Hello. I am Haruka Ogawa, a pianist.

How do you interpret the markings like "p (piano)" and "f (forte)" written in musical scores?

" 'p' means softly, quietly."

" 'f' means strongly, loudly."

Most likely, the first rule you learn when starting piano is this one about "strong and weak." However, the mindset of "adhering strictly to the nuances (dynamics) as written in the score" can sometimes become a "trap" that limits the possibilities of our playing.

This time, I will share an episode from my own lesson while discussing "how to truly expand your expression" without being bound by the markings on the musical score.

1. The misconception: "Because it's p (piano), I can't add accents?"

The other day, during a lesson with one of my students.

I advised them to emphasize a specific note within a phrase more, so it would stand out. The student then looked a little troubled and said this:

"But Sensei, it says p (piano) here. Since it's piano, I shouldn't play it strongly, right?"

I understand this feeling very well. It's precisely because you approach the score so earnestly that you feel you "must not deviate from the world of p."

However, "being p (piano)" and "emphasizing individual notes" are not contradictory at all.

Even within the quiet world of p, accents that make a single note stand out can exist. Conversely, within the intense world of f (forte), it is certainly possible to play a long, exquisitely smooth legato (connecting notes smoothly).

Misconceptions like "because it's p, I shouldn't rush" or "because it's p, I shouldn't make the sound sharp" unknowingly become troublesome traps that restrict our expressive power.

2. Nuance is "relative," not "absolute"

In the first place, dynamic markings (nuances) in music are not fixed like digital values, specifying "this many decibels from here." Everything is based on "relative relationships."

As an extreme example, let's say there's a piece entirely composed of ppp (pianississimo) and p (piano). In that piece, the notes marked 'p' would be the "strongest sounds," wouldn't they?

In other words, what's important is not an absolute volume like "p = quiet sound," but rather the "difference" or "change" within the preceding and following context.

💡 Re-examining nuance from a 360-degree perspective

There is explosive forte, and there is also calm and warm forte.
There is piano that is silently holding its breath, and there is also piano with a strong core, secretly holding energy.

Take a step beyond the flat understanding of "loud or soft" and look at the character of the sound from a 360-degree, three-dimensional perspective. Just doing that should dramatically change the timbre of the sound you produce.

3. Try changing the "order of reading the score"

So, how can we achieve rich expression without being trapped by the literal markings?

What I recommend is an approach that "changes the order of reading the score."

We tend to automatically react to the "p" and "f" markings that immediately catch our eye, controlling the volume. However, the ideal original steps are as follows:

1. Observe the arrangement of notes, rhythm, and the placement of rests.
2. Decipher the movement of harmonies and the length of phrases.
3. Grasp "what this piece aims to express."
4. [As a result] the perfectly fitting nuance will naturally emerge.

Strangely, when you delve deeply into the score in this order, you'll find yourself understanding, without even being told, "Ah, with this harmonic progression, of course, I'd want to play it forte!"

For example, after a series of tense chords (dominant) are repeated many times, the moment it finally resolves to the tonic chord. If 'p' is written there, it's not an instruction to "play quietly."

The emotional relief of "Ah, I can finally relax here" automatically leads to the selection of a $p$ sound as a result.

4. The world that expands by "infusing emotion"

What if the score has a melody that sounds like "a violently surging heart," but the instruction is "p"? How would you express that?

If you merely make the sound quiet, the very "expression" of the music itself becomes weak and withered.

Here, take a step further and try to imagine: "What kind of psychological state is it where my heart is so deeply moved, yet I must whisper it softly?"

"Perhaps there's a strong passion hidden within that cannot be spoken aloud."

"Perhaps there's a bursting heartache that is desperately being suppressed."

Just by aligning your heart with the world of the piece in this way, even the same $p$ will begin to resonate with wonderful, energy-filled sounds that move the listener. It's not about controlling the music, but about living the emotions within the music, which is paramount.

Finally: A self-admonition as an instructor

Actually, this story also stems from a realization I had during one of my own small admonishments (?).

Although I usually tell my students, "Don't just take nuances at face value," there was one lesson where I unintentionally admonished, "That's not f (forte)!"

Later, I suddenly reflected, "Wait? Am I contradicting what I usually say?"

The student had been playing through a continuous 'p' section, and then simply played a solitary 'f' marking without changing anything.

What I wanted to convey was not "to forcefully bang on that spot with all your might." It was rather, "I want you to feel the difference between the continuous piano world and the forte world that appears here, and express that distinction with your heart."

If we get caught up only in the surface of words, we can sometimes lose sight of the essential nature of music.

So, when you open your musical score, please take a step beyond the framework of the symbols and freely explore the vast world of music that lies beneath. That time of trial and error is sure to make playing the piano more interesting and endearing.

Now, have a wonderful piano life today!

Haruka Ogawa

Do you think you have to play softly just because it's 'p' (piano)?