Flute notation
What do the circles above the notes in this picture tell the flautists to do? There are two parts on the line.
I played Saxophone and never saw this on a woodwind before. This is from Ravel's orchestration of Pictures at an exhibition.
Comments
may be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_symbols
?
In reply to may be by Shoichi
I knew all of the other uses of the o above a note listed in the wiki article. I didn't find anything for a woodwind.
In reply to I knew all of the other uses by mike320
From: //simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonics_(music)
section "playing harmonics on instruments":
"Musicians sometimes need to play harmonics on their instruments. In musical notation this is shown by placing a little circle above the note.[...]
Players of woodwind and brass instruments play many of their notes by blowing slightly stronger (overblowing) to get a higher series of notes. Instruments such as the recorder can play chords by making several harmonics sound together, but this is extremely difficult to do well and only found in modern music for virtuoso players."
I think it's a harmonic - play a low B and totally overblow it to get a note two octaves higher, maybe an E or a G# to get the D#. (I own a flute but don't play much and only vaguely remember this from somewhere although experimentation does yield approximately those results).
In reply to I think it's a harmonic - by underquark
My guess was an over blow, but I wasn't sure if you would overblow the D# or overblow something else to get the D# harmonic. What made me question this was the dynamic is pp. I'm guessing it takes a talented flautist to overblow at pp to get a harmonic. I'm thinking with my keyboard at the moment, does overblow refer to moving the air stream up to have less of it enter the air hole. This would make sense, it's kind of like restricting the airflow into the reed of a sax to get harmonics. I played a little flute years ago but never did anything advanced at all.
In reply to I think it's a harmonic - by underquark
I decided to revisit this notation and have discovered through searching the web that the note with the circle above it is the sounding note like on a violin or other string instrument. underquark seems to have given me the correct answer. Flute harmonics seem to be played only using very low fundamentals from what I have read.
In reply to I decided to revisit this… by mike320
You might want to consider multiphonics, something explored in contemporary composition. Examples include those of Robert Dick, Luciano Berio ("Sequenza") and others.
I did not realize it would show up in Ravel's work.
The pp is a clue: the closer the interval the more quiet it can be played. I have seen Robert Dick demonstrate this and other techniques when he was with the Creative Associates in Buffalo, NY. There is quite a bit on the net about flute multiphonics.
On a violin, such a notation would indicate a double harmonic if both were naturals. Otherwise the notation would have to be two fundamentals and two diamonds upon the same stem. The notation of the example from a score of mine was made possible by YOU. ( The second of the doubles - the G and D - are natural, but the fingering vis-a vis the grace notes would be more clear notated as such with the diamonds.) The actual sounds are not visible. (Thanks).
In reply to You might want to consider… by penne vodka
Pardon me. As it is very difficult for me to read a PC monitor, especially after long hours looking at dots and lines on a white background which results in eye fatigue, I sometimes don't catch everything. Your quest raised my curiosity and in checking the score I then realized you stated "two parts"on the line. This can only be harmonics.
In reply to Pardon me. As it is very… by penne vodka
I realized the the circle above the notes indicated a harmonic. On the Harp, the note indicates the fundamental while the actual sound is an octave above. On stringed instruments with fingerboards (violins, guitars...) the note with a circle above indicates the sound played. The purpose of the questions was to determine which playback is indicated on the flute so I could adjust playback if needed. I discovered that the flute shows the sounding pitch so I don't need to make any further adjustments to the score.
As far as two instruments on the same staff is concerned, this does not mean the notes must be a harmonic, but rather harmony. These are two entirely different terms. What tells this must be harmonics is the circles above the notes. Since there are two instruments, the editor chose to put two dots above the notes to remove any question as to which instrument plays a harmonic. The main reason I didn't know the purpose of the circles is that the notes are very playable on the flute without the use of harmonics. The reason Ravel chose to use harmonics was for the different sound it would make. I'm not aware of the soundfont that will allow for this distinction so I will settle for a normal flute sound at the written pitches.
As far as having difficulty reading the notes, I might suggest that you get a screen reader and use it while reading the forums. They are not bad, but are dull to listen to. I use NVDA which is recommended in the accessibility instructions in MuseScore.
In reply to I realized the the circle… by mike320
I figured you did know about harmonics with your head in scores all the time. I guess I was anxious to offer assistance to one who has helped me so much.
Yes, the flute shows the sounding pitch. You also mentioned the editor's choice. I do recall a Stravinsky score where he deploys a double harmonic. (I would think strings.) He did it in such a way that the stem was split into a Y to denote the two. I do not recall which score. If it is important to you, I'll look. However, it seems you are sure that the Ravel is NOT a double harmonic. I could not opine because I did not see it.
As for NVDA, thank you. (What kills me is that I just got a new prescription.)
In reply to I realized the the circle… by mike320
Very interesting. I dug out my old score to find the section in question and gave it a listen. Ravel uses up to three flutes in some parts of the score, but at this point there are just the two. Yes, the written notes are the sounding pitch. Given the variety of ways to produce harmonics on a wind instrument, it would be left to the performer to deduce the best way in the circumstances. Nowadays, both pitches could quite possibly be played using the low-B fingering. At least, that is one way to do it. I don't know if low-B flutes were available at the time, so they could also have been played using vented fingerings, encouraging and/or discouraging harmonic nodes along the length of the instrument.
The sound is quite etherial, though hard to hear in such a short example... open and pure, and seemingly without nuance. (which I suppose IS its nuance.) Also very hard to control, so somewhat under-employed in orchestral settings. (Note that the notes are plated Pianissimo, WITH a diminuendo... using a technique which is inherently unstable.)
This is just a tiny moment in Ravel's amazing transcription. The whole piece is quite mind-blowing. Ravel was such a beast!
In reply to Very interesting. I dug out… by toffle
This is without a doubt in my top 5 favorites of all time due to Ravel's orchestration. It is definitely mind blowing. I was curious if flautists in the time of Ravel might have a B foot on their flutes. I did some research and found a picture from about 1900 of a flute with a B foot included. As I said in my last comment, I don't know of a sound font that includes flute harmonics, so I settled for the correct notes. I've noticed that there are few sound fonts that include harmonics for any instrument. Playback in MuseScore is not very good to begin with, but having harmonics in sound fonts would be an improvement.
In reply to Very interesting. I dug out… by toffle
A T-Rex! And to think that not in one bar did he compromise the very Russian quality!
$.02
In reply to A T-Rex! And to think that… by penne vodka
I'm not sure I would say that he didn't compromise the Russian quality. He definitely "Francofied" it when he used the harmonics that are were not at all included in the piano score. The French of the late romantic era to the mid 20th century were very much in love with their harmonics on various instruments. From what I've seen, composers from other countries did not make such extensive use of harmonics during this era. This includes Russians, like Prokofiev and Stravinsky, who worked in France. I had to find a reference work on Ravel's use of harmonics to understand how to transcribe it to MuseScore.
There is a Russian sound that cannot be mistaken and it is clear to me it still exists in Ravel's orchestration. This piece could never have been written by a single individual, and it would be, IMHO, a footnote in Classical music rather than one of the greatest pieces ever without both Moussorgsky and Ravel.
In reply to I'm not sure I would say… by mike320
Thank you!
I agree about Prokofiev (et al.) not Stravinsky.
There was no need for them in the language of the former, the latter I feel overused them at times, as in L'histoire, a score which always seems to be within arm's lenghth of me. The use of harmonics (and his obsession with fingering!) is intimidating, if not annoying. (I wonder if the use was more a matter of ease of fingering because within the texture and at the speed played you can't hear them). Harmonics by their very nature were French with their subtlety, part of their language. Would you agree that when the French used them they were part of the landscape...like a Monet,et al.?
What I mean is that after Ravel's masterful treatment, there remained no doubt the piece was conceived by a Russian, who despite that Russian's charming lack of discipline, successfully endeavored to create a Russian sound.
Surely it would be sad to have had the original piano score relatively unknown - a footnote. I'm sure you've heard some Russian orchestral treatments. What stood out to me about Ravels' (despite your correct observation) is that it was more Russian because of Ravel's ability to overcome Rimsky's limitation and create dark, ugly sounds (in other works as well) which, I will add, was a major contribution to the orchestral literature by Tchaikovsky. I say this because Rimsky was always aghast at Tchaikovsky's non-idiomatic use of instruments and antiphonal use of the orchestra. Rimsky lived by his orchestration book (also at arm's length). Ravel was... ahh...French!
Ergo, we agree. (I think.)
In reply to Thank you!… by penne vodka
I do agree about Ravel. The use of harmonics was a part of his Impressionist style, which was definitely french. I'm not familiar at all with L'histoire. As I said, many French composer loved to use harmonics, but I didn't say others never used them, but they didn't use harmonics as much (in as many works). From what I've seen, when other especially more recent composers, use harmonics they tend to use them a lot. I suppose this is indicative of a more abstract style rather then the impressionist style of Ravel and Debussy.
Tchaikovsky was independent in his style. While he was close to members of "The Five," who defined the Russian style I love so much, he remained independent and wrote his music in spite of the disdain he received from "The Five." Rimsky-Korsakov, who literally wrote the book on orchestration, was stuck within the box his book put him in, while others felt free to go outside of this box. This resulted in far less of Risky-Korsakov's music making it to the mainstream while Tchaikovsky has several pieces that are recognized and even loved by people who don't know who Tchaikovsky was. There are those who believe Ravel was the greatest orchestrator of his day. I would present Pictures at an Exhibition as evidence of this while I'm not willing to make such a statement.
In reply to I do agree about Ravel. The… by mike320
Yes... yes... and of course, yes.
If harmonics are overused, they loose their charm and become pedestrian, but of course I make allowances for Aleksandr Borodin. (During a recent docs appointment we discussed his "treatise on the Flouride of Benzol" one of his two works still covered in med school.)
Well said about Rimsky's position. I, too, am fascinated by the Five and their relationship with Tchaikovsky. There was not only disdain from the Five. Balakirev respected his structural skills and hounded him repeatedly to write certain works, which resulted in Romeo and Juliet and the Manfred Symphony. Rimsky, though at times jealous of the attention Tchaikovsky received home and abroad, sought out guidance from him on counterpoint and structure. I was always amused at how Mussorgsky annoyed him with his general untidyness and his disregard for Mozart, et al.
There were so many good orchestrators. How do you rate this? One must consider material. Ravel's own creations were gorgeous, but he had particularly delicious material to work with in Mussorgsky. With so much to chose, I find my favorite is Tchaikovsky because of his ethic which allows for the frankest of expression. The way he orchestrates his ideas further enhances his intentions. It is best, and most succinctly put by British musicologist Gerald Abraham who called his work "living music." Perhaps it comes down to the composer we understand the most in this special communication.
On this subject I could go at length and bore Ghandi. I wish this fine forum had a chapter for this type of discussion as well as for our own compositional endeavors.
In reply to Yes... yes... and of course,… by penne vodka
I have no formal education in classical music. What I've learned is from reading and listening, so a forum for such discussions would be interesting to me. As far as showing your own compositional endeavors, you can feel free to post them in Made with MuseScore which was made for this purpose.