That fine cellist David Runnion:

>They're there for all to see but require interpretation and will vary from
>performer to performer.  To name a few:
>
>Staccato/tenuto/accent markings.
>Crescendos and diminuendos.
>Rallentandos, ritardandos, allargandos.
>Accelerandos, strettos.
>Relative dynamics.
>espressivo, intenso, con garbo, appasionata, dolce, cantabile
>
>Some markings that require no interpretation:
>
>con sordino
>sin vibrato
>attaca
>repeat signs.

David has drawn a distinction between "digital" on/off signs (you either
use your mute or you don't, etc.) and "analogue" ones where a performer has
to choose some point on a sliding scale of intensity.  No problem about
that.

The point I want to make, and which has been capably argued elsewhere,
is that the presence of a sign (either kind) may be known beyond doubt,
but the reason behind putting it there is not completely knowable if
the composer cannot speak for himself because he's dead.  Or even quite
possibly if he isn't.  To pick up an example from Deryk Barker, can we
know for absolute total certainty that Mozart put all his repeats in for
good musical/structural reasons, or is it just slightly possible that he
may have put even just one repeat in against his musical judgement but just
to make a piece last a bit longer because that was what the patron paying
the bill for a bit of dance or background music wanted? If we grant that
possibility, which I think we must, then logic requires that, if performers
are to try to present the music to its best advantage, all such signs must
be interpreted rather than followed on automatic pilot.  Even if 99.999+%
of the time the result of that interpretation is "as written", there
is still a chasm of logic between those who say "Play what's there,
irrespective of everything" and those who prefer "Play what helps the
piece to work best".

Ian Crisp
[log in to unmask]