I chime in with the others. This is the first I've heard of such a notion; it sounds like watercooler stuff. I recall an excellent choral conductor who periodically would ask the group to sing for him their different dynamics, i.e., "Let me hear your mf....Let me hear your p...." etc. The point was to drive home to them that they should have some point of reference within themselves as a group as to what that dynamic will sound like when they sing it. He definitely respected the differences.
The use of mp and mf also is a way to express gradual decreases/increases in volume. Their usefullness over cresc. or hairpins is that they can be surgically inserted. Also, they are a constant (i.e., p for two measures, mp for two measures, mf for two...etc.), whereas cresc. or hairpins would be continual. --Richard > From: "Colin Broom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I've spoken to a number of musicians recently, including a noted orchestral > conductor, and several composers who all seem to feel that the dynamic > 'mezzo piano' is basically a meaningless dynamic, and they think it should > never be used. I've even heard one go as far as to say that the same is > true of 'mf' as well. I personally don't agree with this at all, and for me > there is a clear distinction between p, mp and mf, but I was wondering how > widespread this feeling about mp is, and how folk on the list feel about it? > And if it's redundant, then why is it redundant? _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
