Talk:Dynamics (music)

message: There's no reason to avoid using the Italian meanings for the words.  The so-called "meanings" as given are at odds with the actual meaning in Italian, and relating how the terms came about could help people understand them better, and learn some useful language at the same time.
Also, there's an entirely different mindset playing "gently" vs. playing "quietly" (and it differs between instruments, especially strings vs blown instruments).  These are 2 different words for a reason, and the reason the Italians chose gently and strongly, rather than quiet and loud was reflective of this.  They probably know more about it than the people who decided it should mean quiet and loud.
The description of the '-issimo's is completely negligent to observe the fact that this is an Italian superlative form, meaning most.  fortissimo - most strong, pianissimo - most softly.  There's not even a mention in the article of the obvious fact that the Italian descriptions of many musical terms were adopted all over, due to the Renaissance and the part that Italian composers played in it. 
The reason many composers for a long time would never use softer than pp or stronger than ff, was because logically, it's not possible to play stronger than "most strongly".  That's the thing about superlatives, they define the limits of the scale, and therefore cannot be exceeded.
It would be useful therefore to discuss how stronger and gentler dynamics evolved, presumably as instruments got louder, and orchestras got bigger, ff being interpreted as "as strongly as possible" became ludicrous for some works, and the greater dynamic capabilities of the orchestra became accommodated for in the additional dynamic levels.  This is why you have to take into account the period when a piece was written in order to interpret the dynamic markings.  There's no mention of this either here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.211.224 (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a very poorly-written article

message: Seriously, I think that no, the pages should not be merged. So there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.221.76 (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree .. sotto voce is more common in most people's experience as a idiom denoting lowering one's voice for effect in conversation and controversy than it is as a musical term. No merge, and I'm going to edit Sotto voce itself because clearly the author of that article didn't quite get it! "Muttering" indeed! :) JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I did some work on Sotto voce and in conjunction with User:Ravpapa's very nice edit of sotto voce on the Dynamics (music) page I think we have aced this one. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's get back to the point

message: I think those dynamics can be increased to a vague extent. No one says "ffffffffffff" is not allowed, it's just that it is very hard to tell the difference between 6 fs and 8fs so normally composers just put ffff at the most. I mean, its just pointless if you put too many.Kystephkwan3 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Super loud

message: This article is written very poorly , but there are loads  dozens of musical dyanmic types not described here, most of them rather prominent. 
Also, this article does not mention baroque dynamics (which were normally not written out, left to the discretion of the performer) and dynamics on gentle instruments such as the harpsichord. John Holly 16:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lacking

message: "Fortississimo" and "pianississimo"??  I thought these were jokes that band directors made up.  Unless someone indicates otherwise, I'll shortly be refining this article to indicate that those are facetious words.
UPDATE:  Refinement done.  Any objections?
SFT 07:52, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
"Fortississimo" is how you say 'fff', and pianississimo is how you say 'ppp'.
these are not jokes, maybe neologisms. But you have to say them somehow. This article doesn't mention stuff like:
Fermata            = to hold as long as desired.
Rf. (Rinforzando)  = to stress by strength, as opposed to
Sfz. (Sforzando)   = to stress by pushing, by pressure.
Dol. (Dolce)       = to play sweetly
Smorz poco a poco  = to grow softer(?) little by little.
those should be in this article cause like Crescendo (written or as symbol ) should be here. so this is a stub IMHO -- Nkour 14:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold! Hyacinth 02:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Those aren't dynamics.  Dolce and smorz (???) are just musical directions, as are fermata.  You might get away with mentioning rf and sfz, but those are more articulationy. SFT | Talk 09:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you could make a pretty strong case for dolce as a dynamic indication in Mozart, though. Double sharp (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Neologism

message: Recent addition to the article in bold:
:Tchaikovsky indicated pppppp and ffff in passages of his Pathétique symphony and in the 1812 Overture.
I can't verify that this is wrong, but I am somewhat incredulous that Tchaikovsky would use both five ps and four fs in two separate pieces.  Can someone with access to a score verify or debunk this?
:Doesn't surprise me, Tchaikovsky had a flair for melodrama. Though it wouldn't hurt to check a score, I suppose. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he was melodramatic but also a superb craftsman who knew what he was doing.  For all their brazenness the first and fourth movements of Symphony no 4 both start ff only.  In both movements he is reserving fff for later on.  In Symphony no 6 he writes pppp just before the coda in the first movement (starting with double basses in bar 325) and at the very end of the symphony.  And he uses ffff at bar 312 of the third movement.  After all, he was about to commit suicide, wasn't he?  
I haven't got the score of 1812 to hand. Hikitsurisan 22:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: See , page 79. Stannered 12:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And , page 19, second system, bassoon line. Stannered 13:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1812 Overture 

message: I'm all for them to be merged, and I think mezzo piano etc need doing too.
ME TOO!!! ;-)
Done Conrad Irwin 23:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles being merged 

message: What is up with saying piano is soft and forte is loud?  Most people need details.  If anyone has even more than that , I'd like to here it.  It is needed for anyone and everyone who doesn't have a clue!
How would you propose adding more detail? For example, a p sung by an opera singer is probably louder than a f from a violin. They are all totally relative quantities and so I think we have given virtually all we can. Conrad Irwin 23:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing stopping us from adding audio samples of an Opera singer male and female hitting the pitches at certain volumes.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 02:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, we could add just one sample with instructions on how to adjust the speaker volume for ppp and fff. Swooch (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details!!!!!!!!! 

message: Can someone explain to me the difference between calando and crescendo, as they're both described as "becoming softer"?80.114.26.224 07:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, crescendo is becoming louder. Diminuendo is becoming softer. Calando is better translated as drooping, and means "[dying] away in volume and sometimes tempo".  Stannered 12:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference between two terms

message: Can someone explain to me what this section of the article is about?  It makes no sense to me.  Does it have any source? --Ravpapa (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A different approach 

message: 24.109.235.166 deleted the See also section, as well as all the foreign language cross-references.  I don't know if this was intentional, a mistake or vandalism.  24.109.235.166, if you had a reason for doing this, please tell us on the talk page.  Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undid revision by 24.109.235.166 

message: 1812 Overture is not the only one piece to have a extreme loud dynamic! I think it goes as loud as ffff. However, there are other pieces from Tchaikovsky that, indeed, have a even more stronger dynamic and that is not mentioned on the article. The tempest is a clear example of that. When the orchestra its almost reaching the coda, theres a climax with the full orchestra, with the main melody. That part goes as far as fffff! Pitty is not mentioned tough.
Anyway, sotto voce must be added as a musical dynamic part because sotto voce means that the instrument should play in a lower and sweet volume...that doesn´t mean pianissimo or even piano, but indeed represents a modification in the orchestral volume and melody.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.71.174 (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tchaikovsky fact 

message: p and f are represented in Unicode as 𝆏 and 𝆑 (may need to increase font size to show correctly). Should we show this in the article or somewhere? --Geopgeop (T) 09:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps include it, with other details of music typography, in History_of_music_publishing#Modern_technology? --Ravpapa (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicode representations? 

message: Edit warring is not the best way to resolve problems like the case at hand - discussion on the talk page is the prescribed method.
204.75.188.5, could you please provide a citation of a published piece of music that uses the notation RFL? That could go a long way to resolving the issue. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFL 

message: Who ever uses pn and fo for piano and forte? It is always just p and f (unless it is more so, as in ff) --zzo38(✉) 01:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In 400 years of "modern" western classical music lots of interesting notations have been used. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I particularly like pia and for, as seen in many a Mozart autograph, IIRC. Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  'pn' and 'fo'? 

message: cresc. molto, dim. molto, cresc. poco a poco and dim. poco a poco are correct italian
molto cresc., molto dim., poco a poco cresc. and poco a poco dim. are not correct italian.
In music notation the function must come first, otherwise the player sees the most important part of the instruction too late.
--Käkki2 (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  writing italian 

message: The phrase "rinforte is also available" is pointless.  It says nothing about what rinforte means, and does not relate to the previous section.  If anyone could give a definition for it, it would be appreciated.
I agree. I would like to know what "rinforte" is also. I haven't been able to find a definition on the Web; translate.google.com doesn't translate it properly, and I'm writing about music dynamics. What is it? --Tim Sabin (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  rinforte 

message: The last while there has been a revision war changing the definition of f and p. In one camp are people saying they mean "loud" and "soft" - the camp I agree with. In the other camp are people (IP users) who say they mean "strong" and "weak". Is there a way we can get what the accepted definition is (preferably Italian) and keep people from reverting these definitions? --Tim Sabin (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling it a war might be overstating the situation a bit. There have been several edits from similar IPs making these changes; this is probably the same person, and I did warn the most recent IP. If they continue, we can seek semiprotection for the page. The accepted definitions are loud and soft (or quiet), respectively; this is verifiable using any and every conceivable source and is so basic that it defies credibility to think that there's a legitimate difference of interpretation here. It's not a question of the accepted definition in Italian but rather of the accepted definition period (basic musical notation being standard across a multitude of languages, including both Italian and English). In other words, it really makes no difference what various meanings each word has in Italian. In music, they each have one meaning, and edits suggesting otherwise are unconstructive. Rivertorch (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

text: After another round of it, I have left a note at WikiProject Music theory requesting additional watchers. Further disruption may require page protection. Note to the dynamic IP user: if you're serious about this and not attempting to be disruptive, please discuss your edits here. Rivertorch (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the notice. None of us active at WP:MTH are at the level where we can protect the page, but I thank you for your note so we can watch the page. It appears that we need to fix the sourcing of the article a little bit. I suggest that we as a community find sources that specifically say "soft" and "loud". I know that it seems like common knowledge, but it will only ensure the safety of this definition. On the other hand, if a source is found with the "strong" and "weak", I think it should also be included in the article. This can be made as a side note. I think common convention says that the terminology is "loud" and "soft" but I definitely do not think it is the only way to interpret those definitions. Anyway, long story short, this article needs more sourcing. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 18:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, interpretations of a definition are one thing—lots of adjectives can be used to indicate the (subjective) mood accompanying the (objective) relative loudness—but the basic definition is still what it is. I'm happy to source the terms, of course, and perhaps I should have done that already. (Every reliable source says "soft" and "loud", afaik.) I doubt that will stop the problem, however, so I'm glad for new watchers. Thanks!  Rivertorch (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see the alternative where weak/strong refers to emphasis. It's more of a linguistics approach to music. I've heard the terms before, usually as a way of thinking about dynamics differently. But I agree, the most standard definition by far is soft/loud. If whoever is reverting the page sources weak/strong, I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning it at some point in the article though. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 23:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. It's not that "strong" and "weak" aren't valid interpretations (they are—especially the former), but replacing the basic definitions obfuscates the meaning. Incidentally, I fixed one I'd missed where an actual quote from the source had been changed. Rivertorch (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked through dictionaries. The original meaning of piano and forte are "weak" (or "soft") and "strong", respectively. Those refer to the strength of the pianist pressing to the keys on the piano (again, piano is short for pianoforte). These apply to most other instruments too. However, these terms are generalized in music to "soft" and "loud". 117.5.13.6 (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't let this baloney slide. These terms were in use long before the invention of the piano. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem to be putting the cart before the horse, doesn't it? Nonetheless, IP user, thank you for joining the discussion. Wahoofive is correct, of course: the instrument known as the piano(forte) was so named because of its capacity for dynamic expression; the terms were commonly used in musical notation before the invention of the instrument. Rivertorch (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it back again -- IP editors and one (simultaneous!) new user are trying to insert "strong" and "weak" even these are quite non-standard.  Additionally, the change removes cited content.  Please don't do that unless you can find a superior source. Antandrus  (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of '''''f''''' and '''''p''''' 

message: I have initiated a formal RM action to move Musical scale to Scale (music). Contributions and comments would be very welcome; decisions of this kind could affect the choice of title for many music theory articles.
NoeticaTea? 00:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move: "Musical scale" → "Scale (music)" 

message: It is my understanding that, when a diminuendo leads to a louder dynamic than was previously marked (for example: pp > mp), it is expected that the performer do the diminuendo, then, at the mezzo piano, play a normal mezzo piano; not a "philosophical" mezzo piano. The same if it's the other way around, of course (a crescendo leading to a softer dynamic). Does anyone have a reliable notation book, like Kurt Stone's, to settle this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.86.51.149 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Barber example 

message: Should the History section not be moved to just below the Lead?
--Xavier (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History should move 

message: This was removed by Double Sharp in September 2015 because it was "mythical". But I actually found an image of 8 fs here: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRxRmBghjAneEVPr_RBTAaTgMPcNqNg3-zHfF_lan8lQ2viw1wi Jliboe (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I found 24 fs too on the same site. Jliboe (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly the same piece, and it is not in the original score, only in this oft-quoted inauthentic arrangement. You may see the original score on IMSLP and note that it does not include 8, much less 24 f's. (Did you seriously think that nichts für Lauwarmduscher would be in the real score?) Double sharp (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  f(8) and f(24) 

message: What about historical marking of dynamics "tardo / soave" used in the seventeenth century? It shoud be included into the section "History".
--Muzyk98 (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and write it up! yoyo (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  tardo / soave 

message: The article indicates – without citing any source – that più p falls between pp and p, and that più f falls between f and ff.  This implies these terms have fixed rankings on a single linear scale of loudness.  However, usage allows più p, meaning "softer", after an mp or even after a pp or ppp.  And similarly for più f, meaning "louder".  These terms give a relative instruction, not an absolute one.  They mean "softer than before" (or "louder than before", respectively).  yoyo (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically this is true, but historically composers seem to have used più p principally to mean a dynamic in between p and pp. Please tell me we don't have to load this up with examples. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I always interpreted più p and più f as yoyo interprets them. Are there sources that say otherwise? They aren't very common as far as I've seen (I remember seeing them in some Stravinsky scores, L'Histoire for instance). Squandermania (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordinal ranking of ''più piano'' and ''più forte'' 

message: I've always heard "ppp" called "pianississimo", not "più che pianissimo". Some googling gave me a few sources   that list it as "pianississimo" and my own pocket dictionary from Alfred Publishing lists it that way. For "più che pianissimo", I found  which seems less relevant because it's a book on Ennio Morricone. Squandermania (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  più che pianissimo? 

message: Differnce between piano and diminuendo? 203.99.159.199 (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: Piano 41.114.20.197 (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pianossimo 

message: There is no such a word in italian as pianississimo, or rather, it's a misspelling of "pianissimissimo". Same thing for "fortississimo": it's actually "fortissimissimo". Miltone Liberuomo (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Only three words are identified as being in Italian in this article: crescendo, decrescendo, and diminuendo. It's pretty safe to say no English speaker uses the form you have specified. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I initially thought it was just a mistake of this particle, but I have then discovered that the Italian "fortissimissimo" is generally translated as "fortississimo" in English. Miltone Liberuomo (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pianississimo? Fortississimo? 

message: Please add the Unicode code points for these glyphs to the article.
1.126.109.204 (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicode 

message: The Holst reference does a direct link to a pdf at IMSLP. This is not a permanent link and is very unwise. Link to the workpage or to the #file number on the workpage. ELSchissel (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holst 

message: I added a part on this history of dynamics which only reflected the 18th century practice, ignoring the evolution of dynamics from Gabrieli to Vivaldi, and especially the use of dynamics in the concerto grosso and solo concerto. I hope it would be helpful towards making even greater revisions to this article.  82.59.159.17 (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a part on the history of Dynamics