 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: christian_comeau
Date: 2006-08-05 18:08
Hi,
Can someone tell me what an "U" over a note means?
(If it is something very special, please include audio example!)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2006-08-05 19:25
christian_comeau wrote:
>> Hi, Can someone tell me what an "U" over a note means?>>
It's not very often used, so I can't say whether it's being used properly here, but it means 'relatively unstressed', and is often contrasted with a forward slash (/) over a note, meaning 'relatively stressed'. Compare the notations for iambs, dactyls, trochees, spondees etc that you get in prosody.
I think it's a very useful notation myself.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2006-08-05 19:57
A much more basic question, perhaps, but I'll ask it anyway.
What is the difference between > over a note and ^ over a note?
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2006-08-05 20:37
Just guessing, but the ^ is sort of a light attack --like using the tip of your bow, while > is a fairly hard to hard attack --a tongued or breath accent.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2006-08-05 22:53
I've always read that > is a standard accent and ^ is a harder one.
However, the Harvard Dictionary says that in the classical period, say, Beethoven's time, ^ was the standard accent sign.
Tony - I don't remember seeing U or / marks? Have you come across them in contemporary music, or in traditional (tonal) music?
If a contemporary composer uses unusual signs, there's usually a preface where they're explained. My first thought was that the U mark might call for a pitch dip.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sean.Perrin
Date: 2006-08-05 23:54
> is a standard accent
^ is a marcato accent which should be not nessecarily more forceful, but perhaps more driving and hammer-like.
I have no Idea what U means. Are there slurs over this note passage, or perhaps it is a notation normally used for another instrument used in error for the clarinet?
Often times when there are obscure markings in a piece there are notes on the players part or in the score that describe what they mean... not always though, especially with young/inexperienced composers.
Founder and host of the Clarineat Podcast: http://www.clarineat.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2006-08-06 02:39
I see that all the time in Pops charts. Pops arrangers often feel they need to write every little jazzy rhythm or effect (gliss or slide between notes) etc., for the musicians of the orchestra.
I generally see the "U" or other symbols (squigly line) above or next to the note heads as a direction to bend the pitch.
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2006-08-06 04:16
How about a "scoop", a quick bend down and back up again? My first thought was a jazz style notation chart as well, but I've not seen the chart type explained by the original poster to date.
And then there's hits and bumps for the difference between > and ^...but I'm probably showing my age there...
leader of Houston's Sounds Of The South Dance Orchestra
info@sotsdo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2006-08-06 11:22
Ken Shaw wrote:
>> Tony - I don't remember seeing U or / marks? Have you come across them in contemporary music, or in traditional (tonal) music?>>
No, I don't see it much, either, though I have done, on occasion, mostly in contemporary music.
It's more something that I and some others might use to represent, say, that the first bar of the menuetto of the Kegelstatt trio is the first of a pair of bars to be thought of as one phrase, and bars three and four are independent. Then, you might write '/' over the first bar, and 'U' over the second, (indicating that the second bar isn't equally stressed by the piano -- sometimes, they stress it even more!), all without in any way thereby prescribing how that stress is to be achieved.
It's a notation used throughout Cooper and Meyer, 'The Rhythmic Structure of Music', which is I suppose is where I've seen it most. On the other hand, I think that the main thrust of that book is pretty misleading.
As always, you need a context to make decisions about what signs mean. Other posts in this thread seem to miss that point entirely, as though these things are always INSTRUCTIONS WHAT TO DO.
Anyway, he just hasn't provided the context -- which means that we're wasting our time in a way.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seafaris
Date: 2006-08-06 14:32
These symbols are used in jazz. The ^ is a short accent (dot), meaning that the note is to be attacked hard and then stopped short of its full written value. The > over the second note means that the beginning the the note should be played with extra emphasis (bah). You can also have - (doo) over the note, and . (dit) over the note. This is what gives you that swinging rythym to the music. There are a lot more but these are the basics.
...Jim
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2006-08-06 15:18
Ken Shaw wrote:
>> Have you come across them in contemporary music, or in traditional (tonal) music?>>
Amazing coincidence -- I just came across a use of the sign in a contemporary piece I have to play later in the year. It's the Kurtag 'Robert Schumann' pieces for cl, va, pf. (It's highly unlikely that its use here is anything to do with what the original poster was asking about -- but how would we know.....??)
In this piece, the sign is used as a 'negative pause' -- unlike the standard pause sign, which lengthens a note or rest that it stands above, this sign in Kurtag's piece SHORTENS the note or rest it stands above! He explains this in the foreword.
The natural question you want to ask yourself is, why not just write a shorter note or rest? But then, instead of the standard pause, why not just write a LONGER note or rest.....?
I found it interesting to think why.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HautboisJJ
Date: 2006-08-08 06:55
I was taught that > gives a stronger emphasis on the beginning of the note whilst ^ usually grants the whole length of a note energy. Interesting topic.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2006-08-08 10:45
Hi,
There is an excellent page in Music Theory Dictionary by Lee, 1966 on modern jazz articulations. Included are 18 different note treatments from the flip to the plop. I would dupliacte the page but do not have the publisher's permission.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: christian_comeau
Date: 2006-08-09 01:10
...
^ Short and loud
> Full value but strougly attacked
But the "u" isn't so much contemporary, it's "only" jazz and I've seen it in many pieces... But it is over or under the note, note between two.
I think Terry Stibal's opinion is the most plausible, can someone confirm (instead of talking about accents! lol)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
