glissando question (text vs no-text)

[MichelRE]

A comment made on the Dorico forum got me thinking about this and wondering if standards might have changed in recent years.

With certain instruments, a line from one note to another is "obviously" a glisssando. For example, in a trombone part I don't think anyone would question what that diagonal line represented.

With certain others, there might pop up questions, like in a string part: is it a glissando? is it a portamento? is it just graphical and meant to imply some sort of directional information?

Personally, I feel it's best to include the text "gliss" on at least the first occurrence of a glissando (when followed within close proximity by further glissandi.)
I would repeat the text at the next occurrence of a glissando if it's multiple measures away, like 6-7 measures or further.

But is taking the tack "the text is always superfluous, the line is obvious" legitimate?

Might one, for example, always forego the "gliss" text in certain instruments while not in others? For example, forego in harp and trombone, but include in strings?

Or do you feel that consistency across the board is a better approach to the question? (ie: if you use the text, use it everywhere.)

[OCTO]

Portamento is rarely notated in strings since it is considered as an expression. Nobody knows what Mahler wanted in his last movement of the last symphony. There are both recordings of glissando and portamento.

In my music I use gliss. for all instruments since there are too many lines around...

But generally, the musicians can figure out if it is glissando or an expressive portamento even if there are too many mixed in pieces like in Piazzolla's works.

[MichelRE]

so would you be a proponent of, for example, harp and trombone glissandi without the "gliss." text?

[David Ward]

FWIW I have usually employed a wavy gliss line for trombone glissandi taking up all or most of the value of the starting note and a straight line to indicate a quick quasi-portamento glissando at the end of the first note. This notation is not actively recommended by any authority, but in my case it has always been understood and interpreted correctly (except once when a conductor tried to over-gesture the exact interpretation). This has usually been without the addition of ‘gliss’ or ‘glissando’.

Harp glissandi I always indicate with a straight line preceded by the first octave as small stemless notes. If the gliss is repeated shortly afterwards with no pedal changes, I have used just the line between the starting and destination notes. Again I have mostly not added ‘gliss’ or ‘glissando’.

However, to answer to the original question, I fear I have not been entirely consistent in what I have written (ie whether or not I have added text) over the last 70 or so years (mostly in manuscript)!

[OCTO]

In his "Birds and Bells", Bent Sørensen uses both with and without gliss. There is also the overtone gliss, which must have that indication. Still, there is no exact consensus, but if your music is "advanced" enough, you can specify gliss. on the beginning and later omit it. Other thing is the length of gliss. If it spans across one whole measure, gliss would be very helpful to have!

[MichelRE]

well, my own music is a bit on the tamer side, not quite as "adventurous".

[MichelRE]

I'm thinking from the point of view of consistency.

Would it be inconsistent to have the "gliss" text appear only in the 1st appearance of a gliss (let's say I have a few glisses in a row), then repeating later in the score where needed?

And to completely leave the text out of the harp part?
The professional harpist I worked with on my 2nd symphony told me to use the text. But it DOES seem a bit redundant to have the row of "tuning" notes, the gliss line, AND the text "gliss."

I could see possibly including the text at a position where there might not have been any pedal change at all. Just the line? The line with the text?

This all gets so exasperatingly complicated.