossible to play live or will simply not sound the way the composer _really_ wants it to sound.
> 
> ...


I know I'm going to get into trouble here, but I really disagree with your 2nd paragraph (love the rest though ). Back when I started we had to do everything in our heads and only had recordings as references. Learning orchestration was by far the hardest thing I did because there was no way to test anything, now people can experiment with any texture they want with sample libraries and other similar tools. It has never been easier to learn to compose music, thanks to the internet, and try out any wacky idea with a computer... You still have to study the "principles" of instruments. Consequently I feel we should be harder on this generation than ever before!!!


----------



## Illico (May 5, 2021)

It's nice that everyone can share their opinion here.
Communication is the main point in music.
The topic for me was what the notation (cue) and (play) in the score meant. I learned many thing from all of you. Thanks.


----------



## Dave Connor (May 6, 2021)

I write a cue part now and then. Midi renditions are not always accurate when played by a real orchestra (for reasons we all know.) You may have an effective idea that seems intrusive in midi but actually does enhance the music/picture on the stage. Sometimes it’s nice to have that bit of spontaneity in a session. They can also be entered in by an orchestrator unbeknownst to the writer. I rarely like those but it’s the main composer’s call.

As far as cues for those who have long rests or other reasons of difficulty, they normally show a written part - on a staff - of an easily heard instrument such as _trumpet_, to literally _cue _a player in soon after it’s played. Opera and Broadway shows have been doing that forever. JJP may correct me but as he said, it tends to be written on the player’s part not in the score.


----------



## rudi (May 6, 2021)

And then there is "ossia".... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossia


----------



## JJP (May 6, 2021)

Dave Connor said:


> As far as cues for those who have long rests or other reasons of difficulty, they normally show a written part - on a staff - of an easily heard instrument such as _trumpet_, to literally _cue _a player in soon after it’s played. Opera and Broadway shows have been doing that forever.


Copyists will often add those types of cues to studio parts as well. Some copyists even have a rule of "Any rest of more than X bars gets a cue." They can be quite helpful to players who are sight reading when a chart has lots of rubato, meter changes, or odd phrases during a particularly long rest, especially if there were a lot of starts and stops in the recording during that rest.


----------



## JohnG (May 6, 2021)

JJP said:


> Billy's opinion stuck with me, and has often spurred me to avoid cueing out of indecision when arranging or orchestrating. It encouraged me take ownership of and responsibility for what I'm putting on the page, and that has made me better at my job.


Hi @JJP -- I hadn't considered that what I wrote might come off as scolding, which I didn't intend at all, at you or anyone, but especially given your skill set, I didn't mean it that way. I'm sorry that it seemed to come off that way.

I do think it's pretty hard for new composers to get their hands on _any_ live players these days. It's not just the money either -- it's inexperience, lack of knowing who the great players are so you can get them on your gig, lack of time, constant picture edits. And of course as samples sound better than they did in former times, producers are much more ok with accepting the electronic mockup as the final.

So what I'm getting at is that I don't fault younger composers for what they don't know, as I would have in the olden days. They often just don't get the chance.




Bollen said:


> It has never been easier to learn to compose music


@Bollen I hear you, but the very availability of those great samples can cause a lot of problems when pivoting from electronic / sampled to real players.

I've had composers present me with French Horn lines that hang around A (and higher!) above the treble staff for quite some time (concert pitch, mind you), or misunderstanding how many notes woodwinds can play in a run (you don't always need six or seven -- if it's a fast enough tempo three or four may be enough).

And that's not even beginning to talk about balance. if you have 20 brass players you need a mondo-big string section to balance them out, unless you are recording separately.

So while I actually mostly agree with you, that leap from samples to orchestra remains a challenge. Luckily there are still a few people out there who can assist the uninitiated.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 6, 2021)

I learned something from this thread.

My experience with cues is from when I was playing percussion. The hardest part was counting 375 bars of rests before you go BOOM on a bass drum (or worse, CRASH with cymbals).

Very embarrassing when you miss.


----------



## JohnG (May 6, 2021)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> My experience with cues is from when I was playing percussion. The hardest part was counting 375 bars of rests before you go BOOM on a bass drum (or worse, CRASH with cymbals).
> 
> Very embarrassing when you miss.


In college I played percussion too, and the conductor called us the "concussion section."


----------



## cet34f (May 6, 2021)

rudi said:


> And then there is "ossia"....
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossia


I am thinking the same thing: if someone wants to write down an indication for "alternative passage", why not using an Italian word whose definition is "alternatively"?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 6, 2021)

I learned not to use Italian crap when I recorded my first demo tape.

The string players laughed at "à punto di arco."


----------



## Dave Connor (May 6, 2021)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I learned not to use Italian crap when I recorded my first demo tape.
> 
> The string players laughed at "à punto di arco."


I’m sure we all have our stories. I was surprised at a string session that they didn’t want phrase markings (as opposed to bowings which I had also included - and they hardly needed those as well.) 

And NO KEY SIGNATURES!


----------



## JohnG (May 6, 2021)

Dave Connor said:


> And NO KEY SIGNATURES!


Ah -- a vast topic!

Outside of Los Angeles I have found most of them prefer a key signature. In London, they can play anything you throw at them.

But each experience is somewhat idiosyncratic, of course. We only really know the gigs we were involved on personally.

If you're recording in Tokyo, be sure you use key signatures if you're using local copyists.


----------



## Dave Connor (May 6, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Ah -- a vast topic!
> 
> Outside of Los Angeles I have found most of them prefer a key signature. In London, they can play anything you throw at them.
> 
> ...


I’ve been delivering audio files for so long that when I do occasional copy work I often forget this one. An old understandable habit and I’m not surprised if it’s an LA film thing and rare in other locals. For heaven’s sake people, what key are we in here!?!?


----------



## Babe (May 9, 2021)

The only time I use cues is when I'm playing pool.


----------



## Daryl (May 10, 2021)

Illico said:


> Are you agree with this:


Yes, this is obviously a film score ('cos of the ridiculous large time sigs), and in that circumstance, "cue" means something that may or may not be wanted. The decsion will be made during the recording session.


----------



## Dr. Shagwell (May 10, 2021)

I have been an orchestrator for a number of large feature films, as well as many other contexts.

I have used the 'Cue" with extra staves many times. 

99% of the cues I have done are for strings. It's not about "hearing" the score as so much is placed on the "mock-up" these days. Often as an orchestrator, I am waiting for cues to get approved, so it means a large group of people has heard and signed off on its approval.

The main reason I have done "Cues" is for "Studio magic". By recording those parts on their own (no other instruments; often called "Stripe-ing" Not striping btw) the mixer will have the flexibility to add instrumental color at a volume and clarity that is simply impossible otherwise.

Artificial harmonics are common, or other techniques like col legno where the players don't want to harm their instruments. Thus they can be recorded at really soft volume levels and turned up.
Additionally, so they do not blur/get drowned out with the other textures. 

I have felt over the years I am getting much better at telling when cues are recording. John Powell seems to use this device a lot.

Anyway, as long as you don't do too many cues, you can organize the session the cue is done right before a break and the other orchestral players leave. Or, if needed (extra $ of course) the section of players stay after to do the cues.

Finally, it lets players focus on one part vs playing thru life and have to switch from ord arco to some extended technique.

I was not personally there for the following example but listening to it is exactly the kind of situation I have had to use the "Cue". The giveaway is later around the 1:30 mark. It's just too clean and sticking out for the type of extended technique being used. So most likely there is just 2 staves with all those harmonics that they would record on their own and label "cue"


----------

