Notation in Big Band Charts

[Ken]

Just as a matter of interest what notation do you prefer for accents and shortened notes in Big Band charts? (You can choose more than one option)

I've seen both ways. For example on the "and of 4" if you have an 1/8th note tied to a whole note I've seen both > and ^ used over the 1/8 note. For the shortened note I used to use . but am thinking ^ stands out more.

Looking at Nestico's "The Complete Arranger" he seems to use > for accent, and ^ for shortened note. I did see one or two charts in the book that used the other symbols, but I think they may have been contributions from the other arrangers.

[GaithersburgReeds]

Good explanation at this link for the difference between staccato and marcato:

http://bands.army.mil/masterclass/tusafb/dec2000/jazz.htm

[Bossman]

That link is on the money.

Basically a marcato (^) is a staccato and an accent together.

[gary]

Yes, the link is thorough and accurate. Voting not necessary. It's not up for interpretation. :D

A tree-top is a note which is accented and shortened and the other marking is an accent with full value.

A note with only a dot above or below it is shortened to approximately 1/2 its length and is not accented. Likewise, a dash over or under a note lengthens that tone to its fullest value and is also unaccented.

[clhuff]

Edit: deleted "me too" post.

[Ken]

Thanks for that link.

I still think there's not much difference between . and ^ in Jazz.

Say for example you have a chart with a quarter note on beat one followed by an eighth rest and an eighth note. How would you notate it? I always thought for Jazz it wouldn't matter whether you used . or ^, it wouldn't make much difference.

[Pete Thomas]

Thanks for that link.

I still think there's not much difference between . and ^ in Jazz.

Say for example you have a chart with a quarter note on beat one followed by an eighth rest and an eighth note. How would you notate it? I always thought for Jazz it wouldn't matter whether you used . or ^, it wouldn't make much difference.
The difference is between a staccato note and an accented staccato note.

I think this has been answered very well already. (See what gary said)

EDIT:

Your poll seems to not allow for the actual meaning of these symbols.

[DukeCity]

The army link looks pretty good to me.

One "rule" that I was taught, and continue to use, is that in the example mentioned above,
quarter note on one would get ^, and eighth on the and of 2 would get >

The only time I would put ^ on eighth notes is if I wanted them to be played as STRAIGHT eighths.

Also, sometimes when I'm writing pop/jazz styles for non-jazzers (marching band), I will use staccato instead of marcato, because some concert/marching band folks don't interpret marcato as being short enough.

[gary]

One "rule" that I was taught, and continue to use, is that in the example mentioned above, quarter note on one would get ^, and eighth on the and of 2 would get >.

But actually Glenn, the notation in your second example does not contradict the ^ > thing. The note you want accented has an eighth-note value, so you write a >, which gives you an accented eighth note. But if you want the same sounding value, if the notated tone is a quarter note, then it gets the ^, which still equals an accented eighth-note. The end result is the same.

[Ken]

The difference is between a staccato note and an accented staccato note...
I realize the theoretical difference, but what I meant was that in practice it wouldn't make any difference. If I had two identical big band charts with the phrase in the example above and the only difference was in the above notation, I think the band would play it the same either way.

[gary]

I realize the theoretical difference, but what I meant was that in practice it wouldn't make any difference. If I had two identical big band charts with the phrase in the example above and the only difference was in the above notation, I think the band would play it the same either way.

So if the band can't or won't make a distinction of what the composer/arranger intended, that is a precedent for using the notations interchangeably or incorrectly?

[Dr G]

If your section can't make the distinction, the trouble is NOT with the notation - your director and section leader need to call the section to task. If not, I'd call the whole ensemble "lazy."

[Ken]

O, Oh, here come the Jazz Police. I'm busted. I give up.

[Dr G]

I'm not the jazz police, you don't have to hide your fingering chart.

For what it's worth, I'm pretty demanding of my classical colleagues as well. When I commit to playing in a section, I hope that everyone else is equally on board to play to the best of their abilities and bring out the best in the music. Is that wrong? Does playing well mean that it is any less fun?

[Ken]

So if the band can't or won't make a distinction of what the composer/arranger intended, that is a precedent for using the notations interchangeably or incorrectly?
I think even professional composers and arrangers don't make that distinction in jazz. In classical music those definitions hold but not so much in jazz.

[gary]

I think even professional composers and arrangers don't make that distinction in jazz. In classical music those definitions hold but not so much in jazz.

Ken, I promise - I won't argue about this, but one thing that frustrates me is when jazzers and rockers re-write theory or notation or whatever it is, out of ignorance of an already established vocabulary. It creates confusion where none need be. And you're caught somewhat in the middle.

But to specifically respond to your classical vs jazz notation comment, I'll just say this to support my comments, and I really don't mean it in any kind of arrogant way, but just so shed a little light on my opinions so you'll have some background. I studied arranging and composition at North Texas, where I also taught and assisted in the arranging and jingle program; studied in the Berklee arranging program and privately with Dick Grove and Masahiko Sato; worked as a commercial arranger full time for several years and have big band charts published. I do not agree with your premis. ;)

[kavala]

I have to agree with Gary.

Just because something may have come into common usage
because some people did not know the difference, does not
make it correct.

To me it is a bit like the use of double negatives in the US.
It is done so much there that sometimes you have to follow
this convention to be understood.

Word pronunciation is another pet hate of mine.
Words such as 'integral', 'advertisement', 'trait'.