NOTATIO

I tried the slur, but it seemed too thin, so I used shape no. 34 in the Expression Shapes. It is stretchable in all directions when it comes up.

It is ironic that the Neumann books are favorites of mine, yet I never read the section on vocal embellishments, which has the extensive discussion of what he calls "broad" fermatas, our "collective" fermatas. It is all there, along with his very perceptive interpretations and conclusions.

John Ruggero wrote:I tried the slur, but it seemed too thin, so I used shape no. 34 in the Expression Shapes. It is stretchable in all directions when it comes up.

Can you share a shot from your score?

John Ruggero wrote:

Schubert Arpeggione.jpg

Nice, but John, I think you left your fingerprints on the fermata.

But seriously, where did those grey streaks on the arc of the fermata come from?

Hmm.. Why are in the third measure separated, and again in the fourth measure not?

Knut, I never noticed this when the pattern was smaller, but at very high magnification, one can see that the arc is made up of series of smaller arcs, which gives a grey impression when stretched because there is now white between the arcs. It doesn't improve in printing, so it looks like I am going to have to use another approach, darn it!

Thanks for catching the error in the eighths, OCTO. This is a work-in-progress and hasn't gone through proofing yet. I also see a staccato marking missing in the last measure etc.

I was forced to use an imported graphic for this one, unfortunately. What do you think? Are the fermatas too far from the notes? I am on uncertain ground with this "new" symbol.

Dear John,

I think that fermata has one distinction over slur (as you have done it with slur) is that the tip is more "fat", if you understand what I mean, also fermata is more round (as 1/2 of a circle).
Since this one is very unconventional symbol, as a performer I would be in doubt, but guessing what Schubert's or engraver's intention was.

You can leave it as it is, if you want to make it a verbatim outlook of Schubert (with his ink-pen). But that would be more like "graphic design", rather than notation.
Maybe you can use one of these bracket fermatas, that can be stretched.

The only big problem I see is that the shape is non-proportional with the middle dot. If you want to keep the shape it will be an ugly fermata...

It is actually very tricky notation!
I would write perhaps [rit.] = so that [] represent a critical assistance.

Being composer myself, I must admit that I DO WRITE something what I would never allow my students, and than correcting afterwards. Sometimes when I look at my scores I want to edit again... So - composer is not always correct!

Thanks so much, OCTO. That is very helpful. It IS a very tricky notation. Here is the Old Mozart Edition:
not great. The New Mozart has something that looks very much like mine but is darker and thicker at the ends as you have suggested. We think of the fermata as being a half circle, but this is impossible because of the size; one can only manage an arc. The danger is that it just becomes a slur with a dot.

I gravitate toward trying to reproduce as much of the the composer's MS "look" in any editions that I do, so I would not want to change his notation, nor would I know how, actually. Independent fermatas on each note would be misleading; a square fermata would look anachronistic. Your suggest of a rit. in brackets might be the best course. Or maybe a molto rit. as a footnote?

I suppose this symbol cannot be part if the SmuFL, being more of slur than a glyph.

Your Mozart example is more "ritardando con ad lib. rubato e a piacere molto" ..