Re: text categories in scores

[Simon Albrecht]

On 09.01.2017 21:17, Noeck wrote:
> Hi Simon, all,
>
> next to the notes, there are usually these kinds of texts:
>
> 1 tempo: bold, above the staff
Above the top staff, that is, and maybe above other staves/staff groups 
in larger scorings or piano reductions.
Agogic marks may all be bold, only some, or none.
> 2 dynamics: in italics, below the staff (depends on the instrument etc.)
> 3 articulation
> 4 other
>
> Examples:
> 1 Allegro, Tempo I, …
> 2 dolce, dim., cresc., …
> 3 dolce, staccato, …
> 4 m.d., simile, …
>
> As mentioned in this thread, some tempo-related expressions are often
> written in a different category from what would be logical:
> rit. accel. a tempo written like category-2-expressions.
>
> a) Why is that the case? Is there a historical reason for that?
First of all: historically as well as in one piece, those categories are 
(usually) difficult to entirely separate:
– Tempo markings as well as agogic markings may only appear on one 
staff/part and not the others.
– Is ‘smorzando’ agogic or dynamic? There are different opinions.
– As you wrote yourself: ‘dolce’ affects more than one parameter as well.
&c.
> b) Would you recommend to stick to this (rit = category 2) or would you
> recommend to separate tempo from other categories?
I think one should strive for a semantic differentiation, i.e. use 
MetronomeMark grobs for "rit." and the like, but within reason.
> c) Are there correct/scientific categories and terms for these categories
> close to mine above (1-4)?
I guess every typography teacher and every house style may have a 
slightly different system of categories…

Just my 2cts :-)

Best, Simon