I am using slurs (phrase-marks - call them what you will!) for the very first time in a big-band arrangement.
Now, I have always preferred to see all articulations sitting within the slur marking.
The Gould Bible (see p122) does offer a handful of contrasting examples of which I am sure she is quite correct. I also checked a few procedures within Sibelius and it seems to adhere to these rules (see below in red).
However, would I look incompetent if I chose to ignore Gould/Sib. and place all articulations inside of the slur? This would be consistent for all types of articulation throughout the entire chart, in all instrument parts.
Many thanks in advance for any kind assistance offered here.
Best,
Paul David Seaman (UK)
Sibelius 8.6 (v. 2018.1 / build 1449 / born 2018-01-22)
Yes, I prefer to have all my articulations above the staff and inside the phrase mark. I consider the phrase mark (or slur) itself to be an articulation and always uppermost. I would very much like to be an option in Sib.
In answer to your second question, what kind of gliss does your example represent, fingered, lipped or slide? For anything other than a slide, I prefer to see a thick wavy line. There is no need for a slur in either case. I don't always agree with Gould as to rightfulness.
> what kind of gliss does your example represent, fingered, lipped or slide?
For saxes - fingered.
For brass - my opinion has changed of recent. 'Slide' for trombones. However, after speaking to a couple of UK arrangers, and watching big-bands live and also on YouTube, I now leave it to each trumpeter to make their own choice. I really don't think it makes that much difference regarding the latter. They can follow the lead-trumpeter or else do their own thing. I certainly can't tell any difference with 13 active blowers at 'FF'.
Standard practice for articulations and slurs is to have articulations outside the slur ends for all but staccato. The rest should be inside the slur unless they conflict visually, then you have to come up with some solution and that will vary depending on the specific situation.
--
Justin Tokke, Senior Product Designer at Sibelius
[email protected]
I tried what you are suggesting earlier on, thanks; but I'm afraid I didn't feel it looked uniform enough.
One thing which has cropped up in my mind is that is there any point in placing a staccato dot over the final quaver of a phrase? Because it's the last note of a phrase, is the player not supposed to shorten it's duration by default?, rendering the staccato marking superfluous.
> I suppose if you wanted a "clipped" sound or a noticeably shorter note at the end of the phrase, staccato would be useful, yes.
Justin - I'm inclined to leave such events in place because varying the notation might cause confusion. If I lost the staccato dot at the end of the below phrase then the player might wonder why so. Thanks.
> Or you could simply write an 8th note without articulation.
Thanks, that's a really good point I had not considered; although I think I will leave it as is now (I'm at the stage of wanting to get shut of the piece!). Probably reconsider in future arrangements.
No slur. The scoops indicate that each note is a new entry. As for plunger, you have no indication as to as to how it should be used. You need close & open marks (+ or o or +o).
> No slur. The scoops indicate that each note is a new entry. As for plunger, you have no indication as to as to how it should be used. You need close & open marks (+ or o or +o).