What does “mfz” mean??
I’ve never seen that before but I would interpret it as an sfz with an mf attack rather than an f attack.
1 Like
I also see this mfz mark in Dorico too.
In theory “mezzo-forzato”?
Honestly, never seen this in practice.
2 Likes
At first glance, I’d guess Mozart. I remember a mfp from a string quartet.
1 Like
I would interpret it as a less forceful than fz
4 Likes
According to my composer colleague (modernist) who uses it a lot, I just asked, it’s one step below sfz. M being for mezzo of course.
So we have fz → mfz → sfz → sffz → more.
But rfz is outside of this gradient as it is a different thing…
1 Like
That’s actually Beethoven’s Op. 13. That movement’s theme was wonderfully hijacked by Kiss in Great Expectations.
1 Like
This is the first time I have seen this on a score.
1 Like
So, I think mfz is half of sfz.
1 Like
That sounds like it I think.
So then where does sf stand in? I see this mark all over Beethoven‘s compositions.
sf seems to be just Beethoven’s ordinary way to write an accent. The fact he uses it everywhere may indicate it shouldn’t be the loudest bang every time.
I would read mfz as mezzo-forzato: ‘just a bit more forceful’ or ‘moderately forceful’. In short, a mild accent, fitting for a quiet ending.
I’d just use mf with an accent. To me that is clearer and saves confusion/discussion during rehearsals.
This is a piano sonata, rehearsals are not to be expected…
1 Like
May I disagree, @Derrek?
In my opinion mf is musically an “absolute” dynamic; fz is musically a “relative” dynamic: the music before and after is in p and pp, so how you play the fz should take this main dynamic into consideration. The same thing should happen with the sf (much used in Beethoven): the sf played in a p phrase is much different that the sf played in a f phrase = is relative to the main dynamic. And a series of sf, particularly in Beethoven, may also indicate a gradual intensification, so that every one is more and more intense, relative to the main dynamic).
To reiterate this aspect (“to not exaggerate”), I think the m is to indicate only mezzo fz (so even less, then its relative to p nature of this phrase would dictate).
[EDIT: as @John_Ruggero points out this seem not to be original, though.
I checked in Henle, and the whole phrase starts and ends in pp, so the two rf should be relative to pp]
To be sure that is clear what I intend mfz means: it should intended as m-fz so has not direct correlation to mf
