Can tone be manipulated by pianists?

[danny elfboy]

This is topic that still fascinates me and makes me wonder.
Many pianists and students talk about "quality of tone" or "improving the tone".
On the other hand from an acoustic point of you this appears to be an illusion, a myth and anyway impossible.

Some time ago a found a study Hart, Lusby and Fuller called "A precision Study of Piano Touch and Tone" on a website. Unfortunately the website it down and the only way to obtain this study is registering to the Journal of Acoustics. If you have it please post it.

The abstract of the study says:

The loudness and tone quality of a piano note are determined by the motion of the hammer at the time of its impact with the string—theoretically, by its velocity, acceleration and higher time derivatives. Practically, due to the great rigidity of the hammer shank, the influence of the acceleration and higher derivatives is negligible. This study presents exact quantitative confirmation of the findings of other investigators that the loudness and tone of a piano note are uniquely determined by the velocity of the hammer at the time of impact with the string.

Another study by William Braide White called "The Human Elements in Piano Tone Production" concludes:

In every case where the pianist produced a change in quality, he produced a corresponding change in loudness, and vice versa.

Another study by Goebl, Bresin and Galembo called "The perception of piano touch and tone. Can touch audibly change piano sound independently of intensity?" concludes:

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.

The study can be found Here

The point seems to be anyway that the hammers are too firm and not enough flexible to really provide a vibration difference with different kind of strokes to account for a manipulation of tone quality. If that's true then all the subtle differences in sound would just depends on dynamic and volume.

I have yet not found any acoustic evidence that tone can be manipulated through different kind of touch but if you have studies or essays that prove otherwise please post them.

What's our opinion on this matter?
And what are the implication in piano-playing and teaching?

[jakev2.0]

True, the piano only really has one colour, but pianists can turn this divide this colour into as many different shades as they are able to achieve some sort of end.

[iumonito]

I am not a physicist, but a pianist, so I can only tell you from experience and not really as explanation of the scientific principles behind it, but it is OBVIOUS that there is infinitelly more to piano sound and color that the mere loudness of the tone.

You can seat 10 different pianisits in front of the same instrument playing exactly the same repertoire and sound entirely different, across the loudness spectrum.

speed of attack, mass involved, the softness of the area used to play the key (apart from the more obvious pedalling and contextual aspects) affect piano tone enormously, regardless of whether playing piano or forte.

Those who say it is not so either have no ears, have never played the piano artistically, or both.

Tell Cortot that there is but one piano color.  Or Gilels.  Or Rubinstein.

[rc]

Well...  Strictly physically, I agree that a key only falls faster/slower = louder/quieter.  So chances are any idea we have of 'tone' is more illusion than physical reality.

But we know about the infinite varieties we can play with variable like dynamics, articulation, tempo, etc...  Adding up to a diverse whole.

Using my limited knowledge of physics, the way we touch the keyboard has a real effect on it.  For example, using the flat of the fingertip tends to bend at the last joint which would act as a shock absorber on everything = overall quieter, a softer tone.

In the end, I don't care whether affecting tone is strictly true or illusion...  The results are real.  The more imagination we use, the more possibilities of expression we can use.

[counterpoint]

The sound of  piano playing is created by a mixture of dynamics, rubato, articulation  + use of pedals + mimic/visual actions of the pianist.

[danny elfboy]

I think there's some confusion here.

Even if tone manipulation would really be in illusion or a myth and just a matter of speed and volume it wouldn't anyway deny the fact that a pianist can manipulate "sounds" in millions of ways with just those two aspects.

Let's make it clear also what is meant by the claim that "tone can't be manipulated". According to many acoustic studies there's no evidence that different ways of striking the keys can change the tone quality of the vibration.

The only evidence based way to manipulate tone is to change the strings tension through tuning. Hammers are not flexible enough to add vibrations that would sum up to the vibration of the strings to change the tone.

So indeed there's no kind of evidence that playing with the fleshly part versus the finger tips or with a different angle of the finger changes the tone, what actually appears to happen is that different way to use the fingers manages the force produced hence creating the billions of nuances in speed and volume (hammer velocity).

This would mean that theoretically two players playing the note in the same piano, in the same room would produce the same identical sound and tone as long as the hammer speed is the same.

But there are two points that make this less easy in practice and account for all the nuances we can listen:

1) It's impossible to reproduce the same speed hammer. There are billions of degrees of speed and even the smallest degree difference produces a different quality of sound

2) Just the "hammer speed" may appear like limited as long as we just focus on the isolated note. But we need to remember that music is a combination of notes and all those nuances that can be applied to a single note become even more important when we think that even if it was possible to obtain the same hammer speed of another pianist on a single note (pretty hard indeed) it is absolutely impossible to obtain the same sequence of different hammer speed for each note each occurring in a fraction of a second. Let's consider then that even the smallest degree change on one or more note changes completely the quality of the sound of the whole musical flow.

Consider this for example:

A note in forte not only is an amplified version of the same note in piano, but also contains many more high frequency partials


This indeed would prove how the minimal degree in volume/speed is able to account for limitless differences and nuances in sound quality.

If we agree with the acoustic evidence then I think the best perspective is one that consider "the ear" the source of tone.

What I mean is that the only way to control all those nuances in hammer speed changing the quality of the sound and the whole piece expressed through as many nuances in using the body (managements of force) is not to focus on the body, the fingers, the arm but to to focus on the "sound you want".

The sound must come first, the tone must originate in the ear and the body must be just a mean to express it. If we first imagine the sound we want, if we aurally create in our mind and ear the sound we want the body find a way to produce it.
At that point it doesn't matter what nuances of force affencting the hammer speed allow to produce that sound.

I don't think anyone is denying the difference between two pianists and all the nuances possible at the instruments. What all these considerations change is "the source" of those nuances and sound.

[rc]

Sure, I agree...

Since in reality nobody ever sits down to play just one single note, who cares about 'tone can't be manipulated'?  a neat piece of trivia

Well, I s'pose it'd be useful for somebody who's wiggling their finger on the key trying to give it vibrato or something...  Not that they're hurting themselves or anything - it just looks stupid

[counterpoint]

Well, I s'pose it'd be useful for somebody who's wiggling their finger on the key trying to give it vibrato or something...  Not that they're hurting themselves or anything - it just looks stupid

I do this sometimes, and I'm aware, that it may look stupid to many people. I know, that it has no physical effect on the sound, but people who see me playing, will feel(!) another quality of sound than playing the note without the vibrato 

[pianistimo]

i personally think it mostly comes down to quality of instrument.  how controllable it is.  if you have a good steinway (or whatever brand you like) whose action is fully regulated and  each key responds as you are thinking of the tone in your head - then life is good. 

say you have a terrible piano and some of the notes do not respond as quickly as others - or you have to depress the key 1/4 inch (flat space) before coming anywheres near affecting the hammers.  and, even then - the hammers are very slow and some don't rebound.  you have to stick your hand inside the piano and retrieve them.  you don't have time to think about tone as much with these pianos because you are attempting to fix the piano at the same time as play it.

that said - say we take 10 violinists with a stradivarius - or 10 pianists with a fazioli or high end piano - you can and will get different sounds according to the ability of each artist.  some have become very good at manipulating dynamics.  some a sort of massage pressure that makes the instrument come alive - and also a light let-off.  these various 'tones' are mutiplied by 100 with a good instrument.  also, these instruments tend to make less extraneous noises.  no squeaky pedals.  no finger slap - (as the keys are tight and respond quietly and quickly).  so ALL you are hearing is tone.

the only thing left to do with these very large pianos is to make sure that you don't play any louder than the bass can handle.  at a certain point you will hear a buzz.  this is the point that is your loudest level of playing without starting to add extraneous noises back into the 'tone.'  don't know about pianissimo playing - i think it depends upon the hall and how loud a pianissimo can be heard by the back of the hall.  acoustics do depend upon how many people are in a place at one time.

back to instruments.  i think instruments have  a 'personality.'  if you ever get a chance to visit a piano factory - you'll see that it LOOKS like they are all made the same.  but each component (especially the wood) has been touched and manipulated into form.  if enough 'chance' goes right and all the elements come together - it's like performing a spectacular performance and not exactly knowing beforehand that it would happen.  suddenly, certain pianos have a soul.  (not literally, but figuratively)

[prometheus]

It is really amazing trying to understand how people can thing that they can somehow influence the piano's tone through manipulating the keys of the piano.

[danny elfboy]

Let me quote two old posts (from another forum) that shed further light on the subject:

I've just begun reading through [Abby Whiteside's] writings,
and would like to hear others' opinions on her. I have to say I don't agree
with most of what I've read so far. In fact some of it sounds downright crazy
(to me anyway).
That we pianists have no control over the quality of tone, is news to me.

She is absolutely right in this regard. However, we can control the change
in volume from note to note, and also the quality of the resonance by
judicious pedaling. In chords and in accompanied melodies, we can alter the
balance to achieve a better sound (more top and bottom, less middle). All of
these things are achieved by listening and adjusting, listening and
adjusting. But a single note in isolation is purely a function of how
quickly the hammer goes down However, a player who is relaxed,
confident in his/her technique, and who is listening and extremely aware,
can convince anyone that he/she has magical control of the tone.  Tension of
any kind is likely to lead to strange bumps and accents in the musical line,
which sound like "ugly" tone although it is really just ugly phrasing.

- Greg Presley


Well put, Greg.  One of my teachers said that you can't tell if someone is a
musician by hearing them play only one note.  But after hearing the second
note, you can tell.

- Robert Henry

[invictious]

Try this.
Use the flat part of your finger and press middle A with full force
then with less force
and barely making a sound
then do that with fingertips, repeat top 3 steps.
Then different places on the same key..ie. closed to you or farther from you
Then try using your forearm strength, then finger, then wrist, then shoulder...then your whole body.


now, try play the A note, with a very solid tone
now, whilst keeping the same dynamics, play the A note with a floating, empty and hollow tone.

There.
Hope it helps.

[prometheus]

now, try play the A note, with a very solid tone
now, whilst keeping the same dynamics, play the A note with a floating, empty and hollow tone.

There.
Hope it helps.

How would that be possible? Maybe you are deluding yourself.

Get someone in the room with you. Have them blindfolded or looking the other way. Then, play a solid tone A, then play a hollow tone A. Then another hollow tone A. Etc, do it a couple of times.

The blinded listener will write down if a tone is hollow or solid.

Then after you have done 40 notes check to see if the person got more than 70% right.

Maybe yoú'll succeed in using volume to trick the blinded listener into thinking a tone is supposed to be recognised as hollow or solid.  But there are possible solutions to this.

[ramseytheii]

The words of Charles Rosen!
----------------------


Once a piano note has been struck, no pianist can do anything to control the sound and its gradual decay except by the use of the pedal, and what can be done with that is very limited. An instrument with a slow decay of sound will generally produce a sustained legato more easily, which is tied in psychologically with our idea of an agreeable effect; each piano differs from any other in the way the sound decays, which is why we spend so much time choosing an instrument for a concert or a recording. A long decay is not the only aspect of the sound that counts, however. The percussive effect of the first split second of a struck note depends on the hardness of the hammers in each instrument. The hammers on Horowitz's instrument, for example, were so hard that it was almost like playing a xylophone, but Horowitz tempered this by using the soft pedal for a good part of the time, raising it for accents. When the hammers are too soft, however, it makes for a mushy sound, thick and hard to define.

A "singing" sound, nevertheless, is not given by the instrument but by the way it is exploited. In spite of what the correspondents above think, this exploitation is not mechanical and not a simple matter of technique: it requires at every moment a sense of the music. Beautiful tone production does not exist on the piano apart from the music. A single note on the violin can be beautiful because it can be controlled and made vibrant as it continues to be sustained: a single note on the piano is just a single note. It might appear agreeable in isolation if it is not too loud and if the pianist does not seem to be thumping it awkwardly.

A "singing" sound on the piano is arrived at by shaping the melody and molding the harmony and the counterpoint: when that is done right, the sound is beautiful, as the harmonies vibrate and the melody has a unified and convincing contour. (This is how one can produce a beautiful sound on a piano which may seem at first to give a sonority that is intractably ugly.) The belief that anything else contributes to a beautiful tone, like "transient" noise (whatever that is), is a delusion. You push a piano key down, and it is louder and softer, and longer and shorter. There is nothing else you can do to an individual note that makes the slightest difference to the music. It is the way the notes are combined by the pianist that makes a beautiful tone. (I would put this last sentence in capitals but it would be vulgar to do so.)

The delusion that a graceful appearance to the movement of the hands influences the tone quality has as much scientific merit as astrology, but it has a psychological and practical value, which explains, probably, how it came about, and why it persists in so many conservatories. If the pianist appears to caress the keyboard, it makes the public think the music is being caressed in the same way that the gestures of the conductor influence the perception of the orchestral sound by the audience. It influences the performer as well: playing with less tension and a more relaxed approach to the keyboard allows greater control for balancing the sound and a greater sense of relaxation in the interpretation of the music.

Claudio Arrau used to wiggle his finger on a long note as if he were producing a vibrato on the violin: physically this did nothing to the mechanism of the piano, but it made the listeners conscious of the long note, as if it were still singing with no decay of sound, and it released the tension in the pianist's arm as well. That is why it is a good idea for piano teachers to continue fostering the delusion. What is disastrous is that most of them continue to emphasize the appearance of a relaxed movement while not stressing how the harmony has to be balanced, and what the acoustics of a piano really mean in terms of each individual score. This has given rise to the frightening and widespread belief that a beautiful sound on the piano is mechanically the same for Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, Debussy, Stravinsky, and Boulez, whereas each one of these composers needs a different approach to the production of sound.

================

The main point to be taken from this is, "it is a good idea for piano teachers to continue fostering the delusion."  The fact is the only thing we can do with the piano tone is relate it to other tones in an artistic fashion; but as invictious says, if you try and play notes with different characteristics, you will end up with something very different. 

On the one hand, being exposed to this knowledge means we have to face the inevitable.  On the other hand, we absolutely have to believe that the sound we
imagine - be it the sound of an oboe, a banshee, a kettledrum, whatever - is the sound we are producing.  The fact that we can't produce those sounds shouldn't  in this case be a hindrance to trying.

Walter Ramsey

[thalbergmad]

I think that sums things up rather nicely.

You can't do it, but there is no harm in trying.

Thal

[pianogeek_cz]

Um. It might not just be the speed with which the hammer hits the strings, it could also be whether it's accelerating or slowing down. If the hammer is accelerating, it will not be as willing to rebound off the strings (when there's acceleration, there's some force driving it). Therefore, the vibration of the strings parallel to the path of the hammer, which is (when I simplify the matters a bit) responsible for the CLA- part of the CLAnnnnnnnnnnnnnng sound of a piano tone, is deeper and doesn't wane as fast; I think this is what's called the "full" or "solid" tone we strive for most of the time.
If the hammer is slowing down - vica versa.
This force that is accelerating the hammer, although it has already left the propelling mechanism and is plummeting towards the strings on its own, would be generated by the flexion of the stick that runs from the hammer heads (Aargh, please don't stone me for lack of terminology.); being largely imperceptible doesn't mean it's not there. (It would actually be perceptible through the various qualities of the resulting sound...)
Just a few mechanics thoughts to linger on for a while.

This debate is, though, academical and superfluous to actuall playing. Or my playing, at least. The colorful results of different ways of tone-production speak for themselves.

[invictious]

How would that be possible? Maybe you are deluding yourself.

Get someone in the room with you. Have them blindfolded or looking the other way. Then, play a solid tone A, then play a hollow tone A. Then another hollow tone A. Etc, do it a couple of times.

The blinded listener will write down if a tone is hollow or solid.

Then after you have done 40 notes check to see if the person got more than 70% right.

Maybe yoú'll succeed in using volume to trick the blinded listener into thinking a tone is supposed to be recognised as hollow or solid.  But there are possible solutions to this.

That IS the problem of keeping the same dynamics.
Many people think hollow is softer and solid is louder.
Not true, take a look at Horowitz.
and me

Really, people have different standards for solid and hollow tone, so it's really up to the performer to determine which is which.

[prometheus]

Yes, that's true also.

[danny elfboy]

Even more information/quotes about the impossibility of chancing tone by changing finger action.




Julie Moncur:

Scientific evidence is that the piano player can only control the volume of the note, not its timbre, up to the point where the volume attempted is too great for the instrument, causing the string to vibrate longitudinally as well as transversely, which would then cause unpleasant overtones to be produced.  Then all tonal effects must be produced by the way sounds are combined, i.e. in the connecting gesture rather than in the way individual notes are put down.




Thomas Carlson Mark:

Sound is caused by the hammer being thrown against the string as the key passes the point of sound (the escapement). Now the key reaches the point of sound before it reaches the keybed. That is obvious, but has important consequences.

The first consequence is:

nothing that happens after the key passes the escapement (before any sound is actually heard) can change or effect the sound, in particular nothing that happens at the keybed. No amount of pressing, sliding or wobbling on the keybed can alter a sound that has already been produced. Pressing down on the keyboard in the name of improving tone is pointless.

The second consequence is:

the volume and quality of the sound depend on the velocity of the key descent, not on the amount of force delivered to the keybed.
All the piano can respond to is how fast the key is descending.
The speed and only the speed of the descent determines the speed of the hammer hitting the string, which in turns determine the volume and quality of the sound.
Changing the volume or quality of the sound must be accomplished by changing the speed of key descent, not by changing the amount of force at the keybed.

Sound is produced by kinetic energy of the hammer being trasferred to the string.
Changing the sound requires changing the kinetic energy of the hammer.
Now the kinetic energy of the hammer is a function of its mass and velocity.
But the mass of hammer is constant.

The only thing that can change from one occasion to the next is its velocity.
Consequently, any changes in the volume and quality of the sound must come from the changes in the velocity of the hammer, which is determined by the velocity of the key at the escapement. There are not other possibilities!

The point contradict a lot of conventional pedagogical opinion and many seem surprising to some pianists.Althought the conclusion is inesplicable is may seem implausible at first.

How can mere changes in the speed of the hammer hitting the string give the immense variety of sounds that we hear from a well-played piano?

Recall that the piano is remarkably responsive and that piano sound is complex not simple. As the hammer goes faster, it imparts more energy to the string; as it goes slower, it imparts less energy. That alterns the volume, as everyone knows.

But voume of sound is not the only thing that changes.

As the hammer goes faster or lower the mix of overtones shifts also, so the quality of the sound changes as well as the volume. As the hammer goes faster and faster, changes in volume become less striking than changes in quality; eventually the sound becomes harsher and uglier.

Another vital point is that the kinetic energy delivered to the string is a function of the mass and the velocity of the hammer. But kinetic energy fluctuates not with velocity but with the square of velocity.
Consequently a change in velocity by a percent, say ten percent, will result in a larger change in the kinetic energy deliverd to the string.
This means that seemingly slightly changes in the speed of the key descent produce large differences in volume and tone quality.

This discussion has focused on changes in volume and quality of a single note.
In real music, contrasts of tone quality and dynamics are not mainly based on comparing separate soundings of a single note, but on contrasts between different notes, played simultaneously or in succession.

All of this vastly expand the range of expressive possibilities at the instrument, but do not alter the conclusions reached.

[iumonito]

David's league, let's give another round to this nonsense:

Just like scientific knowledge at one time held as truth that the earth was flat, and that the earth was the center of the universe, your limited analysis very likely is leaving out the very variables that matter to the question of tone production.  The empirical evidence is inescapable, and if you can't hear it, it surprises me you have any interest in the piano, as the enormous variety of color in piano playing is what makes it most beautiful to me.

Examples of what  I think this "one color only" analysis is ignoring are the effect of the mass applied to the key, and its effect on acceleration of the hammer.  If you can't hear it, perhaps it would be worth getting very expensive equipment to measure the various partials arounsed one way or the other.

Another example is the vibrating quality of the mechanism.  It does make a great difference to hold the keys of a chord played with pedal, or to play the chord staccato and let is vibrate with the pedal only, or even to re-press the keys without sending the hammer back to the strings.  Naturally the first step of the conversation is whether you accept this is true, for if you don't, I have nothing else to tell you than there is something  perceivable that is escaping your perception, sorry.   If you do accept the fact, though, then the question is how does your analysis account for these differences?

Pianogeek and Invictuous are right on the money.  If you have tried these experiments and remain entrenched in your belief that the piano sound has only but one variable, well, I have a volume of Ortman that you may like too.

[danny elfboy]

David's league, let's give another round to this nonsense:

Just like scientific knowledge at one time held as truth that the earth was flat, and that the earth was the center of the universe, your limited analysis very likely is leaving out the very variables that matter to the question of tone production.  The empirical evidence is inescapable, and if you can't hear it, it surprises me you have any interest in the piano, as the enormous variety of color in piano playing is what makes it most beautiful to me.

Examples of what  I think this "one color only" analysis is ignoring are the effect of the mass applied to the key, and its effect on acceleration of the hammer.  If you can't hear it, perhaps it would be worth getting very expensive equipment to measure the various partials arounsed one way or the other.

Another example is the vibrating quality of the mechanism.  It does make a great difference to hold the keys of a chord played with pedal, or to play the chord staccato and let is vibrate with the pedal only, or even to re-press the keys without sending the hammer back to the strings.  Naturally the first step of the conversation is whether you accept this is true, for if you don't, I have nothing else to tell you than there is something  perceivable that is escaping your perception, sorry.   If you do accept the fact, though, then the question is how does your analysis account for these differences?

Pianogeek and Invictuous are right on the money.  If you have tried these experiments and remain entrenched in your belief that the piano sound has only but one variable, well, I have a volume of Ortman that you may like too.

What you described though can't be considered another variable of the simplest mechanism of one note production but the addiction of more external factors (damper, length and so on)

Ortmann too agreed that the only real variable in the simplest form is the speed of descent of the hammer. When he mentioned the backcheck he added further factors but again what we're talking about is the manipulation of the simple tone without the pedal and without adding length to the mix.

What many people believe is that you can manipulate the tone the way a violinist could.
This is not impossible because the mass of the hammer is static and because the tension of the string is static.

What a pianist can do indeed is just adding further external factors to change the quality of the sound but can't change the timbre manipulating the simplest factors of sound production.

In tone production in its purest form without adding further external factors the only factor that has an influence is the velocity of the hammer has an influence but of course is okay to point out that to control the velocity of the hammer you need to control everything which may affect this factor.

It has also been explained as to why the velocity of the hammer as the influeced factor is able to create billions of different expressive possibilities. Not only the addition of the pedal and the backcheck but even imperceptible differences in speed of the hammer result in very big differences at a sound level and then again more volume means also more overtones.

Another important factor is voicing. You can manipulate tone way more with the balancing of voices so again even if the tone of a note cannot be manipulated without the addition of external factors the tone of two or three notes played together can be manipulated a lot.

All in all this justify properly the infinite range of expressive possibilities at the piano without believing in manipulations that would only be possible 1) if the hammer was limp before getting stiff as the key is pressed down 2) if the pianist could change the tension of the strings while he is playing.

But we shouldn't really focus so much on the "single note". Doing all sort of motions at the keybed believing to manipulate the tone like a violinist would do. It is really true that you can't tell a pianist from a non-pianist by listening them play just one note.

Music is a context and we play and listen music in context.
What really matter then is all the manipulative possibilities of melody and harmony.
Not only the high degree level of tonal manipulation in voicing but the balance between each note played melodically. How we perceive each note in relation to each other because of the balance achieved by the pianist is the real change in quality we should worry about, not the single isolated note simple depressed and immediately released.

Then of course you can add other factors like the pedal or the duration of each note. Volume alone influences overtones. All in all even removing those illusory manipulations that would require limp hammers and changing tension of the string the quality of sound and expressive possibilities at the piano remain immense.

[pianogeek_cz]

(Ahem. Danny, I still expect an argument of yours to clarify your views on the aforementioned issue of the hammer accelerating/slowing down. You seem to consistently ignore the thesis, even though it (at least partially) disproves your argumentation. This is not nit-picking, I really want to see what you have to say about it.)

[rach n bach]

With my limited understanding of the workings of a piano, the hammer should always (particularly in grands) be slowing down as it hits the strings. 

The action forces it up, and then releases it BEFORE it contacts the strings.  Since there is no force acing on it except for that of friction and gravity (both of which pull it downwards) it is safe to say that on a grand the hammer should be deacclerating when it produces the tone.

Now on an upright, it isn't quite so clear, as the hammers strike almost horozonally to the gound, although the same applies with the action, it realeased the hammer before contact, and cannot provide anymore forwad motion after that.

On the other hand, I have prettly limited experiance with this stuff. 

[pianogeek_cz]

Since there is no force acing on it except for that of friction and gravity (both of which pull it downwards) it is safe to say that on a grand the hammer should be deacclerating when it produces the tone.

Well, my point is that this might -not- be all there is to it. The peg atop which the head of the hammer is perched flexes when it's thrown forward by the action, physically, it has to do it, albeit sleightly. The question is, whether it's significant enough... I -think- it could be. It would explain a lot of things.

My reference for this claim would be https://members.aol.com/chang8828/techniqueIII.htm, section Tone: single vs. multiple notes.

Of course I (e. g. he) might not be right.

[danny elfboy]

(Ahem. Danny, I still expect an argument of yours to clarify your views on the aforementioned issue of the hammer accelerating/slowing down. You seem to consistently ignore the thesis, even though it (at least partially) disproves your argumentation. This is not nit-picking, I really want to see what you have to say about it.)

In your argument you appear to talk about the hammer length of contact with the key.
How long the hammer remains in contact with the key though depend on the mass of the hammer, the velocity of the hammer and the tension of the string. Only one factor here can be changed. Given the same speend of descend of the key you can't manipulate acceleration or deceleration because the hammer is thrown anyway at the string and when you hear the sound it has already lost contact with the key device and when you sustein the sound with the damper it is already back to the escapement. You can't change the mass, you can change the inertia, you can't change the mass, you can't change the string tension.
This means that acceleration and deceleration are static given the same valocity of the hammer.

[danny elfboy]

Well, my point is that this might -not- be all there is to it. The peg atop which the head of the hammer is perched flexes when it's thrown forward by the action, physically, it has to do it, albeit sleightly. The question is, whether it's significant enough... I -think- it could be. It would explain a lot of things.

My reference for this claim would be https://members.aol.com/chang8828/techniqueIII.htm, section Tone: single vs. multiple notes.

Of course I (e. g. he) might not be right.

Chang has already been disproved on other forums in which he was pointed out direct sources of evidence that the flex is absolutely minimal and by no mean enough.

[counterpoint]

A musical phrase can be played with different character and tone.

A single note can be played with different volume.

It's so simple...

[rach n bach]

Thank you counterpoint.

Exactly. 

[danny elfboy]

A musical phrase can be played with different character and tone.

A single note can be played with different volume.

It's so simple...

I agree!
But there's also another factor: more notes played at the same times (including left hand bass over the right hand melody) Again there too you can have different tonal control compared to just volume control of a single note.

[pianogeek_cz]

Chang has already been disproved on other forums in which he was pointed out direct sources of evidence that the flex is absolutely minimal and by no mean enough.

Well, I'm intrigued. Link, please..? Or if you don't have the specific link, which forum(s)?

[danny elfboy]

Well, I'm intrigued. Link, please..? Or if you don't have the specific link, which forum(s)?

I don't remember the link, the forum (newsgroup) is rec.music.makers.piano, Chang is Cc88m and in a bunch of threads he discussed this with experts of acoustic and piano technicians.

[danny elfboy]

I think there is some confusion here about the conclusion:
Many have said things of the like:

<If everything you can control is volume then we would listen to midis not real piano players>
<if everything you can control is volume all pianists would sound the same>
<if the difference of sound would only be in the volume no one would spend time perfecting the piece>

No. Telling that given a single note you can't control tone just volume doesn't mean that the immense sound variations at the piano are suddenly denied. It just means the source is different. The only practical application of this knowledge is getting rid of certain harmful technique that are used in the name of "producing a beautiful tone" but are actually counterproductive. That's the only implication. No one is saying the conclusion is that "piano is just about high and low volume"

Some of the reasons as to why the conclusion that the expressive and sound quality possibilities at the piano are immense:

1) volume controls overtones balance too, with the volume changes also the quality of the sound

2) even the slighest variation in volume produce huge differences in the sound (it's impossible for two pianist to play both the same note at the same exact volume)

3) voicing

4) pedals

5) lenght of the sound

6) integration of the notes. Even those differences in volume that are meaningless in single notes become absolutely relevant in relation to consecutive notes

7) balance. It's not about the volume of the single note but of the continuum of volume, intensity and length changes

phrasing. Just like we don't perceive words but sentences (ttah's wyh yuo're albe to utnrdnsaed tihs) we don't really perceive notes but phrases, and the overall quality of the phrase can be manipulated in billions of ways. We shouldn't be talking of the "tone of a note" at the piano, but the tone of a musical phrase.

[iumonito]

Danny, no confusion.  Your understanding of this question is simply limited.  I was referring you to Ortman precisely because his writing is the epithome of narrow thinking about piano playing.

At teh same decibles (volume) different approaches to tone production will produce different sets of partials.  It is a combination of tiny things, like hammer angle (which depends on shank flex) and time of contact, mostly governed by the axis of mass and speed of attack.

It is invisible, and beautiful.  The sooner you surrender to it the sooner your sound will improve.

[danny elfboy]

Danny, no confusion.  Your understanding of this question is simply limited.  I was referring you to Ortman precisely because his writing is the epithome of narrow thinking about piano playing.

At teh same decibles (volume) different approaches to tone production will produce different sets of partials.  It is a combination of tiny things, like hammer angle (which depends on shank flex) and time of contact, mostly governed by the axis of mass and speed of attack.

But the hammer has no memory of what kind of force or accelleration caused it to be thrown at the string. In other words the end result is velocity anyway. All those things may indeed be important to consider but as means to have better control on the immense nuances of velocity differences.

As for the shank flex do you have any evidence that it indeed has an influence on tone given the same pedaling, length and volume? I remember a bunch of studies published on acoustic journals proving otherwise. Even Chang when he was violently promoting the idea of the influence of the flexing said it was just speculatory thinking without any sort of evidence, just something he believed strongly.

[iumonito]

I hear it.  What else matters?

[danny elfboy]

I hear it.  What else matters?

The whole thread is just out of curiosity.
Of course you hear it, no one denies it, what is being questioned is the source of what you hear. What is being said is that the difference you concretely hear is due to the speed of the hammer (shifting also the balance of harmonics)

This means that if someone plays the same note (same lenght, no pedal) on the same piano at the same hammer speed you did he or she will obtain the same exact sound you obtained.
One would say <let's try it then!> but it's practically impossible to obtain the exact same degree of speed hammer and even minimal differences that may appear irrelevant at the hammer level translate in big differences at the sound level.

[dnephi]

Do you know what harmonics are?  I'm curious to know if you're using the word you really want to use. 

[lavalse]

I hear it.  What else matters?

apples fall, what else matters?

[danny elfboy]

Do you know what harmonics are?  I'm curious to know if you're using the word you really want to use. 

Harmonics is the literal translation from my language of something I just found out is called "overtones" in english.

[prometheus]

Overtones and harmonics are the same thing. Harmonics produce overtones.

A harmonic is a frequency. If a musical sound/tone has more than one frequency then it has more than one harmonics and they produce overtones.

Otherwise you have a 'pure tone', which has only one harmonic and thus no overtones.

I don't think there are musical instruments that can produce pure tones.

[Derek]

I think it is correct that the only actual changes that can be made are in loudness and so forth. But I think the language used by piano teachers concerning producing new and different tones creates the interesting psychological effect of teaching the student to pay attention to incredibly small differences in dynamic. If the teacher were to put it in this dry fashion, certain students might not acquire that level of detail in their ability to manipulate dynamics.   now personally, I think what makes a pianist great is just years of experience and studying the pianism of their teachers and other pianists. Playing the piano involves what Michael Polanyi calls "personal knowledge."  It is not something for which there are scientific answers.  But the elaborate language of touch and arm weight and so forth that teachers use, as I see it, constitutes the "personal knowledge" of those piano teachers at work; it is the way they are able to inculcate attention to detail in many of their students. It is a similar phenomenon to truths being communicated through allegory or myth within the bible or other religious texts, I think.

[sevencircles]

I play electronic solokeyboards with pitchbends a whole lot these days for the simple reason that I can manipulate the tone.

Pitchbend set to one octave up or down and it felt like I discovered a different world

The even action of electronic keyboards is very convinient as well

[opus10no2]

Yep, on a piano the only thing is volume, on a keyboard there is more.

Pitchbending is only one of the virtually limitless abilities of keyboard technology

[sevencircles]

Pitchbending is only one of the virtually limitless abilities of keyboard technology

Yep, I wonder which ones of the supervirtuosos that actually tried keyboard soloing with pitchbends (Hamelin, Volodoso etc.?

I know Vitalij Kuprij of course but he should stick to piano I think. His keyboardsolos is hardly compareable to his pianoplaying

Wakeman,Emerson and Jordan Rudess on the other hand are amazing

[timothy42b]

I hear it.  What else matters?

Possibly you hear it.

In blind tests listeners are unable to tell the difference between a good pianist playing with his finger and with the eraser of a pencil held in his teeth. 

I think the evidence is with Danny on this one.