This one's more about proper notation than about NWC, but I figure it still belongs here:
I've noticed NWC allows a slur to the same note. The result is that there is less of a break (compared to sans slur) after the first note before the second is played.
Now, is this the proper way to notate things? And if not (my theory teacher told me this would just constitute a tie), what's the best way to notate a repeat of the same note with a distinct second attack but with as small a break as possible after the first note (say, as you might achieve on a guitar by playing the same E in two places)?
-m
Many composers have ignored this distinction, but I think it's a useful one. It tends to reduce ambiguity, which is all to the good.
Hello Maciek
If I understood well want you wish, I think you must use to layers.
In layer 1 you twit the full value of the note you want, say 1/2 note (1/4 note tied to 1/4 note)
In layer 2 you write the "part" of the note which you want to make different.
r/8 = 1/8 note rest.
r/4 = 1/4 note rest.
Just an example:
+ = tie
Layer 1
1/4 + 1/4
r/4 1/4
Layer 2
Or
Layer 1
1/4 + 1/4
r/4 1/8 r/8
Layer 2
In both cases are hidden, not to print.
I hope I could suggest you something.
Paulo Galvao
(A commentary on my previous message)
Using dynamic / dynamic variance one can achieve very interesting results specially when the instrument path provides "Sustained" sounds (like flute, etc.)
All the best
Regards, from Portugal
I would say, yes, a slur to the same note would indicate that the second note is part of the same "phrase" without being held as in the case of a tie. It works out well from an NWC-midi standpoint also, as you noticed. Without the slur it has a detaché feel, with the slur it's the same as if you had specified a legato instruction.
Slurs on same notes are not common in notation I've seen, the exception being slurred staccato notes for strings. This is an instruction to the player to play the staccato notes on the same bow (as opposed to the default, which is alternating bow direction). The result is less of a staccato effect, more like a pronounced marcato.
In the specific case of playing the same note on different strings of a guitar, I'd highly recommend an indication to that effect (the usual way is using a circled number, but those are hard to come by in NWC).
Same note slurs are useful indicators for songs where the verses vary between (for example) a quarter note and two eigths; and you don't want to notate each verse seperately.
Seeing as how same note slurs would look identical to ties in conventional printed notation, I don't understand how you can say that they exist at all as a separate entity.
The fact that they can exist in NWC is a mere computational artifact - and they look identical on the printed score.
What, if anything, am I missing here?
- seb
I don't think the statement "same note slurs would look identical to ties in conventional printed notation" is necessarily true, even if it's sometimes true in practice.
- A Google search found this from the Music Department of Colorado College: Ties differ from slurs in that a tie almost touches the center of a notehead, but a slur is set somwhat above or below a notehead.
- Ties always connect the heads of the tied notes, but it is legal to begin or end a slur at the tail end of a stem rather than the head. If you had two notes with the same pitch but different stem direction, you could slur from the head of one to the tail of the other and the result would clearly not be a tie.
- Standard string notation uses slurs to indicate bowing. Two notes of identical pitch can be taken on the same bow without being tied (that is, without merging the two notes into one). In this case an articulation mark such as _ or . usually appears between the slur and the slurred notes. This kind of placement is not possible with ties.