# The use of dynamics - trivial?



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Obviously, the contrast between loud and quiet passages is a hallmark of classical music not so commonly found in other types of music. Every since the classical era, effects like crescendi/decrescendi, sforzati, subito piano have become much used, and the dynamic spectrum has continually widened, though perhaps most of all in terms of notation.

Now, when I listen to HIP recordings of baroque music, to harpsichord recordings or to music of the renaissance and earlier, I notice that dynamic fluctuations are much less used (or at least much more discretely). I guess it reflects the lack of such markings in the scores.

What I've also found is that after having listened to such dynamically flat music, other music which uses a lot more dynamic effects somehow sounds much, shall we say, much less refined.

After all, simply raising the volume is a somewhat cheap and primitive way of creating an effect. A crescendo on a single chords can be terrifically effective, of course; yet the compositional substance of it is next to non-existant compared to, say, a complex chord progression, which achieves a similarly impressive effect. It's human, though, to substitute substance by volume: we raise our voices and shout during arguments, though the points we're making may not necessarily warrant it. Indeed, the quality of our arguments might be in reverse relation to the volume at which we proclaim them.

I wouldn't generally transfer this to music, however. Just because the climaxes are often also the loudest passages doesn't mean that they're hollow rhetoric. Yet, I wonder if the fortissimo is always needed or even well advised. Especially since so many composers prior to the romantic era, or even the classical era, were apparently able to do without it.

Perhaps one could say: if your music sounds boring and uninteresting when it's played without dynamics, then it's simply not well written.

What do you think?


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

I suppose with dynamics it is much the way as with other aspects: it is not so much a question of whether they should be used, but how to use them. If they are used well, they work, if not, they come across as tasteless and cheap.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Andreas said:


> What I've also found is that after having listened to such dynamically flat music, other music which uses a lot more dynamic effects somehow sounds much, shall we say, much less refined.... Perhaps one could say: if your music sounds boring and uninteresting when it's played without dynamics, then it's simply not well written.


I enjoy the dynamic range of classical music. Admittedly, I find some classical music impossible to listen to in the car or with my Walkman, due to the range: quiet parts are simply inaudible. However, when listening at home, I find it adds a lot of emotional effect to the music. I am forced to turn up the volume considerably to hear the quiet passages (maybe the composer wants me to listen attentively here?) and the loud passages are simply withering in intensity, by contrast. I agree that varying the dynamics of bad music is not going to make it good


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

brotagonist said:


> I enjoy the dynamic range of classical music. Admittedly, I find some classical music impossible to listen to in the car or with my Walkman, due to the range: quiet parts are simply inaudible.


to me this is true also at home, and frankly I've never enjoyed those passages from pianissimo to fortissimo like a scary scene in a horror movie. I don't like to hear extreme dynamics.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

^ I know what you mean about movies. I hate it when they make the sound effects so loud that the dialogue is incomprehensible, and, in general, sound effects are simply far too loud for my comfort.

Music, however, is different for me. I got Messiaen's Sainte Trinité last year. All I can say is, "Wow!" To turn up the volume sufficiently to be able hear the organ play the quiet passages, and then have the loud passages come on (without adjusting the volume control), is awe-inspiring. Perhaps it's a cheap effect, as the OP suggested, but it sure works to grand effect in this piece. Some of Bruckner's symphonies also come to mind.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Dynamics are simply another element of contrast, and like any contrast of texture, harmony, or register, they need to be connected with the substance of the music. If they are not, adding dynamic contrast won't make the music better in any way.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Andreas said:


> Obviously, the contrast between loud and quiet passages is a hallmark of classical music not so commonly found in other types of music. Every since the classical era, effects like crescendi/decrescendi, sforzati, subito piano have become much used, and the dynamic spectrum has continually widened, though perhaps most of all in terms of notation.
> 
> Now, when I listen to HIP recordings of baroque music, to harpsichord recordings or to music of the renaissance and earlier, I notice that dynamic fluctuations are much less used (or at least much more discretely). I guess it reflects the lack of such markings in the scores.
> 
> What I've also found is that after having listened to such dynamically flat music, other music which uses a lot more dynamic effects somehow sounds much, shall we say, much less refined.


Of course, dynamics are wonderfully rendered in the concert hall, and, to some degree (though generally lesser due to recording limitations themselves) in our home stereo set ups. But pop music is geared towards broadcast-radio play (often the car radio) and or the disco floor, both arenas of which do not permit much practicality for dynamics. I amaze at how radio broadcast can so flatten anything, even classical recordings, to allow them to play on the automobile's radio effectively (which is not such when I utilize my Jeep's CD player). As for Baroque music, there are reasons for lack of dynamics there, one being the instruments themselves which (like the harpsichord and the wooden flute) did not allow for dynamics like modern pianos (pianofortes) and modern flutes do. So, you get less when authentically played.

Which is why I value my stereo system and its allowance for dynamics, which are fun, no doubt.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The reason there is so much less wanted or marked directives for dynamics and dynamic effects in earlier baroque and classical music, even to a degree of that practice somewhat holding through to the early Romantic era Schubert, is readily understood / explained in Charles Rosen's _The Classical Style._

Common Practice music relies heavily on certain traits of tonality as thought of and used then. Arriving at the tonic or dominant requires less emphasis on dynamic -- indeed one is instructed it is necessary to give less dynamic weight to those areas -- _because in that tonal practice, those are within that context the strongest in the listener's ear._ The more remote pitches in a scale away from the tonic or dominant, the keys in relation to tonic, the more those get a fuller level of volume, because they were more remote and due to the harmonic context, sounded 'more distant' or in the background. _(This, if you think about it, is more cold, 'mathematical' and more cut and dried calculated than anything Schoenberg ever thunk up_

Harpsichord, with no dynamic control, also takes care of its own dynamics by the lower part of the instrument sounding louder, and gradually less loud though bright and clear at the top. Composers writing for it and who were very familiar with the instrument were well aware of that dynamic effect and chose the placement of the musical activity within this or another part of the keyboard's range according to the instrument's nature... Ergo, dynamics built in via the nature of that instrument.

Baroque terraced dynamics, even for those instruments and ensembles of instruments perfectly capable of a swell or diminuendo, also rely much more on that effect of sounding louder or softer, forefront or mid or background distant, as per the range of higher to lower pitches, and the key relationships within that common practice context.

The most gratuitous use of dynamics as a replacement for anything musically substantial I've heard were almost all in film scores... relying heavily upon dynamic to make the dramatic effect vs. that drama being more inherently in the notes, musical activity and orchestration.

That quip Mozart made, so true, so non-specific and in no way possible to quantify or qualify does hold true: 
it does not matter what you are expressing or how you are expressing it, _as long as it is in good taste._ :lol:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

PetrB said:


> The reason there is so much less marked or called-for dynamics and dynamic effects in earlier baroque and classical music, even to a degree that holding up through early Romantic era Schubert, is readily understood / explained by what is made quite clear in Charles Rosen's _The Classical Style._
> 
> Common Practice music relies heavily on certain traits of tonality as thought of and used then. Arriving at the tonic or dominant requires less emphasis on dynamic -- indeed one is instructed it is necessary to give less dynamic weight to those areas -- _because in that tonal practice, those are within that context the strongest in the listener's ear._ The more remote pitches in a scale away from the tonic or dominant, the keys in relation to tonic, the more those get an fuller level of volume, because they were more remote, and again, due to the context, sounded 'more distant' or in the background. _(This, if you think about it, is as cold, 'mathematical' and more cut and dried calculated than anything Schoenberg ever thunk up_
> 
> ...


_

I expect your right, it sounds plausible (the bit in bold) would you mind giving me a clear example?_


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> I expect your right, it sounds plausible (the bit in bold) would you mind giving me a clear example?


There might even be mention of it in the Wikipedia article on the instrument. But truly sorry, I recall this from more than several times over from various music history teachers, piano instructors, other musicians in personal discussions -- all of those with enough degrees that their collective creds could clothe a crowd in parchment, wax and seals -- as well as having read it in several places.

Keeping track of sources in order to document as support of the fact for, say, an academic paper or formal and judged debate, is just completely out of view in my horizons.

I'm sure there are others on TC -- via your contacts or sought and found via an OP -- who could directly point you straightaway to several academically legitimate and authoritative sources.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Listen to Morton Feldman and every other dynamic goal seems a bit over-indulgent. You just have to put things into perspective according to your sensibilities.

Oh, and enjoy yourself, you know....


----------

