Hello everybody,
I’m currently working on a piece where I need the dynamic of msfz several times. Unfortunately the usual workaround of combined dynamics (attaching two dynamics to close positions on the grid) doesn’t work with this one. I can fake it with an additional music symbol text object and align in Engrave Mode but this becomes incredibly fiddly and of course creates issues with condensing. Does anyone have an idea for a more elegant solution for this problem?
Thanks,
Robin
Maybe use the text tool then type msfz by setting the font to ‘Opus Text’ or ‘Helsinki Text’.
Thanks for the ideas. Both not ideal workarounds but better than nothing!
So, “only forcing it a little bit”…? 
This is relatively common in film scoring. Referring to milder attack than pure sfz.
I seem to remember seeing mfz in Mozart, as well.
I’m finding same issue. I think it would be really helpful to have msfz as an updated dynamic marking so it’s easy to use.
What does it sound like, compared to a mp note with an accent or tenuto on it?
You could use mfz instead of msfz?
For instance on long notes msfz has influence on the attack of the note which is not unambiguously communicated with an accent or tenuto. Particularly in sight reading sessions we need to find ways to clearly communicate the intention right away in the notation.
Not an option if your job is engraving and staying true to the original notation
I’m still trying to determine the playback implications of such a dynamic/accent, both for live and computer playback.
Can you expand on your earlier answer?
Sure. I guess it depends alot on context and orchestra so see below with a grain of salt and more as common practice in the session world.
Sfz or less commonly used Fz refers to the way a note gets attacked. In both cases, I would expect a relatively explosive attack. E.g. a very hard tongued “Taa” on Brass as opposed to a “Da”. The mezzo in front of that reduces the volume of the attack but not its immediacy. I would still expect a punchy and immediate tone rather than “sneaking” into it. We use all sorts of dynamic combinations in order to describe attack and sustain of the note as precisely as possible, e.g sfp, sfmf etc. are relatively common.
Regarding your question of difference between an accent and tenuto:
An accent overall just describes to play the note with it louder than the surrounding notes, it has no direct influence on the attack. The ambiguity lies in the possible interpretation whether to play the attack of the note louder or the entire length of the note, so with an accent I’m not clearly communicating that I want a hard attack. Tenuto on the other hand in current common practice exclusively is a marking that defines length of note (to hold it the entire written length) and not accent it by any means (other than in some more historical practice).
With short notes, an accent and sfz/fz might be interchangeable but on any note length where there is a distinctive difference between attack and sustain phase, we need more clarification.
As with all interpretation there is some wiggle room between how these are understood but roughly I would say that this is what most people in the session world would agree on.
Hope that clarifies it a little.
Robin
Really? Perhaps because I came up on piano I had a different impression how the accent applied to string and wind instruments, which more or less mirrors how you describe sfp.
At any rate, thank you for explaining.
