Daryl wrote: ↑Sep 05, 2018 3:54 am
1gc wrote: ↑Sep 05, 2018 12:23 am
But Daryl, not disrepecting you or denying your greater expertice, but with "Shorts" would you define not just Spiccatos and Staccatos , but also Marcatos, Martellatos, Col Legnos, Bart Pizzes the family of detache bowings short Ponts, richochets and so forth. These all have for me differing qualities of sound.
OK, here goes...!
There is no such thing as "shorts", unless you are talking about trousers.
Spiccato is a subset of the set of staccato, so is just one of many staccato bowings.
Both marcato and martellato have nothing to do with the length of the note. They are to do with the attack. However, they can be played in a detatched manner, so are a subset of the set of staccato.
Col legno is not a staccato bowing as such, but unless you try to do the "tratto" nonsense, it is always short, so in effect, it could be part of the staccato set.
Ponticello can be any length, so it is an intersection with the set of staccato.
Detache may be played short, but it is never detatched, in the way a staccato is, so is not part of the staccato set.
Richochet is a staccato bowing
And yes, they all have different qualities of sound.
Hope that helps.
Well - surely Détaché Lancé is both a Détaché stroke, and is definitely detached, and the Détaché Porté is at least meant to 'feel' detached, even if there's no real separation - although I'm not sure that Détache Lancé is a 'subset' rather than its own unique thing, really. But, anyway...
I'll be honest: I don't really know where you get the "Spiccato is a subset of the set of staccato" from. I'd like to know, though, actually! (Assuming that there's a school or text that you would point to...) I can tell you where I get my idea that Staccato and Spiccato are two relatively discrete entities: Galamian's "Principles of Violin Playing and Teaching," His idea of "Staccato" and "Spiccato" are so unique to each other that he also has the "Flying Staccato" - the difference between his "Flying Staccato" and "Flying Spiccato" being that the Staccato version is the result of a little vertical finger movement, while the flying Spiccato, (from Galamian) "true to its Spiccato nature, is actively thrown onto the string for every note."
I don't mean to employ any kind of "Gotcha" moment, Daryl - far from it, in fact. Ultimately, the point of all the nomenclature ends at the sheet of music, because virtually none of it is written directly on the page! All of the methods and taxonomies are a means to that end. It just strikes me that the pedagogical concerns of actually getting someone to a sound technique can be very different from the concerns of a non-string-playing composer, which are also very different from the needs of a sample developer. I don't know if you'd consider the Sautillé to be a discrete "articulation," but wouldn't it be useful to have sampled Sautillé iterations? You could even have a Sautillé script that would insert "normal" Spiccato samples at beginnings of phrases and after leaps to a new string, or after so much time had passed, with subsequent notes using the Sautillé? Or what about a Fouetté sample, that detects velocity above a certain level in fast legato playing and gives a little lifted, whipped bowing sample at that point? None of these are things that a composer would write into a score, but ultimately, if players see something like the double-stops over the open string from the finale of the Beethoven concerto, or more importantly, if I want to write something vaguely like it in my DAW, wouldn't they be fantastically useful for sample developers?
All of which is a way of saying: a player doesn't have to think of the difference between a Flying Staccato, a Sautillé, and a Flying Spiccato at any given moment, but if sample developers thought that way, I'd probably have fewer absurd "Super Sul Tasto" samples of 4 people sitting in a room producing ghastly sounds, and more varied and active right-hand techniques that I might be able to actually put to use?
