Talk:Dynamics (music)

Let's get back to the point

Seriously, I think that no, the pages should not be merged. So there.

Super loud

I think those dynamics can be increased to a vague extent. No one says "ffffffffffff" is not allowed, it's just that it is very hard to tell the difference between 6 fs and 8fs so normally composers just put ffff at the most. I mean, its just pointless if you put too many.Kystephkwan3 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Kystephkwan3 (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Super LOOOOOOOUUUUUUD

Do ffffffffffff and/or pppppppppp exist and if so how loud are they? (OK I admit... now I'm being plain stupid) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.129.156.144 (talk) 03:43, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Lacking

This article is written quite well, but there are literally dozens of musical dyanmic types not described here, most of them rather prominent. Also, this article does not mention baroque dynamics (which were normally not written out, left to the discretion of the performer) and dynamics on gentle instruments such as the harpsichord. John Holly 16:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Neologism

"Fortississimo" and "pianississimo"?? I thought these were jokes that band directors made up. Unless someone indicates otherwise, I'll shortly be refining this article to indicate that those are facetious words.

UPDATE: Refinement done. Any objections?

SFT 07:52, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

"Fortississimo" is how you say 'fff', and pianississimo is how you say 'ppp'.

these are not jokes, maybe neologisms. But you have to say them somehow. This article doesn't mention stuff like: Fermata = to hold as long as desired. Rf. (Rinforzando) = to stress by strength, as opposed to Sfz. (Sforzando) = to stress by pushing, by pressure. Dol. (Dolce) = to play sweetly Smorz poco a poco = to grow softer(?) little by little.

those should be in this article cause like Crescendo (written or as symbol ) should be here. so this is a stub IMHO -- Nkour 14:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Be bold! Hyacinth 02:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Those aren't dynamics. Dolce and smorz (???) are just musical directions, as are fermata. You might get away with mentioning rf and sfz, but those are more articulationy. SFT | Talk 09:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

SFT is correct on this. Quantumobserver (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

1812 Overture

Recent addition to the article in bold:

Tchaikovsky indicated pppppp and ffff in passages of his Pathétique symphony and in the 1812 Overture.

I can't verify that this is wrong, but I am somewhat incredulous that Tchaikovsky would use both five ps and four fs in two separate pieces. Can someone with access to a score verify or debunk this?

Doesn't surprise me, Tchaikovsky had a flair for melodrama. Though it wouldn't hurt to check a score, I suppose. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he was melodramatic but also a superb craftsman who knew what he was doing. For all their brazenness the first and fourth movements of Symphony no 4 both start ff only. In both movements he is reserving fff for later on. In Symphony no 6 he writes pppp just before the coda in the first movement (starting with double basses in bar 325) and at the very end of the symphony. And he uses ffff at bar 312 of the third movement. After all, he was about to commit suicide, wasn't he?

I haven't got the score of 1812 to hand. Hikitsurisan 22:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

See [1], page 79. Stannered 12:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And [2], page 19, second system, bassoon line. Stannered 13:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles being merged

I'm all for them to be merged, and I think mezzo piano etc need doing too.

ME TOO!!! ;-)

Done Conrad Irwin 23:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Details!!!!!!!!!

What is up with saying piano is soft and forte is loud? Most people need details. If anyone has even more than that , I'd like to here it. It is needed for anyone and everyone who doesn't have a clue!

How would you propose adding more detail? For example, a p sung by an opera singer is probably louder than a f from a violin. They are all totally relative quantities and so I think we have given virtually all we can. Conrad Irwin 23:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing stopping us from adding audio samples of an Opera singer male and female hitting the pitches at certain volumes.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 02:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Difference between two terms

Can someone explain to me the difference between calando and crescendo, as they're both described as "becoming softer"?80.114.26.224 07:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, crescendo is becoming louder. Diminuendo is becoming softer. Calando is better translated as drooping, and means "[dying] away in volume and sometimes tempo". [3] Stannered 12:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A different approach

Can someone explain to me what this section of the article is about? It makes no sense to me. Does it have any source? --Ravpapa (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Undid revision by 24.109.235.166

24.109.235.166 deleted the See also section, as well as all the foreign language cross-references. I don't know if this was intentional, a mistake or vandalism. 24.109.235.166, if you had a reason for doing this, please tell us on the talk page. Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky fact

1812 Overture is not the only one piece to have a extreme loud dynamic! I think it goes as loud as ffff. However, there are other pieces from Tchaikovsky that, indeed, have a even more stronger dynamic and that is not mentioned on the article. The tempest is a clear example of that. When the orchestra its almost reaching the coda, theres a climax with the full orchestra, with the main melody. That part goes as far as fffff! Pitty is not mentioned tough. Anyway, sotto voce must be added as a musical dynamic part because sotto voce means that the instrument should play in a lower and sweet volume...that doesn´t mean pianissimo or even piano, but indeed represents a modification in the orchestral volume and melody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.71.174 (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Unicode representations?

p and f are represented in Unicode as 𝆏 and 𝆑 (may need to increase font size to show correctly). Should we show this in the article or somewhere? --Geopgeop (T) 09:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps include it, with other details of music typography, in History_of_music_publishing#Modern_technology? --Ravpapa (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of "Words/phrases indicating changes of dynamics..."

I'm just wondering; is there a word/phrase that indicates when a different dynamic is used when notes are repeated? Let me clarify. Imagine that in a certain musical piece, there is a left repeat sign, and a group of notes with the dynamic "mf" following it. And later in the piece, there is a right repeat sign that goes back to the aforementioned left repeat sign. Now imagine that when the group of notes labeled "mf" is repeated, they are supposed to be played with the dynamic "mp," rather than "mf." Is there a word/phrase that indicates when this happens? Hananoshi (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I Googled it, and found out the answer. And now I will add this new piece of info to this article. Hananoshi (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw your addition, and your reference to the book by McGrain. McGrain does indeed write this, but I have never seen this notation. In every case that I know that the composer wants a repeated passage played differently, he writes an explicit instruction in text. In the Schubert "Death and the Maiden" quartet (Op. post), for example, in the Andante Con Moto movement, in the fifth variation, Schubert (well, his editor, actually) writes "La repetizione poco a poco crescendo sin' al FF". And in the minuet movement of quartet opus 18 number 4 (C minor), Beethoven wants the repeat of the minuet section to be played faster. So at the end of the trio he writes, "Las seconda volta si prende il Tempo piu Allegro/"

So you might want to qualify or expand on your addition. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how he did not edit it, and as I have never seen this usage in any piece of music ever, I feel that it lacks notability, therefore, I'm going to be bold and remove this section. Marky1991 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

RFL

Edit warring is not the best way to resolve problems like the case at hand - discussion on the talk page is the prescribed method.

204.75.188.5, could you please provide a citation of a published piece of music that uses the notation RFL? That could go a long way to resolving the issue. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)