Basically I always thought of it this way:
sffz - strongest punch sfz - almost strongest punch sf (used if no sffz, but can be a level in itself) ^ - strongest character accent > - most common accent - - tenuto
All of this has something to do with the context -- the shape of the phrase, the dynamic height of the phrase, etc.
fp with no dynamic movement (no cresc. hairpin) would indicate for *that note only* in the context of the dynamic realm. If you were to be at the mf level, and suddenly you have a note marked fp, the p would apply for the duration of that note, and then you would return to mf level, providing of course the next note isn't marked with something else -- i.e. it wouldn't make sense to put it on a rather short note -- only one with some substantial value to hear the effect.
I have never written an electronic piece that used all of these. I have found either my graphic "dynamic staff" method or five out of six to suffice in all situations I have thought of. I don't really see the need to go to sf and sfz if the bottom three will do for the piece. You could say that I don't particularly go for overarticulated scores, feeling that it restricts interpretation if the players don't particularly have the mindset that I'm after. If I know the piece will be played by mainly "classical" musicians (i.e. those that never play pop forms) I leave much to interpretation so that I encourage it rather than hamper it.
I once wrote a clarinet and marimba quartet -- the score was overarticulated (for me), and when it came time to perform it, we were rehearsing it, and the bass clarinetist could not avoid squeaking at certain points in the score. I told him it was okay to squeak, okay to be a little off in pitch, okay to be a little off in rhythm, dynamics etc. -- that if it was perfect it wasn't what I was after because I could make it perfect with a computer. (The alto clarinetist knew of my love for Sun Ra's music and played this to the hilt with lots of scoops, squeaks, split tones, and doits, which delighted me.) When I told the players this, I got a wonderful performance, within the realm I wanted. So when I go to use these it really depends on the context ... I only ever get this subtle in a human score when I'm trying to indicate a "ballpark" to try to hit, rather than perfection.
K.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in my experience, many commercial composers/orchestrators use this indication incorrectly for a fp effect - worse, they'll put sfz and expect a fp from the performer...... it's almost as bad as using an accent (>) when what they really want is a note held full value from a wind player (happens in jazz/rock flavored church orchestrations waaaaay too often)
TC
On Jan 28, 2004, at 12:56 PM, Keef wrote:
Very interesting argument but I was always under the impression that fp, sf and sfz were *accents* not dynamics. Basically, you punch it and get off of the punch as quickly as you can. That they look like dynamics and use the same characters make them confusing.
Sfp and sfzp would not make any sense to me as a performer. What's the word to describe these markings? What's the action intended? Wouldn't fp suffice? Would they change the level in the dynamic realm or not? Can you have an sfp at the mf level or does it change the level from mf to p?
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
