curious about origin of f-p

I notice that forte pianos now come with a dash between the dynamics. I have never in my life seen that in an actually score and am curious as to its origins. Thanks

I see it often in pedagogical volumes. First time, play forte, and on the repeat, play piano.

Totally different than fp.

My clients use f-p (or p-f, f-ff, etc.) for the reason Dan mentions. Elaine Gould suggests the following:

f (p 2nd time)

I’ve seen the dynamics separated by a slash p/f. Gould’s suggestion seems crystal clear to me, but the others are likely to be understood by most musicians.

Thanks for the clarification. That’s a new one on me.

Thanks for the clarification. That’s a new one on me. I started getting a lot of them in an xml score for some reason.

I’ve never had a question about f-p from a player. More efficient than Gould’s suggestion.

I agree. Gould tends to be too verbose. Notation should be concise, not a novel.

It’s also very often seen in marches, waltzs, polkas…
Just regular stuff, very common here in Austria/Germany.

I find the f-p useful but why can I not also do mf-ff or similar so that I can vary the dynamic on a repeating a section?
I’m not too worried about the playback but it would be good to have a clear way of producing this in the score.
I have found that I can do …
p-mf; p-f; p-ff but not p-mp; p-pp just becomes ppp.
mp-mf, mf-mp and mf-p work
mf-f and mf-ff just become mf.

I haven’t worked through all the combinations but it seems inconsistent?
The only way round it as far as I can work out is to attach the second dynamic to the next note (and move it in engrave mode if necessary)

https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=246&t=151919&p=945714

Thanks Dan - that clears it up.
I hadn’t been able to find this topic before.
I’ll use the workaround for now.