Piano Forum
Piano Board => Performance => Topic started by: music32 on November 14, 2014, 08:15:30 PM
-
Various pianists and teachers commented on the premise posed by Ax that it doesn't matter how you physically approach a note in terms of tone production (notwithstanding volume)
https://arioso7.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/does-approaching-notes-in-different-ways-at-the-piano-affect-tone-production/
-
Ax is incorrect because he fails to identify the percussive sounds striking a key makes.
There are up to three percussive sounds when a key is struck:
1) the sound of the hammer striking the strings (this will always be present)
2) the key striking the keybed (may not always occur)
3) the hammer butt being stopped by the backcheck (not always)
The first percussive sound is the key striking the keybed. This can easily be modulated by the pianist. This makes a noticealbe "dth.." sound. However, if the key never strikes the keybed, this sound will not be produced.
The second is the hammer striking the strings. This will always occur and the intensity depends on the speed of the hammer striking the strings, as well as the piano's tone itself. This sound is largely masked by the tone of the vibrating strings. However, the difference can be easily heard if you play on (most) digital pianos because these DPs don't reproduce this sound.
The third may or may not occur depending on whether the key is released prior to the hammer making contact with the backcheck. If the key is held down long enough for the backcheck to stop the hammer, it will make a "czh.." sound. This is the last sound that may or may not occur.
By being aware of these three percussive sounds, the tone can be modulated to either produce them or not. For example:
a) "Sparkling" runs can be made by minimizing the key striking the keybed, by being lighter on the fingers, as well as releasing the key prior to the hammer being caught by the backcheck. This reduces the percussive sound to only the hammer striking the strings.
b) "Angry" chords can be produced by making sure all three percussive tones are audibly heard by 1) making fast contact with the keybed, and 2) holding keys long enough for the hammers to be caught by the backcheck.
-
Refreshing realism from Mr. Ax. Charles Rosen has made similar comments that are around somewhere on the web and have been discussed here - haven't got time to find them right now.
Ax is incorrect because he fails to identify the percussive sounds striking a key makes.
There are up to three percussive sounds when a key is struck:
1) the sound of the hammer striking the strings (this will always be present)
2) the key striking the keybed (may not always occur)
3) the hammer butt being stopped by the backcheck (not always)
But none of these negate what Ax has said because - as you yourself go on to describe - they are all functions of the speed at which the key is depressed, and in one case the duration that it is held for. These are exactly the two areas of control that Ax says the pianist has over a single note.
The voluminous objections on the page linked to in the OP, are likewise largely irrelevant. They all miss the basic point that the effects the various techniques described achieve are all to do with the relative strength of notes, to do with balance and phrasing.
You can strike a piano key from a metre above the keyboard with a relaxed arm and wrist rolling forward to exactly 134 degrees while exhaling and thinking of a beautiful summer's day on the ocean. At the end of it all, the hammer still strikes at a particular speed, and it's that speed that determines the sound that is heard.
-
Read carefully, I was very specific and that it's not about speed at all. Everything mentioned had to do with percussive effects. Thus, while keeping the dynamics the same, you can have two (or more) different sounds depending on whether those percussive effects are used.
-
What about the depth to which the key is pressed? As an extreme example, if the key is pressed with whatever speed but stopped just before it hits the keybed, then there's no sound from the keybed.
I would think that this is a relatively straightforward science experiment to do (although it would require some hardware): simply have a machine that pushes a key down that is repeatable (i.e. you measure the force exerted and the position of the finger over time) and then you could try out different x(t) (based on F(t)) to answer this question. It hasn't been done already?
-
Ax is correct. Anyone who thinks anything other than speed of key descent effects sound is simply wrong.
These delusions of arm waving, inspired glances, excessive movements, force, imagery, etc., effecting the sound are also the reason very few ever attain a professional technique.
The basic secret is the quickness of the finger playing on the key. End of story.
Here's a different video addressing subject a bit more scientifically.
-
Ax is correct. Anyone who thinks anything other than speed of key descent effects sound is simply wrong.
These delusions of arm waving, inspired glances, excessive movements, force, imagery, etc., effecting the sound are also the reason very few ever attain a professional technique.
The basic secret is the quickness of the finger playing on the key. End of story.
Here's a different video addressing subject a bit more scientifically.
Not quite. Remember that if you hit the keys with a stiff arm (or hit the piano in general) there will be an additional resonance caused by the impact that also affects beauty of tone. At the moment the hammer is sent flying it is going at the same speed but how you impact the piano or keybed will also affect tone.
-
For once I agree with our resident redneck!
-
Not quite. Remember that if you hit the keys with a stiff arm (or hit the piano in general) there will be an additional resonance caused by the impact that also affects beauty of tone. At the moment the hammer is sent flying it is going at the same speed but how you impact the piano or keybed will also affect tone.
Well, I suppose this is true.. i.e. non-music related sounds interfering with the sound of the vibrating string, including but not limited to squeaking piano benches due to wiggly bottoms, coughing from the audience, cell phones going off, and humming by the pianist.
But why would you want to hurt yourself whacking the key so hard you make a "thunk" against the key bed? It -- the key bed -- ain't gonna yield, you realize, and will win that battle in the end.
Since the static touch weight of the key is about 50 grams, then I'd guess sufficient finger speed to generate kinetic energy roughly twice this, would result in a nice piano to mezzo forte volume.
But that's just a guess, because the physics gets really complex at this point.
If you want a good answer on that -- velocity, mass, speed, weight of finger, kinetic energy, overcoming friction, etc -- then Nyiregyhazi is your man!
-
Well, I suppose this is true.. i.e. non-music related sounds interfering with the sound of the vibrating string, including but not limited to squeaking piano benches due to wiggly bottoms, coughing from the audience, cell phones going off, and humming by the pianist.
But why would you want to hurt yourself whacking the key so hard you make a "thunk" against the key bed? It -- the key bed -- ain't gonna yield, you realize, and will win that battle in the end.
I'm not talking about big forces here - play fortissimo octaves with stiff wrists and it will be enough. Not everyone who plays knows how to be completely free or aren't completely free even when they think they are. Try for yourself if you have access to a grand, press down the pedal and knock anywhere on the wood.
I don't view these sounds as non music related because they are a direct byproduct of how you press down the keys, i e work your craft as a musician, compared to humming , piano benches, coughing etc. The piano bench squeaking is annoying but doesn't directly interfere with the vibration of the strings.
-
Music32
I watched/listened to you play on your website, and your playing is very musical, expressive and clean.
Also I notice you employ a great deal of what I'd call "expressive gestures" of the hands, wrists, arms.
Though one could say they appropriately follow the phrasing of your playing, they really would be a hindrance were the tempos of the pieces presented faster.
For instance, if you were to play the A minor Invention at twice the speed you present (which is imminently doable) you'd find it not possible to perform using all the expressive gestures you employ.
I also notice that in the Chopin Waltz, when the little fast trill like turns occur, you no longer employ large gestures, but your fingers are right on the keys very quickly and cleanly playing these motifs.
Also, it would not be possible to play the Opus 10 number 2 Chopin etude using the gestures you employ.
IMO, Chopin wrote this as a challenge that forces the player able to perform this up to speed, to adhere to ONLY the necessities of sound production, and all others will simply fail.
Same is true of the first etude and the one in thirds and most of the others in varying degrees..i.e. not being able to "get away with" excessive movement.
You are enjoyable to listen to and you seem like an excellent and devoted teacher.
All the best.
-
Ax is correct.
Nope, he's not. ;)
To find out that there is more than Ax thinks there is, one should simply listen to a lot of music for four hands on one piano (play with different partners is even a better option!), especially by pianists who don't "go well together". Let's take, for example Schubert's famous Fantasy in F minor by Radu Lupu and Murray Perahia:
Can you spot who's who and why one makes beautiful rich fortes and the other one ugly, metallic ones on the same instrument?
-
Let's take, for example Schubert's famous Fantasy in F minor by Radu Lupu and Murray Perahia:
Can you spot who's who and why one makes beautiful rich fortes and the other one ugly, metallic ones on the same instrument?
The Fantasy in F Minor. Great piece, Dima. :) I downloaded the Lupu-Perahia rendition and was disappointed. I recommend my immortal-vintage Eschenbach-Frantz on EMI. There's only one other performance that would be more sublime.
I do not agree with Ax's contention that how you strike a note does not create any difference.
-
Can you spot who's who and why one makes beautiful rich fortes and the other one ugly, metallic ones on the same instrument?
Hmmmm.... you're sort of proving the point that the only thing the pianist can control is the speed of the key descent.
The one making "ugly" sounds on the same piano would be the one using excessive or inappropriate force related to the other player.
I assume you are familiar with the Diskclavier, which can faithfully reproduce any pianist playing it.
How would you explain if this pair recorded the Schubert on a Diskclavier and it faithfully played back the performance, 100% exactly as it was played by the humans?
-
There is no question of stopping key hitting keybed at anything other than pp. The issue is HOW the key lands on the keybed and how much energy is still travelling. When using big arm drops like rubinstein, I reverse the direction of arm movement a split second before producing tone. The hand continues in motion from the wrist and the fingers generate movement. This produces plenty of key speed without piling the whole mass of the arm into the collision. But there's a world of difference between landing with less momentum at the point of impact, compared to the myth that you can actually slow down the key and duck out of even landing it. Continuing the arm into impact makes a louder noise with more energy. Of course it's possible to vary this independently of key speed. It would be madness to assume otherwise.
-
Here's something for your listening Pleasure
Glenn Gould: Goldberg Variations (1955 performance)
-
Hmmmm.... you're sort of proving the point that the only thing the pianist can control is the speed of the key descent.
What you do or don't do with acceleration seems to be the key, not the desire to control speed of key descent. Lupu has a more "lazy" approach to making tone and that's what gives better tone results. Instead of trying too hard to "control speed of key descent" as Perahia seems to be (over-)doing constantly, one should let go and let the instrument play itself. Of course, you need the flexibilty (both mental and physical) of a Radu Lupu to pull it off. :)
P.S.: Radu Lupu is a Neuhaus student as you may know, one of the few left who still believe that "touch" really exists and that are ready to put years of work in to acquire it.
-
What you do or don't do with acceleration seems to be the key, not the desire to control speed of key descent. Lupu has a more "lazy" approach to making tone and that's what gives better tone results. Instead of trying too hard to "control speed of key descent" as Perahia seems to be (over-)doing constantly, one should let go and let the instrument play itself. Of course, you need the flexibilty (both mental and physical) of a Radu Lupu to pull it off. :)
P.S.: Radu Lupu is a Neuhaus student as you may know, one of the few left who still believe that "touch" really exists and that are ready to put years of work in to acquire it.
What do you think of Perahia's tone in general, especially in more recent recordings of his?
-
What you do or don't do with acceleration seems to be the key, not the desire to control speed of key descent.
I mean what's really the difference?
Since the player can only make the key go down, descent is a given regardless of what one does, so we can throw that out of your statement and restate it as:
"What you do or don't do with acceleration seems to be the key, not the desire to control speed."
Is the discussion now about the difference of "doing or not doing with acceleration" VS "speed control"
As a practical matter they seem one in the same.
Acceleration is the velocity of an object changes over time, according to Wikipedia, and speed is
the speed of an object is the magnitude of its velocity (the rate of change of its position)
Since the key moves only about 3/8ths of an inch and only 1/4 of an inch (or so) is responsible for sound production, i.e. the jack pushing up against the hammer knuckle and then sliding off (escapement), as a practical matter velocity and speed from an on-the-key approach of playing the piano are roughly identical.
IOW, your finger has reached maximum velocity by the time it has descended 1/4 inch, and anything more (i.e. deeper toward the key bed) is for naught.
BTW, what did you think of the Glenn Gould recording?
-
I mean what's really the difference?
Up to now, science has told us that more hammer speed gives louder noise (tone and touch don't exist, remember?) and that's it. That is not true and new scientific experiments are warranted to prove that that is not the end of the story. You can actually get a greater richer forte by slowing down acceleration (!) and using mass instead and your forte will be huge while with acceleration only the tone will be harsh or even worse - dead.
BTW, what did you think of the Glenn Gould recording?
It's not Gould. Obviously, they reworked a recording by Gould and killed the spirit of the artist himself.
-
You can actually get a greater richer forte by slowing down acceleration (!) and using mass instead and your forte will be huge while with acceleration only the tone will be harsh or even worse - dead.
You're confusing your "perception" of being slower when you are really playing faster, but with larger muscles and greater leverage. The key speed is faster but it feels slower.
So you think the Diskclavier kills "the spirit".
I'm a science kind of person, not a spirit/mystical type, so I disagree with you.
Also, no recording, be it digital or otherwise, is truly "the" pianist, since the conditions are different, and the sound we hear on a record is removed several times from the original having been heard by artificial ears (microphones) and edited for various factors.
However, having said this, the Diskclavier gives the truest representation of the artist since hearing the Diskclavier in person is like hearing the artist, since it is the identical key movements of the artist reproduced accurately and scientifically. (Though were the artist playing the piano on which the Disklavier is installed, the pianist might make spontaneous adjustments due to the unique sound of the particular instrument)
If indeed you did listen to the recording, the playing is unmistakably Gould, and the difference might be the piano, since its a modern Yamaha and not Gould's Steinway of nearly 60 years ago.
Nevertheless, I think we are done here.
Have a nice day.
-
stuff
The Disklavier still won't reproduce the additional resonance, the cause of "dead" tone, that stiff joints impacting the piano produce.
-
I mean what's really the difference?
Since the player can only make the key go down, descent is a given regardless of what one does, so we can throw that out of your statement and restate it as:
"What you do or don't do with acceleration seems to be the key, not the desire to control speed."
Is the discussion now about the difference of "doing or not doing with acceleration" VS "speed control"
As a practical matter they seem one in the same.
Acceleration is the velocity of an object changes over time, according to Wikipedia, and speed is
the speed of an object is the magnitude of its velocity (the rate of change of its position)
Since the key moves only about 3/8ths of an inch and only 1/4 of an inch (or so) is responsible for sound production, i.e. the jack pushing up against the hammer knuckle and then sliding off (escapement), as a practical matter velocity and speed from an on-the-key approach of playing the piano are roughly identical.
IOW, your finger has reached maximum velocity by the time it has descended 1/4 inch, and anything more (i.e. deeper toward the key bed) is for naught.
BTW, what did you think of the Glenn Gould recording?
You can't use the fact that various factors haven't occurred to you as a basis for anything. It's easy to say that there's no possibility of a difference when you only give consideration to factors in which there really is no difference. But it's the ones you haven't even considered that explain the difference, so you really need to investigate them before coming to any conclusions.
On the level of a simple analogy, any golfer or cricketer knows that simply trying to swing a club or bat as fast as possible will not yield the greatest distance, unless the pacing of acceleration is properly carried out. Get too fast too soon and it doesn't work. Pacing of acceleration matters and this is utterly beyond question for anyone who has played such sports. Ditto for tennis.
If you want to know the particular reasons why there's so much more than a keyspeed, read this post:
https://pianoscience.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/tonal-control-efficiency-and-health.html
and the follow-up (which also details why differences in the quality of movement affect how much margin of error there is in terms of the intensity of the tone produced).
-
However, having said this, the Diskclavier gives the truest representation of the artist since hearing the Diskclavier in person is like hearing the artist, since it is the identical key movements of the artist reproduced accurately and scientifically. (Though were the artist playing the piano on which the Disklavier is installed, the pianist might make spontaneous adjustments due to the unique sound of the particular instrument)
If that is true, firstly it needs to be played back on the same instrument. And every key stroke must be reproduced with the exact same PACING of acceleration (so the hammer speed is matched correctly at every individual split second of its flight). I'm not aware as to whether there's any evidence that this is the case. Certainly not in Zenph recordings, although I cannot pass comment on those recorded direct into the instrument.
-
You can actually get a greater richer forte by slowing down acceleration (!) and using mass instead and your forte will be huge while with acceleration only the tone will be harsh or even worse - dead.
As pts says, this is very unlikely to be a literal truth. The speed achieved by the finger tip is the only one that counts. Mass will not produce good acceleration unless the hand is either rigid or expanding. In fact, mass frequently collapses the hand (unless it is in the act of expansion)- moving the knuckle faster than the key- which means the bulk of the energy will actually hit the keybed as an aftershock, rather than pass into acceleration of the key. There are ways to reduce impact at identical levels of acceleration in the key, but there's no replacement for the acceleration itself.
It can be said with near objective certainty that situation in which mass is attributed to replacing accleration, this is nothing but an illusion. Mass can create acceleration, but it has no magical properties that will replace it. If the movement looks and feels strangely slow, it's because movement is being passed on more efficiently and in a way where the fingertip separates out and reaches the fastest speed (without the whole arm having to jam down into movement at that same faster speed). In fact, it's only by stopping the momentum of the arm from crashing down as an after shock, that armweight technique really works. Only by lightening up the arm a split second BEFORE the key is being moved (not after, as the popular myth claims) can you achieve the effortless feeling, if you employ big arm gestures. When the whole arm piles in, it sure doesn't feel slow or effortless.
Anyway, the underlying principles about the differences in how energy/speed passes to a key are explained in full in the post I linked before, with diagrams. They illustrate the objective certainty of how what I term "positive movement" and "negative movement" play a collosal role in determining the difference between efficient transfer of speed and very wasteful transfer with a crash landing.
-
But it's the ones you haven't even considered that explain the difference, so you really need to investigate them before coming to any conclusions.
I understand that there's a difference between velocity and speed (terminal speed)
Like someone jumping out of an airplane, a few seconds pass before the velocity reaches the terminal velocity of 32ft per second, as I recall, and then the aren't going to go any faster, if I remember correctly.
Sure the finger will "speed up" before the hammer knuckle "flies" the hammer head into the string, and I assume that when the jack pushes past the knuckle, the hammer is at terminal velocity.
I don't know if anyone has measured ONLY the speed of the hammer head when it hits the string and if acceleration is a factor or if its already going as fast as possible (like a golf club at the moment it contacts the ball)
Nevertheless, even if this is not true, we are talking about very, very small distances with the correctly trained pianist playing primarily from the key spending most effort for the quarter of an inch so in descent, then allowing muscle activity to cease allowing the key to lift itself and the finger back up into a playing position.
Be this as it may, the ear is the final arbiter for any adjustments be they velocity or terminal speed, for the pianist who is employing correct mechanics, IMO.
-
I understand that there's a difference between velocity and speed (terminal speed)
Not one that matters here. Velocity is defined as being specific to a direction, whereas a speed doesn't have to be. It's a pretty irrelevant technicality here (although a fast speed that gives the key a glancing blow will produces a smaller velocity in the direction that matters, than its actual speed)
I don't know if anyone has measured ONLY the speed of the hammer head when it hits the string and if acceleration is a factor or if its already going as fast as possible (like a golf club at the moment it contacts the ball)
Actually, a golf club quite possibly shouldn't be (and I don't believe that anyone could ever reach terminal velocity- which would be a point where air resistance is too great for any further acceleration to be possible).The art of passing on acceleration is not to be too fast too soon. You must have room to INCREASE acceleration when you encounter the resistance. Otherwise the target escapes too soon (when the thing that accelerates it gets instantly slowed down by resistance) and you apply far less energy within the shortened duration of contact, before it's too late to do any more. See my blog posts for more on this issue, if you're interested in knowing about quite how much scope there is for very notable differences to exist based on pacing. The same is true of finger on key.
Nevertheless, even if this is not true, we are talking about very, very small distances with the correctly trained pianist playing primarily from the key spending most effort for the quarter of an inch so in descent, then allowing muscle activity to cease allowing the key to lift itself and the finger back up into a playing position.
So what? How far does a club stay in contact with a golf ball? I can only estimate but I doubt it's notably longer. A world of difference can be attributed to the pacing of acceleration within that tiny distance.
Be this as it may, the ear is the final arbiter for any adjustments be they velocity or terminal speed, for the pianist who is employing correct mechanics, IMO.
Well obviously. But it doesn't inform as to the solution, only of the fault. My tastebuds are pretty good at detecting the difference between a turd and a souffle, but they won't tell me anything about how to bake a souffle.
-
Well obviously. But it doesn't inform as to the solution, only of the fault. My tastebuds are pretty good at detecting the difference between a turd and a souffle, but they won't tell me anything about how to bake a souffle.
Then again, you could have the worst of both worlds -- the turd souffle.
If we can agree that playing from on or very close the the key is generally optimum, with proper body mechanics, then finding the sound you desire will yield to experimentation, aka practice.
I think one can be aware of speed and acceleration, etc., but at the point of fine tuning one's sound, I think this is best left to the more "artistic" processing centers of the brain aided by the feedback loop generated by discriminating hearing.
-
Music32.... see what you started? :o
-
Then again, you could have the worst of both worlds -- the turd souffle.
If we can agree that playing from on or very close the the key is generally optimum, with proper body mechanics, then finding the sound you desire will yield to experimentation, aka practice.
I think one can be aware of speed and acceleration, etc., but at the point of fine tuning one's sound, I think this is best left to the more "artistic" processing centers of the brain aided by the feedback loop generated by discriminating hearing.
I don't agree with any rules about staying close. I often do, but there are places where it doesn't give the right result. I also believe in the value of mastering the extreme arm drops employed by Rubinstein. I made sure I learned to do this for various passages, even those where I ultimately stay very close.
Also, try making this sound without the r.h. drop:
I don't usually play with drops, but it really works when you use the technique Gilels employs, for a special voicing.
-
I don't agree with any rules about staying close. I often do, but there are places where it doesn't give the right result. I also believe in the value of mastering the extreme arm drops employed by Rubinstein. I made sure I learned to do this for various passages, even those where I ultimately stay very close.
That's fine, but then I'm of the other mind, and like to stay close, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
-
I wasn't impressed with the Dr. M's (Cedarville U) presentation. His chords seemed to be played very angular. which could have been better rendered with a supple wrist. He negates "illusions" in playing as well... which is another point of disagreement. If 5 pianists play a Mozart passage in allegro (without pedal), there will be a qualitative tonal difference for each... and much will have to do with shaping and contouring the line. I don't think scientific analyses of piano playing go very far when we're dealing with a subjective, artistic realm.
-
That's fine, but then I'm of the other mind, and like to stay close, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
If you feel all else is banned, yes. Gilels produces wonderful sounds there. I use the same technique for the same style of voicing.
-
Nope, he's not. ;)
To find out that there is more than Ax thinks there is, one should simply listen to a lot of music for four hands on one piano (play with different partners is even a better option!), especially by pianists who don't "go well together". Let's take, for example Schubert's famous Fantasy in F minor by Radu Lupu and Murray Perahia:
Can you spot who's who and why one makes beautiful rich fortes and the other one ugly, metallic ones on the same instrument?
That doesn't make any sense.
There's nothing Ax said, or anyone said upthread, that contradicts the fact that it's possible to play a forte passage of piano music in a way that is either "beautiful" or "metallic".
-
I wasn't impressed with the Dr. M's (Cedarville U) presentation. His chords seemed to be played very angular. which could have been better rendered with a supple wrist. He negates "illusions" in playing as well... which is another point of disagreement. If 5 pianists play a Mozart passage in allegro (without pedal), there will be a qualitative tonal difference for each... and much will have to do with shaping and contouring the line. I don't think scientific analyses of piano playing go very far when we're dealing with a subjective, artistic realm.
I think you basically see sound production on the piano more from a broader musician's point of than a pianist's point of view. It seems you love the architecture, ballet, and simulation of bowing instruments as the "illusion" part of the process, and hence given the likely many years you've studied in this vein, perhaps you see merely being able to control key speed/velocity as some form of artistic heresy.
But I think it is a scientific fact that a single note played on the piano can only be controlled with regard to its duration and loudness. On your blog you have quoted a number of authorities who agree. I would add to this you might be interested in "Famous Pianists and Their Technique" in which Reginal Gehrig talks of not only famed pianists, but references the genuine scientists who exhaustively studied piano/pianists and sound production, i.e. Otto Ortman: "The Physical Basis of Touch and Tone", and Arnold Schultz: "The Riddle of the Pianist's Finger".
These two musical scientists have thoroughly put the issue to bed regarding what the pianist can and cannot control.
I realize this is crude compared to what can be done with a single violin note, or human voice, but it is nevertheless how this percussive instrument is constructed. Having said this, it has much more potential than either the violin or solo unaccompanied voice, which is why it remains the most popular and challenging of instruments, IMO.
Here is a Glenn Gould recording of the A Minor Invention, and at this speed you can well imagine there is little in the way of the type of movement you like.
This is not to say anything is "wrong" with what you are doing, but necessity is a different issue.
All the best
-
I think you basically see sound production on the piano more from a broader musician's point of than a pianist's point of view. It seems you love the architecture, ballet, and simulation of bowing instruments as the "illusion" part of the process, and hence given the likely many years you've studied in this vein, perhaps you see merely being able to control key speed/velocity as some form of artistic heresy.
But I think it is a scientific fact that a single note played on the piano can only be controlled with regard to its duration and loudness. On your blog you have quoted a number of authorities who agree. I would add to this you might be interested in "Famous Pianists and Their Technique" in which Reginal Gehrig talks of not only famed pianists, but references the genuine scientists who exhaustively studied piano/pianists and sound production, i.e. Otto Ortman: "The Physical Basis of Touch and Tone", and Arnold Schultz: "The Riddle of the Pianist's Finger".
These two musical scientists have thoroughly put the issue to bed regarding what the pianist can and cannot control.
I realize this is crude compared to what can be done with a single violin note, or human voice, but it is nevertheless how this percussive instrument is constructed. Having said this, it has much more potential than either the violin or solo unaccompanied voice, which is why it remains the most popular and challenging of instruments, IMO.
Here is a Glenn Gould recording of the A Minor Invention, and at this speed you can well imagine there is little in the way of the type of movement you like.
This is not to say anything is "wrong" with what you are doing, but necessity is a different issue.
All the best
You are still ignoring the fact that a pianist with bad tone will produce additional "ugly" resonance in the instrument when striking the key, while a pianist with good tone won't.
-
You are still ignoring the fact that a pianist with bad tone will produce additional "ugly" resonance in the instrument when striking the key, while a pianist with good tone won't.
No, I'm not ignoring it. I acknowledge that this is so if I understand you correctly.
Its just that I think the conversation is about sound control, not ugly sounds.
-
No, I'm not ignoring it. I acknowledge that this is so if I understand you correctly.
Its just that I think the conversation is about sound control, not ugly sounds.
Isn't controlling your tone to be beautiful a part of sound control?
On the other hand, if you assume the playing apparatus is perfectly supple throughout the entire movement, then yes, I'll agree that the tone will not be any different regardless what movement you employ, as long as the speed of the key at the moment of hammer release is the same. But this seems like we're getting into pedantery - if you do this assumption that technique has been perfected, then what's interesting is what you do with voicing, pedals, and so forth, no?
-
But this seems like we're getting into pedantery
Or even pedantry. ;)
-
You're confusing your "perception" of being slower when you are really playing faster, but with larger muscles and greater leverage. The key speed is faster but it feels slower.
No. All you (and anybody else who is serious about this) have to do is put on wrist weights and use your ears to see what happens to how the instrument reacts. Better do it with somebody else in the room present too so you'll know it's not subjective. You may even blindfold your witness. The result of this experiment will also be the end of all discussions and arguments here.
So you think the Diskclavier kills "the spirit".
I'm a science kind of person, not a spirit/mystical type, so I disagree with you.
Yes. The recording has changed the perception of rhythm or this Diskclavier is simply unable to produce human rhythm among other factors, and rhythm/timing is one of the main components in touch and tone.
-
No. All you (and anybody else who is serious about this) have to do is put on wrist weights and use your ears to see what happens to how the instrument reacts. Better do it with somebody else in the room present too so you'll know it's not subjective. You may even blindfold your witness. The result of this experiment will also be the end of all discussions and arguments here.
This example doesn't actually work. Firstly, innate mass cannot be changed except by doing exactly that- putting external mass on the arm. So there's nothing a pianist can do while playing to directly simulate that addition. Secondly, the benefits usually stay rather well after removing the weights, so they are a trigger rather than a necessary ingredient.
What wrist weights do is make it extremely uncomfortable to generate the acceleration from the rear and to collapse the hand while playing from impulse further back. They wake-up the hand, to stop the larger impacts of collapsing under this greater mass and get more movement coming from the business end (ie the finger) rather than from places further back. So the arm is no longer the part that moves fastest but a slower part of the mechanism. This is literal. Yet the fingertip is what moves the the key. The point where fingertip joins with the key goes no slower at all, only the bulky parts which feel ungainly if moving at high-speed on every note. This is why the illusion can be so powerful, but also why the improvement when can remain after removing them, when the arm feels extremely LIGHT. It's not about resting down more but rather engaging the hand from a light but connected arm. Even the best free fall drops require the arm to be lightened split seconds before landing- so the finger expands out through the key without the arm squashing down into impact.
PS in cases where pianists shove the arm fast yet fail to transmit that speed fully to the key, reducing to passive weight will do better (not by giving more but less). Also, in cases where pianists lock the arm then learning to free it will give support to hand action. But it's only by increasing hand action that you generate a reality of keys moving faster than the arm, rather than slower. The fingertip is what moves the key, which is why it's perfectly literal for the arm to accelerate less. But the fact that acceleration comes in the finger action is the true explanation, not the idea that mass replaced acceleration. Just a trace of positive movement (as defined in my blog post) makes a world of difference to the acceleration achieved, compared to just a trace of negative movement (ie collapse) under weight. It defines whether the key is travelling notably faster or slower than the arm- hence the illusions.
-
These two musical scientists have thoroughly put the issue to bed regarding what the pianist can and cannot control.
So you've been through more recent scientific research and debunked it, before going back to very dated work that many have questioned the scientific validity of? Or have you simply taken what seems to confirm the view you already held and decided to stick with that for convenience?
The best way to show tonal difference is to play one note into an open pedal. I believe that virtually all scientists failed to do so. If you read my blog, you'll see the concrete proof of how much scope there is to vary keybed impact at identical hammer energies. It would staggering if this were not reflected in the overtone series with an open pedal. Some studies have found evidence that, as should be expected, it is possible to notably vary the percussion in the resulting sound.
-
you'll see ... how much scope there is to vary keybed impact at identical hammer energies.
Obviously, but not that any outside observer could tell.
-
Obviously, but not that any outside observer could tell.
Indeed, assuming that the outside observer is both blind and deaf. Eyesight alone tells you how much more impact kissin generates compared to someone like volodos and the difference in the sound is enormous.
-
This example doesn't actually work. Firstly, innate mass cannot be changed except by doing exactly that- putting external mass on the arm. So there's nothing a pianist can do while playing to directly simulate that addition. Secondly, the benefits usually stay rather well after removing the weights, so they are a trigger rather than a necessary ingredient.
The only point I wanted to make using the example of wrist weights is to illustrate that different elements in piano playing can indeed cause different ratios of core tone/overtones (hence different sound quality), audible to even an untrained ear. I am not exactly concerned with the explanation of why this is so, a subject that is over the heads anyway of most of the forum users and even of those scientists who consider the subject closed. :)
-
Eyesight alone tells you how much more impact kissin generates compared to someone like volodos and the difference in the sound is enormous.
You, as usual, manage to hear what you want to hear.
-
You, as usual, manage to hear what you want to hear.
There's nothing I like less than people who hit the piano. Why would I want to hear that? I nearly left last time I heard kissin live and only stayed out of pure curiosity.
-
The only point I wanted to make using the example of wrist weights is to illustrate that different elements in piano playing can indeed cause different ratios of core tone/overtones (hence different sound quality), audible to even an untrained ear. I am not exactly concerned with the explanation of why this is so, a subject that is over the heads anyway of most of the forum users and even of those scientists who consider the subject closed. :)
But it's no different as empirical evidence than hearing a good and a bad pianist play the same piano. It gives nothing that lies outside of the possibility of being accounted for by relativity issues. Much as I believe that there really is the possibility of bad percussive tone, the example cannot in itself satisfy any burden of proof. The thing I object to though is speaking of mass replacing acceleration. This literally impossible. Mass can generate acceleration by falling (which tends to cause impact and squash the hand, unless you lighten the arm fractionally BEFORE reaching the keys-which actually takes mass out of it ) but it cannot produce tone independently of acceleration . Use of weights actually trains LESS use of falling mass and better focus of acceleration into the point where it matters. Some people are lucky to get this right regardless, but it's very easy to attempt to take such subjective impressions literally and fail to succeed. I had forget virtually everything in standard armweight doctrines preach in order to learn how to land softly in the rubinstein style of technique. The key is in the lightening of the arm and activation of the hand during key movement, not in the release of dead mass before that. It's virtually the opposite of what the doctrines say, to make it actually work.
Movements that feel slow but make a big sound are attributable to focusing acceleration into the business end where you meet the key, rather than generating high speeds in the whole arm which don't necessarily make it through to the key until the sound already occurred. This aftershock is what I'm personally sure creates bad tone, but I don't think the example you give satisfies any true burden of incontrovertible proof.
-
There's nothing I like less than people who hit the piano. Why would I want to hear that?
Because it would confirm the rather dubious theory you wish to hold, duh.
-
Because it would confirm the rather dubious theory you wish to hold, duh.
Percussive piano offends my my ear, whether I've seen the pianist or not. If you think it's dubious that sending different energy levels into impact (with different types of shock absorbency in a braced or loose arm) leads to different levels of noise effect, I suggest you go back to school. The only people who say nothing can account for a difference in the sound haven't thought through the most basic issues. Most experiments are even so short sighted as to neglect the effect of an open pedal and thus prove literally nothing about playing with raised dampers and the overtone series. Some empirical data has confirmed the expectation that different levels of thud affect the sound.
-
If you think it's dubious that sending different energy levels into impact create different levels of noise effect, I suggest you go back to school.
There's no science to say it make a difference to an outside observer besides what does it matter? Hummel says not to keybed - that's good enough for me.
-
But it's no different as empirical evidence than hearing a good and a bad pianist play the same piano.
The problem with comparing good and bad pianists is that they play tones in context and do that either well or badly. It doesn't do much for those who have their minds made up already about tone quality as such, which they think is something the piano manufacturer is responsible for and nobody else. They will just tell you that one pianist connects the tones "better" and "more musically" than the other one.
The shock, however, of putting wrist weights on and experiencing with one's own ears how something so physical drastically changes the quality of ONE TONE in isolation seems to me a more convincing experiment, even if my explanation of mass or weight (or whatever one may call that factor) is incorrect.
-
There's no science to say it make a difference to an outside observer besides what does it matter? Hummel says not to keybed - that's good enough for me.
Everyone keybeds from piano upwards. The issue is how you make the contact and whether it compresses down or expands up and away. And there are experiments that recorded differences of tone. Sound theory does not support the idea that there is no explanation for differences and empirical evidence exists that there can be differences.
-
The problem with comparing good and bad pianists is that they play tones in context and do that either well or badly. It doesn't do much for those who have their minds made up already about tone quality as such, which they think is something the piano manufacturer is responsible for and nobody else. They will just tell you that one pianist connects the tones "better" and "more musically" than the other one.
The shock, however, of putting wrist weights on and experiencing with one's own ears how something so physical drastically changes the quality of ONE TONE in isolation seems to me a more convincing experiment, even if my explanation of mass or weight (or whatever one may call that factor) is incorrect.
There's still a problem. The shock can be to attributed to a richer (as in louder) sound than expected, if a pianist usually wastes energy through collapse. The contrast between expectation and result gives a surprise, especially for a repressed player who usually goes with a flimsy thin sound. More tone comes for less effort than normal. I believe in subtle differences in tone, but I think this is a better explanation for anything startling. In my opinion, the conditions in which absolute differences are most likely to show up are those in which science cannot isolate the separate tones for analysis. Only when playing loud into an open pedal would I expect really notable difference on a single note. This is the situation which all experiments must focus on, in order to come close to having "disproved" tone. After all, it's in dense writing where ugly tone is most typically perceived. If there's even a tiny difference it stands to reason that a ten note chord would show even greater difference. Science could not isolate the data, but that doesn't mean it isn't the situation where absolute differences are detected best by the ear- which is why anyone anyone who says science conclusively disproved tone is most grossly in error.
-
The issue is how you make the contact and whether it compresses down or expands up and away.
Now that's totally bogus! Your physics is totally on its own there. I'm not getting dragged in - I'll stick to Newton or Einstein.
-
Now that's totally bogus! Your physics is totally on its own there. I'm not getting dragged in - I'll stick to Newton or Einstein.
Yes, just like it's bogus that it makes any difference to the level of impact whether a runner springs his leg into length as it hits the ground (to spring himself into freedom with his next stride) or passively collapses his leg and lets his whole body slump to the floor over the top of it (potentially even breaking his leg if he's a big enough guy, with enough momentum) Total pseudoscience to think that there's any difference in the level of impact associated with those two different ways of organising the collision with the foot and floor.
Rather than make flippant remarks about Newton go and ACTUALLY read some, or *** off and stop pretending that you know the first thing about the nature of impact. The first thing to understand about either running or depressing a key is that impact occurs when too much mass is allowed to continue down. Bounce it back away in an upward direction and you have a totally different scenario.
So by all means ignore this and make some stupid remark and then return to the piano and continue collapsing your hand into impact at the keybed, before violently relaxing as if that's supposed to do the first thing to help with what is already an impact that has occurred in the past.
-
Rather than make flippant remarks about Newton go and ACTUALLY read some, or *** off
Now that's the authentic pianoscience for you!
-
Now that's the authentic pianoscience for you!
And the only part you have a response to? Go and read the Newton you are sticking to and then come back and tell me where he contradicts the very simple principle I outlined about the nature of impact during a collision. You're all mouth and no trousers. If you're not interested in opening it, put some substance behind that closed mind of yours instead. If you want to reply you with another example of your dry sense of humourlessness, however, I'll leave you to it.
-
And the only part you have a response to?
Yeh, I think the ***off bit kinda caught my attention. Not a scientific rationale I'm familiar with.
-
Yeh, I think the ***off bit kinda caught my attention. Not a scientific rationale I'm familiar with.
In the world of science, people who heckle simple and widely accepted concepts (such as the one regarding impact I presented) are either expected to present some reasoning for their dismissal, or *** off. You're not interested in the topic, only in asserting a belief system founded solely on faith, so I'll leave you to your doctrines.
-
In the world of science, people who heckle simple and widely accepted concepts
A widely accepted concept!? I must have missed that somewhere. All I saw was your usual allusion to Newton's entire body of work (as if you'd read them, duh).
-
More tone comes for less effort than normal.
Which is enough to prove that what one physically does or doesn't do (regardless of one's focus on control over speed/acceleration) does have an impact on sound QUALITY. Not only does the tone itself become objectively richer in all dynamic ranges without the usual effort, but the ratio between core tone and sympathetic resonance of overtones also changes. I think this could be measured objectively with the right equipment installed in "acoustically correct" locations.
P.S.: And yes, pedal enhances the effect significantly.
-
A widely accepted concept!? I must have missed that somewhere. All I saw was your usual allusion to Newton's entire body of work (as if you'd read them, duh).
I never introduced his name. You did. Regardless I'll spell it out. When something falls down towards a point of impact, it carries momentum which then collides and increases impact. If you crush a finger into compression then it carries momentum via the extra mass of the arm moving downwards towards the stopping point. Conversely, when everything is expanding up and AWAY from the point of landing, a tiny amount of mass actually carries any further momentum towards the point of collision. It's all going away in a path where it is smoothly slowed by gravity, rather than stopped violently in a collision. In both pianism and running, impact is easily prevented by pushing mass up and away, rather than by pretending that you can avoid ever reaching the point of collision outright. In both cases, collapsing the joints rather than growing things up and away allows more mass to carry momentum on a path bound for collision- hence more impact. People who think relaxation of a finger will help are plain wrong, as relaxing it allows more collapse and thus more momentum travelling towards collision (just like if a runner allows a leg to crumple up and get crushed by their body weight, rather push the mass upwards towards a place of freedom, via a normal stride). The necessary common link to low impact is movement upward into expansion, not relaxation and the downward collapse of further energy towards the floor or keybed. Also not fixation during the moment of landing (which limits collapse of either a leg or finger, yet offers exceedingly bad shock absorbency during the point of impact).
I already know that you have no response to this except an irrelevant humourless quip, so get it out the way and then *** off. I'm not arguing any further unless you have some substance. Take the above to any scientist you please, if you wish to debunk. Better still, go and actually research mechanics for yourself and try to find any holes in the premise, if you feel you're in an informed position to scoff. It is completely consistent with all basics of classical mechanics.
-
Which is enough to prove that what one physically does or doesn't do (regardless of one's focus on control over speed/acceleration) does have an impact on sound QUALITY. Not only does the tone itself become objectively richer in all dynamic ranges without the usual effort, but the ratio between core tone and sympathetic resonance of overtones also changes. I think this could be measured objectively with the right equipment installed in "acoustically correct" locations.
P.S.: And yes, pedal enhances the effect significantly.
That's not what I'm agreeing with though. I think the effect is primarily psychological due to the difference between expectation and result. I do believe subtle absolute differences MIGHT be possible, but it's really too subjective to count the phenomenon as actual evidence without empirical data. In my opinion, the really striking difference is psychological, due to simply getting a stronger sound for less effort. Only when really loud chords are played into the pedal do I believe that the objective reduction in noise effect becomes significant.
PS did you know that in a test of sacd vs cd quality on experts who swear to hear the difference revealed that the accuracy of detection was pretty much identical to what would expected had they simply flipped coins to give the answers? It's very important that what people think is absolute is confirmed by empirical data in blind testing, before taken as being evidence. While I believe there are situations where small differences accumulate, I'm far more doubtful that they are really big on single notes. I place more on the surprise factor than on a really big absolute here.
-
I'm not arguing any further unless you have some substance. Take the above to any scientist you please, if you wish to debunk.
I'll tell you what, if it's so 'widely accepted' find me another source.
-
I'll tell you what, if it's so 'widely accepted' find me another source.
I didn't copy it secondhand, sorry. It's an original contextual application of accepted newtonian laws. So debunk the application of those laws, by listing the errors of logic, or find someone who can. Do you think people who solve maths theorems provide sources where someone else says the exact same thing as the specific applications of logic they have made? They don't. They show the show the working around accepted principled and the onus then lies on others to debunk it, if they have made errors of application. I've started with a straightforward application of the law of momentum. I then followed up by stating that additional travelling momentum means more impact. That is proved by the law of energy conservation. Energy cannot be destroyed. So when larger amounts of momentum are travel towards a point where they violently decelerate they result in more impact than when momentum travels directly away from the point of impact.
These two very basic laws can be found in any gcse text book, so I really am done now. Happy trolling! Oh and why don't you go on a run and collapse your knees and hips down, with every step, if you're so sure you're right? I'll make sure my knees are lengthening out, thanks. and that I'm also expanding up and away from the keybeds, rather than allowing momentum to spiral down into collisions.
-
I didn't copy it secondhand. It's an original application of accepted newtonian laws.
Look mate, you are extrapolating from basic laws of physics. These extrapolations you call 'widely accepted'. By whom? Find me a source if that is the case.
-
Look mate, you are extrapolating from basic laws of physics. These extrapolations you call 'widely accepted'. By whom? Find me a source if that is the case.
If you don't understand how science works you can *** off. Applications of accepted laws are not referred to sources. The fact that no book specifically says 1*13333 = 13333 does not put it in question that it is true. People who dispute applications of such simple laws are required to debunk them. you can't be bothered to learn gcse physics, reference the very simple applications by any qualified scientist. Better still, *** off and stop wasting everybody's time with your closed indoctrinated mind.
-
If you don't understand how science works you can *** off. Applications of accepted laws are not referred to sources. They are original work. People who dispute their accuracy are required to debunk them.
What in god's name then are the 'widely accepted concepts' you're going on about? Also, I'll have a source for your last claim if you please!
-
What in god's name then are the 'widely accepted concepts' you're going on about? Also, I'll have a source for your last claim if you please!
The law of momentum and law of energy conservation, as I already told you. So either get a gcse textbook out and start reading it or *** off and stop trolling with your cynicism about something you know nothing about. If you want to provide a source that says mass can travel without carrying momentum or that momentum can stop abruptly in collision with a static object, without passing its associated energy into an impact, post them here. I'm afraid that the onus of proof is on controversial statements, not on a simple application of a basic law. For either of my statements to be untrue, specific newtonian laws are necessarily broken. Thus it follows that they are indeed true- regardless of how squarely they contradict with any sources that you have accepted on mere faith.
-
The law of momentum and law of energy conservation,
Let me get this straight - your 'widely accepted concepts' are 'The law of momentum and law of energy conservation'?? Bit of an understatement don't you think? Applicable to keybedding sure, but I think a bit abstruse. You might as well site the Earth going round the Sun for all its relevance.
And that's the problem isn't it? Your complete obfuscation - not just of everyone here but also of yourself! But when push comes to shove what do we get? A big ***off!!
-
Let me get this straight - your 'widely accepted concepts' are 'The law of momentum and law of energy conservation'?? Bit of an understatement don't you think? Applicable to keybedding sure, but I think a bit abstruse. You might as well site the Earth going round the Sun for all its relevance.
And that's the problem isn't it? Your complete obfuscation - not just of everyone here but also of yourself! But when push comes to shove what do we get? A big ***off!!
The relevance is the specific fact that holding back from the keybed cannot achieve anything, based on irrefutable mechanics regarding energy conservation. Directing movement away from it during the point of collision (which can neither be achieved through tension or passivity in the finger) is the only means of dealing with the moment of arrival meaningfully if you don't want to strain or suffer impact. I sure wish this was as obvious as the earth going round the sun. Then I wouldn't have wasted so much of my time listening to idiots telling me to do something that it is utterly impossible as means of dealing with keybeds without impact.
PS if you aren't interested in actually researching something before drawing the conclusion that it is wrong based on mere sentiment and no evidence or relevant knowledge, then being told to *** off is the only relevant response.
-
You see, what you don't understand is the nature of science. It's not so much about a set of rules, concepts etc. it's more about peer review - a way of working. Scientists (people who do science as opposed to bloggers and posters) have a list of publications to their name - no one is about to take them seriously otherwise. Comprendez? Even Newton had to publish his findings for his peers. Now what I'd like to see is yours and in a peer reviewed journal. Then we could all take you seriously (I'd leave out the ***off bits if I were you).
-
You see, what you don't understand is the nature of science. It's not so much about a set of rules, concepts etc. it's more about peer review - a way of working. Scientists (people who do science as opposed to bloggers and posters) have a list of publications to their name - no one is about to take them seriously otherwise. Comprendez? Even Newton had to publish his findings for his peers. Now what I'd like to see is yours and in a peer reviewed journal. Then we could all take you seriously (I'd leave out the ***off bits if I were you).
I'd be laughed out of the place if a physicist were asked to check such a piffingly basic application of newtonian mechanics and publish it in a magazine on physics. It's not even A level physics, nevermind an advanced application worthy of a journal about physics. The relevance is solely to pianists in understanding how to avoid impact. The only mystery is why something so simple is not widely considered among pianists.
Show what I said to anyone you like and ask them to review it. Better still, seeing as you think you're in a position to have an informed opinion, debunk it yourself. You certainly wouldn't find a physicist willing to dispute the self evident notion that that moving mass towards a collision and stopping it sharply means more impact than actively moving mass AWAY during the instant of collision. I can't believe I've actually let you waste so much of my time on bothering to defend such a simple and irrefutable truth.
.
-
Just get something accepted for publication - then maybe you'll be taken seriously.
-
Just get something accepted for publication - then maybe you'll be taken seriously.
Why would a science journal want to publish a gsce level application of fact? As for musicians journals, they publish all kinds of rubbish. Such fields as body mechanics are overloaded with publications that are riddled with foundation level errors. The field of pianistic ergonomics is loaded with charlatans preaching things that contradicted classical mechanics left right and centre (and which could never possibly pass review by a physicist).
-
The field of pianistic ergonomics is loaded with charlatans preaching things that contradicted classical mechanics left right and centre (and which could never possibly pass review by a physicist).
Like you to be honest! How many science journals have you actually sent work to? I find it very hard to believe they wouldn't be interested in the physics of piano playing.
-
Hmmmm
I see this discussion which was started by someone asking "what time is it", so to speak, has degraded into a discussion about the inaccuracies of atomic clocks in as much as Einstein has "proven" that time can go backwards.
One needs no collisions with brick walls or any other extrapolations of Newtonian physics to understand what makes a piano action work, and the best way to work this clever piece of machinery.
As I've noted before, the key travels downward about 3/8ths of an inch or so, and ONLY the first 1/4 of an inch moves the hammer. The last 8th is dead space, after which the key hits the key bed.
So the best way to play as a standard is with the finger on the key, pull the key down quickly and briefly so that the sound occurs, but your finger does not hit cause the key to hit the key bed hard, but to touch it and rebound naturally from the energy of the key bringing the at rest-finger with it, ready to play again.
For clarity's sake, imagine that the key mechanism was a huge model whereby we're talking about a travel distance of 3 feet instead of 3/8ths of an inch.
Why, after pushing the enormous key down 2 feet at which point it has pushed the jack past the hammer knuckle and sent the hammer flying upward into a long large string, would you continue to push the key down with effort to collide hard against the key bed, both doing nothing to effect sound, and incrementally injuring yourself?
Anyone who can look at a key mechanism, think logically, get past their bias, etc., can prove this to one's self.
Again, this has been proven to a scientific certainty by real "piano scientists" many years ago, as well anecdotal evidence from many professional pianists. (Ortmann and Schultz, scientists)
Why would anyone doubt that the faster you pull down the key, the faster the hammer will hit the string and the louder the resulting sound?
-
but to touch it and rebound naturally from the energy of the key bringing the at rest-finger with it, ready to play again.
I don't think you'll find that in Schultz or Ortmann (both of which I have here).
-
Hmmmm
I see this discussion which was started by someone asking "what time is it", so to speak, has degraded into a discussion about the inaccuracies of atomic clocks in as much as Einstein has "proven" that time can go backwards.
One needs no collisions with brick walls or any other extrapolations of Newtonian physics to understand what makes a piano action work, and the best way to work this clever piece of machinery.
As I've noted before, the key travels downward about 3/8ths of an inch or so, and ONLY the first 1/4 of an inch moves the hammer. The last 8th is dead space, after which the key hits the key bed.
So the best way to play as a standard is with the finger on the key, pull the key down quickly and briefly so that the sound occurs, but your finger does not hit cause the key to hit the key bed hard, but to touch it and rebound naturally from the energy of the key bringing the at rest-finger with it, ready to play again.
For clarity's sake, imagine that the key mechanism was a huge model whereby we're talking about a travel distance of 3 feet instead of 3/8ths of an inch.
Why, after pushing the enormous key down 2 feet at which point it has pushed the jack past the hammer knuckle and sent the hammer flying upward into a long large string, would you continue to push the key down with effort to collide hard against the key bed, both doing nothing to effect sound, and incrementally injuring yourself?
Anyone who can look at a key mechanism, think logically, get past their bias, etc., can prove this to one's self.
Again, this has been proven to a scientific certainty by real "piano scientists" many years ago, as well anecdotal evidence from many professional pianists. (Ortmann and Schultz, scientists)
Superficial logic (except in staccato- where the finger really does just release). I explain why plenty on my blog, but I'll give a brief rundown. Firstly, the quality of balance on the last note played determines control over the next note. Looking to do as little as possible destabilises the whole mechanism, whereas looking to carry on trying to "stand" the knuckle up and away from the keybed creates stability in return for a negligible degree of added effort.
Let's say that you're going to stroke a hamster with one foot while standing on the other leg. Would you feel more comfortable about doing so while standing clearly on the one leg? Or would you want to allow your knee to start wobbling about due to the fact that this leg is supposedly not involved in any way? It's pretty safe to say which is most likely to result in a dead hamster. To only speak of the sound that already occurred grossly misses the relevance of what matters on held notes. Balance on a depressed key is the beginning of how you control the next sound and not merely an afterthought.
Secondly, trying to relax in the split second that sound occurs is prone to error. When the finger aims to continue (not squashing down but expanding AWAY from the keybed) you completely eradicate any problems with prolonging the action. And you also eliminate the risk of pulling back too soon. See my most recent blog post for more details, in reference to the superb control achieved by cherkassky and why trying to stop abruptly at the keybed will easily ruin that. Continuing a slower confident action gives far more reliable tonal control than trying to do a short sharp application of force followed by nothing. Any hint of repression destroys control over tone. It's far easier to learn how to make continuation safe and healthy than to think of on and off stabs.
-
Giving without asking is admirable, but doing something in return for something else is nothing more than everyday life.
Well, I don't have those books, though a long, long time ago I struggled through parts of them at the library and have read excerpts at times.
I think both of the proved beyond any doubt that it is the speed of the hammer into the string that is solely responsible for the sound.
I mean... duh!
The part about the articulation of the key, the escapement, etc., is simple logic, and you can read about anecdotal evidence from pianists who were taught to quickly pull the key down and cease all effort. Example, Glenn Gould with the "tapping" exercise, which is exactly designed to do just that. The proof is in his technique, which was really second to none.
I see no point in arguing about this. The proof is in the "pudding" and I'll cite Glenn Gould as my "proof".
-
Superficial logic.
Perhaps so, but I don't need a thorough explanation of Newtonian physics, Anatomy, and Psychology to explain why pounding myself in the head with a hammer is a bad idea.
-
Well, I don't have those books, though a long, long time ago I struggled through parts of them at the library and have read excerpts at times.
I think both of the proved beyond any doubt that it is the speed of the hammer into the string that is solely responsible for the sound.
I mean... duh!
You'll get no argument from me!
-
Like you to be honest! How many science journals have you actually sent work to? I find it very hard to believe they wouldn't be interested in the physics of piano playing.
Perhaps if pianists. But on level of mechanics it's so simple that a non pianist would just express shock that what I've observed might be even faintly controversial. Feel free to run anything I've said by any physicist in the world. I post my blog in public specifically so anybody is free to review what I am saying. Once I've edited my post on positive and negative movement, I will indeed be running it by professional physicist- under the insistence that they specify anything that could be seen as contentious rather than definitively true. If something is wrong, I have zero interest in labouring under misapprehension-which is why I apply extremely strict scrutiny to everything I write before publishing.
PS if you want to libel me then back it up with some specific substance.
-
Perhaps if pianists. But on level of mechanics it's so simple that a non pianist would just express shock that what I've observed might be even faintly controversial.
If you can't find even an itsy-bitsy obscure journal that'll accept your work then the label scientific will just have to elude you. I'm sorry if your scientific 'colleagues' have no interest in your work. I wonder why? NOT!
-
Perhaps so, but I don't need a thorough explanation of Newtonian physics, Anatomy, and Psychology to explain why pounding myself in the head with a hammer is a bad idea.
If you want to make concrete assertions I'm afraid you really DO need to run through them. You can't assert facts based on having casually ignored the areas that comprehensively disprove that things are a simple as your extraordinarily selective version of events would portray. It's easy to pretend something is simple when you choose to leave out each and every one of the issues that contradicts your assertion. But I'm afraid selective portrayal neither changes reality or serves a basis for a genuine proof. To be permitted to ignore the additional factors, you have to debunk them first, not put your fingers in your ears. You don't get to call your portrayal scientific when you not only leave out the important bits that contradict your view, but refuse to even listen when someone tells you what you have missed. Science either debunks new information, or adapts the theory to fit relevant information as best as possible.
-
If you can't find even an itsy-bitsy obscure journal that'll accept your work then the label scientific will just have to evade you. I'm sorry if your scientific 'colleagues' have no interest in your work. I wonder why? NOT!
I said no such thing, but i don't see why a non pianist would be terribly interested in such basic applications as I make. None are controversial, with regard to mechanics - only against the doctrines that pianists preach. The article I am currently polishing will be submitted to physicists shortly, as I said, under strict instructions to apply full standards of scrutiny. In the meantime I warmly invite you and anyone to define any objective error that can be found, should any exist. Seriously, I actually WANT to know if I do make any errors, which is why your unsubstantiated cynicism is so infuriating. Get off your butt and debunk me! It's simply pathetic to make big accusations without having any supporting evidence.
-
The article I am currently polishing will be submitted to physicists shortly, as I said, under strict instructions to apply full standards of scrutiny.
I won't hold my breath but I'll buy a dozen copies when (if) it comes out! Meanwhile you're just Joe Layman.
-
I won't hold my breath but I'll buy a dozen copies when (if) it comes out! Meanwhile you're just Joe Layman.
Then show my application to any physicist of your choosing and tell them to debunk it. It would take some bribe to find one who'd testify in a witness stand. Alternatively, learn mechanics to gsce level so you can appreciate the simple of truth of what causes impact. If you need an authority to prove that finding an action which propels mass directly away from the point of collision results in less impact that letting it continue to proceed directly into one and then relaxing, you really should have tried harder at school. It might not be easy to let go of doctrine, but there's only one view that contradicts physics here.
-
I think you've missed something - I don't go out and get your work peer reviewed, you do.
-
I think you've missed something - I don't go out and get your work peer reviewed, you do.
I've done so, with both a relative and friend with PhD. If they're wrong about the outrageous idea that propelling mass directly away from collision reduces impact then try to find someone to say so. Contentious ideas need proof. Not ones in gcse textbooks. Are you going to heckle all day or go out and actually learn something about the subject?
-
I've done so, with both a relative and friend with PhD.
I don't think asking your mates quite rates with the scientific community.
-
You don't get to call your portrayal scientific when you not only leave out the important bits that contradict your view, but refuse to even listen when someone tells you what you have missed.
Ah... but I'm just a "pretend" scientist... (I might actually pass as a real Global Warming scientist... you know, the ones who assert without any doubt the planet is getting warmer and close their eyes and ears to any and all dissent and facts to the contrary)
I will further assert that as an adult with decades of experience, I have "mastered" the task of mobility, both on foot (aka walking) and driving a car.
However, If my "freedom" to either walk or drive depended on anything other than being able to give "superficial" explanations -- all in the guise of pretend science -- as to how one REALLY walks and/or drives a car, then I'd be doomed to sitting on my rear, locked away somewhere to practice the piano, assuming piano playing also was not vetted by one's true scientific knowledge of all the complex and multiple disciplines that go into it.
Ergo -- "ignorance is indeed bliss"
You guys have a good time hashing this out!
-
I don't think asking your mates quite rates with the scientific community.
Yes, I suppose they'll give any plonker a PhD in physics these days. I'm sure that you're far more qualified to have an opinion on whether I'm capable of applying gcse level physics about momentum, based solely on sentiment, than a doctor of the subject. Really, *** off and stop wasting everyone's time.
-
You just don't get it do you? Asking your mates, whether they have a PhD or not, isn't science! (and telling people to ***off hardly strengthens your case either)
-
Ah... but I'm just a "pretend" scientist... (I might actually pass as a real Global Warming scientist... you know, the ones who assert without any doubt the planet is getting warmer and close their eyes and ears to any and all dissent and facts to the contrary)
I will further assert that as an adult with decades of experience, I have "mastered" the task of mobility, both on foot (aka walking) and driving a car.
However, If my "freedom" to either walk or drive depended on anything other than being able to give "superficial" explanations -- all in the guise of pretend science -- as to how one REALLY walks and/or drives a car, then I'd be doomed to sitting on my rear, locked away somewhere to practice the piano, assuming piano playing also was not vetted by one's true scientific knowledge of all the complex and multiple disciplines that go into it.
Ergo -- "ignorance is indeed bliss"
You guys have a good time hashing this out!
Well here's the funny thing. When I realised that the on off approach is completely unnecessary and that it's perfectly safe to move with confidence rather than repression (as long as continuation is directed away into freedom rather than down into impact) I learned to play with both more confidence, more tonal control and less impact. Also, you've frequently told your selective piece of scientific advice to others. So it's okay for people to work around a piece of flawed superficial logic, but if someone explains a means to play with both greater confidence and less impact, then pianists ought to just get on with it without using science? You didn't seem to mind it when you were the one saying we should remember what science says (but missing part of the full picture).
Anything that encourages a student to be frightened of playing right through the escapement is going to do more to limit things than to open doors. All pianists should learn how to contact the keybed in a safe but positive fashion before going on to judge how to refine things to a deliberate minimum. As soon as you're playing loud, the only question is HOW you contact the keybed. A badly organised contact followed by release is useless compared to the value of learning a confident movement that by nature sends momentum up and away, rather than down into compression.
-
You just don't get it do you? Asking your mates, whether they have a PhD or not, isn't science! (and telling people to ***off hardly strengthens your case either)
Which is exactly why I openly invited you to run it by any physicist in the world and see whether you can persuade a single expert to disagree with what is a straightforward and direct GCSE level application of the law of conservation of momentum. Either do so or *** off and stop wasting everyone's time with irrational faith-based dissent, that you are incapable of putting a shred of substance behind (for the simple reason that only debunking classical mechanics itself could actually do so).
-
Which is exactly why I openly invited you to run it by any physicist in the world
No. You arrange for the peer review not us!
-
For anyone (other than the guilty parties) whose got this far... here, on me....
(https://i1.huffpost.com/gen/1184497/thumbs/s-SCOTCH-large.jpg)
-
No. You arrange for the peer review not us!
If the idea (propelling mass away from a point of collision results in less impact than directing it right in ) requires a peer review, I can only presume that you also demand a peer review if someone tells you that it's more painful to fall to the floor than to walk. *** off and buy a gcse textbook.
-
I'm here just to say..... Shut up you freakin idiot. Lol
-
We do know some things.
We do know that musicians tend to be superstitious.
We do know that few of them have a scientific background, which is not at all the same thing.
We do know that tone in the context of passage work and chords is easily distinguishable even by less sophisticated listeners. How exactly these tone differences are produced is a matter of uncertainty, but clearly a number of influences exist - articulation, voicing, nuances of dynamics, etc.
The argument is over whether notes played individually, without being in context, can be varied in tone but without changing the volume. And the debate on these last few pages has been about physics and math, rather than experimental evidence. (as an engineer I cringe over some of those posts - I do understand math and Newton - but it's not relevant)
Now I'll assert something few musicians agree with, but that has some degree of self evidence.
When you do an experiment of this type, where you try to observe differences whether from listeners or laboratory measuring equipment, you want to minimize contributing factors, sources of additional variance. For example, if you were comparing a concert pianist with an auto mechanic using a pencil, you'd not want to have one play a Bechstein grand and the other a Wurlitzer spinet. You'd want to use the same note on the same piano at the same volume.
Here is the assertion: as you minimize the other factors, a real difference becomes more apparent, and an illusory one becomes less apparent. Does that make sense?
Where is the experimental evidence that listeners can hear a tone difference when a single note is played, and other factors are controlled? It seems to be totally absent.
Yet when we complicate the listening with advanced repertoire, suddenly we claim to hear these tone differences. The worse we make the experiment, the more we think we hear differences. That is diagnostic.
-
At last - a comment in this thread that I can agree with. Well said!
-
Here is a simple experiment.
Take 9 concert pianists and one auto mechanic with a pencil (eraser end of a Number 2 standard office pencil)
Each of the ten will play middle C one time and will hold the note for 2 seconds at about a mezzo forte -- the auto mechanic gets a few minutes of tutorial and practice on this with a little arrow Post-it note on the fall board pointing to middle C. (Should they require it, the concert pianists may also reference the Post-it note.)
Then CONCEALED BEHIND A CURTAIN AND ON THE SAME PIANO, each one of the ten will come out in random order and play their one note. All ten will be anonymous to the audience with the sole qualifier that 9 are professionals and one is a rank beginner.
An announcer will simply say before each "performance": "Sample 1", "Sample 2", "Sample 3", etc. and this will be the only sound other than the "samples" themselves.
It will then be the task of a small audience of competent, experienced pianists to listen to and grade the ten Middle C samples and pick the professionals VS the auto mechanic with his pencil.
I would bet a large amount of money on the very high failure rate of the audience to successfully discern the difference.
The auto mechanic may well find he has a new career path opening.
-
Take 9 concert pianists and one auto mechanic with a pencil (eraser end of a Number 2 standard office pencil)
You could do this, but the gold standard in product testing is the triangle test.
One pianist, one auto mechanic, but 3 notes. (either the pianist plays two and the mechanic one, or vice versa)
Repeat ten times.
The audience task is to identify which of three notes sounds different at a percentage above chance.
-
You could do this, but the gold standard in product testing is the triangle test.
And if the auto-mechanic is determined to be "professional" by the jury, does he get prize money, a record deal and European tour? :o
I think this would only be fair.
-
Clearly, the auto mechanic takes his work seriously.... I think he will be a contender!!
(https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/2/3/1233698744334/Every-good-boy-deserves-f-003.jpg)
-
Here is a simple experiment.
Take 9 concert pianists and one auto mechanic with a pencil (eraser end of a Number 2 standard office pencil)
Each of the ten will play middle C one time and will hold the note for 2 seconds at about a mezzo forte -- the auto mechanic gets a few minutes of tutorial and practice on this with a little arrow Post-it note on the fall board pointing to middle C. (Should they require it, the concert pianists may also reference the Post-it note.)
Then CONCEALED BEHIND A CURTAIN AND ON THE SAME PIANO, each one of the ten will come out in random order and play their one note. All ten will be anonymous to the audience with the sole qualifier that 9 are professionals and one is a rank beginner.
An announcer will simply say before each "performance": "Sample 1", "Sample 2", "Sample 3", etc. and this will be the only sound other than the "samples" themselves.
It will then be the task of a small audience of competent, experienced pianists to listen to and grade the ten Middle C samples and pick the professionals VS the auto mechanic with his pencil.
I would bet a large amount of money on the very high failure rate of the audience to successfully discern the difference.
The auto mechanic may well find he has a new career path opening.
I think your experiment would become more interesting if some kind of artistic requirements were set for that one tone. Anybody who does not receive that kind of requirement will just hit the key like the average piano tuner in a neutral fashion which is something unnatural and not very akin to what happens when a pianist is inspired and executes a sound image he expects. Not many pianists can do that for one tone, I admit, but make sure to invite Katsaris, Radu Lupu, Volodos and Sokolov. They can deal with such a task.
I can also imagine that forte in open pedal would be more valuable to test than just mezzo forte with no pedal because it's in the forte range that most of the ugliness in piano playing tends to occur.
-
I think your experiment would become more interesting if some kind of artistic requirements were set for that one tone.
Fine with me. You can put up 9 of the greatest pianists of all time and one very good auto mechanic who can tap a small cylinder into a bearing assembly, with a tiny 100 gram ball ping hammer located in a difficult to access area adjacent to the engine mount of a 1998 Ferrari.
Then decide what you want... forte with pedal down... mf with no pedal... what have you, so all ten perform the same instruction.
REMEMBER.... NO ONE on the jury is to know anything other than 9 of the contestants are pianists and one is not. (minor modification to rule) and that this is all the jury knows about the players.
Therefore, no visuals involved, all behind a curtain between the jury and contestants... so they can't see any inspired glances, arm waving, passionate demeanor, etc.
Just the sound of the one note.
-
Fine with me. You can put up 9 of the greatest pianists of all time and one very good auto mechanic who can tap a small cylinder into a bearing assembly, with a tiny 100 gram ball ping hammer located in a difficult to access area adjacent to the engine mount of a 1998 Ferrari.
Then decide what you want... forte with pedal down... mf with no pedal... what have you, so all ten perform the same instruction.
REMEMBER.... NO ONE on the jury is to know anything other than 9 of the contestants are pianists and one is not. (minor modification to rule) and that this is all the jury knows about the players.
Therefore, no visuals involved, all behind a curtain between the jury and contestants... so they can't see any inspired glances, arm waving, passionate demeanor, etc.
Just the sound of the one note.
Of course, of course. I just hope you also invite really experienced listeners among the audience/jury.
P.S.: I have more than enough confidence in the artists I mentioned to put money on this experiment, provided they receive an ARTISTIC goal. In that case, however, the odds are against your mechanic. :)
-
If the idea (propelling mass away from a point of collision results in less impact than directing it right in )
I get it - it's some kind of Koan. In response I'm supposed to turn my tea cup upside down or something?
-
P.S.: I have more than enough confidence in the artists I mentioned to put money on this experiment, provided they receive an ARTISTIC goal. In that case, however, the odds are against your mechanic.
Of course this would be hard to pull off in real life, getting artists together, jury pool, etc.
But what we could do would be a reasonable approximation of this test here.
Let's say, I go through recordings on youtube of 10 professionals and amateurs alike and pick a piece of music they all play, and pull out just one note... say a middle c... and have them merged into a recording of 10 performances of that same note, and anyone here is free to guess who is the professional and who is the amateur.
Some editing would have to be involved, obviously, to pull out just the single note played and string the 10 "performances" into one recording. We could adjust the volume on all so it is the same, and nothing else or not....
Then after all the guesses are tabulated, I'd release the identities of the performers and website addresses of the playing from whence the "middle C's" were extracted.
Would this be fair?
-
I think your experiment would become more interesting if some kind of artistic requirements were set for that one tone.
It would be more useful if they could make the tone not only different, but better in an artistic sense.
However, I would be happy with data that they could make the tone different in any way.
If there really is a difference, why are we still arguing? Why doesn't somebody just post a link to these experiments? I can post a link to the similar Smith paper for brass instruments.
-
We could adjust the volume on all so it is the same, and nothing else or not....
The volume at which the note is originally played affects the strength of the overtones. You could take a piannissimo note and a fortissimo note and adjust them to the same volume, but they would sound distinctly different.
-
Of course this would be hard to pull off in real life, getting artists together, jury pool, etc.
But what we could do would be a reasonable approximation of this test here.
Let's say, I go through recordings on youtube of 10 professionals and amateurs alike and pick a piece of music they all play, and pull out just one note... say a middle c... and have them merged into a recording of 10 performances of that same note, and anyone here is free to guess who is the professional and who is the amateur.
Some editing would have to be involved, obviously, to pull out just the single note played and string the 10 "performances" into one recording. We could adjust the volume on all so it is the same, and nothing else or not....
Then after all the guesses are tabulated, I'd release the identities of the performers and website addresses of the playing from whence the "middle C's" were extracted.
Would this be fair?
The problems with such recordings wouldn't make the experiment very objective: different locations (hence acoustics), different instruments, different recording equipment, microphones often set up so unbelievably amateurish (especially in life concerts, etc.)... I have my doubts about the validity of such an approach. A single "middle C" is hard to find isolated in the repertoire, I think, so you would have to filter out context and lose part of the "beauty" of that one tone you want to single out, etc. I think that the main conditions should be the same for everybody to get objective results.
P.S.: I'm not against your trying that; just reserved about the outcome.
-
The volume at which the note is originally played affects the strength of the overtones. You could take a piannissimo note and a fortissimo note and adjust them to the same volume, but they would sound distinctly different.
Well that's right.
Probably a fair test would be to simply extract 10 middle Cs from ten performers ( and maybe have more than one amateur) and that way the full "artistic" quality of those 10 single note performances would be as the artists and amateurs played them.
And unedited performance of single notes should give the believers of the true pianist's tone being superior to the amateur's should thereby be discernible to those who claim this so, and the result of the challenge would be self evident as to who can and cannot tell the difference, if at all.
-
so you would have to filter out context and lose part of the "beauty" of that one tone you want to single out
But you've hit on the precise point: the claim is that a single note played by a true pianist has sufficient quality to STAND ON ITS OWN and be superior to the amateur or even non-pianist.
I say this is not true.
I say that the velocity of the hammer alone (aside from keeping the damper off the string) determines all "quality" aspects of a single played note.
-
But you've hit on the precise point: the claim is that a single note played by a true pianist has sufficient quality to STAND ON ITS OWN and be superior to the amateur or even non-pianist.
I say this is not true.
I say that the velocity of the hammer alone (aside from keeping the damper off the string) determines all "quality" aspects of a single played note.
A single tone can stand on its own, yes, but if you filter a tone isolated from the function it had within a certain context, it will no longer be that same tone on its own (it loses overtones).
You have to test what you promise you will test without modifying anything. Accoustics where that one tone can thrive should also be a requirement, so I'm afraid I'll have to reject the idea with recordings completely. Many digital recordings give me the impression I am listening to MIDI, not to people.
-
@ pts1:
I can tell you in advance where Ortmann will go flat on his face in the experiment. For him, there are two types of touch: "percussive" and "follow-through". He assumes that if you lift a finger that the result will be "percussive" when it comes down. This is certainly not true. That's why I wanted the artists I mentioned to come and prove that it is not true and I'm 100% positive that they will get more useful overtones in their tone than the ones who start at the key surface. Ortmann misses a whole gray area that can't be measured between "percussive" and "follow-through" where all the magic happens. :)
Edited: added the word "useful".
-
pts1:
I like your experiment, but you are missing one important factor - what if the mechanic is a natural at producing good tone at the piano? Better would be to do this experiment with nine pianists famous for their amazing tone and one pianist who has unequivocally bad and harsh tone.
-
Or one pianist who claims he/she can vary the tone.
-
And the debate on these last few pages has been about physics and math, rather than experimental evidence. (as an engineer I cringe over some of those posts - I do understand math and Newton - but it's not relevant)
As an engineer how you can make such a sweeping statement? What type of engineer? I'm going to detail the very real basis why it would be more improbable to think there is literally no variety possible in a very loud note played into a depressed pedal, than to feel that difference is possible. And if you're a genuine engineer who sincerely feels mechanics is irrelevant, then you can show your engineer balls by specifically debunking its relevance:
Anyway, I'm not going to go into the hammer itself but solely into the keybed thump. It is open to proof that this can be varied indepedently of the musical sound, which is why it would be staggering if it played no role in generating an overtone series, when acting forcefully into a depressed pedal. Also, while science can only isolate by working in single notes, this thud would logically be even more pronounced in thick chords. I've heard a concert where I could easily isolate all the thudding noises from the musical sounds, of a really badly percussive player.
Anyway, see the second group of diagrams at the start of this post:
https://pianoscience.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/tonal-control-efficiency-and-health.html
In the situation where the knuckle is collapsing inward, it moves in faster than the key. Thus considerable energy is travelling towards collision without helping to generate any keyspeed. In the situation where the knuckle is expanding up and away, no arm momentum is necessarily sending any energy in the direction of collision whatsoever- thus there is much less of a heavy blow for the same level of hammer acceleration. The key is accelerated far more efficiently and with neglible momentum arriving at the keybed beyond that carried by the key itself. I can play very loud this way, without sending any arm momentum spiralling down into a thud- which some very bad pianists always do in even moderately loud playing. The more they collapse the hand towards the keybed, the more they have to send energy whacking into the keybed, despite the collapse also reducing how much sound they achieve.
Beyond any doubt there is scope to make notable difference in the energy level that collides with the keybed (as well as to choose whether that energy which does travel is allowed to continue into an aftershock, or be rebounded up and away from the point of landing). This is possible independently of the level of tone produced inside the instrument. It is completely irrational to suppose that there's only one intensity of thud which would always have to correspond to a given level of pianistic volume. Inefficient acceleration with considerable knuckle collapse sends vastly more energy towards collision, but fails miserably to translate the best part of the travelling momentum into hammer acceleration (due to the key failing to reach a speed that is as fast as the knuckle reaches in vain). And I didn't even mention the difference between a locked arm and a loose one, as a shock absorber.
So, perhaps you'd like to either rethink this nonsense or give a detailed description of why you as an engineer are supposedly in a position to casually dismiss these MAJOR issues from the very possibility of playing a role? On an empirical level, some experiments have indeed found differences and I've read some scientists saying that even Ortmann's data showed a number of visible differences that he chose to ignore. Given how much the thump can clearly be varied, it's madness to think that nobody could ever make enough difference to be recorded on a sensitive device, during loud attacks. Clearly, anyone who speaks of sound always being the same has simply made a subjective judgement of what is not literally "the same" but "same enough". That's not adequate science to hang anything on. Anyway, what is needed to make the differences truly unmissable on paper is that the volume must be extreme and the pedal must be held to be sure it will register in overtones too. No experiment which does not satisfy these requirements can be used to either "disprove" that an audible keythump happens in loud playing, or that a good player can soften it while still playing loud.
PS. To give another practical example, go and play a legato melody with a very short staccato but with pedal. Does it sound anything like the same as legato?
-
N:
Having looked through your site, while I agree that a collapsing knuckle is quite undesirable and is a failure of support/structure, this statement I think is simply wrong:
ii) If a finger starts with any curvature, any shortening of the distance between fingertip and knuckle during key depression counts as a "negative movement". Any expansion of the distance is a "positive movement".
Since fine motor hand skill primarily originates with the intrinsic muscles which makes the hand feel somewhat "disembodied, and independent" of the wrist and arm (when the arm is held lightly floating flexibly level with the key tops or thereabouts.)
You will notice in films, or perhaps yourself, that during fast passage work on the key, the finger tip pulls down and a tiny bit inward on the key. This is natural and in this instance, the distance you state as negative movement is in error since the distance between the finger tip and the knuckle is slightly diminished. (this in no way is to be confused with tightly curling the fingers which would then have the flexor digitorum profundus become the primary mover which in turn slows everything down and causes tension... a definite negative movement)
-
Here's a recording of Michelangeli in which you can see the on-the-key playing in which the slight pulling of the key with the finger tip pulling down and in, shortening the distance between finger tip and knuckle
-
N:
Having looked through your site, while I agree that a collapsing knuckle is quite undesirable and is a failure of support/structure, this statement I think is simply wrong:
Since fine motor hand skill primarily originates with the intrinsic muscles which makes the hand feel somewhat "disembodied, and independent" of the wrist and arm (when the arm is held lightly floating flexibly level with the key tops or thereabouts.)
You will notice in films, or perhaps yourself, that during fast passage work on the key, the finger tip pulls down and a tiny bit inward on the key. This is natural and in this instance, the distance you state as negative movement is in error since the distance between the finger tip and the knuckle is slightly diminished. (this in no way is to be confused with tightly curling the fingers which would then have the flexor digitorum profundus become the primary mover which in turn slows everything down and causes tension... a definite negative movement)
I'm talking specifically of a type of movement done in a more direct type of path. If the knuckle stays balanced and the distance closes by retraction of the tip, arguably it is indeed exempt from the principle. I think I mentioned some context elsewhere, but thanks for pointing that out. I'll double check the exact wordings, to be sure that it clarifies what situations I'm applying it to. I may have clarified further later in the post but not at the start, as I recall, but I'll double-check.
However, on a practical level what you speak of is problematic for a different reason. It's SO indirect that a fingertip acts virtually completely horizontally if closing, unless flat-fingered. So only a tiny component of any such movement from the final joint contributes acceleration. It's still a very inefficient way to get tone, for this separate reason- compared to what the knuckle can do, as primary instigator. For that reason, I do not personally consider it desirable for normal playing, but only for special effects. I either straighten the joints actively or passively, normally, with only the knuckle acting to close. I felt a lot of strain in the days where I normally tried to close in fingertips. Since dropping that intent (so the tip is pulled purely by the knuckle, with the other joints lengthening to allow a direct descent), playing is far easier. I've written a post all about this issue, primarily regarding joints collapsing, where I give a lot more context on why I don't favour movements of that kind as the norm, but as an exception.
Regardless, it's certainly a valid point so I'll double-check exactly what I wrote and make sure of clarification.
-
PS. To give another practical example, go and play a legato melody with a very short staccato but with pedal. Does it sound anything like the same as legato?
Well, now you are most likely asking too much of your audience. ;D
On a side note. Did you know that you can even suggest pedal usage (without actually pedaling) by using the repetition mechanism on a grand? This mechanism was not solely invented to repeat the same notes fast, but instead to get in closer contact with the string without the dampers spoiling everything by breaking off the sound. Alas, few pianists who even know how to use it. It is one of the most elementary but at the same time one of the hardest things to master.
-
Well, now you are most likely asking too much of your audience. ;D
On a side note. Did you know that you can even suggest pedal usage (without actually pedaling) by using the repetition mechanism on a grand? This mechanism was not solely invented to repeat the same notes fast, but instead to get in closer contact with the string without the dampers spoiling everything by breaking off the sound. Alas, few pianists who even know how to use it. It is one of the most elementary but at the same time one of the hardest things to master.
Sure, I saw Volodos play a remarkably controlled long trill (in the slow movement of the Rachamaninoff 2nd before the recap) without a touch of pedal. Remarkably brave to depend solely on that possibility. Personally, I also like the idea of using the middle pedal as a replacement for the sustain pedal for Bach- so you achieve legato without any of the associated overtones. It's a real test of the precision of legato pedalling.
-
PS. To give another practical example, go and play a legato melody with a very short staccato but with pedal. Does it sound anything like the same as legato?
I hope that's not what I think it is. The pedal down both times? It'll be identical, duh.
-
I hope that's not what I think it is. The pedal down both times? It'll be identical, duh.
Assuming the piano action and keybed thump are silent, yes. They're not though. Why not upload a recording of a beautiful melody played pizzicato into the pedal, with one finger?
-
Yes, why not? And, are you saying there's a thump with staccato but not legato? That's certainly not true. The only difference is in the length of the notes - and the pedal makes those equal.
-
@ hardy_practice
The sound quality you get from finger legato and pedal legato is quite different. You really can't replace the former with the latter because it will be audible for the experienced listeners, even if you are a pedal virtuoso with the greatest command over the fingertips.
-
We're talking about having the pedal fully down in both instances - staccato and legato.
-
And we want not a hint of harshness in our legato. We want to blend it in to the ears.
-
I said pretty much this same thing last time the discussion came up, but I've still not heard a counter-argument...
It's obvious that different approaches to the key can make a difference to the sound. At the very least, the amount of sound a finger makes as it strikes the key surface is a factor. Whether this is significantly audible in context is an entirely different question (excluding extreme cases - and we've all heard fingernails on keys in recital, for instance).
And given that the degree of audibility is likely to be quite small in most practical comparisons, doesn't it make far more sense to concentrate on the (also obvious) overriding factor of relative loudness between simultaneous and successive notes?
Or to put it more succinctly - who cares?
-
Or to put it more succinctly - who cares?
Because there IS such a thing as good tone. Learning it will be easier for some people if they know how it is really accomplished, which has nothing to do with how you strike the individual keys, but as you pointed out, the other factors.
For people with other learning styles it doesn't make any difference and there is no need to care.
-
Or to put it more succinctly - who cares?
You're right it's angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff.
-
To show that velocity is not the only variable that affects tone, they should just do an experiment where a machine hits a key, keeping velocity at the moment of impact constant, but varying acceleration.
Also, can I start another thing? All of you are terrible at physics. ;) ;) ;D 8)
-
By the way, I do certainly care about the general concept of tone. And I may be terrible at physics now after several years of not using it much, but I did once get a degree in it from a respectable university :)
-
By the way, I do certainly care about the general concept of tone. And I may be terrible at physics now after several years of not using it much, but I did once get a degree in it from a respectable university :)
Nice, which country?
-
To show that velocity is not the only variable that affects tone, they should just do an experiment where a machine hits a key, keeping velocity at the moment of impact constant, but varying acceleration.
Also, can I start another thing? All of you are terrible at physics. ;) ;) ;D 8)
Modify that to ensuring that the machine has the same velocity at the moment of hammer release (which is not the same as impact at either keybed or key surface) and vary acceleration from none (machine has reached full speed before even striking the key, starting from a distance) to maximum (machine starts from the key surface and accelerates to maximum speed during the descent). They should also experiment with having the machine going faster at impact with the key surface than at the point of hammer release.
They should also experiment with how much mass hits the keybed, have the machine drop between a few grams (the weight of a finger) to several kilos (the weight of a whole arm) drop right onto the keybed with no braking.
I'll eat my hat if not all these factors have an effect on tone.
-
They should also experiment with how much mass hits the keybed, have the machine drop between a few grams (the weight of a finger) to several kilos (the weight of a whole arm) drop right onto the keybed with no braking.
I'll eat my hat if not all these factors have an effect on tone.
I'm not a physicist but I don't think you will have your hat on your stomach as to my knowledge the laws of physics state that acceleration is proportional to the force.
(https://www.learnwithmac.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/fma.png)
The acceleration of the key will definitely impact the sound within the dynamic range of the piano (=before you "hurt" the piano)
Now the a (acceleration) in case of a drop is the acceleration caused by g (9,82 km/s2), representing gravitational pull by the earth.
to several kilos (the weight of a whole arm)
This might be a bit too much as the required force to press a key is in the region of a factor 1000 less then a force created by dropping kilo's in a gravity field (the weight of the key is measured in grams). Of course an arm drop by a pianist doesn't cause to drop his whole arm off.
and vary acceleration from none (machine has reached full speed before even striking the key, starting from a distance) to maximum (machine starts from the key surface and accelerates to maximum speed during the descent). They should also experiment with having the machine going faster at impact with the key surface than at the point of hammer release.
Now you are talking about the force changing over time (the acceleration is changing). If that is the case we need the laws of Momentum and impulse (of which F=ma is a special case namely when a is constant)
Associated formulas
(https://msclantonsphysicalsciencepage.weebly.com/uploads/6/4/7/0/6470542/3926778_orig.jpg?451)
Impulse ( a is not constant):
(https://physics.bgsu.edu/~stoner/p201/impulse/img004.JPG)
In case of changing m or a you need to integrate over these values in function of time. (This also applies for every change in the component perpendicular to the key as they are vectorial units (hitting from the side)
So the end result will be that in all these different cases the force applied to the key will be different and should within the dynamic range of the key and the components of the key up unto the snare have logically speaking a different acceleration and thus a different tonal result (at least in volume).
This is all physics for before the key is hit. The Physics from when the key starts to move and the hammer hits the snare are much more difficult.
Everyone can verify for him/herself that 90 % of the statements in this thread ignore these 3 most simple laws of physics.
-
I'm not a physicist but I don't think you will have your hat on your stomach as to my knowledge the laws of physics state that acceleration is proportional to the force.
(https://www.learnwithmac.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/fma.png)
The acceleration of the key will definitely impact the sound within the dynamic range of the piano (=before you "hurt" the piano)
Now the a (acceleration) in case of a drop is the acceleration caused by g (9,82 km/s2), representing gravitational pull by the earth.
This might be a bit too much as the required force to press a key is in the region of a factor 1000 less then a force created by dropping kilo's in a gravity field (the weight of the key is measured in grams). Of course an arm drop by a pianist doesn't cause to drop his whole arm off.
Now you are talking about the force changing over time (the acceleration is changing). If that is the case we need the laws of Momentum and impulse (of which F=ma is a special case namely when a is constant)
Associated formulas
(https://msclantonsphysicalsciencepage.weebly.com/uploads/6/4/7/0/6470542/3926778_orig.jpg?451)
Impulse ( a is not constant):
(https://physics.bgsu.edu/~stoner/p201/impulse/img004.JPG)
In case of changing m or a you need to integrate over these values in function of time. (This also applies for every change in the component perpendicular to the key as they are vectorial units (hitting from the side)
So the end result will be that in all these different cases the force applied to the key will be different and should within the dynamic range of the key and the components of the key up unto the snare have logically speaking a different acceleration and thus a different tonal result (at least in volume).
This is all physics for before the key is hit. The Physics from when the key starts to move and the hammer hits the snare are much more difficult.
Everyone can verify for him/herself that 90 % of the statements in this thread ignore these 3 most simple laws of physics.
I don't think you've applied anything you've stated correctly.
-
I don't think you've applied anything you've stated correctly.
I didn't intend to apply anything. I'm just pointing out that anyone who feels the urge to explain this must take into account these 3 basic laws of physics otherwise the conclusion will be wrong. They do play a roll in some way as we are a talking about accelerating and applying force.
-
I didn't intend to apply anything. I'm just pointing out that anyone who feels the urge to explain this must take into account these 3 basic laws of physics otherwise the conclusion will be wrong. They do play a roll in some way as we are a talking about accelerating and applying force.
When it was said, or assumed, that the velocity of the hammer when it hits the strings is the primary factor affecting sound, F=ma was indirectly being applied. The hammer transfers momentum over a short period of time, applying a force. You are mixing up the force we care about when you say the 'acceleration is proportional to the force.' The focus is more on the force you hit the key with/the force the key applies to the strings, not the force being applied to your arm/hand/whatever. The more relevant force actually depends more on velocity rather than acceleration.
And it's actually only 1 law you've cited, not three, p=mv is another form of F=ma.
-
When it was said, or assumed, that the velocity of the hammer when it hits the strings is the primary factor affecting sound, F=ma was indirectly being applied. The hammer transfers momentum over a short period of time, applying a force. You are mixing up the force we care about when you say the 'acceleration is proportional to the force.' The focus is more on the force you hit the key with/the force the key applies to the strings, not the force being applied to your arm/hand/whatever. The more relevant force actually depends more on velocity rather than acceleration.
The point is that this velocity is the consequence of an acceleration. There is no such thing as velocity alone creating a force. (examples: neutrino (almost massless and even now they are hitting you at high speed but there is no interaction because of the next to nothing mass of the neutrino)
And i was only talking about the physics from before the hammer goes to the strings i.e. I was talking about the hand / arm transferring force / impulse / momentum to the key within the dynamic range.
And it's actually only 1 law you've cited, not three, p=mv is another form of F=ma.
I thought i mentioned that in my post no?
-
The acceleration of the key will definitely impact the sound within the dynamic range of the piano (=before you "hurt" the piano)
It's unclear to me what you mean or what your point is. Care to elaborate?
Now the a (acceleration) in case of a drop is the acceleration caused by g (9,82 km/s2), representing gravitational pull by the earth.
If you mean the acceleration of the falling arm, then yes. The acceleration of the key will vary depending on what height you drop the arm from.
This might be a bit too much as the required force to press a key is in the region of a factor 1000 less then a force created by dropping kilo's in a gravity field (the weight of the key is measured in grams). Of course an arm drop by a pianist doesn't cause to drop his whole arm off.
It is certainly ill adviced to use more force than necessary. What I am trying to do is arguing against the statement that the way you physically approach a note does not have any effect on tone as long as the speed of the hammer remains the same. My argument is that a pianist crashing the mass of their whole arm into the keybed will have worse tone the ones that don't, because the impact thud will affect the vibration of the strings. The suggestion you are discussing is an experiment to test that. Maybe I was a bit vague in that part of my description.
Now you are talking about the force changing over time (the acceleration is changing). If that is the case we need the laws of Momentum and impulse (of which F=ma is a special case namely when a is constant)
Associated formulas
Do the associated physics matter though? What I am interested in is investigating how different ways of striking the key will affect tone, provided the hammer speed at the moment of release is the same.
So the end result will be that in all these different cases the force applied to the key will be different and should within the dynamic range of the key and the components of the key up unto the snare have logically speaking a different acceleration and thus a different tonal result (at least in volume).
You mean hitting the key from above with the same velocity as you want it to have at the moment of hammer release will send the key flying faster due to impacts n stuff? In that case, modify the constant speed drop to such a speed that the hammer release will be at the same speed as it would be in the accelerated version of the experiment.
What I am getting at is not so much how the forces vary but how touching/hitting the instrument in different ways affect the vibration of the strings post impact of the hammer, and thus have an influence over tone.
-
Pianoplayer002, I completely agree with your statements. Just wanted to point out that the physics part is quite complicated and thus it is very hard to give a definitive answer to the question. Some posters seem to ignore this and put up incredible "truths" not backed up by physics. So some testing would certainly help. Once again I'm pretty sure you can keep your hat on.
-
-
-
For me, any technical detail taken out of music context would be a waste of time.
A few years ago I attended an all Chopin recital of Mr. Ax. That was by far the most boresome musical experience of my life I ever seen from ANY concert pianist. Yes, he played well and professional, and he did everything correct on a scholar level, but apparent lack of imagination, passion, colors, and... just simple talent doesn't make me trust anything he says, however correct (or for that matter incorrect) it is.
The whole building is built from bricks. In order to build a beautiful building there should be everything beautiful--each individual brick, and also its placement and role in the entire structure. If every brick is beautiful, but there is no structure, or it is taken out of context of entire structure then it doesn't make any sense, either.
In the end, everything one needs to know is how to take a single note correctly (i.e. put a certain amount of energy into it and then to know how to immediately release that energy, so the whole physical structure stays comfortable and relaxed), but also one needs to know which place that single note has in the context and the wave of phrase.
It is possible to talk about how to take single note. It is impossible to talk about it without certain context. We listen to music and its meaning, not a set of single notes (exactly what I heard in Mr. Ax own playing).
Best, M
Various pianists and teachers commented on the premise posed by Ax that it doesn't matter how you physically approach a note in terms of tone production (notwithstanding volume)
https://arioso7.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/does-approaching-notes-in-different-ways-at-the-piano-affect-tone-production/
-
It is possible to talk about how to take single note. It is impossible to talk about it without certain context. We listen to music and its meaning, not a set of single notes (exactly what I heard in Mr. Ax own playing).
Ax was arguing based on context, not in favour of single notes. Obviously that doesn't guarantee success on his part, but were you trying to use him as an example to imply that thinking about individual sounds will divorce them from the whole? He isn't actually in that camp.
-
I didn't intend to apply anything. I'm just pointing out that anyone who feels the urge to explain this must take into account these 3 basic laws of physics otherwise the conclusion will be wrong. They do play a roll in some way as we are a talking about accelerating and applying force.
What point are you saying you have contradicted? I can't even tell what side you are arguing for. All you've done is dispassionately list accurate information, without explaining what points you feel it contradicts or specifically how. I've seen people before talk of using more speed and less force before, which is obviously wrong (although the possibility of achieving more keyspeed with less force DURING THE FOLLOWING COLLISION BETWEEN KEY AND KEYBED is perfect real, which is why they are actually making a valid point, albeit rather carelessly). But nobody made that point here, that I recall seeing.
I assume you're arguing against the possibility of tone (which I can assume solely on the basis that the few laws you've selected, out of those which are relevant, don't offer any direct explanation) ? If so, go through this post and rubbish all the various points I make explaining how the keybed thump is tremendously subject to manipulation:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=56650.msg611127#msg611127
When people chime in to assert that tone is impossible, they always conveniently neglect such factors, before asserting that a drastically simplified model (which casually omits all the important parts) is supposedly fit to serve a basis for proof. It isn't. So if you're a skeptic, do things properly and debunk those points. Tim said he's an engineer and was casually dismissive about the relevance of mechanics. But ask him to give a meaningful basis to dismiss factors that he isn't considering and you hear nothing back. Are you a proper scientist or a casual cynic, who thinks that you can disprove something by only looking at the factors which are definably irrelevant, while ignoring the rest?
-
Tim said he's an engineer and was casually dismissive about the relevance of mechanics.
No. I'm more than casually dismissive about the ability of contributors on this thread to either understand or apply equations. Much of this has been pseudoscientific garbage.
But ask him to give a meaningful basis to dismiss factors that he isn't considering and you hear nothing back.
The original claim is that the tone of the string is produced solely by the speed of the hammer and cannot be separated from the volume of the note by varying the rate at which you accelerate the key.
That claim remains unchallenged.
The assertion that you can make greater or lesser key thumps, or associated other noise say by kicking the underside of the piano is probably true but unrelated to changing the tone of the string.
I have not measured the volume of a key thump but would be surprised if it is an appreciable fraction of the volume of the note. (except on a digital where you can turn the master volume very low and produce a piannissimo tone while crashing your hands onto the keybed)
-
Here are links to a couple of relevant experimental papers
https://www.speech.kth.se/prod/publications/files/999.pdf
https://www.ofai.at/~werner.goebl/papers/Goebl-Bresin-Galembo_JASA2005_PianoAction.pdf
-
No. I'm more than casually dismissive about the ability of contributors on this thread to either understand or apply equations. Much of this has been pseudoscientific garbage.
All mouth and no trousers? If I've been guilty of such gaffes, have the courtest to specificy them rather than allude.
The original claim is that the tone of the string is produced solely by the speed of the hammer and cannot be separated from the volume of the note by varying the rate at which you accelerate the key.
That claim remains unchallenged.
Yes, fair point. It all started when Ax defined that he was not actually speaking of the sounds as we hear them but rather a hypothetical situation in which the sound of the string is synthetically divorced from the sound perceived by the ear and isolated completely. And then we all made a consensus that we were discussing this theoretical sound that does not exist in reality rather than one that can be received by the ear.
Oh, hang on. Come to think of it, no such thing happened. That's one of the stupidest attempts to move the goal posts I've ever encountered. Why would ANYONE be discussing something so utterly irrelevant as a hypothetical isolation of sound that no human nor machine is capable of?!!!!! And it's not even true on your own irrational terms. Put the pedal down and kick the piano and the strings themselves vibrate. Give an almighty thump in loud chords and the sound is carried into the strings.
You're also ignoring that the manner of acceleration changes how the hammer moves. Kick a trolley or push it smoothly and release and it moves very differently. It's a nonsense that a moving body carries nothing but a mere speed. Hammers are not perfectly stiff and can bend or vibrate very differently based on how smoothly, they accelerate. Any self-respecting engineer should consider such issues before claiming it's straightforward. It isn't. It's one thing to debate whether these issues create tonal differences that can be detected. But to claim that science shows no basis in which you can vary anything but hammer velocity is just to hold an ignorant view, that fails to appreciate how much more is relevant. Ignorance is not a basis for dismissal. You have to prove such factors to be irrelevant.
I have not measured the volume of a key thump but would be surprised if it is an appreciable fraction of the volume of the note. (except on a digital where you can turn the master volume very low and produce a piannissimo tone while crashing your hands onto the keybed)
Actually, they matter the least on digitals. Because they are essentially independent of the sound. On a real instrument with a depressed pedal, they actively interact with the sound coming from the strings and influence it both directly and indirectly. So I suggest you put a little more of your engineer's knowledge into practise, before stating oversimplified nonsense as if it were conclusively agreed as unquestionable fact.
-
I am so glad i lack the intelligence to understand any of this crap.
I just hit the notes and hope for the best.
Thal
-
I am so glad i lack the intelligence to understand any of this crap.
I just hit the notes and hope for the best.
Thal
Exactly how it should be. The problem starts when a load of complete plonkers come along and assert a load of oversimplified nonsense that supposedly "proves" tone is impossible. And that it's "science" so anyone who believes otherwise believes in the paranormal. It's not science at all and these outrageous myths need to be put to bed so we can get on with playing in a way that involves caring abotu tone-production rather than pretending that science disproved such a thing.
-
If I've been guilty of such gaffes, have the courtest to specificy them rather than allude.
Same old crap. Where, I ask yet again, is your peer review? By your same argument I can say Unicorns exist - now prove they don't!
-
Same old crap. Where, I ask yet again, is your peer review? By your same argument I can say Unicorns exist - now prove they don't!
Taubman is widely peer reviewed according to wikipedia- yet their explanations are loaded with scientifically falsifiable nonsense. That's why you're far better off doing your own research into the subject. If I've made any definable errors, expose them. I couldn't care in the least what your opinion is, if you are not able to provide any specific basis for dispute. There is no evidence for unicorns. I gave you plenty of evidence to support everything I stated. It's not my problem if you haven't the understanding to set about either verifying or falsifying that evidence (and you wouldn't be interested in listening whoever were to confirm it).
Tim has said he's an engineer and he or anyone is welcome to highlight any objective errors or falsify anything I've stated, should they be able to find any grounds upon which to do so. I'm happy to discuss in terms of specifics, but I am not remotely interested in engaging any further on uninformed emotion-based speculations, presented without any rational evidence.
-
So can't disprove unicorns exist eh? or leprechauns for that matter. Now all I need do is write pages of drivel with plenty of hubris thrown in for good measure and my claim is made fact! Sadly, I've better things to do.
-
I am so glad i lack the intelligence to understand any of this crap.
It must be an epidemic because I also feel the same (in honor of the truth I must say that I didn't read everything as it bores me to death and fortunately I have more interesting things to do, such as actually obtaining real tones from the piano instead of arguing about them).
From inside this must be the most interesting forum tread in the world, it must be for the participants as they put a lot of energy and verb to it. From outside, this thread only looks like a pissing contest or a big heads competition at best.
Poor old Emanuel giving origin to this...
-
So can't disprove unicorns exist eh? or leprechauns for that matter. Now all I need do is write pages of drivel with plenty of hubris thrown in for good measure and my claim is made fact! Sadly, I've better things to do.
Which would all be fine, had I not explained my evidence in full. If you feel you are able to use universally accepted laws of mechanics (which are what I used to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that it's quite possible to vary the intensity of the key-bed thump at loud volumes of tone) to prove the existence of unicorns, I urge you to have a go. Don't worry about getting it peer reviewed first, as I'm quite certain that I'll be in a position to falsify your chain of logic at once.
If there's something wrong with mine, you can get off your backside and falsify it- rather than make speculations that really do come with as little supporting evidence as the unicorn. I'm not interested in arguing any further unless you have something of substance to contribute- rather than a poor analogy between the evidence of fully fleshed out chain of a logic, derived from accepted scientific laws, and a mythological creature for which no evidence exists.
-
If there's something wrong with mine, you can get off your backside and falsify it-
And you can get off your backside and falsify unicorns! They are obviously also bound by the same mechanical and scientific laws.
-
And you can get off your backside and falsify unicorns! They obviously take part in the same mechanical and scientific laws.
You didn't give supporting evidence for them. I detailed my reasoning in full, derived from directly from basic laws of physics. If you're not able to explicitly attack that reasoning head-on there is nothing to be discussed and we're done...
-
You didn't give supporting evidence for them. I detailed my reasoning in full. We're done...
Read the works of Newton dummy!
-
Read the works of Newton dummy!
*** off, troll. If you feel newton supports unicorns, detail how and I'll happily falsify your logic.
-
You don't get it. Your the one who has to prove unicorns don't exist by reading the complete work of Newton and thereby finding the flaw in my argument!
-
You don't get it. Your the one who has to prove unicorns don't exist by reading the complete work of Newton and thereby finding the flaw in my argument!
You didn't make an argument for me to debunk. I listed in full which laws I applied, to illustrate how you can achieve identical tonal intensity with a radically different level of energy going into collision at the keybed. It's not even indirect. It's the most direct application of the law of momentum itself- based on how varying the mass which proceeds into collision varies the total energy involved in that collision. If you think implying that something or other in Newton supports unicorns (and cannot even say what) is equivalent, you can go *** yourself.
I'm not wasting a further second on you, so write whatever witless response you like and then *** off. If anyone with a serious interest would like to make an informed criticism of anything I stated, however, you'd be more than welcome.
-
You didn't make an argument for me to debunk.
You'll have to take the empty rhetoric as given.
-
You two need to get a room.
Thal
-
(https://tekkytoys.com/images/products/dueilnbanjobuddies_lrg.png)
-
-
-
IMHO, a good LIVE experiment (no doctored sound samples!) would contain:
1) pianists that are known to have "good tone" vs those who sound rather "gray" in that respect;
2) an instrument that actually allows for those differences to be heard (I suspect that only a good Steinway grand under very capable hands qualifies;
3) a location with "workable" acoustics
4) an audience that is capable of detecting fine differences in sound nuances (could be verified/pre-tested before allowing them to participate in the actual experiment.
I don't think that's actually necessary. I think the experiment should actually be fairly easy to conduct.
Let's assume that tone is the result of the combination of different frequencies of sound being activated simultaneously. What combination isn't relevant here, just that some are more pleasant-sounding than others. If this is the case, then whether or not there is a difference in tone can be experimentally (and quantitatively) investigated by using a spectrum analyzer on the sound produced. If this is not the case, then someone needs to explain what they mean by tone that doesn't have to do with the relative magnitudes of sounds at different frequencies.
No need for an audience; keep in mind that once you introduce humans into measurement you also introduce any measuring errors by humans, who are notoriously inexact. There is a difference between whether or not there is a difference in tone with whether or not a given person is able to perceive it; there is also a difference between whether or not there is a difference in tone and what tone is good vs bad.
The experiment then is to have a competent pianist play a note under different methods, and see if there is any difference in the spectrum of sounds produced. The damper would be depressed prior to pressing the note, so that it does not affect the sound (i.e. we're not investigating how the damper lifting from the strings might change the sounds produced). The person would play the note with multiple intensities for each method, i.e. from soft to loud. The spectrum analyzer could then be used to match up which trials across different methods had the same volume, for example by looking at the magnitude of the frequency of the note being pressed (which I assume is the loudest).
Which methods to test then deserves some discussion. So far what I can think of is whether the finger is static and touching the key just prior (i.e. nonpercussive) versus hitting the key starting from a given height (i.e. percussive), and the finger going all the way down to the keybed versus (as much as possible) slowing down prior to reaching the keybed. In which case, I propose the following setups:
1. Thumb and forefinger together, straight, in "tweezer" position, pointing straight down on the key. This is to have as "stiff" a mechanism as possible, as if it were a hammer hitting the key.
2. Finger relatively straight, with the fleshy part facing the key, and then bending at the knuckle to contact the key.
3. Same as #2, but the action coming from curling the finger rather than the knuckle, as if "plucking" the key.
The reason for those different setups is that they should have different effects in terms of how much the fingers absorb the impact between the fingers and the key. Additionally, setup 3 should in theory have the least keybed pressure, because the finger is relatively straight as the key is being accelerated, but the curling action means that the finger is vertically decelerating very rapidly near the keybed. Keep in mind that each method has multiple trials, each with different intensities (since the pianist, being human, can't reproduce the same volume exactly each time), but it's fine because the resulting intensities can be "lined up" afterwards using the spectrum analyzer.
Alternately, I could take a hammer and (lightly!) hit the key with multiple intensities, and then put some soft padding on the key and repeat. I'd be wary of messing up the key though.
Anyway, I do have access to a Steinway Model B, and if we let me indulge in calling myself a competent pianist, I could record myself playing it under these various conditions and uploading the video and audio if people want. Anyone that has spectrum analyzer software can then analyze the audio track. I don't have a particularly good microphone though, it would be my digital camera, which has a video function. Would people be up for analyzing this?
-
-
-
1) There is no better spectrum analyzer than the human ear in sound ranges that are still meaningful for humans. In singing pedagogy, they are long past this kind of experiments. The human ear was right and "science" detected the so-called singing formant.
I disagree. For which tones are better than others, yes the human ear is better (at this qualitative judgment), but for whether or not a difference in tones, a spectrum analyzer is better, and it can measure this difference, as opposed to human "experts" arguing that they hear a difference because they see how the note was played etc. Consider that what you're implying is that there can be two sound samples, where a spectrum analyzer would show that both have the same spectrum profile, but the human ear can still tell that they're different. Do you believe this to be the case?
2) You seem to have forgotten acoustics as a factor.
No I haven't, even though I didn't talk about this explicitly. The samples would be from the same setup (in fact, possibly from the same recording). Acoustics would only be a factor only if they "drown out" the difference in tone produced by different playing methods. It does not matter if this particular location is acoustically better than another (i.e. if a piece sounds better or not in this location compared with at another location), as long as it affects different tones in roughly the same way. Remember, the question is not how good the tone is, it's whether or not a difference in tone exists based on how a single note is played, independent of loudness.
3) Please compare the sound result between a live concert (the tone "works" in the hall) and a recording of that same concert (the tone was trapped into a box and is unable to work the same way). There's too much that suggests that something valuable gets lost in the process. Inadequate equipment first of all and microphones that are put in the wrong places. Great artists work not only with the instrument but also with the acoustics.
For what it's worth, the piano is in Texas A&M's Flag Room. It's a large room with tables and couches and the piano in the corner. You can easily Google for a lot of images about the room (just "flag room A&M" as search terms is sufficient) , such as:
https://tamutimes.tamu.edu/files/2012/08/Piano-Flagroom1.jpg
Now granted, the microphone may be more objectionable, since I only have a digital camera to use as a microphone. Nevertheless, again, it's not a matter of whether or not the note sounded good, or how good it sounded; it's a matter of the relative magnitudes of different frequencies of sound. The microphone (or any, really) will have different sensitivities to different parts of the spectrum, but as long as it has the same sensitivity to the same part of the spectrum across the different tests, it will be fine. What I mean is that given two tones where the loudness at 440 Hz is the same, regardless of the loudness at other frequencies, the microphone will pick up the same loudness.
4) Can you make a tone that suggests that that tone has a past and a future? In his famous sonata, for example, Liszt gives ample opportunity for that (recitativo parts). This is very different from a piano tuner striking that same tone in a neutral fashion within the same dynamic range.
I claimed to be a competent pianist, not an expert one. Remember, we're talking about pressing a single note (and just once for each trial), not many notes in succession, at which point the relative strength between notes, the timing of each note, and the duration of each note comes into play. We're not even talking yet about how different techniques can affect how the damper is used, since the proposed setup is for the damper to be lifted the entire time; it is possible, for example, that non-percussive versus percussive playing affects how long the damper is lifted prior to the hammer striking the string, and this (minuscule) time difference affects the tone of the string, due to how much the string is still vibrating when it is struck by the hammer.
If you're able to find a pianist that is able to suggest "that that tone has a past and a future" on a single note, or if Liszt was able to provide ample opportunity for that in one of his pieces, please let us know if they're willing to be recorded -- although if you do find one, then it implies that an answer to this question has already been found, does it not?
-
-
-
IMHO, a good LIVE experiment (no doctored sound samples!) would contain:
1) pianists that are known to have "good tone" vs those who sound rather "gray" in that respect;
2) an instrument that actually allows for those differences to be heard (I suspect that only a good Steinway grand under very capable hands qualifies)*;
I think you're on the right track looking for experimental evidence and you seem to have an open mind for the results.
A couple of comments though:
Live is problematic because of the human factors. The variability introduced by a human can be much greater than the variability caused by the effect you are looking for (if it exists at all). We've run into this in the brass playing world; even the top players don't reproduce the same sound as closely as they think. Some experimenters use rubber lips to get a consistent sound but of course players reject that as artificial.
Second, if the effects you are looking for are so small they can only be found on the very rarest and best pianos played by the rarest and best performers, you have already defined them as vanishingly small, for all practical purposes nonexistent. But that isn't the claim, is it? Don't most people think tone changes are detectable on any piano played by anyone at intermediate or above? I could hear the difference between my beginner daughter playing and her teacher playing, through a closed door on a poorly maintained spinet. Of course I didn't believe it had anything to do with controlling the acceleration of the hammer! But the other factors, especially voicing and amount of overlap of legato do make a difference.
-
-
-
Anybody posted this yet?
The second experiment looked at key-keyframe sounds that occur when the key reaches key-bottom. Key-bottom impact was identified from key motion measured by a computer-controlled piano. Musicians were able to discriminate between piano tones that contain a key-bottom sound from those that do not. However, this effect might be attributable to sounds associated with the mechanical components of the piano action. In addition to the demonstrated acoustical effects of different touch forms, visual and tactile modalities may play important roles during piano performance that influence the production and perception of musical expression on the piano.
from: https://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/136/5/10.1121/1.4896461
Still, to repeat something I said pages ago, what does it matter? There are more important reasons to not keybed.
-
Anybody posted this yet?from: https://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/136/5/10.1121/1.4896461
Still, to repeat something I said pages ago, what does it matter? There are more important reasons to not keybed.
There is no choice. Keys land on keybeds and relaxing or pulling back within the fractions of a second achieves as much as turning off a car engine in the fractions of a second before hits a wall. It also introduces collossal margins of error that destroy control over sound. The only issue is whether you pile momentum down into the point of collision, or generate movement safely away from the point of landing (just like when a runners foot lands and he springs up, rather than collapse his body into the ground- except the ground doesn't have the cushioning shock absorber beneath like a key does).
It's really very easy to play loudly and safely, when you release that pulling back from the keybed is actually the worst thing you can do and that you simply need to try to push up and away from it rather than crush down. Being scared of it is the worst mindset any pianist can take. The only question is how, not whether you can avoid it. Perhaps you wouldn't keep going on about how modern grands are too hard for you, if you stopped simply trying to avoid keybeds and learned to contact them the right way?
-
There is no choice. Keys land on keybeds and relaxing or pulling back within the fractions of a second achieves as much as turning off a car engine in the fractions of a second before hits a wall.
Poor analogy. It's simply about applying the breaks before getting to the junction. Your model you bounce off the traffic light pole!
-
Poor analogy. It's simply about applying the breaks before getting to the junction. Your model you bounce off the traffic light pole!
I don't greatly care how it works in the analogy- because the equivalent to that is impossible to accomplish. In my model, I need hold absolutely nothing back in the cadenza of the rachmaninoff 1st concerto, yet I feel perfectly fine. If you want to try applying the brakes in that kind of writing, be sure to get a good doctor. Braking simply doesn't work. It's about the redirection of energy in the opposite direction to the landing.
-
My analogy is maybe not quite spot on - taking your foot off the accelerator and gearing down is probably more apt.
In my model, I need hold absolutely nothing back in the cadenza of the rachmaninoff 1st concerto, yet I feel perfectly fine...It's about the redirection of energy in the opposite direction to the landing.
The discussion is not about what you think you do!
-
My analogy is maybe not quite spot on - taking your foot off the accelerator and gearing down is probably more apt.
Indeed. As it doesn't notably reduce the travelling momentum until many seconds have passed, which is too late in loud pianism. When collisions are going to occur anyway, it's all about what you do during contact. Steering away and landing a glancing blow into a wall and then bumping off is better than cutting the engine or reducing the gear before coasting straight in heqd-on. Likewise, a pianist needs to actively propel movement away from the point of landing via a indirect angle plus active push off. Inactivity allows the momentum to plough straight into the impact. They put the cushion under the keybed for good reason. It's up to the pianist whether to spring away safely and positively or slump considerable momentum into it, while trying and failing to slow down in time.
-
Indeed. As it doesn't notably reduce the travelling momentum until many seconds have passed, which is too late in loud pianism.
I don't believe we're after a 'loud pianism' as we slow our vehicle down to a stop, we're following the law.
-
I don't believe we're after a 'loud pianism' as we slow our vehicle down to a stop, we're following the law.
You don't stop. There's a little law called conservation of momentum. The idea of slowing down a key in the milliseconds before the keybed is absolute fantasy- although the fact that you think this is possible certainly explains why so many note fail to sound completely in your youtube videos.
If you ever figure out how to play loudly on the heavy modern actions that you are constantly complaining about, you'll be in a position to have an opinion. Until then, I'm not going to waste any further time trying to have a serious discussion with someone who neither has the ability to play both loudly and safely, nor a mind that is open enough to appreciate how it can be achieved. I'll get on with actually doing it and leave you to complain about how those big Steinways are so horrible to your poor dainty little hands, whilst simultaneously pretending that you never reach a keybed.
-
You don't stop. There's a little law called conservation of momentum. The idea of slowing down a key in the milliseconds before the keybed is absolute fantasy-
You do know what an allegory is!? This isn't really about cars, it's about fingers/arms.
-
(https://lowres.cartoonstock.com/science-academic-academia-mathematicians-maths-equation-bwhn516_low.jpg)
-
You do know what an allegory is!? This isn't really about cars, it's about fingers/arms.
Which are immune to the law of momentum? They are actually want I use when I play full force FFFF with comfortable landings. Go and continue trying to turn lead into gold.
-
Which are immune to the law of momentum?
You have no idea the level of control we have over the playing mechanism. You confuse fingers/arms with keys! Yes, the body can do plenty within the milliseconds range.
-
Here are links to a couple of relevant experimental papers
https://www.speech.kth.se/prod/publications/files/999.pdf
https://www.ofai.at/~werner.goebl/papers/Goebl-Bresin-Galembo_JASA2005_PianoAction.pdf
"4. Conclusion
This study confirms that the difference between two equally loud piano tones due to type of touch lies in the different noise components involved in the keystroke [8, 9]. These noise components (i.e. finger–key noise) are audible when the key is struck, and absent when it is pressed down. This study provides a first systematic perceptual evaluation of whether musicians can aurally identify the type of touch that produced an isolated pi- ano tone, independently of hammer velocity. Our results suggest that only some musicians are able to distinguish between a struck and a pressed touch using the touch noises as cue, especially the finger–key noise that characterises a struck attack, whereas others could not tell any difference. Without those touch noises none of them could tell a difference anymore. When they could not hear the touch differences, they tend to rate louder tones as being struck, and soft tones as being pressed. We can only speculate about how the present findings generalise to a real-world concert situation (including pedals, rever- beration, reflections, and the listener at a certain distance away from the piano). In the light of the present results, we consider the pure aural effect of touch noises (exclud- ing visual and other cues) a rather small one."
The second article comes to the same conclusions and adds many other dimensions of mechanical sounds. It also notes that different pianos - Yamaha, Steinway, Bosendorfer - have different mechanical acoustic properties.
I also note that Fazioli's tone varies considerably from the aforementioned pianos. The action is very different: the hammer strikes the strings long before the key strikes the keybed. This may be the primary contributing factor to why Fazioli's sound delicate, because the 'thud' of the key striking the keybed is buried under the tone of the strings. The downside is that I have less control over the tone since the percussive effects all occur well after string strike.
-
On a real instrument with a depressed pedal, they [keythumps] actively interact with the sound coming from the strings and influence it both directly and indirectly.
You what? I feel that needs a bit of explanation.
Gosh, there's an awful lot of over-complication going on in this thread!
-
" In the light of the present results, we consider the pure aural effect of touch noises (exclud-ing visual and other cues) a rather small one."
Yes, a small effect. You can detect it, but it's small.
-
You have no idea the level of control we have over the playing mechanism. You confuse fingers/arms with keys! Yes, the body can do plenty within the milliseconds range.
So where is this remarkable coordination of split seconds, during the numerous notes in which you do not even succeed in timing the key depression well enough to produce any level of audible tone, within your numerous youtube films? If you can't time movement well enough to even make the keys sound all all with reliability, I wouldn't be too hopeful of managing to time a retraction to a few milliseconds, while playing loud. You don't even succeed in controlling the the tone when you pull back in piano dynamics, nevermind controlling both an exact application of force and a retraction (that is timed within milliseconds, to avoid spoiling the tonal result via retraction before escapement) during loud playing.
-
You what? I feel that needs a bit of explanation.
Gosh, there's an awful lot of over-complication going on in this thread!
Put the pedal down and kick the piano. The aftereffect is audible. Better still, if you have a broken key to whack, the collision itself is even louder than the echo carried by strings. This noise can be varied based on efficiency of speed transmission, as detailed in my recent blog posts. In something like loud octaves, this is not negligible. Especially in high pitched notes (as the thump is far lower and thus inhabits a different area of the sound spectrum). I've always been aware that I'm far more wary of thumping high notes with force than low ones. Bass notes are likely to disguise excess thump at least a little, whereas a thump to the treble is scarcely concealed.
A pre depressed pedal always exposes differences more. It's madness to do any scientific experiment without at least half of the results involving it. As long as it's already down., conditions of scientific controls are not breached at all. It baffles me that so few experiments that supposedly "disprove" tone fail to even involve open strings. Also, due to the frequency of thumps multiple registers must be tested before an experiment can be seen to have a shred of relevance to pianism in general.
-
-
-
So where is this remarkable coordination of split seconds, during the numerous notes in which you do not even succeed in timing the key depression well enough to produce any level of audible tone, within your numerous youtube films?
Throwing mud is a bit desperate isn't it? Also meaningless.
-
For one NEUTRAL tone out of context yes. However, those seemingly minor differences increase exponentially with the use of more tones in combination within an ARTISTIC context, especially in the forte range with open pedal. The differences become then noticeable for even the most untrained layman, although they may translate the experience of what they hear as "feeling", "imagination", "musicality", "talent", "genius", etc., while it is merely basic craft, not even art yet.
Of course. What makes a beautiful tone is the way sounds are combined over time, the way the onset of a new tone is matched to the decay of the previous tone, the way the illusions of legato and crescendo are constructed, voicing, phrasing, etc. That's why all this wrangling over the physics of the production of an isolated tone (particularly ill-spirited wrangling in the absence of experimental data) seems totally pointless. [Not that you are the one doing any ill-spirited wrangling.]
-
Of course. What makes a beautiful tone is the way sounds are combined over time, the way the onset of a new tone is matched to the decay of the previous tone, the way the illusions of legato and crescendo are constructed, voicing, phrasing, etc. That's why all this wrangling over the physics of the production of an isolated tone (particularly ill-spirited wrangling in the absence of experimental data) seems totally pointless. [Not that you are the one doing any ill-spirited wrangling.]
A single note can also sound dead and strangled, or achieve what the old masters called the "long vibration" which is the hallmark of good tone. here is an example where it is clear the way sounds are combined over time, illusions of legato, voicing, or phrasing has no part in tone:
Think of two pianists playing a piano concerto with an orchestra. One of them bangs and struggles and pounds the piano with all his might yet cannot manage to penetrate the orchestra with any clarity. The other one plays with remarkable effortlessness and is still clearly audible through the orchestra. The first pianist has bad tone, the second pianist has good tone.
-
Throwing mud is a bit desperate isn't it? Also meaningless.
Not really, when you claim to time within milliseconds yet can't even time well enough to get a key sounding. It shows how damaging it is to to play negatively rather learn to deal with keybed well enough to stay positive intent. Repression is what causes notes not to sound, which is why your whole premise is flawed.
-
A single note can also sound dead and strangled, or achieve what the old masters called the "long vibration" which is the hallmark of good tone. here is an example where it is clear the way sounds are combined over time, illusions of legato, voicing, or phrasing has no part in tone:
Think of two pianists playing a piano concerto with an orchestra. One of them bangs and struggles and pounds the piano with all his might yet cannot manage to penetrate the orchestra with any clarity. The other one plays with remarkable effortlessness and is still clearly audible through the orchestra. The first pianist has bad tone, the second pianist has good tone.
Great, if we are talking about single tones, then actually doing experiments of the sort I provided links to is possible. If purportedly tones produced by identical final hammer velocities can be reliably distinguished by listeners, then the question is resolved. I'm not sure the issue of projecting a concerto through an orchestra is relevant to the tone of a single note, and it would be quite hard to set up the relevant experiment. But for single notes, the experiments are doable, perhaps even done already.
-
For one NEUTRAL tone out of context yes. However, those seemingly minor differences increase exponentially with the use of more tones in combination within an ARTISTIC context, especially in the forte range with open pedal.
I'm not sure I understand why you think so.
The minor noises (key thud, chair squeak, etc.) would be less apparent when buried under many notes in forte with pedal, wouldn't they?
Whereas some of the voicing and articulation effects might be more obvious?
-
And by articulation I mean the overlap between notes. There are extremely subtle differences between performers for how portato and legato are executed.
(last night while warming up the handbell choir, I had them do an exercise for this. As you probably know, a handbell keeps ringing until you stop it, called damping, by touching it to your body or the table. Beginners have trouble coordinating this. I ask them to damp at the end of a note value so the tone does not carry into the next chord, or obscure a melody. We work on damping the left hand simultaneously with ringing the right hand. Unlike the less than inch travel of a piano key, a bell travels maybe 3 feet before ringing, and has to be timed to ring exactly on the beat. My beginners aren't even close to simultaneous, my advanced ringers are better. But I worked on making a difference between a tiny gap, a simultaneous ring/damp, and a slight overlap. You can't really count that, it has to be felt. Like on piano.)
-
-
-
Not really, when you claim to time within milliseconds yet can't even time well enough to get a key sounding.
As I said, throwing mud just shows your desperation!
-
-
-
-
-
Hey, where are the scientists?!? Or has everybody understood that a sound can be either focussed in different degrees and/or distorted in different degrees and that the sound spectrum of even one single tone thereby changes significantly, independently of how fast you move the hammer?
has that been established? That there are significant sound effects 'independently' of hammer speed?
-
-
-
But those scientific papers posted don't come to that conclusion? And neither did Ortmann. And neither did this thread as far as I've read.
-
-
-
That's fine. Personal belief is obviously Ok. Maybe an IMHO? Or some sort of indication that that's what it is.
-
-
-
As much as you may want to you cannot command my subjective experience. I have little control myself!
-
None of the debaters who support the idea that different tones can be produced independent of the speed of the hammer have offered specific "additional noise" except the key hitting the key bed. If you move the key down at a certain speed it doesn't matter when you release it- it's going to hit the key bed. It is conceivable that if the finger is still in firm contact with the key it may produce a different sound from that impact than would be produced if the key were freely rebounding, but beyond that what else could change? What does your tuner mean, Dima, by "a different sound spectrum"? Is he arguing that the "additional sounds" are creating interference patterns with the strings' sounds? That's not altogether unreasonable, but, again, what are the additional sounds? Unless a player has sticky fingers there's no way of pulling back the key that has been set in motion, so the key bed will be hit if the key exceeds a certain speed.
I don't have the passionate feelings on the subject some have expressed here, but I tend to agree with Ax. At the same time I suspect that all the various ways players have of striking, even "yanking" as Dima mentions in her last post, are simply physical representations of their mental approach, and these physical representations better allow them to maintain a continuous mental connection to the sound they intend to produce.
Has anyone seen a chess player screw the bottom of a moved piece down into the board? He or she is effectively saying, "This is a move about which I have no doubts," but she's saying it both to the opponent and to herself. The physical action creates the mental state, just as the mental creates the physical.
-
-
-
I think the science says it's not plausible.
-
-
-
None of the debaters who support the idea that different tones can be produced independent of the speed of the hammer have offered specific "additional noise" except the key hitting the key bed. If you move the key down at a certain speed it doesn't matter when you release it- it's going to hit the key bed. It is conceivable that if the finger is still in firm contact with the key it may produce a different sound from that impact than would be produced if the key were freely rebounding, but beyond that what else could change? What does your tuner mean, Dima, by "a different sound spectrum"? Is he arguing that the "additional sounds" are creating interference patterns with the strings' sounds? That's not altogether unreasonable, but, again, what are the additional sounds?
Here is a thing you can try:
Find a grand and close the lid that goes over the keys. Fully depress the right pedal. Now, lift your hand 30-40 cm over the lid, let your hand assume a chord playing formation and strike the lid as hard as you can. Warning: this action will be tense and hurt, so only do it once. Next, play the way you normally would play a forfortissimo chord on the lid (provided you know how to do it without the slightest tension). This time around it should not hurt. What are the sonic results of these two experiments?
Next, try it again, but this time opening the lid and doing it on the keys.
-
Loathe as I am to prolong this tediousness.... can anyone remember actually playing a single note? No chord, no context?
-
But experience is subjective and that can't be got at. My experience is that most pianists are clumsy in the dance partner sense . They are not aware of their partner - in this case the piano. We don't need science to address this, just sensitivity.
-
-
-
Why isn't that translated as castrated? Isn't that the meaning of Kastraten?
-
Here is a thing you can try:
Find a grand and close the lid that goes over the keys. Fully depress the right pedal. Now, lift your hand 30-40 cm over the lid, let your hand assume a chord playing formation and strike the lid as hard as you can. Warning: this action will be tense and hurt, so only do it once. Next, play the way you normally would play a forfortissimo chord on the lid (provided you know how to do it without the slightest tension). This time around it should not hurt. What are the sonic results of these two experiments?
Next, try it again, but this time opening the lid and doing it on the keys.
The lid is going to produce a great deal of sound because the immediate and opposite reaction of the lid to my fingers' movement will go into vibrating the lid. The keys, however, are going to move away from my fingers, pretty darned silently if the mechanism is in good working order. The keys will ultimately strike the key bad, but the pads there will absorb most of the sound- that's why they're there. Some sound will still escape. But once the keys are in fast enough motion to hit that bed that sound will be produced no matter what.
I still remember the effect on the audience of the first chord Keith Jarrett opened a concert with in 1983. He put his fingers on the keys, then raised his shoulders high and allowed rigid arms to collapse from there. It produced a pretty fortissimo sound, and grabbed the crowd, but I don't think the tone was different because of the absence of sound from his fingertips striking the keys. I'd like to believe that, but it doesn't make logical sense to me.
-
I'm sorry. I clearly misused the quote thing. It's probably an indication that my intellect is to weak to contribute to this discussion!!
-
I'll leave you a witty translation
Which rather understates the point. "Kastraten" being a particular form of "mutilated" that seems essential for the punchline. Possibly also useful as a disincentive to further posts here.
-
When one sees "mutilated" and "choirboys" together does one not instantly supply the specific meaning?
-
Yes, but the poetry doesn't work so well if you think what Heine is trying to say.
-
Why isn't that translated as castrated? Isn't that the meaning of Kastraten?
No. Kastraten = Castrati, not castrated (noun vs past tense verb).
Of course, the latter is the precondition for becoming the former, but grammar matters and they are not the same thing.
-
Yes, and so 'choirboys' isn't a good translation - it should read 'castrati'. Something like: the castrati complain when they hear me sing...
-
Yes, and so 'choirboys' isn't a good translation - it should read 'castrati'. Something like: the castrati complain when they hear me sing...
Your ability to get bogged down in irrelevant details still manages to astound despite extensive experience.
-
Bogged down in meaning more like. What Heine is trying to say is more important than the poem. In its original language they are one and the same. In music we ask the same question - what is the composer trying to say? Many translations (interpretations) miss.
-
-
-
I love the title of the site: Poetry For Every Occasion!
Here's a nicer translation:
(https://i59.tinypic.com/1zfj0g2.jpg)
-
-
-
The "accoustic signature", the sound characteristics of that tone AFTER it has been sounded and given time to "work" in the room/hall. Is that good English - "accoustic signature"?
If only it was that simple. If the room was a vacuum there'd be no 'sounded'. So the room's primary.
-
What year was it when ortmann supposedly disproved tone? One source seemed to say 1925 for an experiment? I'm stunned that anyone is actually taking such research seriously. Did he use 78s for recording purposes? I can believe that people are still going back to a false gospel after the evidence that was presented here.
Btw, try holding a note and then very sharply changing finger. After doing this, it was actually extremely easy to then directly perceive the same noise effect when whacking a key. I am astonished that the myth nothing can be changed ever got given an ounce of credit, nevermind religious acceptance. Btw, for the post who thinks that you can't change the keybed noise, you aren't considering momentum. If the whole arm crashes in, more energy travels. Even with an arm drop, beginning to slow down the arm in the instant before reaching the key (but moving the fingers positively into the key) gives a high keyspeed with very little momentum reaching collision. To assume that a given level of noise is associated to each keyspeed is simply to miss how much scope for manipulation there really is.
-
-
-
What year was it when ortmann supposedly disproved tone? One source seemed to say 1925 for an experiment? I'm stunned that anyone is actually taking such research seriously. Did he use 78s for recording purposes? I can believe that people are still going back to a false gospel after the evidence that was presented here.
you'd find direct-to-disc at 78 the most accurate for recording - not that he did that as far as I'm aware.
-
Good acoustics certainly help as does taking with you your own instrument. ;D
helps!? There is no sound without the acoustics!
-
you'd find direct-to-disk at 78 the most accurate for recording - not that he did that as far as I'm aware.
For all the audiophile's love of vinyl LPs, they still suffer from terrible dynamic range, signal to noise ration, and harmonic distortion. They are vastly inferior to CDs, and probably even mp3s. This is not a matter of opinion, it is provable both with the basic science and with listener testing.
The relevance to this conversation is that the facts are irrelevant to what people insist on believing. .
-
For all the audiophile's love of vinyl LPs, they still suffer from terrible dynamic range, signal to noise ration, and harmonic distortion. They are vastly inferior to CDs, and probably even mp3s. This is not a matter of opinion, it is provable both with the basic science and with listener testing.
The relevance to this conversation is that the facts are irrelevant to what people insist on believing. .
why do CDs sound rubbish then? You can't tell me digital's better than analogue! But that's for another thread. A 78 is neither vinyl nor LP.
-
https://www.ofai.at/~werner.goebl/papers/Goebl-Bresin-Galembo_JASA2005_PianoAction.pdf
For those who doubt Ortmann's methods, if you check this again you'll find fig 1 a near carbon copy of Ortmann's!
-
-
-
Here is a thing you can try:
Find a grand and close the lid that goes over the keys. Fully depress the right pedal. Now, lift your hand 30-40 cm over the lid, let your hand assume a chord playing formation and strike the lid as hard as you can. Warning: this action will be tense and hurt, so only do it once. Next, play the way you normally would play a forfortissimo chord on the lid (provided you know how to do it without the slightest tension). This time around it should not hurt. What are the sonic results of these two experiments?
Next, try it again, but this time opening the lid and doing it on the keys.
What makes you think that whatever sonic differences occur, they are NOT due to differences of hammer speed?
-
I am not reacting to the papers or to Ortmann. I object against those who misinterpret the results of those papers and claim that it doesn't make any difference at all whether you lift and drop a body unit or whether you stay on the key surface; all you have to do, they say, is control the speed of the hammer.
I'm not sure anybody has actually said that but if they have, it doesn't make sense. Because whether you stay on the key surface or lift and drop affects your control of the speed of the hammer.
-
-
-
Given two tones with identical final hammer velocities and, as a consequence, identical intensities, listening musicians were able to discriminate between struck tone (finger starts from above the surface of the key) and pressed tone (finger starts in contact with the key) by cuing on the adventitious sounds produced by the finger striking the surface of the key. Not perfectly, but better than chance. This is with dampers. It would not be surprising if, without dampers, additional adventitious sounds would make such discrimination more reliable. None of this tells you that great pianists with a beautiful tone have a beautiful tone because they artfully manipulate these small effects, as opposed to, say, artfully manipulating the speed with which they end a tone by releasing the key, or the way they match the volume of adjacent tones, or the way they overlap or do not overlap sequential notes, or the way they voice chords, or the range of final hammer velocities they are able to attain with either a struck or pressed tone etc.
-
'I am not reacting to the papers or to Ortmann. I object against those who misinterpret the results of those papers and claim that it doesn't make any difference at all whether you lift and drop a body unit or whether you stay on the key surface; all you have to do, they say, is control the speed of the hammer.'
I'll clarify the big thing Ortmann showed (and it's in that fig 1 diagram) - if you depress the key starting not from the surface, the key will go faster than the finger. The finger eventually catches up. This means you have far less control than depressing from the surface when key and finger velocity will be the same throughout.
-
-
-
May I tell you a secret? I'm at my best when I give up control and simply let my ears and imagination guide me.
Me too.
-
-
-
This sums it up pretty well, I guess.
yeh, why not?
-
(https://imhere28.up.n.seesaa.net/imhere28/image/way20of20breaking20eggs.jpg?d=a1)
-
Given two tones with identical final hammer velocities and, as a consequence, identical intensities, listening musicians were able to discriminate between struck tone (finger starts from above the surface of the key) and pressed tone (finger starts in contact with the key) by cuing on the adventitious sounds produced by the finger striking the surface of the key. Not perfectly, but better than chance. This is with dampers. It would not be surprising if, without dampers, additional adventitious sounds would make such discrimination more reliable. None of this tells you that great pianists with a beautiful tone have a beautiful tone because they artfully manipulate these small effects, as opposed to, say, artfully manipulating the speed with which they end a tone by releasing the key, or the way they match the volume of adjacent tones, or the way they overlap or do not overlap sequential notes, or the way they voice chords, or the range of final hammer velocities they are able to attain with either a struck or pressed tone etc.
Nobody says "as opposed to". Literally no person who believes in absolute tone argued that relative effects are unimportant. The issue is whether they both play a role or not. Phrasing it that way and then listing widely accepted effects is a very misleading way to put it- as the truth of not one of those things either proves or even implies that absolute tone cannot also be a factor. The only opposition is from those who who have been misled by bogus science. Those who credit absolute tone see it as complementary and not an opposition to relative effects.
-
I never denied the aspect of hammer speed, but that in itself is not enough to explain different qualities in tone in the same dynamic range.
Why not? The clue is in the word: "range".
You're talking about comparing playing techniques that are not even remotely controlled to equalize the factor of hammer speed. If you play a note one way, and then play it another way, it's likely you will apply a different hammer speed, even if only slightly and even if your ear loosely hears it as being in the same "range". So you have no basis for insisting that hammer speed isn't behind the difference in sound.
You don't even seem to acknowledge the most basic aspects of what it means to control for a variable and eliminate it as a possible cause. If you want to claim that there is a difference unexplainable by hammer speed, the only way to do that would be to strike two single notes where the hammer speed is controlled to be identical, and then measure the output to see if there's any difference. You seemed to suggest upthread that you prefered completely subjective claims of such difference to anything that could be measured, which is silly enough (because as was pointed out, if audio receiving equipment were to measure that there were NO difference, such subjective perceptions would have to be imagined - and we know enough about the psychology of perception to know that they easily could be.) But now you don't even seem interested in controlling for hammer speed at all - you seem to think the only thing that matters is that they are in the same "range".
Nobody here is claiming that two notes played at only slightly different hammer speeds will have the same "tone". The argument is about whether notes played at identical ones will.
-
What makes you think that whatever sonic differences occur, they are NOT due to differences of hammer speed?
Do you not think that the surprisingly large amount of noise the piano yields when you strike it vs when you touch it properly (as demonstrated by striking the lid or any other wooden part of the piano) will have any effect on the vibration of the strings? The hammer striking the string sets one set of vibrations in motion not only in the string being struck by the hammer, but in all the other strings and in the wooden parts of the instrument as well, most notably in the sound board. The vibrations of all these parts are what we are percieve as sound when they are transmitted to our ear via the air. If you then send a different set of vibrations through these same parts as they are amplifying the vibrations of the strings, a set of vibrations that are the result of striking the instrument, vibrations that sound like a hollow noise, it would be conceivable that the sum of these mixed sets of vibrations would produce a different sound to our ear, no?
-
Do you not think that the surprisingly large amount of noise the piano yields when you strike it vs when you touch it properly (as demonstrated by striking the lid or any other wooden part of the piano) will have any effect on the vibration of the strings? The hammer striking the string sets one set of vibrations in motion not only in the string being hit by the hammer, but in all the other strings and the wooden parts of the instrument as well, most notably the sound board. The vibrations of all these parts are what we are percieve as sound when they are transmitted to our ear via the air. If you then send a different set of vibrations through these same parts as they are amplifying the vibrations of the strings, a set of vibrations that are the result of striking the instrument, vibrations that sound like a hollow noise, it would be conceivable that the sum of these mixed sets of vibrations would sound different to our ear, no?
Yes, sure. It's conceivable. But I also find it conceivable that the vibrations created by the key-strike are irrelevant or virtually irrelevant, and the difference is entirely due to hammer speed. Without proper scientific tests, we'll never know.
-
Yes, sure. It's conceivable. But I also find it conceivable that the vibrations created by the key-strike are irrelevant or virtually irrelevant, and the difference is entirely due to hammer speed. Without proper scientific tests, we'll never know.
If anything they are indeed small, because an untrained ear will often not notice them. They would be big if striking the instrument too hard would end up cancelling out the sound of the strings completely. We are talking about a small difference in the quality of the sound, but yes, it is there. Experiment a bit and you will find that the sound of good tone will seem to have a certain clarity and seem to last much longer than a note with bad tone, regardless of dynamics. In a big hall, a player who bangs will sound small, harsh and blocked while a player with good tone will sound big and carry well.
-
-