# Notation Q: string harm/div.



## RiffWraith (May 13, 2014)

Two string notes on a staff, marked as div., as below. Do both stands play harmonics there? Say you want only the first stand to play harm - how to properly notate so the second stand knows not to play harm?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Daryl (May 13, 2014)

What you have written doesn't mean anything anyway, because you haven't put the little circle over the note to denote harmonic.

Personally, I think this sort of thing needs to be put on 2 staves. Or is this a 3 part divisi?

Anyway, assuming that the top part is a harmonic, you have placed the diamond a 5th above the stopped note, which denotes a harmonic sounding a twelfth above.

D


----------



## RiffWraith (May 13, 2014)

Thanks, Daryl.

Ok, it appears I messed that up. :lol: 

I just went back to one of my books.

*Notation Of Natural Harmonics*

1. A small circle over the note intended to sound as a harmonic, or

2. A diamond-shaped note at the pitch where the node producing the desired note maybe found on the string.

So, for #1:

Does it matter where the circle is placed, in terms of how high above the note?

For #2: 

The position of the diamond on the staff tells the player what note to play, correct?

Below is a shot from actual sheet music, as opposed to something I did manually. Prolly should have done that to begin with... :roll: 

So, the first stand plays F - one octave above middle C? I know there is some debate about where midC is - assuming midC is C3, that F would be F4, correct?

Now, what does the second stand play?

Unless, I have this all wrong. Maybe this is in fact three part div as you alluded to earlier? Where the diamond is one set of players, the F is another set, and the C is a third set of players?


----------



## Daryl (May 13, 2014)

That sheet music is just wrong. It doesn't mean anything. I wouldn't be 100% sure what the intension was, and I've been doing this sort of thing for over 40 years.

I have a suspicion that the top note should have been the diamond and the diamond should have been the little circle. In which case it's just a normal stopped harmonic, sounding two 8ves above the lower of the two notes.

D


----------



## RiffWraith (May 13, 2014)

Daryl @ Wed May 14 said:


> That sheet music is just wrong. It doesn't mean anything. I wouldn't be 100% sure what the intension was, and I've been doing this sort of thing for over 40 years.
> 
> I have a suspicion that the top note should have been the diamond and the diamond should have been the little circle. In which case it's just a normal stopped harmonic, sounding two 8ves above the lower of the two notes.
> 
> D



Oh. I see. Well, that's from the concert score for a film done by an A-list composer... is it possible it was mis-notated by someone, and corrected in the recording session?


----------



## Daryl (May 13, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Wed May 14 said:


> Daryl @ Wed May 14 said:
> 
> 
> > That sheet music is just wrong. It doesn't mean anything. I wouldn't be 100% sure what the intension was, and I've been doing this sort of thing for over 40 years.
> ...


Almost certainly it is a mistake. There are always mistakes in film scores and some of them get transferred to the concert versions. There are a couple of doozsies even in the Star Wars Suite. :shock: 

D


----------



## RiffWraith (May 13, 2014)

Daryl @ Wed May 14 said:


> RiffWraith @ Wed May 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Wed May 14 said:
> ...



Yeah - I have noticed some mistakes in a few SW bits - I actually emailed HL about this (from whom I originally purchased the sore) and was told that they transcribe the music from whatever source they can can get. Kinda shocked me - I thought the HL JW sig. series was the actual concert score, but apparently it's _based off of _the concert score.

Thanks man!


----------



## iaink (May 13, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Tue May 13 said:


> For #2:
> 
> The position of the diamond on the staff tells the player what note to play, correct?



The position of the diamond tells the player where to lightly press the string (node). So, the diamond notation does not spell the pitch that will be sounded.

The note above which the diamond sits can be the open string or the stopped note if it's an artificial harmonic.

2 notes with a 1 diamond above is an error. It's possible in your first example the intent was div: c4 stopped with c5 pressed (sounding c5) + f4 stopped with c5 pressed (sounding c6)... 

The circle notation spells the intended pitch, sounded by harmonics. That is, the note above which the circle sits is the desired pitch ... The exact position of the circle doesn't matter, as long as it's above.

Circles and diamonds shouldn't be used together.


----------



## iaink (May 13, 2014)

Circle vs diamond notation:


----------



## Daryl (May 13, 2014)

iaink @ Wed May 14 said:


> Circle vs diamond notation:


For my money, the most important thing regarding any notated music is to be clear. Leave no room for error or you will be asked questions on the session, which wastes time. Of course if it is for concert work, you won't even be there, so another person is going to have to guess. I always use circles and diamonds together. Circle means harmonic. That's it.

BTW one of your examples is pretty much impossible to play.

D


----------



## Daryl (May 13, 2014)

Double post...


----------



## iaink (May 14, 2014)

Daryl @ Wed May 14 said:


> For my money, the most important thing regarding any notated music is to be clear. Leave no room for error or you will be asked questions on the session, which wastes time.



Hi Daryl,

The diamond cannot mean anything else aside from harmonic. The diamond notation on its own should never raise a question.



Daryl @ Wed May 14 said:


> Circle means harmonic. That's it.



Circle means: produce this pitch with harmonics.

Diamond means: use these finger positions to produce a harmonic pitch.

Most of the time it might not cause a problem to use them both. However, I am sure there are some cases where using both – because it is incorrect to start with – will put doubt in the players' mind:


----------



## iaink (May 14, 2014)

Daryl @ Wed May 14 said:


> BTW one of your examples is pretty much impossible to play.
> D



I gave that example because I think it's the only thing RiffWraith's first example could mean. You're right about the playability, though it's possible.

However, the viola part makes even less sense. Or no sense.

RiffWraith - in the context of the music which makes more sense in those bars: a drone of C, E, and A; or a drone of C and F only?

Cheers.


----------



## iaink (May 14, 2014)

As Daryl's pointed out, a couple of these (that use the octave stretch) are very difficult.


----------



## RiffWraith (May 14, 2014)

Thanks guys 

_RiffWraith - in the context of the music which makes more sense in those bars: a drone of C, E, and A; or a drone of C and F only? _

Umm, is this a test? :lol:


----------



## Cygnus64 (May 14, 2014)

iaink @ Tue May 13 said:


> [
> 
> 2 notes with a 1 diamond above is an error. .



It's sloppy, that's for sure. There are certainly much better ways to do it. _However,_ there is plenty of precedent for it. It's simple: outside plays fingered harmonic, inside plays bottom note.

Think of Paganini, for starters. Look at this chord, it's a very common chord. Top note has the harmonic, that's it. Most versions don't have that high cue. So, the harmonic applies to the note it's above/attached to.


----------



## Cygnus64 (May 14, 2014)

Wieniawski Opus 4:


----------



## JJP (May 31, 2014)

Just because you can find examples of bad notation in the literature doesn't make it a precedent. It's just bad notation that has been preserved over the years. Performers will grumble and scholars will argue about it for generations to come.

Clear and precise notation is always the goal.


----------



## Cygnus64 (May 31, 2014)

JJP @ Sat May 31 said:


> Just because you can find examples of bad notation in the literature doesn't make it a precedent.



I'm gonna try and say this as politely as I can: I don't think you know what the word precedent means. Of course it makes it a precedent. 

It's not bad notation either, it's the correct notation. For the two examples I posted, let's see a better way to write it. It's not some obscure find, it is THE NOTATION for about 40 gazillion violin works. If you can think of a better way, I'd love to see it.



> Performers will grumble



Bad ones might. Experienced pros who have spent decades reading music won't even flinch. Seriously, any fiddle player who can't read that needs to go back to school or something. Same with the original post. It's not rocket surgery, there's a harmonic on the top note.


----------



## clarkus (May 31, 2014)

This is also my experience.

A diamond a 4th or a 5th over a note is the notation for a touch 4th harmonic (or a touch 5th) 

These are artificial harmonics. Not natural harmonics. The latter are the type that need the little circle.

The only advice I'd pass on (which some of the orchestration books omit) is that as you get toward the top of the staff you are actually producing a very hight pitch, and it tends to get pale and hard to produce.

Lower in the staff and in the middle of the staff works great.

Touch 4th easier to produce than touch 5th.

If anyone on this thread wants to lay down the gauntlet, you can go to Gardner Read's book Musical Notation, which is the most comprehensive book I know, and I own it, and I just looked this up. He refers to the addition of a circle OR of a small note indicating the sounding pitch, or of both, as "Redundant."


----------



## clarkus (May 31, 2014)

This is also my experience.

A diamond a 4th or a 5th over a note is the notation for a touch 4th harmonic (or a touch 5th) 

These are artificial harmonics. Not natural harmonics. The latter are the type that need the little circle.

The only advice I'd pass on (which some of the orchestration books omit) is that as you get toward the top of the staff you are actually producing a very high pitch. It tends to get pale and hard to produce.

Lower in the staff and in the middle of the staff works great.

Touch 4th easier to produce than touch 5th.

If anyone on this thread wants to lay down the gauntlet, you can go to Gardner Read's book Musical Notation, which is the most comprehensive book I know, and I own it, and I just looked this up. He refers to the addition of a circle OR of a small note indicating the sounding pitch, or of both, as "Redundant."

the question was about making it clear that this was divisi, and I think that question may have gotten lost in the flurry. This is where I have to admit I don't follow the question: Is the desire to make sure that only one player plays the harmonic? In that case "Div" gets you half the way there. But you need to indicate what the OTHER player is doing, either by a rest (above or below the stave) if they are to rest, OR by putting the music that is to be played above or below the harmonic. 

As Daryl pointed out @ the beginning of all this, you may need to go to 2 (or more) staves, presuming you have music for the other folks to play that is NOT this harmonic. 

For a part where you need extra staves to appear for a limited time, you can hide (or reveal) staves in Sibelius. Perhaps you know this. If not, it's a useful trick to know. 

Over & out.


----------



## Cygnus64 (Jun 1, 2014)

clarkus @ Sun Jun 01 said:


> A diamond a 4th or a 5th over a note is the notation for a touch 4th harmonic (or a touch 5th)
> 
> .



The interval doesn't matter. When there is a solid note with a diamond notehead above it, they aren't notes any more. They are instrucions:

Solid note- place finger here

Diamond- place another finger here (very lightly), on the same string.

If it sounds terrible, it might be a terrible composer.... but the notation is accurate. :lol: The 4th of course is the most common. The player doesn't need to know any of this, it's confusing. The player just needs to know where to put their fingers. The intervals that actually "work" include a 3rd (major or minor), 4th, 5th, octave (hard to reach) etc. If one wrote a diamond over a solid with an interval of a second, it's going to squeak and not "work", but hey, the composer may want that. It's not the violinist's call. It's not the copyist's call either. The violinist does what is written. If not, it gets really confusing. As a symphony violinist, if the composer sucks well, that's not my fault. We do what it says. It's not improper "notation" to have a harmonic over any solid note...it's improper composition if it doesn't sound good. 



> He refers to the addition of a circle OR of a small note indicating the sounding pitch, or of both, as "Redundant."



Of course. The circle is redundant, the cue note is like training wheels, it's usually in editions for younger players to help them a bit.




> the question was about making it clear that this was divisi, and I think that question may have gotten lost in the flurry. This is where I have to admit I don't follow the question: Is the desire to make sure that only one player plays the harmonic? In that case "Div" gets you half the way there. But you need to indicate what the OTHER player is doing, either by a rest (above or below the stave) if they are to rest, OR by putting the music that is to be played above or below the harmonic.



Let's take it slowly:


> Is the desire to make sure that only one player plays the harmonic?



Only one player_ has _a harmonic. This is why I posted the examples that I did: The artificial harmonic is attached to the solid note below it. If you have 2 solid notes or 16 solid notes, it only applies to the note it's attached to, the top note. 



> As Daryl pointed out @ the beginning of all this, you may need to go to 2 (or more) staves,



That's one of those grey areas wear "more clear" trumps "redundant. Technically, it's not needed. However, as we're apparently learning in this thread, not everyone knows the "attached" rule. 



> But you need to indicate what the OTHER player is doing, either by a rest (above or below the stave) if they are to rest, OR by putting the music that is to be played above or below the harmonic.



You're kind of speaking in tongues here. :lol: Bottom guy (also known as inside player) plays the bottom note. Honestly, bottom guy doesn't even know that the harmonic is there- it ain't his gig. He is sightreading the _bottom_ line. A composer could put a $ sign over the top note, won't affect bottom guy one bit. Bottom guy has one job- play the bottom note. 

Likewise, top guy (also known as outside player) plays the top line. Top guy doesn't look at the notes that bottom guy plays, ain't his gig. He plays the top line. The word "divisi" is somewhat redundant as orchestra players almost always play divisi unless it's a hoedown or chords at the end of a mvmt. etc. Regardless, top guy plays the top note, and the top note has a harmonic attached to it. Therefore, top guy plays with a harmonic. Bottom guy probably hasn't seen it except peripherally, as bottom guy is concentrating on sight-reading the bottom line.


----------



## JJP (Jun 1, 2014)

I think we may be at cross purposes here. The original post was about writing for a divided string section. Writing for each individual string for different parts of a divided section on the same staff could cause confusion in many cases. It could also counter the goal of making a part instantly sight-readable.

In my experience in the recording world and contemporary music, players would definitely grumble about that. That's because they are sometimes asked to do some pretty odd things, and often can't make assumptions like they do with the standard orchestral repertoire.

I think we can all agree that solo literature is a whole different matter. The solo examples are perfectly valid, but would be confusing if written for a divided section and not split into separate staves. To do so would unadvisable among my colleagues in the music preparation world. The rule of thumb is generally that if there is a chance it may be misinterpreted, then split it out so that there is no question of the intent.

This could be different from some publishing standards, but we tend to work in situations with few or no rehearsals. Clarity for sight-reading is paramount.

(My apologies if my last post sounded condescending, or a personal attack on you, Cygnus. That wasn't my intent.)


----------



## Stiltzkin (Jun 1, 2014)

This is only mildly relevant, but I believe the videos cinesamples are doing with the soloists had a violinist, and if I remember correctly (I only skimmed through it) he did cover some of the notation problems they come across, including harmonics and what they are performers (specifically modern session musicians) prefer.

But in short, similar to what Cygnus64 wrote, they can figure these things out in a heartbeat with regards to whichever way you want to write harmonics - it doesn't make too much difference (unless it's just plain wrong of course )


----------



## clarkus (Jun 1, 2014)

Hi, Stiltzkin

I'd say to this "Maybe." My experience is orchestral musicians if given a chance will take up rehearsal time pointing it out when things are written incorrectly, or oddly, or redundantly. Sometimes their commentary is well-meaning, sometimes not, but in any case I try to work with the standard for a given effect, and the harmonics thing is not really up for debate at this point. Ways of writing split parts may not be so codified, as there are a number of ways people do that & have done it.

But I try to make my scores bullet-proof.

There's a Schirmer guide to contemporary usage for music copyists, but last I checked it was out of print. I paid a copyist here in the Bay Area for several paid sessions a few years back just to unravel for me mysteries of usage that are not detailed in orchestration books (a2, for example, to follow a solo passage). 

I hope the question got answered in here somewhere.


----------

