Finale Forum

How do I indicate a slur on the bottom two notes?

Do you want 2 slurs, one up and one down? If so, when you enter the first, flip it (ctrl-F in Windows). Then re-enter the slur and the second one will be in the default position.

Zuill

In this example the two noteheads share a stem.

The less black you have on the page (without losing any information), the better.
IMO it is redundant to show 2 slurs.
This is spoon-feeding the user to the extreme.
Do not insult people's intelligence.
Unless it is difficult to understand the slurring, show only 1 in all versions.

Can you tell us which "many" publishers do this practice?
I do not recall any publishers who use such a style.

Sometimes, in choral music, even if the notes share a stem, the voices each have their own slur.

Zuill

My opinion - only one slur is needed (band and orchestra scores). The double slur is an antiquated practice, from what I've seen.

N.

For choral music, I wouldn't be surprised if the double slur is to show a melisma in both voices. I'm not terribly versed in choral music, but that would make sense to me.

My personal opinion is to have as little ink as possible on the page. Everything on the page is something that a player/conductor needs to parse. And that takes time. If something is clearly implied, I don't write it.

Accidentals are also handled differently in choral music when 2 parts share a staff. If the Soprano has an accidental, and then the Alto has the same accidental later in the barf, the Alto accidental is indicated. In piano scores, for example, that is not the case. I even use that philosophy when 2 players (say trumpet) share the same staff.

With slurs, I've seen it less often in instrumental music, but frequently in vocal music.

Zuill

I think that's common practice, and Elaine Gould concurs.

She also discusses the converse situation:

N Grossingink wrote:My opinion - only one slur is needed (band and orchestra scores). The double slur is an antiquated practice, from what I've seen.

N.

Would you also say that this extra slur is an antiquated practice? (I would)

I would not use either of those slurs. Definitely using two slurs in that situation is more information that what you would need. I would slur from the first note to the end of the tied note.

Nick Mazuk wrote:I would not use either of those slurs. Definitely using two slurs in that situation is more information that what you would need. I would slur from the first note to the end of the tied note.

That is the correct way, indeed.

There are different thoughts about this last practice. I've always slurred to the last tied note as well, but sometimes, especially with a long series of tied notes, this leads to a lot of clutter. In such cases, it would be better to slur to the first of the tied notes.

Vaughan wrote:There are different thoughts about this last practice. I've always slurred to the last tied note as well, but sometimes, especially with a long series of tied notes, this leads to a lot of clutter. In such cases, it would be better to slur to the first of the tied notes.

Yes, that is exception of the rule, yet there is The rule.
This exception is often seen in long phrases usually in the piano literature, particularly Chopin or the same period. Sometimes is even tie used as a connection between two very long slurs.

Vaughan wrote:… I've always slurred to the last tied note as well, but sometimes, especially with a long series of tied notes, this leads to a lot of clutter. In such cases, it would be better to slur to the first of the tied notes.

The idea of slurring to the last tied note is that the performer can clearly distinguish between slurs and ties.
But that idea can indeed lead to clutter, especially if the slur spans across a very long tone notated as many tied notes.

Instead of slurring to the first of the tied notes you can also slur to the next tied note (as shown in the graphic tdlucas posted).
The slur gets longer, but only a little - and the slur/tie notation is clear.

True, but tieing to the second note seems a bit arbitrary. In tdlucas' example, the interval is large enough so as to make it quite clear that the first curve is indeed a slur and not a tie. Having clearly different settings for tie and slur placement helps, as well.

To illustrate the point by several of the posters: one may avoid notational clutter by slurring from the last note or to the first note of a series of tied notes. This practice also allowed earlier composers to express subtle ideas, as in the following examples from the first movement of Beethoven's Piano Sonata op. 10 no 1. The slurs highlight the resolution of the suspensions from the exact point of dissonance rather than a point of consonance, which can make a big difference in the interpretation: 19th editors like those of the Breitkopt Complete Works made some of these slurs conform to their "house style" by including both tied notes in the slur. This does violence to the music in that the moment of tension is in effect hidden from view: Then 20th century editors came along and created complete havoc by joining the slurs into a great hodgepodge, which conceals the working out of a three note motive: Paradoxically, the very simplicity of Beethoven's notational approach allowed him to express complex ideas.

Back to the original example from the OP (and as mentioned by several posters) if the example is intended for a single instrument, it is universally understood that slur would apply to both voices, and an additional slur for the lower voice would only be necessary to clarify a special effect.

It should be all about clarity and cleanness rather than arbitrarily applying a rule (really, more a matter of style than a notational rule).

motet wrote:It should be all about clarity and cleanness rather than arbitrarily applying a rule… …

As someone (I think Group Captain Sir Douglas Bader, WW2 fighter pilot) said: “Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise.”

David Ward wrote:… (I think Group Captain Sir Douglas Bader, WW2 fighter pilot) …

Or perhaps Harry Day.