This struck a chord with me (pun intended) about something that has been bugging me for a while. There is no way in standard notation to specify dynamics to be in the middle- neither soft nor loud. We are forced to pick a side - we must be either loud or soft. This is especially apparent when you look at the values above. The jump from mp to mf is 24 - this is bigger jump than any other single interval and it is very noticeable during playback - at least to my 77 year old ears If you start a piece off as mp, you can’t go just a bit louder - it jumps out. Yes, you can flatten the curve, but that has other side effects you might not want
I realize this is opening up a rather large can of worms, but a new dynamics value in between mp and mf (with a CC value of 64) would alleviate this. As far as how we should notate this? If you look at this discussion, there are various suggestions: mezzo, mezzo-mezzo, etc. Of course the first time this is used it would need an explanation for the players.
I don’t know how a dynamic level that is halfway between mp and mf should be notated, but if you want to achieve that level in Dorico’s playback, see this topic:
My 2 cents about notating such a dynamic (ignore if you want to ): I think there are already options that, albeit not extremely common, won’t require much explanation. Like più f or poco f, you could write e.g. poco mf between mp and mf. Writing just “mezzo” would be meaningless IMHO. Imagine writing something like “a little” as an instruction. A little what? Also the need for a dynamic that’s “neither soft nor loud” is like asking what temperature is neither hot nor cold - the answers will be highly subjective and like the common temperature scales, dynamics are relative. A p played by a wind quintet in an intimate little church is a different dynamic than a p played by an 80-piece orchestra in a concert hall. Likewise, an mp in a piece that’s crawling with f’s and ff’s is a different dynamic than an mp in a piece that’s predominantly p or pp. So wouldn’t inventing new ways of notating dynamics just overcomplicate things?
You already have two “middle” dynamics, which in practice will be indistinguishable in terms of decibels. They are: “mf” and “mfwithout confidence”. If you want to micromanage the computer playback you can always adjust the CC values directly, but human-playable dynamics are more a psychological tool than anything else. No need to reinvent the wheel.
I don ‘t usually jump into these rabbit holes, but … For the most part, this is dependent on the playback template / library one uses. There are some older libraries, yet still in use, that have a certain (small) number of dynamic layers. So, the cross from pp → p might cross-fade an instrument into it’s 2nd layer and therefore, both be louder and perhaps change timbre whereas the markedly large jump between mp → mf may be insignificant.
There are no hard and fast rules and everything that is being and will be discussed here will have different outcomes on different sample libraries.
Maybe I missed it and it was mentioned in this long thread but if I understand older posts correctly, funny enough when you put no dynamic markers in the score you get 64 for your controlling parameters. So in the middle between mf and mp what @eheilner wanted.
Regarding the sample layer activated , it is as mentioned above very library dependent what timbre you get at this middle point. I just started using a VSL Studio Concert Guitar using velocity and CC2 as controllers and to get a “round”sound you have to stay at mp or below whereas mf already gives the sharper sound typically associated with apoyando technique.
In most of my recent scores, I have eliminated mf and mp in favor of a single m dynamic. I put a note in the score explaining this, but I don’t think it’s hard for the players to figure out. I don’t care about the dynamics in the playback, so I simply reassign mf to look like the “m” alone.
Yes you can. If you start at mp, you can change to halfway between mp and mf by entering poco f in the dynamics popover. I explain how to change to this neutral level from any other dynamic level in the topic I mentioned in my previous post.
John’s method is the only way to get back to the default 64.
On the other hand I think the issue we have here is more the way our sampled or artificial sound libraries react to the controlling messages of Dorico. So most often velocity and one other in most cases CC1 or CC2. Assuming all instruments have previously been balanced based on their natural volume range and position in the orchestra you would think that this would then work perfectly when you copy a classic piece and use the written dynamics. In most case it does not however and one has to either manually change the CC curve and velocity values or use own dynamic markings. For a full orchestra and 20-30 minutes of music the first method is very time consuming. I use it when in a DAW but in Dorico putting an own dynamic marking is rather effective (although purists will object). One issue which often occurs when you do this is that the timbre (sample layer) also changes what you do not necessarily want. In this case only playing with the mixer helps.
When I copy a classic piece I always set the dynamic range in the playback to the most extreme dynamics used by the composer and use a dynamic curvature between 1 and 2. If the range is large e.g. -5 to 5 the value would be closer to 2. In most cases I refrain from any of the additional options to manipulate dynamics.
Why so many manual corrections are required I have not found out yet I am always using VEP Pro with the full orchestra with MIR Pro on each channel. I regularly use a template with a few notes and articulations with all instruments to recalibrate the instrument balance in the plugin in VEP (VSL SY and Studio libraries). Sometimes I have the impression there is an interaction between the instruments i.e an instrument sounds louder (or different) when played at a given dynamic alone than in a full orchestra. As I also use MIR Pro this might actually be linked to the added reverb signals of the MIR algorithms for the impulse response of all instruments at the same time. It will require a huge investigation.
(I don’t remember where I read that using mf and mp was not good composing practice. I chose to ignore this rule or recommendation however)
There are two aspects to this - and in the OP I concentrated mostly on playback. But what is more important to me than playback is the ability to communicate my intentions to the players (or conductor). As long as the playback is reasonably close to my expectations that’s fine. So I would like the ability to tell the players that the dynamics in a passage are “neutral” or “in between”.
Now an obvious response to my request is that composers have done quite well without needing a neutral dynamic for well over two hundred years, so why not just let the players know that mf is to be treated as neutral and get on with the business of composing. But music (and music notation) is constantly evolving - and if we can offer this as an option they why not? And maybe I’m being overly pedantic but to me - to use any dynamic notation with either an f or a p to indicate a neutral level is inconsistent.
But going back to treating mf as neutral? This has some consequences - let me explain.
Any acoustic instrument can only play so loud - so what dynamic marking should we use when we want to instruct the player to play their instrument as loudly as they possibly can? When I was studying composition, one of my professors suggested that fff be used sparingly for peak emotional/dramatic moments - e.g. when the heroine is about to kill herself in the final act . So why not use ffff? A quick google search will show that through the years some composers have used ffff (e.g. Tchaikovsky, Holst, Stravinsky) but these are quite rare - and my preference is to use fff to indicate maximum dynamics. And Dorico gives us just that ability.
Here is a Dorico dynamics setting based on this - fff is the loudest and ppp is the softest (actually ppp is CC 0 - but I’m trying to keep things simple).
So now suppose that mf is neutral dynamics (neither loud nor soft). This leaves me with only 3 levels of loudness above neutral (loud, louder, and loudest), while I have 4 levels of softness. It’s not symmetrical. If I say that mp is neutral then (assuming that ppp is the quietest setting) the imbalance switches to the other side. As johnkprice has indicated, we can do tricks with poco mf to indicate neutral - and I suppose I could include a brief footnote at the beginning of a score indicating such. And then I could go with poco f & poco ff. But poco mf is also non-standard and rarely used and I’d have to add that into the footnotes of each score. And to repeat myself from above, using anything with either an f or a p to indicate neutral is inconsistent and not aesthetically pleasing. To have a neutral designation would give a nice symmetrical balance - and would add another tool to a composer’s toolbox.
How any dynamic gets interpreted is subjective and up to the players or conductor. I trust the players or conductor to make the appropriate decisions.
I’m sure that the Dorico folks can come up with a term (or terms) that will make better sense. Neutral, middle, Intermediate, ?
Also - just to be clear - what I’m calling for is a configurable option - and the default is to keep things the way they are.
John’s “poco trick” is useful for micromanaging computer playback if you so desire. If you try it with human players, prepare to have your instructions summarily ignored. As he explains himself, that’s not how real-life dynamics work:
If you start a piece off as mp, you can’t go just a bit louder - it jumps out. Yes, you can flatten the curve, but that has other side effects you might not want
): I think there are already options that, albeit not extremely common, won’t require much explanation. Like più f or poco f, you could write e.g. poco mf between mp and mf. Writing just “mezzo” would be meaningless IMHO. Imagine writing something like “a little” as an instruction. A little what? Also the need for a dynamic that’s “neither soft nor loud” is like asking what temperature is neither hot nor cold - the answers will be highly subjective and like the common temperature scales, dynamics are relative. A p played by a wind quintet in an intimate little church is a different dynamic than a p played by an 80-piece orchestra in a concert hall. Likewise, an mp in a piece that’s crawling with f’s and ff’s is a different dynamic than an mp in a piece that’s predominantly p or pp. So wouldn’t inventing new ways of notating dynamics just overcomplicate things?
. So why not use ffff? A quick google search will show that through the years some composers have used ffff (e.g. Tchaikovsky, Holst, Stravinsky) but these are quite rare - and my preference is to use fff to indicate maximum dynamics. And Dorico gives us just that ability.