NOTATIO

I make no claim to notation scholarship.

Jazz lead sheet. I wanted a quarter note to be emphasized and played short. That is, a hit.

I wrote a hat with a dot under it. Mercato with staccato, if I'm using those terms correctly.

My friend told me I didn't need the dot, that the hat (mercato) already means short and accented.

Google seemed to support putting both in, saying that mercato (loud) does not prescribe length.

My friend pointed to page 82 of Berklee Contemporary Music Notation by J. Feist, which supports his point while allowing for the possibility that not everyone will agree.

After considering his view in my usual open-minded manner (ahem) I rejected it on the following basis.

I want the note played louder and short. If I just put in the mercato (hat), Berklee grads will play correctly, ie short, while others play the full quarter note value. If I add the dot (staccato) under the hat, it's completely unambiguous. And, in fact, nobody has every played that chart incorrectly, which seems proof of concept.

My friend's response was that he's never seen it before so there must be something wrong with.

My rejoinder was that Musescore has a clickable hat/dot option -- meaning they must have heard of it someplace.

Thoughts?

It is common in jazz styles for a marcato articulation to be interpreted as both accented and short. That is not the traditional interpretation. It’s similar to how words take on slightly different meanings in a dialect of a language. Another example is how eighth notes are interpreted as swung (played with an uneven rhythm) unless otherwise indicated.

It’s important to know the performers for whom you are writing. In a classical setting your assessment is absolutely correct. However, if you are writing a chart in a jazz style to be played by jazz musicians, the marcato alone will be sufficient to get the sound you want. Adding the staccato dot in that situation isn’t wrong, and won’t throw anyone off; but some jazz players may make a point of playing the note particularly short because you made the effort of adding the dot. Depending on the tempo and instrument, this may or may not be noticeable.

And, in fact, nobody has every played that chart incorrectly, which seems proof of concept.

This really shouldn't be your "best practice" for notation.

Just because musicians are able to understand the basic idea behind something, does not mean that that is in fact the correct way to notate it.

Speaking from a classical point of view, a marcato ^ for a string player means a shorter, heavily accented note.

Generally, for other instruments the same effect would be achieved with a combined accent > and dot . articulation.

Speaking only from my own experience, which despite covering 45 years is possibly not that extensive in regards to engraving (having been professionally trained as primarily a composer and performer), I haven't really come across any non-string instrument scores where the ^ articulation was used. Generally it tends to be the more traditional > articulation for woodwinds and brass.

That said, I'm certain that string players would probably create the same effect with a combined > and . articulation as using the ^ one. I can see how there might be some issues if both were in use by string players in the same score.

However, my suggestion would be to avoid the use of both ^ and a dot.

Replies much appreciated!

I want it particularly short. And loud.

It's for jazz. Although my usual bassist and pianist are both classically trained as well. It will be read by keys, bass, drums, guitar and, often, a horn.

If I put hat and dot in one chorus and just hat in the other -- will everybody interpret the two choruses as identical?

Or will including the dot make it more likely that I get what I want?

One last question. I'm unclear on the difference between an accent and a marcado. What I've read is that the marcato is louder, which is what I want in this case.

I think JJP's assessment is spot on. Marcato combined with staccato in jazz is certainly uncommon and generally just unnecessary clutter. If you look through older hand copied parts, they usually are just presented like this:



All of the Jazz at Lincoln Center "Essentially Ellington" scores are available for perusal here (click Sample Pages):
https://www.alfred.com/essentially-elli ... nsemble/b/

I haven't looked through all of them so it's possible you'll find a marcato with staccato, but I'd guess there aren't any, or at the very least 99 to 1 marcato alone vs marcato/staccato.

I may be asking the wrong question.

I just googled "marcato vs accent". The first two things to appear on my screen disagreed about the loudness, as follows:

"A marcato is a type of accent that is played as loudly as the standard accent mark, but also staccato."

And, " The marcato is essentially a louder version of the regular accent > (an open horizontal wedge)."

The Feist book says accent (loud, or sharp attack) is louder than marcato (slight accent slightly short). p82.

So, one is louder, the other is louder, or they're equal.

The question I need to ask is, how does a relatively uneducated writer figure out what is definitive?

Seems to me, that my solution, marcato and staccato, is unambiguous, which is more than I can say for google.

Sorry to sound like I'm ranting. Does this stuff tend to get under people's skin?

RickP wrote: ↑11 Mar 2023, 20:47 The question I need to ask is, how does a relatively uneducated writer figure out what is definitive?

Seems to me, that my solution, marcato and staccato, is unambiguous, which is more than I can say for google.

It will be played fine, it just sort of announces that you are "a relatively uneducated writer" as a more experienced writer would virtually never use it in a jazz context. You've been presented with your friend's opinion, the Feist book, JJP's excellent summary, a Thad Jones example, and countless Jazz at Lincoln Center examples (currently the premier jazz education entity in the US). I just flipped through the entire Clinton Roemer "Art of Music Copying" and never saw a single example of a combined marcato/staccato, which he does not even present as an option on page 30 where he describes a marcato as "short and percussive." Use that info as you wish.

Feist defines maracto two ways 1) "slight accent, slightly short" and 2) "short, but not as short as a stacatto".

Feist defines accent as "loud (or, sharp attack)".

Roemer's definition maracto as "short and percussive" is closer to #1.

Feist #1 isn't right for my song because it is only a "slight" accent. #2 doesn't say anything about an accent (these definitions are separate in the text).

Roemer is close, in fact, close enough, but not necessarily identical to either of Feist's definitions.

Apparently, a marcato is not necessarily the same thing for every musician.

My takeaway is that an accent with a dot might be a better choice. Feist defines it as "short and loud", which is what I want.

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. Much appreciated. I have learned something valuable, which doesn't happen every day.