Term for "shyly" ?

Pauroso is a proper musical term. I got it from a listing of musical terms :-)

What exactly defines a word as an "accepted musical term" anyways? How many composers must have used it before until it becomes "accepted"? And weren't -all- musical terms in the end used by one composer for the first time, when they certainly weren't an "accepted musical term" yet? I quite agree with sticking to more well-known terms if you're using Italian, of course, but the primary concern should be understandability, nothing else. At least go by the guideline that if you don't know a term, don't use it. Yes, a professional musician might be able to understand it, but how can you know how well-known it is if you don't even know it yourself?

If you have to use a dictionary (musical or other) for your musical indications, better use English right away. If you're very lucky, those musicians who don't understand "pauroso" (which will be quite many) will look it up in a dictionary. But it's much more likely they'll be too lazy for that and simply ignore it alltogether.

Communication is the purpose of the score (in most cases). As long as you make your point across clearly, anything is allowed, and as Gardener said, if you don't understand it, it probably isn't the right term.

That's what Gardner (heh ) Read's book says, that in the bottom line, the purpose of inventing new symbols for notation should only happen if it makes it easier for the performer to understand what you have in mind, otherwise there is no point.

I concur with jujimufu. The reason composers combine native tongue with Italian is to make their scores as understandable as possible. Ultimately, that's what notation is about; conveying what you consider important as clearly as is possible. If your performers are going to be mainly English-speaking, it doesn't make sense to use extended Italian terms any more than it does to write 'decrease' when you want someone to get quieter.

Decrease is a bad term to use for a decrescendo. Decrease what? Decrease the tempo? the volume? the level of 'espressivo'? the vibrato?
And for music that is going to be played perhaps in different countries, English cannot be assumed to be the standard language -- that's half the point of this. Most non-English speaking countries use the Italian terms -- English is not the lingua franca of musical scores. Italian is.

I think you misunderstood Zetetic, and he was actually using the "decrease" as an example of something where using English wouldn't be advisable, in contrast to "extended" non-standard terminology for which English might be more suitable.

And whether English is a "standard" language or not, it's simply a fact that it's (after Mandarin and Spanish, I think) one of the most well-known languages around the world. The fact that using Italian words in music has more tradition doesn't mean every musician speaks Italian fluently. In fact, most musicians do not speak Italian at all, but just know a certain range of terms, whereas a good number of them can speak English. Therefore if you describe something where no well-known standard exists, chances are better that you will be understood if you use English.

I think we all agreed that for very standartised terms, we should simply stick with the standard, which is in many cases Italian. I don't think anybody here advocates the use of "softly" over "p". The only question is how far and for what it makes sense to use Italian or any other specific language.

Dynamic markings are okay, considering those are more symbols than actual "directions".

"Stealthy Symphony" has a certain ring to it...

Bashful?