What is the proper convention when...
Please see attachment.
In a score where
*An instrument has no notes in a given measure, only a whole-measure rest, and
*Other instruments have both notes and rests, with a fermata somewhere in the same measure,
Should the no-note measure have no fermata (as in the attachment, for the piccolo/Ott. part),
or should a fermata be added?
If a fermata should be added, should it be over the single rest mark; or should the measure be divided into several smaller rests, and the fermata added so as to align with the fermata in the other staves?
Hopefully I've described this adequately. Let me know if I need to clarify.
Thanks,
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Boheme snip.PNG | 124.55 KB |
Comments
I've seen it as both.
Behind Bars by Elaine Gould, p. 190:
'...The beat or subdivision on which the pause falls must agree in all parts of a score.
Since a player has only his or her own part, a long note or rest in a leading (or "busy") part may be subdivided to indicate the precise beat or subdivision on which the pause falls...
...Score and parts should agree as to whether notes or rests are subdivided to show the exact placing of the pause...'
Yes, this would mean that the ottavino part must have a fermata at that rest.
Well... it seems the ottavina part must have a fermata...but at what rest?
![fermata1.png]( "fermata1.png")
Here?
Here?
![fermata2.png]( "fermata2.png")
Or as per Elaine Gould:
...The beat or subdivision on which the pause falls must agree in all parts of a score.
Here?
![fermata3.png]( "fermata3.png")
In reply to Well... it seems the ottavina by Jm6stringer
The first example.
How did you generate the images?
In reply to The first example. How did by Ragokyo
In the very first entry, the png is a screen capture from the pdf score from IMSLP/petrucci. La Boheme, act 2.
Does Gould require that the fermatas be placed at the same position in the conductors score, or only in the individual part scores? I know that digital scores these days are used to generate the part scores, but this wasn't the case pre-digital, so I can imagine different rules may apply for the conductor vs. the part scores.
In reply to In the very first entry, the by marty strasinger
Traditionally: I'm not sure.
Gould's recommendations: place the fermatas at the same position in both full and part score. The duration of the pause is determined by the conductor's signal - this means that players will hold a pause until cued by the conductor, and will not have to refer to the full score.
In reply to In the very first entry, the by marty strasinger
As a conductor, I can say that having the score not reflect the parts is always a bad idea - it leads to wasted time in rehearsal as we sort out the differences. And in this particular case, it also is important that all parts in the score show the same location for the fermata. Otherwise, it won't be obvious how I need to conduct - which line do I look at?
In reply to As a conductor, I can say by Marc Sabatella
This makes perfect sense to me; but I run into so many exceptions when entering old scores into MuseScore that it makes me wonder- are issues like this an accepted convention, or are they just sloppy workmanship & poor engraving practice? I'm tending to think the latter.
Along the same lines, I have seen (for instance) dynamics or hairpins or pizz./arco entered for just the violins, when it's obviously intended to apply to the entire string section.
Anyway, it seems that my question has been answered. Thanks to everyone who responded.
In reply to Well... it seems the ottavina by Jm6stringer
Thanks for your edits to my original png, it definitely makes the issue easier to understand.