Just received certificates for latest exam. A Merit and a Pass. Pupils are very pleased. One small thing in the examiner's notes. In one of the pieces - a waltz - the examiner writes about having more dynamics. Thing is, in the music, there are NO dynamic markings at all. The piece was, in my mind, played as written. Do I invent my own dynamics next time?

Which instrument?

Yes, or rather you should explore how the phrasing and structure of the music suits certain dynamics. It's a skill that needs developing, because of the masses of baroque music with little or no dynamics indicated.

That absence of dynamic marks does not mean the absence of dynamics.
Where there are few or no dynamic marks you still need phrase shaping.
Could you not persuade your student so add some musical shaping? Was there any in lessons?
It can take time for this to become more natural and it can need lots of guidance to get some student to hear that no dynamic shaping is not interesting to listen to.

With pieces where there is no dynamic marking I usually get the pupil to try out different things and then we chose what we think is the most effective. This does help them to think about the style of the music and the interpretation one can bring to it.

Shaping, yes, and interest. Add interest. If the dynamics are not indicated, you need to do something. Otherwise it tends to be dull and a bit flat.

Thanks for the replies. The instrument I teach is the guitar and the piece in question was a grade 2 Waltz. Although I agree with a lot of what has been previously said, I still feel that if the composer wanted me to play a section of his/her music loud or quiet, then they would have indicated thus in the sheet music. In playing what is written on the page, I feel that this is adhering to what the syllabus is requiring. If the music showed a section that was written as loud, then I would instruct the student to play louder - by doing so this is indicating that the student understands what forte is (and conversely, piano.) Remember, the examiner made specific reference to dynamics in his notes. Can anyone direct me to that bit in the syllabus where it tells me to instruct the student to make up their own dynamics? Why not change a few notes here and there whilst they're at it? Why not slow it down (or speed up?) It might not be written on the page or as directed by the composer but hey, it adds a bit of variety I suppose. I am being flippant of course and I would welcome suggestions on how to alter the dynamics of a performance of a grade 2 waltz despite it not being indicated by the composer.

I'm not sure that a musically shaped performance needs to be specified in the syllabus. It's what you need for higher marks.
No music is all at one dynamic. Presumably you chose a dynamic to play at in the first place since there's nothing written on the music.
What do you do with a piece is marked forte for one section and piano for the next? I wouldn't have a whole section at one very static dynamic. There would be some rise and fall within that even though it's not marked.

And yes, there are sometimes tempo changes not specifically marked.

Dynamics are not just Fs and Ps on the page, they're the interpretation of these plus a ###### of a lot more. Otherwise, what would your suggestion be to a pupil tackling a piece with no dynamic markings whatsoever? Play nothing?

Thinking about it, and without checking scores, I think it's possible to take Grade 8 violin with two pieces which have no dynamic markings (Bach and Kreutzer).

Edit: Apparently I'm not allowed to mention the opposite of heaven, hence the censor protecting you.

What does 'Musically shaped performance' mean? My students fulfill everything that is asked of them by the syllabus - they play the right notes, they utilise the correct dynamics, if there is a rallentando then they follow that. The same with staccato and legato. They do so because that is what the musical directions of the music tell them to do. If the music said forte in one section and then piano the next, then I would instruct my student to observe them. This is surely what reading music is all about. I think for pieces which show no dynamic indications, all the ABRSM syllabus has to say 'Where there is no indication of dynamics, then add your own at your discretion'.

What about the markscheme?

As a composer, if I really intend that a section should be played at the same dynamic without variation, I add 'sempre' in before the mark to indicate this; otherwise, there is inevitably going to be a natural rise and fall of dynamics in response to the line of the music.

Also, as has been pointed out, even if a piece has no dynamics written in, you still play them, it's just it's left up to you to decide. I'm curious to know who this piece is by?

An ABRSM exam is not a test in reading music. It is a test in performing music, along with supplementary tests of relevant skills.

Quoting from the ABRSM assessment criteria, a distinction standard performance shows "Sensitivity to musical detail and mood". That's more than just "louds and quiets", even at grade 1.

Thanks for all the replies. I appreciate you taking the time

Here lies the answer -

I'm not an experienced teacher, I've been leaning for three years, but this question is interesting for me as it's what I was working on last week.

Teacher and I were playing some simple duets (violin, not guitar), none of which had any dynamic markings. Taking one as an example - there were several repeated phrases, which I played pretty well, or so I thought (they were simple remember). Then teacher pointed out I'd played each phrase repeat EXACTLY the same, there was no variation. So we started looking at the piece a bit more and tried different things. For example treating each phrase like a bouncing ball - each repeat a little quieter like the diminishing bounce of a ball. Another time we tried a question-response approach. Another time he got me to listen to the harmony that he was playing and had me work out which notes I wanted to emphasise (so I play quieter) and where I wanted to be the lead (so a little louder). Sometimes I thought of a story to go with the tune (marching, dancing, a man pining his lost love - yes a have a fertile imagination). And so on. From the eight bars (four bars repeated) we created a load of different variations of phrasing and dynamics while keeping to the beat (a miracle for me! ) and notes that were on the page.

So I think it's a question of exploring what you/your pupils want to say about the piece. As others have said it's about shaping the piece to give it life, to make it interesting to hear.

[quote name='BadStrad' date='Apr 26 2012, 12:35 PM' post='1144505']
[/quote]treating each phrase like a bouncing ball - each repeat a little quieter like the diminishing bounce of a ball. Another time we tried a question-response approach. Another time he got me to listen to the harmony that he was playing and had me work out which notes I wanted to emphasise (so I play quieter) and where I wanted to be the lead (so a little louder). Sometimes I thought of a story to go with the tune (marching, dancing, a man pining his lost love - yes a have a fertile imagination). And so on.
[/quote]
I like the different ways of thinking about repeated phrases here. Shall adopt immediately!!

It can be helpful to think of the written music as being a guide only: compare classical music with folk, rock, jazz, pop etc, where the concept of playing a "cover" comes in - musicians playing their own perception or interpretation of a piece, with amazingly different outcomes....and yet the theme will come out, and we recognise it for the same, or at least as being essentially the same one. The written music is effectively a framework for the musician's performance: it indicates key, note order, rhythmic structure, and separately from that too, the pulse - and even then, not always. There is music from renaissance times which has a pulse but no bar lines, there is music from early baroque which is free-form, in which notation is only ever intended to convey an approximation of rhythm, and sometimes also uses conventions regarding accidentals which are now obsolete but were known to musicians of the time (the concept of ficta). Leaping right through, coming to modern times, there is written music which gives the performer considerable leeway to "invent" things - I've played several pieces in which one produces a random chatter of notes, in one case indicated on the score only that the overall impression of pitch must rise, but not which notes, nor accurate timing.

Thus, as the others have said, it's about producing a performance with shape - and if dynamics are not marked, then it's about showing an awareness of phrase, for instance by "growing" in volume as pitch rises, or by articulating a repeated phrase as an echo the second time round, more softly. It's an art, and as such, scientific notation cannot be more than a guide: a uniformly even volume will have less to hold the listener's attention than one which gently follows phrases.

I actually don't like "hairpins" anyway - they're always straight-lined, and in my experience crescendi and decrescendi are better not being made totally evenly graded .

In relation to exam pieces, I've always worked under the assumption that List A pieces require slightly more dynamics than are marked in, List B pieces require a deeper understanding of the composer's intention and a personal interpretation too, and List C pieces require the performer to put their own stamp on it.

Over the years I have developed a very good monotone speaking voice which I use to illustrate the lack of 'ups and downs' that make a musical phrase - it's something that pupils can immediately understand and relate too - monotone music equals boredom for listener.