NOTATIO

NeeraWM wrote: ↑21 Jul 2025, 14:21 The second diamond (G) is not necessary and could puzzle some players as they may be induced to play the G on the D string, even just accidentally.

I suggested it as a means of keeping a certain consistency to the notation. Also, considering there's the IV................ above ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

but I see your point.

Is there a better recommendation that you both can agree is accurate and clear to players? I'm in full learning mode here...

I would certainly not protest to MichelRE option were I to find it on my stand!

The following article on violin harmonics by Paul Zukofsky looks very helpful.

http://www.musicalobservations.com/publ ... onics.html

Here is the last paragraph from the article. The section in italics particularly interested me and something that would certainly be helpful to those, like me, who are not string players. And apparently its not just non-string players who need the help:

"A word about notation. Only natural octave harmonics should be written with a round note head and a small zero above the note. All other harmonics should be written with diamonds. All harmonics should have the resultant indicated in parenthesis next to the harmonic. This small effort insures that the right note will be played by the performer even if he cannot use the composer's fingering. If one especially desires a particular timbral quality, the string should be indicated. In actuality, however, timbral differentiation is minimized among strings now that all four strings are available with aluminum winding, though in very high positions, on sustained notes, timbral variation is still easily perceptible (i.e., between a minor third harmonic high on the D string or on the A string and the same resultant produced on the E string with a fifth harmonic)."

Interesting reading material, thanks for sharing! I wonder if given that this was written over half a century ago the quoted wisdom is still considered a best (or even "good") practice in modern notation. Although I'm not cranking through new music like I used to, I don't run across the parenthetical sounding note very often at all. It does make sense however.

I would love to include the resultant pitch, but it greatly muddies the page with too much information.

czoller wrote: ↑23 Jul 2025, 12:58 I wonder if given that this was written over half a century ago the quoted wisdom is still considered a best (or even "good") practice in modern notation.

One thing to consider is that Paul Zukofsky was a contemporary music specialist, perhaps the most important of recent times for the violin. So if anyone knew their way around modern notational practice for the violin if was Zukofsky (1943-2017). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Zukofsky

I think he is suggesting what he thinks should be done, not necessarily what was or is done. But for me, it is a no-brainer.

hautbois baryton wrote: ↑23 Jul 2025, 14:00 I would love to include the resultant pitch, but it greatly muddies the page with too much information.

Those teeny, tiny little notes in parentheses? I guess one could leave out the parentheses.

My understanding is that the first is the open D and the second is the harmonics on G string.