TubeNet

I received my copy of The Brass Player's Cookbook (viewtopic.php?t=15916) a few days ago and have been enjoying reading it.

In the book Kenneth Amis uses the term volume and Velvet Brown uses the term dynamics. From the context, it's clear that Amis and Brown mean the same thing.

I have always considered volume to be a subset of dynamics. Volume is a loudness level and dynamics includes volume, crescendo, decrescendo, sforzando, etc.

What say you?

Isn't a sforzando an articulation? I agree with the cresc. and decresc. part, but not the sforzando. A forte-piano is perhaps a dynamic, but not sfz.

Interesting quandary you have presented here.

Mark wrote:I have always considered volume to be a subset of dynamics. Volume is a loudness level and dynamics includes volume, crescendo, decrescendo, sforzando, etc.

Mark, since you are former student of Dr. Frank, I can suggest this:

I would propose that dynamics is the second derivative of volume, i.e., the rate of change of volume change.

Rick "who thinks quickly accelerating and decelerating crescendos and diminuendos are the most challenging dynamic features, especially when accompanied by tricky articulations" Denney

Usually I hear folks refer to pp, f, mf ,rfz, sf as "dynamics", but I've never heard them referred to as "volumes".

That being said, debate over the definition of a term is futile when there's not a lot of general agreement on its exact meaning. Wikipedia, for instance, says the two terms are synonymns.

Rick Denney wrote:Mark, since you are former student of Dr. Frank, I can suggest this:

I would propose that dynamics is the second derivative of volume, i.e., the rate of change of volume change.

Your mention of Dr. Jones reminds me of a lecture on the difference between speed and velocity.

ThomasP wrote:Isn't a sforzando an articulation? I agree with the cresc. and decresc. part, but not the sforzando. A forte-piano is perhaps a dynamic, but not sfz.

I think a sforzando is both, an articulation followed by a dynamic.

Technically, I don't view them as the same.

BUT...

Whatever a private teacher finds to effectively communicate their subject material is the correct one, even if they maintain that the earth is flat... (which it can be, +- a foot in the immediate surrounding area!)

Semantics...

Its all in your head...

In my head, volume is adjusted by a knob or remote, dynamics are adjusted by a musician.

Technical term: volume
Artist term: dynamics

Brian Guppy wrote:Dynamics could probably be considered to encompass all derivatives of volume (including the 0th).

I agree. I just couldn't resist the inside joke with Mark, who took math at a high-end university from an old friend of mine.

Rick "betting that more tuba players know what a second derivative is than viola players" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:Rick "betting that more tuba players know what a second derivative is than viola players" Denney

Viola players probably think a second derivative is some kind of a fancy fingering used by their betters, violin players.

The derivative of a viola represents an infinitesimal change in the pitch with respect to one of its fingerings...

I have to say again how much I am enjoying reading The Brass Player's Cookbook (viewtopic.php?t=15916).

I just read the recipe by Ralph Sauer where he argues that dynamics are relative to the group, venue, etc. That is ff is not always X decibels.

Mark wrote:I just read the recipe by Ralph Sauer where he argues that dynamics are relative to the group, venue, etc. That is ff is not always X decibels.

To be sure. Consider playing the same instrument with the same group indoors or outdoors... it certainly is more relative to the listener than the performer, and the ear does not percieve high and low sounds with the same relationship to volume!

Dynamics are relative, volume is not.

Does that mean that West Virginia is a very dynamic state... ?