On 16 Feb 2006 at 14:38, John Howell wrote: > It also bothers me when a composer assumes that > there ARE discrete dynamic levels, and writes, > for example, mp in violin, cello and bass parts > but mf in the viola part, intended to instruct > the violas to bring out their part, when the > violas have no idea what dynamic the other parts > have. Yes, the conductor can see it, but it's an > invitation to stop rehearsal to explain what > could be easily indicated in the music by "bring > out" or something similar.
Yes, I was thinking about that kind of situation, too, and it's quite clear that a "solo" indication is in order in that kind of situation. On the other hand, I've seen in original sources different dynamics for winds vs. strings, or for, say, horns vs. all the other instruments, where it's really indended that the louder instruments play at a softer level so as to establish a better balance with the other instruments. I've also seen "critical" editions that cleanse those important differences in the original from the final text. I think it's pretty clear that composers could easily and intentionally write different dynamics for different sections playing simultaneously, and changing the horn parts to the same dynamic marking as in, say, the solo string parts, is going to have a disastrous effect on balance. (BTW, I've seen this kind of thing in lots of chamber music, but Mozart, for instance, does it in his symphonies, too) -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
