What is the difference between an "ornament" and an "articulation"?
 
Wikipedia defines "ornament" as synonymous with "embellishment", meaning a musical flourish that's not essential to carrying the melody. Bends, for example.
 
It defines "articulation" as the method used to join notes, such as legato and glissando. If this is the proper full definition, then I've been mis-using the term by calling pizzicato an articulation. So have most makers of orchestral sample libraries. 
 
So, two questions for you music majors:
 
1. Is an articulation just the method of transitioning between notes, or does it also encompass how the note was initiated? E.g., is a hammer-on an articulation? 
 
2. Is a trill an ornament or an articulation? How about vibrato or using a whammy bar?

It will be interesting to hear the pros in the know answer this even though I have been making music for almost 50 years and I've yet to use either word in conversing about said music.

bapu
It will be interesting to hear the pros in the know answer this even though I have been making music for almost 50 years and I've yet to use either word in conversing about said music.

To be fair, they probably have never used the words "Bangin'" or "Thumpin'" either. 

Articulation can be applied to 'progression' or down to the 'note', and how well that note transitioned (left off) from the previous note to the next note.
 
If I said, very nice articulation with that 'progression' = all notes played superbly, nicely expressed, good control of dynamics. Slur (legato) is a curved symbol/marker, which is one of many articulations that can be applied in notation. Slur which means 'Smooth' performance, smooth transition between notes. Another popular articulation is 'Dynamics' (from pp (very soft) to ff (very loud). Can also say, that particular articulation sucks, that one note ruined the whole progression dang it. Another example, 'Trills' Tr is a rapid alternation of two notes, or more if your a bloody genius.
 
There a so many articulation markers in notation that I can't remember them all, but in general (overall composition) when someone says, superb articulations/nuances = well performed throughout.  I use to teach piano years ago. Have learned piano naturally from age 3, I did music theory later at school.  Anyway, when I write and perform I usually go with the feel, the vibe and try to capture it all faithfully (rec) -- I can hear in my mind how its suppose to sound and be played, but translating all that isn't always smooth sailing.
 
After I get an instrument recorded, I playback from the intro (taking one step/part at a time) and listen to every dang note, to make sure each note is articulated well and sounds great in and throughout the whole progression. I want to make sure I've captured the performance faithfully and to the best it can be.  In the composition; I also see how all the instruments articulate well with each other. Drums are also given careful attention to detail (all the nuances, articulations) -- I use the same step by step process to make sure the arrangements flow nicely together from start to end, sometimes a small change makes a huge difference.
 
I often use 'Nuance' as a distinction of all the subtleties for both performance and 'sound' combined. I suppose one explanation/example, noticeably unpleasant performance by someone learning to play guitar for the first time (worse is when the guitar is not quite in-tune), both the performance and sound sucked lol.  'But not too bad for a beginner' <---- that last line is for encouragement lol.
 
Post Edit: Later realized I wrote is - I meant to say is not quite in-tune.

I was not a music major but I did self-study Baroque performance practice at one point.
 
A trill is definitely an ornament, although a Kontakt orchestral library would probably invoke it via keyboard articulation, so some confusion is natural.  Early keyboard music is played replete with ornaments, although they were rarely indicated in the score.  Somewhere in the early classical period this practice largely disappeared and explicitly written ornamentation became the common practice.  So, a valid question is: if there's a mordant or trill in the score, is it an ornament in the first place or part of the composer's intent and an integral part of the music?

craigb

bapu
It will be interesting to hear the pros in the know answer this even though I have been making music for almost 50 years and I've yet to use either word in conversing about said music.

To be fair, they probably have never used the words "Bangin'" or "Thumpin'" either. 

 


 
 
 

Hi,
 
Can a music minor respond?
 
From a writing perspective, the difference is blurred some. If you are an instinctive writer, you simply follow your inner movie and it's all about how well, and how fast you can articulate/translate what is in your inner movie. Later, when you are done writing it, you might want to embellish it a bit, and that would be an ornament for me.
 
How's this done in music? Funny you should ask ... I did a film version of the first act of TOSCA for a directing in Opera class (instructor was Peter Mark - Virginia Opera Emeritus these days) and it went really well, and the film version I had was well written and it had some very nice details ... for example ... look at the score of the aria coming up in that piece ... and you will find that in all the instruments, there is in the middle along with his tears, a single violin, that goes ... plunk, plunk, plunk, plunk, downwards like 5 or 6 times, and that was it ... and this crazy mind person, decided that was a close up of a tear falling ... hitting the beard, falling and hitting what he was wearing, then falling again and hitting his legs, and then to the ground ... to get absorbed by the straw on it.
 
I could say that ... this particular instrument was added to add a subtle moment to the music, that most of us will never find or hear ... but ... there it was. 
 
My version was a film version with the sets on film on a scrim in the backstage ... and the singing done up front, but moments like this one could be super-imposed easily enough  while he is singing, and the camera would follow that tear, even if we had to fake it some, since no one can see a tear from the 3rd row, and we do not have to place him in the front! 
 
The opening was even better ... men on horses, going towards the church, and all of the filming is done from ground level, so all you see is the horses' feet, until the last moments when the camera can pan out and we see him taken to the jail!
 
Peter's comment? ... "... just about solved every problem that opera has ever had in a stage!" .... and I said ..."let's do it!" ... sadly, it never happened. But I think it would have been a massive show and would blow out a lot of opera traditions that can better be worked on film, instead of the "make believe" sets. 
 
PS: I have not tried Turandot in the same spot ... but I don't know how I can top Renata Tebaldi dwelling with Birgit Nillson. And Leinsdorf directing of course!

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I do not normally obsess over terminology, but in this case I was hoping to provide some clarification in a sample library review I'm writing.
 
In the world of sampled instruments, the word "articulation" is used very broadly, referring to any programmable variation. It's a direct analogy to the original application of the word, which referred to speech patterns and the pronunciation of words. 
 
My conclusion: In most sampled instruments, some of the programmable options are going to be ornaments and some are articulations. It would be clumsy to draw a distinction on a Kontakt UI, so vendors simply use "articulation". Except for this particular product I'm reviewing, which calls them "ornaments". Neither is correct, but both get the idea across.

bitflipper
...
My conclusion: In most sampled instruments, some of the programmable options are going to be ornaments and some are articulations. It would be clumsy to draw a distinction on a Kontakt UI, so vendors simply use "articulation". Except for this particular product I'm reviewing, which calls them "ornaments". Neither is correct, but both get the idea across.

It's all composition ... really. And it's sort of like asking Frank Zappa, why that vacuum cleaner sound was added that apparently does not do anything for the music ... until you listen to it from a distance, and then it sounds like ... hmmm ... that makes the music a bit different! 
 
In the rock'n'roll format, I'm not sure that this won't be visible as much ... and sometimes sound incorrect or off kilter. Jazz has the excuse that everyone can do something different, but in general ... it's the "whole piece" that has to stand up ... not just one element. I tend to look at the whole thing, rather than one thing.

I've missed Pedro's articulations.
 
Or are they ornaments?