What does f(p) mean?

[1piano4joe]

Hi all,

I've just encountered this notation for the first time. Is it correct to assume it means play forte the first time and then play the repeat piano or does it mean something else entirely?

Thank you, Joe.

[j_menz]

It means play loudly then suddenly softly.

The "loudly" is somewhat less emphatically so then in the case of the related sfz (sforzando) - a sudden emphasis on a note/chord followed by the current dynamic, or the sforzando piano (sfzp or sfp) where there is a sudden emphasis on a note followed by piano.

[1piano4joe]

Hi j_menz,

It means play loudly then suddenly softly.

The "loudly" is somewhat less emphatically so then in the case of the related sfz (sforzando) - a sudden emphasis on a note/chord followed by the current dynamic, or the sforzando piano (sfzp or sfp) where there is a sudden emphasis on a note followed by piano.

Yes, fp means play loudly then suddenly softly but does f(p) with the parentheses mean exactly the same thing?

This was found in the very first measure of Bach AMB notebook BWV 119 Polonaise in g minor, "The Festival Collection", book 4 edited by Helen Marlais.

Thank you, Joe.

[j_menz]

It means that the f is original, but the fp is editorial.

[chopinlover01]

It means that the f is original, but the fp is editorial.

The funny thing is that this would be an editorial of an editorial- Bach could never write dynamics; there is no dynamic variance with a harpsichord. So it was an older edition with F written in by an editor, then another editor treating the source like the manuscript but putting the P in there as well.

[j_menz]

The funny thing is that this would be an editorial of an editorial- Bach could never write dynamics; there is no dynamic variance with a harpsichord. So it was an older edition with F written in by an editor, then another editor treating the source like the manuscript but putting the P in there as well.

That is true. And I should have spotted it. Evidently my coffee is too weak.

[brogers70]

I suspect that what the editor was saying was this (assuming this is a repeated passage). Play it loud the first time through and soft on the repeat.

[8_octaves]

The funny thing is that this would be an editorial of an editorial- Bach could never write dynamics; there is no dynamic variance with a harpsichord. So it was an older edition with F written in by an editor, then another editor treating the source like the manuscript but putting the P in there as well.

"All editors are additors", a very accomplished man once said.

Mozart, for example, didn't write too many dynamics either. In this thesis, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/5230506.pdf , there are good examples for "additing" and the changes in editions.

On page 187 it says:

[...]All examples cited thus far stand as witnesses to an important observation regarding
the AMA: in Example 6.C the AMA excludes all dynamic markings from the text,
even though it employs an additional, separate stave for the right-hand part of the first
edition’s text, and could thus enter the dynamics in brackets, complying with its
alleged editorial norms. But this was not always the case: in another instance
(example 6.A), the editors of the AMA adopt an entirely different approach, by
indicating the performance directions of the first edition in brackets or parentheses,
while those originating from the autographs are marked without any brackets as part
of the main text; in yet another instance (Example 6.D), the AMA entirely omits
dynamic marks that are contradictory between the autograph and the first edition
(autograph marks for: while first edition marks pia:), leaving the passage spare of
dynamics, except for the movement’s final p.[...]

Example 6.A can be found on page 182 of the pdf.  (but it only deals with a single "p" in brackets.)

Greetings, 8_octaves!

[rmbarbosa]

Chopinlover,
"no dynamic variance with a harpsichord" but Bach played also clavichord, where dynamic variance is possible, I think.

[chopinlover01]

He wrote mainly for harpsichord. But yes, a clavichord does have dynamic difference; it can go from pp to mp!

[1piano4joe]

Hi all,

I just stumbled across an edition of this Polonaise where it's marked "f-p" which I read somewhere means play the first time "forte" and the repeat "piano".

So, I think in this case f(p) means f-p which sort of "fits" the Baroque period.

I was taught, "It was customary in the Baroque period to play repeats differently with added ornaments and embellishments. The repeat may be more detailed and ornate. Also, sometimes repeats were played with DIFFERENT articulation, timing or even an octave higher. You can change dynamics, tempo and/or notes."

Is that generally true? If so, then just about anything goes I guess.

Thank you, Joe.

[j_menz]

Is that generally true? If so, then just about anything goes I guess.

All except the notes bit. That is really only true insofar as you should add in more elaborate ornamentation, not so far as you rewrite the thing.

My advice would be to start out modestly. You can become more adventurous once you get the hang of what you are doing. There's an art to this, and that takes time to learn (use your ears and taste).