This may be one of the stupidest questions ever asked on PianoWorld, but....

What exactly is the difference between a sforzando and an accent? Or is there a difference at all?

Sorry if this question has been already asked somewhere - I couldn't find an answer in the archives!

It's a terrific question. And I'd bet you'll get different answers from different people.

I think the main answer you'll get is that sforzando is louder than an accent, and indeed that's usually the case. But IMO the primary answer (which I got from one of my teachers) is a little different: With sforzando, there's more of a thing of it being markedly louder than what preceded and (especially, since this next thing is harder to do and therefore often not done very well) ......and markedly louder than what follows immediately, including the very next note. All of this is also true for an accent, but more so for sforzando.

Also.....it depends somewhat on the composer; different composers probably used it differently, although offhand I can't think of examples. And of course we have to watch out for what was really by the composer, as opposed to the editor.

It's not a stupid question at all.

I asked myself the same question some time ago.... So I looked it up in the Dolmetsch Dictionary , which lists sforzando as strongly accented , so yes, sforzando is stronger than accented... Sforzo means effort in Italian, so this connotation might also be implied...
There are also some comments here.

I hope this helps!

CA

Indeed, not a stupid question!

I agree with what Mark has said, and I also agree that there may indeed be more than one interpretation of the distinctions between the two. I might add that an accent can sometimes be - but is not always - fairly subtle, while a sf is usually quite marked and prominent.

Regards,

Now let's thrash out what sforzando over a wedge-shaped staccato means vs. a plain ol' dot.

Now you're making it tough.

Thanks everybody! Now I'm off to the piano to bang out some Beethoven and Barber - carefully noting the difference between a sforzando and an accent!

I don't know if this is technically correct, but I can think of examples where the sf appears to apply to a short phrase rather than just a note. If you look at the second measure of this piece by Schumann I think the sf is intended to add dramatic feeling to the 2 note legato, particularly contrasted against the surrounding staccato. So in this case the sf preserves the legato feeling of the two notes rather than just having one of the two notes be accented loud.

Before I looked at the example, my first impulse was that the general principle you're mentioning isn't right. And after looking at the example, my feeling is the same. I don't think at all that the sf in the Schumann applies to both notes. Maybe to the extent that the second note is a little louder than the other surrounding notes, but just a very little.....

Thanks for asking this question! My son and I were having a discussion today about exactly this. He plays the trumpet and he couldn't understand how a pianist could even play a sforzando; apparently, on the trumpet, a sforzando involves a sudden drop in volume that doesn't really have an equivalent on the piano. (Or on any percussion instrument, as he put it. Did I mention he's 17?)

How about that!!!
I didn't know....but I'd guess it's the same on all wind instruments, and string instruments too.

That's in line with my old teacher's emphasis on the part about falling back to a lower volume immediately on the next note. We can't do anything quite like that on the note itself, like you can on the trumpet, but we can at least fall back immediately after.

And actually, maybe we sort of, sort of can do it on one note, by the type of "attack" we use. Many people would say we can't really, that the "physics" says all we can do is play the note louder or softer. But some of us feel we can, even if it's self-delusion.

It is possible to do a sudden drop in volume on the same note. You can do it by either flutter or slow release of the pedal. I don't think that most composers expect pianists to do that, and if they do, it would be noted explicitly - not using just a sf.

If I understand what you have written, I don't agree.

My sense is that two things are happening at this point in the Schumann:
1) a two-note slur
2) a sf on the first (only) of the two notes.

Regards,

Yes, that's definitely right, even if the other aspect of it isn't. I didn't think of it, probably because I just didn't.
But maybe also because I don't think that gives the sforzando effect that was mentioned in those last posts.

+!

Probably not, but comparing instruments is sometimes like comparing apples and oranges. One thing that we cannot do is a crescendo on the same note. So crucial to creating a flowing and singing melody on many instruments. Alas.

Yes we can!!!
Via the reverse of what you described before!

I guess you didn't think of it, probably because you just didn't.

But seriously folks.... .....I'm not sure that the "physics" of this would show a "crescendo." But there is indeed something, if only a changed tone quality coupled with a lessened decay of the tone -- and I'd say that at least gives an impression of crescendo.

Let me go try it to make sure.......... (goes to piano)......

ABSOLUTELY -- NO DOUBT.

At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Mark,
You're right - there is "something." Not nearly to the effect of what I was describing. Have you actually used it anywhere? But part of the beauty of piano is the intrinsic decay of its sound. No need for us to gripe.

Edit: Actually, I would qualify that something as more akin to a a vibrato than a true crescendo.

Not consciously, but I sure hope I have. Anyway, I'll now be looking for places. I'm really glad this whole discussion has come up.

Yes, it's really both, plus other stuff, but when I just went and did it, it really did seem most of all like a "swell" which I guess is closer to crescendo. Maybe we should try it on each other's pianos to see if that's what makes the difference.

I bet it does depend on the piano as well as the acoustics of the setting.

In the 'Pathetique' Andras Schiff lecture he explains how he achieves the fp in the Grave. Something about holding holding down the pedal and lightly depressing the keys to dampen the strings. I tried it, but it didn't work.

That's a great example of the kind of thing we're talking about, even though it's not a sf.


Gotta go try that too......


I got it to work!! On the first try even. I tried it a few more times (together with comparisons of just taking off the pedal) to make sure it was "for real." It was.

Thanks for mentioning that.
Now I gotta look for places to do that too.

P.S. Serious suggestion: I wonder if there's any thread that compiles "little-known tricks on the piano." I don't imagine there is. We've already got 2 or 3 on this thread that I don't think most people here know, and which they might like to. Maybe someone wants to start a thread like that. If it's good enough, they might want to make it a "sticky."

I'm not sure if many other composers were as... bossy as Beethoven. It's a very neat trick though, I just don't think it works on my piano because it's very old and sensitive.

I don't think lessened decay equals cresendo. Maybe it equals changed tone quality. If it was really possible to crescendo on a single note/chord wouldn't composers write this in regularly? In fact, I don't think it's possible even to avoid a decay in volume(just keep the volume the same no less make a crecendo).

I said "plus," meaning that the two together could give this impression, and at least on my piano (and to my ears), that does happen.

As to why that could be so, it's not hard to guess. When you put on the pedal, the strings of all the other notes of the piano come into play (suddenly), in addition to the notes you had played, and that has to create an upturn in the curve of the volume -- not necessarily an increased volume, although I think it does a bit, but at least an "up-break" in the curve. I was putting it in an oversimplified way before by just calling it just lessened decay.

No?

Seems to me it's impossible not to do a sudden drop in volume on the same note. The piano is a percussive instrument. Decay--sudden decay--is its nature. Very fine pianists playing very fine instruments can mitigate the effect of decay, but decay happens.

C'est la vie, che sara, sara, so ist das leben, and in American English, **** happens.

Tomasino

The meaning of sforzando (sF or sFz) also varies with the period. In the classical period, the sideways "V" that we are used to seeing as an accent was not necessarily used. Instead, sforzando was the most common accent marking provided. A look through urtext editions and manuscripts of Beethoven shows that. Editions with the sideways "v" are editorial additions. It wan't until the romantic period that the two became regularly differentiated.

In that case, the amount of accent is determined by the situation and surrounding dynamics.

Also, in the case of the Trumpet player. The immediate change from loud to soft during the note is appropriately a forte piano (Fp) or sforzando piano (sFp). An sF does not mean to immediately decrease to piano, the the interpretive situation may indicate such.

Possibly an extremely brief up break in the curve but hardly what I would call a crescendo. More like adding a split second bump to the sound curve. I'm sure this has been thought of ages ago. Since composers don't mark crescendo on one note/chord, it doesn't seem to be of more than theoretical interest at best.

Maybe a more useful application of depressing the pedal (considerably) after one has a played a note is if one wants to play legato where it's very difficult/impossible using just the fingers but one doesn't want to make it sound like there is much pedal. I think depressing the pedal at this point can lengthen the sustain a little. I think I use the technique a little in this piece:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jjjMGCl030

Great question! One to follow: what about the sforzando on the g minor chord on the third beat first measure of the Prelude from Suite Bergamasque by Debussy? My teacher and I have discussed it a great deal in the context of the style of the movement. Since all other dynamics are forte or less until the final page of the piece, should this particular chord have a "zing" in it? Or should it simply be "bright" as compared to the low F octaves and repeated C? Have listened to many recordings with just as many interpretations. At this point, she wants me to drop with my arms and sink into the keys without an abrupt eruption of sound. Thoughts anyone?

I went googling and you're correct. In fact there's a different word for what I described:
"Rinforzando, rfz (literally "reinforcing") indicates that several notes, or a short phrase, are to be emphasized."

Yes -- we meant a more sudden drop.

Or at least I did, and I assume she did too.

To the extent that things are always "relative," the frame of reference here is the usual drop in volume, i.e. what you said. We're talking about doing something that's beyond that and different from it, and which is (or "may be," and I think "is") therefore perceived in that context as "a sudden drop in volume."

I guess it's subjective, and also depends on how it's done. But I realize that some people may not agree it occurs, no matter how it's done.