How does one describe the level of playing that is neither piano nor forte?

Question

This is a follow-up to this question:

To which notes do dynamics notation apply? (eg. pp)

I asked, when a composer has indicated in the score that the performer play softly (eg. pp), how does the composer then indicate the performer should go back playing "normally".

The answer kindly given by darren-ringer is that there is no such thing as "normal".

This doesn't sit right with me. If "mp" means "slightly softer", and "mf" means slightly louder, then there must be a "canonical" level, a level that is neither soft nor loud. The level that mp is slightly softer than, and that mf is slightly louder than.

I am by no means an expert musician. I've just always assumed there is a "zero" level.

Is Darren right? Is there no such thing as "normal"? If there is, what is this zero-level called, and how would a composer denote it in a score?

Answer 1

It's all relative. It will depend on the venue, the size of orchestra, the whim of the conductor. When a 'middle' level is established, then the proper markings come into their own, as in mp will be a little quieter, while mf is a little louder. As far as 'is ff twice as loud as f?' is concerned, please don't ask! Haven't met a conductor with a decibel meter yet...

Upon reflection, this may not answer the question(s). There are no markings unless the composer puts them, so an absolute starting volume cannot actually exist, so back to my 1st para.

Answer 2

In the same way that verbal tempo indications (andante, largo etc.) indicate more than just BPM measured with a clock, verbal dynamics indications mean more than just volume as measured by a decibel meter. "mp" means to approach the music as though it were "quiet music" even if the overall volume is not dissimilar from "mf" -- though the latter could be articulated differently.

Another way to say this: forte doesn't just indicate loud, it indicates forceful and piano doesn't just mean quiet, it means soft or subdued.

Answer 3

There exists a "normal" dynamic. This "normal", however, is not a generic dynamic marking, but a specific marking that fits each piece. For example, a normal dynamic for a Chopin nocturne might be p, but a normal dynamic for a Liszt etude might be f. Basically, the "zero level" for each song is different. If you want to implement a "normal" dynamic, don't just simply use mf or mp, put a dynamic marking based on the song (or on context). If the song doesn't specify a marking, then the "normal" dynamic should work.

If you do think of it as "the middle of mf and mp", then you might get confused. This leads to a thinking of dynamics as a set sound level, just like what Tim and Dave are saying. However, dynamics are not simply just measured in decibels, or else why would musicians use dynamic markings instead of "decibel markings"? Get the point?

Still not happy? Go listen to some beginners play, especially the ones who haven't implemented the concept of "dynamics" in their playings. To some, that can be considered "normal".

Note: There are many ways to say "return to original tempo", but there aren't many ways to say "return to original playing style". I found one German word, "Gewöhnlich", that means "return to previous playing style."

Answer 4

It's up to preference, as noted in other answers.

In my own music, to indicate a "normal" dynamic I would either notate as mf or mp, depending on the nature of the music and whether the piece were to sound more on the emphatic or subdued side.

It's really just another of many situations in music where the conventional notation is imperfect and approximates, so the performer or conductor has to decide. Check out some of the recorded piano rolls of Debussy, then compare to a modern interpretation, and you'll see how much is left to the interpretation.