Dynamics - neither loud nor soft

[eheilner]

mezzo-mezzo might avoid any confusion with mezza. It's a bit wordier, but it has a nice symmetry to it. mezzo-piano, mezzo-mezzo, mezzo-forte

[benwiggy]

I tend to think of all dynamics as being varying degrees of either piano or forte. Mezzo is as much a qualifier as --issimo.

[John Ruggero]

One can speak loudly, or softly, or somewhat loudly, or somewhat softly etc.

But one can also speak in a "normal conversational level, which Google AI just informed me as at about 60-70 Db or interestingly right around the middle range of 64 Db that ehellner suggested.

I have often been torn as to how to notate such a dynamic. mf or mp? I usually settle on mf as suggested by RMK, but am rarely happy about It and welcome the new choice of mezzo or whatever one calls it.

mezzo-mezzo seems cumbersome and takes up so much space. What about Mezzo with a capital M and mz for short.

RMK, I am sorry that I haven't answered your two questions directly. I think I have described what I consider a "neutral dynamic". And concerning mf and Beethoven, to the best of my knowledge which is largely limited to the piano rep., he used very few mf 's, nor did Mozart, with the same limitation.

I just looked through several works of Chopin and found pieces in which there is no dynamic indication at the beginning or at important junctures later in the piece. These instances seem to indicate a neutral dynamic. This is not the case with Mozart, who sometimes omitted an initial f or p when he felt it was obvious because of the dynamics that follow.

[David Ward]

Dynamics depend so much on context and instrument that I wonder whether anything so precise as being between mf and mp can really exist in practical terms. Tchaikovsky's marking of pppppp in his sixth symphony is for the bassoon, on which instrument it has doubtful meaning, so it is usually played on a bass clarinet, which can reduce to near inaudibility, although the bass clarinet is not used elsewhere in the symphony.

Most orchestral instruments can achieve very similar levels for p and mp eg both a low flute and a trombone might have a near identical decibel level playing the same pitch at those dynamics. At mf the trombone might begin to get rather louder than the low flute at the same dynamic, and one might expect it to be very much louder at ff. However, this should always depend on context. It is possible for a trombonist to balance with a low flute at any marked dynamic when this is what the music needs.

Hence, my own view FWIW is that having a new dynamic between mp and mf is unnecessary. Performers should be able to adjust their relative dynamics according to context. Absolute dynamics don't exist (in my opinion).

[John Ruggero]

I agree with David Ward that one should not think of dynamics in decibels, just as one shouldn't think of our system of Italian tempo indications as metronome numbers. But for me, that doesn't change the fact that we have no dedicated single symbol to denote a level that impresses one as neither loud nor soft in whatever acoustical environment one happens to be.

[eheilner]

mezzo-mezzo seems cumbersome and takes up so much space. What about Mezzo with a capital M and mz for short.

I'm fine with whatever folks think works best.

[Harpsichordmaker]

The mf is considered the central point of the loudness scale in classical music, no? That would be the “no soft neither loud” John us asking for. Mf is halfway between f and p. Mp is a bit softer, and so on.

However loudness is not absolute, otherwise music notation would have developed something as V1 to V10 or, why not, to V100. V for Volume.

However, do you really feel necessary to notate a 100-level scale of loudness? What practical utility would have such precision? Different instruments, contexts, players, music hall etc etc will make such extreme precision completely useless. Players can make hundreds of different touches and loudness, but they are playing in their own loudness system, conposers can’t expect their 10-level loudness scale to be reliably played. More, a good player will play with micro-loudness adjustments in each note. It’s istinctive and it’s requested. Voilà, the 100-level loudness scale painstakingly notated by the composer is destroyed as soon as a sensitive and musical player starts to play. I think the usual scale from ppp to fff is more than enough. It’s a 8-level scale.

(of course you could think I speak so because I am a harpsichordist. Not at all, otherwise I would advocate a 2-level loudness scale. Which indeed I do. .)
M

[John Ruggero]

From Chopin's Impromptu no. 1.

No initial dynamic = Start as if improvising at a "neutral" playing level:

Chopin Impromptu 1 A.png (705.21 KiB) Viewed 695 times

After this there are numerous hairpins and a cresc that reaches the first specified dynamic level f in bar 23:

Chopin Impromptu 1 B.png (714.73 KiB) Viewed 695 times

The middle section begins with a specified f

Chopin Impromptu 1 C.png (651.57 KiB) Viewed 695 times

When the opening section returns, there is again no dynamic, which is unexpected after the hairpin = return to the opening neutral dynamic.

Chopin Impromptu 1 D.png (684.7 KiB) Viewed 695 times

Some later editions add a mf. To me, this is not quite the same thing.

[John Ruggero]

However, do you really feel necessary to notate a 100-level scale of loudness? What practical utility would have such precision?

Sorry, Harpsichordmaker, I am not sure whether you are asking me or the OP. If it was me, I believe I already answered that with a no. No absolute scale of dynamics. Like the OP I have often wished for a completely neutral dynamic indication with not a hint of a f feeling about it.

[Harpsichordmaker]

John, I was asking thre OP.
However I am not sure what completely neutral dynamic is.
In Opera singing, mf is the “normal” “conversational singing”, think of most secco recitatives. I guess that is what you mean?