Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Forte-piano dynamic variance (Read 22375 times) previous topic - next topic

Forte-piano dynamic variance

My suggestion on: 02-03-2010, 22:57:49:
Quote
Re: NWC2 Dynamic Variance
I haven't thought of MPCs for  while, but seeing this, it occurs to me that perhaps when we reach NWC 2.2 or 3, Eric would consider adding fp as a dynamic, which could be done with MPC. 
Rick's suggestion in response
Quote
Perhaps if you would explain in a separate topic what fp should do, we could arrive at a consensus and get it implemented. How fast is the transition from forte to piano, and does it depend the duration of the note to which it is attached? You might also wish to discuss whether it makes any difference if the currently running dynamic is piano or fortissimo.

So here starteth our new topic:

Since this may not make sense to those who play percussive instruments like a piano, I need to start by suggesting this is for instruments that can vary the volume of a single note after it begins - examples - winds or strings.

Generally, the f   is short, and immediately reduces to p volume.  Usually it will contrast with whatever the preceding volume was - you don't use fp immediately after a f note, because fp is for contrast.


The p lasts as long as the composer wants the piece to be played at p , so it carries over to succeeding notes and bars, until another volume change is entered. 

It is not uncommon to have a > < effect, denoted by a hairpin crescendo starting on the fp note, but the starting velocity for the crescendo would be p .  

The f   and p   volume settings are just the same as your normal forte and piano volumes (velocities?).

I suggest the duration of the f segment of the note would be about as long as a sixteenth note at mm q=120.

The fp would need to use the MPC so there is a transition between the two volumes, rather than a step.

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #1 –
Hi David -

Adding fp to NWC's bag of tricks isn't a bad idea. But I think it should properly be classed as a dynamic variance rather than a dynamic.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #2 –
Thanks for starting a new topic. My understanding of it for a piano is similar to yours. The notes immediately following are played at least as loud as forte and possibly louder if the running dynamic if metzo-forte or louder. It would apply to all the note of an arpeggiated chord. Any subsequent notes are reduced in volume to piano. I use loud and volume here as they apply to the piano, rather than MIDI. For MIDI with a percussion instrument, it as a simple matter of inserting the exising NWC dynamics before and after the chord.

For instuments that can change volume during a held note, the dynamics are the same. The difference is that for the duration of the forte note some reduction of either the volume or expression controller must occur. Once the forte note ends, whatever controller that was reduced must be restored and then the dynamic (note velocity) can be changed to piano. The problem is: while the volume/expression controller is being reduced, what is the velocity of new notes? I don't have an answer for that without using a second MIDI channel.

If you are only playing one, single voiced instrument this does not concern you. It would be of concern for NWC. I don't think the software can say: here it is, but it only works for notes played all at once with no new notes permitted until the original set of notes finish.

Registered user since 1996

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #3 –
Not being a pianist, I didn't think of fp being used on any instument that can change volume within the duration of just one note. I wasn't aware a pianist would use this dynamic variance for successive notes in an arpeggio.  I would have thought all you'd get is a series of  marcato notes, followed by other notes at p .  

Going to http://www.dolmetsch.com/defsf3.htm didn't help me resolve this.  It defines fp  as "fortepiano, 'loud, then immediately p. or pp.'"   "Immediate" to me rules out consecutive notes; all the run would give you is a loud run, followed by other quiet notes, not a variation in volume of one note.  

Learn something every day, I guess.  

I agree with Bill that fp is a dynamic variance, but to me I am OK with it being available as either Insert Dynamic   d or Insert Dynamic Variance y .

Quote
The notes immediately following are played at least as loud as forte and possibly louder if the running dynamic if metzo-forte or louder.
FWIW, in band music, if you want the fp emphasis after a mezzo forte passage , you often see it written as   ffp or fffp .  

Quote
For instuments that can change volume during a held note, the dynamics are the same. The difference is that for the duration of the forte note some reduction of either the volume or expression controller must occur. Once the forte note ends, ...
     
Not quite.  The d.v. I'm suggesting is the one note.  It doesn't end before its volume (velocity) is reduced.  What you need over the duration of the one note is an attack at
f to start the note, followed immediately by quick diminuendo to
p , which may or may not then swell up to f again, either within the duration of the one note if it's, say, a whole note, or extending longer than just the one note.

Sorry to be so pedantic, I just want to make sure we're discussing the same beast.  

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #4 –
For Piano and other instruments that dont sustain a fp can be achieved with VELOCITY at f on the accented note/s.
Velocity is included in the Note On message.
The following Note On messages in an arpeggio could have a Velocity of p or could vary if a following crescendo or diminuendo are required.
For Piano, Guitar etc. the sound decays rather than sustains until the Note Off message is received.

For wind and strings fp is a loud attack at f dropping to p over a short period within the duration of a note.
Perhaps David's 16th duration - but if implemented the duration could be variable.
EXPRESSION is the best controller to achieve this on a sustained note.

Please don't use Velocity when refering to Dynamics on wind and bowed strings.
In MIDI Velocity is analagous to how hard a key or something is struck or a string is plucked.
In the days when all synths where keyboards it meant how fast the keys where depressed.

At the risk of repeating myself (again - deja vu)

VOLUME - Track volume for balance - use once at the head of a track.
EXPRESSION - Dynamics, swells and fades.
VELOCITY - Accents
Velocity may be used as dynamics on percussive instruments (includes Piano, Guitar, Plucked Bass but not Organ).
But my preference remains with Expression - the fp on these instruments is an attack Velocity on one note or a single chord.

My view - ignore at your leisure.

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #5 –
Quote from: David Palmquist –
I wasn't aware a pianist would use this dynamic variance for successive notes in an arpeggio.
You can't, really. But it appears in piano music and something must be done with it.
Quote from: David Palmquist –
Not quite.  The d.v. I'm suggesting is the one note.  It doesn't end before its volume (velocity) is reduced.  [...]
Sorry to be so pedantic, I just want to make sure we're discussing the same beast.  
The MIDI velocity of a held note cannot be changed, that is the problem. You seem to be discussing a beast that does not exist.

Perhaps Barry is right that one ought not use MIDI velocity for woodwind and brass dynamics. Velocity is a piano-centric view that does not fit well with many instruments. But that is not how MIDI or NoteWorthy work.

I would support a change to use expression instead of volume in NWC's dynamics and hairpins.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #6 –
Quote from: Rick G. –
I would support a change to use expression instead of volume in NWC's dynamics and hairpins.

So would I! It's the logical thing to do. Then volume can be set to the preferred level and expression can be varied from the existing dynamic level and then reset by a new dynamic.

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #7 –
Please take care of a thing: if you do e.g. a decrescendo from, say, f to pp, the MIDI velocity of each new note is slowly decreased.

If you use an MPC controller, either expression or volume, only the (true) volume is decreased.
That's something like the classic fade out at the end of a record.

Please note that there can be a huge difference between the two metods: if the MIDI velocity changes then some instruments change timbre too!

N.B.
Quote from: Rick G. –
metzo-forte

"mezzoforte"

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #8 –
IMHO, we'd want to first ask that the current list of dynamic variances (cresc. = crescendo, decresc. = decrescendo, dim. = diminuendo, rfz = rinforzando, sfz = sforzando) be expanded to include sfp = sforzando piano.  I think the alternate fp notation for sforzando piano looks too much like a forte + piano, when it really is a sforzando + piano.

Once you have the new dynamic variance, you can tackle the issue that currently none of the dynamic variances are respected during playback.  I personally would like to see crescendo and decrescendo implemented first, before moving on to any of the others.  It would be cleaner in the music (yet perhaps harder to program) to allow these to linearly apply up to the next dynamic (edit: or dynamic variance, which would leave absolute values open to interpretation unfortunately), without needing a "hairpin" to span potentially many measures.

Until NWC directly supports a given dynamic variance, it should be possible to write a user tool to add/update the appropriate MPC (or whatever needed) immediately after the dynamic variance, to simulate it as best possible.  I might be willing to write such a tool, if there is interest.

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #9 –
Quote
I personally would like to see crescendo and decrescendo implemented first, before moving on to any of the others.  It would be cleaner in the music (yet perhaps harder to program) to allow these to linearly apply up to the next dynamic, without needing a "hairpin" to span potentially many measures.

Did I miss something here?
NWC already implements that.
What's more, NWC allowed it much before the hairpins.

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #10 –
My bad!  I'd always added "cresc", "decresc", and "dim" to NWC songs to mimic the sheet music in terms of printout, but I always added my own MPC for playback, thinking those dynamic variances were "text only".  Now I see these are indeed implemented, so long as you give it a "target" dynamic to shoot for (which perhaps I hadn't done before, like at the end of a song, perhaps leading me to believe they weren't respected).  For example, if you just specify a crescendo and later a decrescendo, without a "peak" dynamic level in between (common in music I've seen), NWC doesn't attempt any cresc/decresc I think (and rightly so in this case).  So now I see a hidden "peak" dynamic in between (and a hidden "restore" dynamic afterward) is all that's needed to fix this!

I still think "rfz" and "sfz" aren't implemented - am I wrong there too?  The "rfz" would be particularly troubling to implement, as how does one specify how long the "fz" phrase is?

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #11 –
Quote
"rfz" and "sfz" aren't implemented - am I wrong there too?

No, you're right (unless I'm wrong too).
But I think this is just one of effects the now famous "Expression" MPC was made for.

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Randy Williams (purdue) –
I might be willing to write such a tool, if there is interest.
There is interest. I'm interested to know how to go about fiddling with note velocities, volume settings and expression settings without knowing what these values are when the tool receives its input from NWC.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #13 –
I corrected a couple of typos in my second message in this thread.  Sorry, with a jumping IE window whenever my messages are bigger than this forum's text boxes, and size/colour/font style codes surrounding the highlighted characters, my eyesight isn't good enough to spot my errors.

Volume is probably what I mean; I used velocity only because that was the term I thought everyone referred to.  Doesn't matter to me, as long as what I'm describing relates to loudness.

I would love to see all the sfz, fffp,  ffpp, sffz, symbols, etc. made easy to enter as if they were a dynamic or a dynamic variance, rather than having to spell them out in text, but my only reason for requesting fp or any other similar marking is for the visual side of things.  The playback is not terribly important for me.  I'm glad to see others exploring how to make the midi playback loudness of a single note vary.  

Keep up the good work, folks.

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #14 –
Quote from: Rick G. –
There is interest. I'm interested to know how to go about fiddling with note velocities, volume settings and expression settings without knowing what these values are when the tool receives its input from NWC.
PROPOSAL

Note velocities: I'd need to increase the note velocity a bit, over and above what the dynamic of record stipulated.  I could simply add an accent to the following note, which I think automatically increases the note velocity by 40%.  But then the accent would be visible, which we wouldn't want.  Worst case, the script would watch dynamics go by, to know what the last one was.  Of course it would have to assume the default dynamic velocities were not customized, as these staff properties would not be available to a script even as it operated on the entire staff.  I'm not sure I'd want to handle custom note velocities for individual dynamics either, even though those would be available.  So a hidden dynamic with a custom note velocity would do the trick.

Volume settings: I wouldn't mess with volume.  I think it's best reserved for a global "mixer" level for that staff.

Expression settings: I think a 64th note's worth of falloff would be acceptable, regardless of length of the "sfp" note.  The expression would drop from 127 to a number calculated to get a "piano" [again assuming standard dynamics] even though the velocity had been increased.  The "piano" would hold until a 64th note's worth short of the duration of the "sfp" note.  Then the expression would be ramped back up to 127.  This ramp-up would occur during the natural note-off period that separates one note from the next.

I'd assume nobody would put an "sfp" within a cresc/decresc, or on a split-duration chord, or on a 32nd or 64th note, or any other weird case, on first pass.

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #15 –
Quote from: David Palmquist –
I would love to see all the sfz, fffp,  ffpp, sffz, symbols, etc. made easy to enter as if they were a dynamic or a dynamic variance, rather than having to spell them out in text, but my only reason for requesting fp or any other similar marking is for the visual side of things.
Again, I can see "sfp" added as "sforzando piano", but all those other symbols don't really have good musical names, so they don't fit into the current paradigm of dynamic variance entry for NWC.

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #16 –
Randy, I'm not sure what you have against the use of "fortepiano" (fp). It's regularly used - my Harvard Dictionary of Music lists it among the "commonest" dynamic markings. The others on that list are pp, p, mp, mf, f, ff, cresc, decresc, dim, and sf (which the HDM calls "sforzato" rather than "sforzando"; I understand that both spellings are correct, though Maurizio may enlighten us differently). Not an sfp in the bunch. Not to say composers don't use it, but it appears to be less common than just fp.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #17 –
Quote from: David Palmquist –
I would love to see all the sfz, fffp,  ffpp, sffz, symbols, etc. made easy to enter as if they were a dynamic or a dynamic variance, rather than having to spell them out in text, but my only reason for requesting fp or any other similar marking is for the visual side of things.  The playback is not terribly important for me.
NWC is so restrictive of the horizontal positioning of dynamics that I end up using text for many songs, although one can get a fair looking forte-piano with:
Quote
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Dynamic|Style:f|Pos:-8|Placement:BestFitForward
|Note|Dur:Whole,Grace|Pos:#-3X^|Visibility:Never
|Dynamic|Style:p|Pos:-8|Justify:Center|Placement:AtNextNote
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:#-3
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
With the proper font, a fair sounding "sforzato" can be had with:
Quote
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.0,Single)
|Note|Dur:Whole,Grace,Accent|Pos:#-2X^|Visibility:Never
|Text|Text:"sf"|Font:StaffItalic|Pos:-8|Justify:Center|Placement:AtNextNote
|Note|Dur:Half|Pos:#-2
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
These won't survive Audit Accidentals but when I get to dynamics I'm usually well beyond the stage where I would use Audit Accidentals. 
I've never seen "fffp" and  "ffpp". I don't think that they are standard notation.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #18 –
Quote from: William Ashworth –
Randy, I'm not sure what you have against the use of "fortepiano" (fp). It's regularly used - my Harvard Dictionary of Music lists it among the "commonest" dynamic markings. The others on that list are pp, p, mp, mf, f, ff, cresc, decresc, dim, and sf (which the HDM calls "sforzato" rather than "sforzando"; I understand that both spellings are correct, though Maurizio may enlighten us differently). Not an sfp in the bunch. Not to say composers don't use it, but it appears to be less common than just fp.
Hi Bill.  I think I need to get more in the habit of prefacing my opinions with an "IMHO"!  I am well aware of the common use in music of the "fortepiano" (fp) for sforzando piano.  I saw it often in my trombone parts in high school, the Purdue marching band, the Durham Community Band, and my Canadian Brass-style quintet.  I also saw on occasion the plain old "sforzando" abbreviated as "sf".  But NWC has set a precendent that needs to be followed (IMHO) - there is already a "sforzando" (and note that the alternate spelling of "sforzato" was not used) and it is represented by "sfz" (and note that the alternate [and perhaps primary] spelling of "sf" was not used, nor was "fz").  IMHO, to build on this precendent mandates that any "sforzando piano" (and note that this again avoids "sforzato", and builds on the existing "sforzando", and avoids the laymen-ish "fortepiano" [and its associated appearance of being 2 dynamics instead of 1 dynamic variance]) be represented by "sfp" (although "sfzp" might be more complete, it is not an accepted alternate, as "sfp" is).

This is not about what I want - it is simply about what (I think) fits in best with what is already there in NWC.  For example, I think most times I see a "rit." in music, it stands for a ritardando (with "ritenuto" spelled out, if it is ever used).  But NWC, and rightly so I think, has chosen "ritard." for ritardando and reserved "rit." for ritenuto.  Sometimes I hide the dynamic variance of "ritard." and add a text for "rit.", when I really want my printouts to identically match the original.  You and I can do something similar to change "sfp" to "fp".  :-)  IMHO, one has the best chance of getting an enhancement by making sure it is the most natural extension of what is already there.  It's not personal!

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #19 –
Rick - I'm assuming you switch to "text" dynamics in order to add leading (or trailing) spaces to tweak the location of a left (or right) justified (at next note/bar) string.  I don't resort to this often for dynamics, but I use it constanly to build up long trills using the boxmarks font.  Your use of a grace note to help simulate a sforzando piano is quite ingenious to me - it gets the accent I'd wanted in a way that can be hidden from printout.  It does not allow full control of the "falloff" period as an MPC would, but perhaps some number of grace notes could be tied together to get more falloff?  At any rate, a script could find all text (or future dynamic variance) sforzando pianos and add whatever was eventually deemed best for audio simulation, but there does not appear to be any interest in this aspect (beyond our purely theoretical discussions).  :-)

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #20 –
Quote from: Randy Williams (purdue) –
....avoids the laymen-ish "fortepiano"....

Randy, I don't object to your personal preference for sfp, and you are certainly entitled to keep using it. What I am objecting to is calling fp - the standard version of that notation - wrong. "Laymen-ish" it isn't. That was my point in citing the HDM, which can hardly be considered the work of a layman.

You are certainly free to differ from authority. I have differed from Alfred's often in this forum. But I have only called it "wrong" when I could back up my own opinion with multiple examples from printed scores. And I have never called it "laymen-ish."

OK. Enough said. Both versions are correct; let's agree to disagree about which one is preferable. There are far more important things to worry about in the world.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #21 –
Quote from: William Ashworth –
Randy, I don't object to your personal preference for sfp, ...
I'm sorry, Bill, but I apparently have been misrepresenting my position all along here.  My personal preference has always been for "fp", not for "sfp".  I do not ever use "sfp", except when duplicating the (rare) sheet music that uses it.  I have never said that "fp" is wrong, and I thought I'd agreed that "fp" is standard.  I only used the "laymen" term for the name "forte piano", not for the symbol "fp", and only to imply that most would consider "sforzando piano" to be the more "technically correct" name.  (After all, "forte piano" I think was the original name of the [later-abbreviated] piano, as it was revolutionary at the time to be able to play load or soft at the performer's discretion, which the prevailing harpsichords did not permit.)  At no point did I intend to call into question (or even differ from) any authority, including your own.

My sole point was that I expected NWC to find the name "sforzando piano" and the symbol "sfp" to be more in line with previous NWC precedent.  I'm sorry for whatever I said that implied otherwise to you.

Edit:  Just looked it up.  The "fortepiano" did indeed follow the harpsichord, but some later innovations were needed before it became the "pianoforte", which itself is what we now know of as the "piano".

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #22 –
Quote
I've never seen "fffp" and  "ffpp". I don't think that they are standard notation.

No, I agree, not standard.  Seems to me I've seen those in 19th century military band transcriptions of orchestral music, but I'm likely misremembering.  Nevertheless, read my comment as referring to any combination of this dynamic variance alphabet soup.

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #23 –
Quote from: William Ashworth –
"sforzato" rather than "sforzando"; I understand that both spellings are correct, though Maurizio may enlighten us differently

The difference is minimal: "sforzando" = "striving", "sforzato" = "strived".
"Sforzando" is used the most, but I think I've heard "sforzato" too.

Re: Forte-piano dynamic variance

Reply #24 –
Thanks, Maurizio.

Randy, I admit confusion. I thought by "laymen-ish" you were referring to the fp marking. However, I don't think the name "fortepiano" for that marking is "laymen-ish" either. It's the name used in two of the three music dictionaries I keep close at hand, the HDM and Norton Library's New College Encyclopedia of Music , both from around 1960 (well, so am I). The third dictionary, Penguin's New Dictionary of Music (same era) doesn't reference fp at all - or sfp - but it does remark of the word fortepiano that "It's use in English to denote the late 18th-century piano is arbitrary and affected. (Fortepiano is, however, the standard Russian word for the normal instrument.)" It appears from these three, taken together, that "fortepiano" is a laymen-ish term for old pianos, rather than a laymen-ish term for fp.

Just my librarian's bias showing....

Bill