How to do effective fortissimo

[marik1]

I gladly assume you might know what you are talking about. I however, have very hard time following your ideas and getting your point with all that verbosity. As it is, it reminds me Einstein: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Try it simpler and much more concise.

Best, M

A relaxed hand gives way and hits a cluster. It doesn't teach relaxation to a high level, but only reduces tension in those who are ultra stiff. It doesn't teach you the action for playing with and without drops, with no fixation, unless you focus on the issue of hand action. If you only want to relax, take a sauna. What matters is relaxation that can be kept in real world playing. , dependence on dropping perpetuates tensions unless you know what else has to come with it to geet beyond the drop. I learned this from personal experience of the limits of dropping. It's easy to learn to drop but not to catch it softly. That is not about the arm. Most of what I learned to drop with no fixation was based on the hand. You cannot go beyond the drop without mega tension unless the drop and brace then relax attitude is thrown out and movement replaces bracing.

Even the flop (where the wrist falls down) doesn't teach good relaxation during key depression . It depends on tension then release. The right hand action eliminates any moment of tightness and replaces it with simple movement.

[lelle]

What I think it means is that just dropping the arm with everything relaxed will also create tension, because the arm and hand have to suddenly brace at the impact, or else it will just collapse. Bracing the hand wont give you much control over voicing etc. either. Rather, you need to actively (and correctly) use and move the hand, in addition to having a completely free arm, in order to be able to maintain that relaxation.

[nyiregyhazi]

What I think it means is that just dropping the arm with everything relaxed will also create tension, because the arm and hand have to suddenly brace at the impact, or else it will just collapse. Bracing the hand wont give you much control over voicing etc. either. Rather, you need to actively (and correctly) use and move the hand, in addition to having a completely free arm, in order to be able to maintain that relaxation.

Indeed. If it's only acceptable to give a twitter version, then you can even simply say that the hand which doesn't create movement in a useful direction is collapsing in a counterproductive direction, even when stiff. It's not terribly complex, but merely appears that way to anyone who has only experienced piano technique in subjective terms - without also considering what must necessarily be going for success to ensue, from an objective perspective.

I don't give dummies versions because they are so often actively misleading. Most of the most concise advice you hear is concise precisely because it is so misleadingly incomplete, or even in direct contradiction to what occurs in advanced techniques. This is why dropping advice is often deeply harmful until the role of the hand is actually considered. Sorry but 140 characters do not convey why the hand is so important in the big picture.

I'd far sooner someone read that and be more confused afterwards, than read the oversimplified version about dropping (that actually has the far more puzzling need for a hand that is in some mysterious theoretical sweetspot between tense and relaxed, rather than actually moving) and mistakenly think they have understood it from that. The whole purpose of what I wrote was to illustrate that reality is indeed a lot more confusing than any oversimplified method tries to tell you- because you can't leave out the important bits. Start by being confused about how different reality is to the torrents of bogus oversimplifications and you're on the first steps to getting a balanced and simple picture of what really works. It's the first step towards realising that correctly following oversimplified advice may not actually get you anywhere until you expand out and consider other issues- regardless of whether they would fit in one tweet.

[marik1]

I don't give dummies versions because they are so often actively misleading.

I don't think Einstein's quote I posted above was related to "dummies versions". Unfortunately, we won't be able to prove it (or for that matter, otherwise), since Mr. Einstein has been dead for quite awhile.

I'd far sooner someone read that and be more confused afterwards, than read the oversimplified version...

Nobody was talking about oversimplification here. Since Mr. Einstein was quite a smart fellow I will allow myself to post another quote of his: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler".

Also, I'd suggest you not to take that professorial lecturing tone. I've been in business for awhile and don't care about your sense of pompous self importance.

Best, M

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't think Einstein's quote I posted above was related to "dummies versions". Unfortunately, we won't be able to prove it (or for that matter, otherwise), since Mr. Einstein has been dead for quite awhile.

Nobody was talking about oversimplification here. Since Mr. Einstein was quite a smart fellow I will allow myself to post another quote of his: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler".

Also, I'd suggest you not to take that professorial lecturing tone. I've been in business for awhile and don't care about your sense of pompous self importance.

Best, M

Sorry but I'm not interested in a generic fight off the topic.

If you want to detail precisely what you felt should have been worded differently, by all means detail how you would have worded it and we'll have something to discuss. Otherwise, whatever your simpler version is might not even be the same point. Just because something goes into issues that you do not personally consider, it does not therefore follow that they are not being stated in their simplest form or that information presented is superfluous.

I'm not interested in discussing on a basis of speculations rather than through specific critcisms and I'm certainly not interested in reciprocating the off-topic personally directed insults contained in your post.

PS I don't believe that Einstein was suggesting that a tweet is the right length. However, if you will misuse his quote to try to imply that a short concise paragraph on such a big topic as piano technique is not simple enough them expect  to see the implication taken  to its natural absurd conclusion. What I've actually done is summarise the fact that all piano technique demands movement or stiffening the hand to pass on energy and that there's no substitute and no mystical "right" amount of tension. Good stabilisation only comes with changes in muscle state-not through a generic one-size-fits-all state of tightening in the hand. Many authors have written hundreds of thousands of words without even touching on such a simple and overwhelmingly relevant issue. I made the point in a single paragraph, but my apologies if that wasn't concise enough.

[lostinidlewonder]

Sorry but I'm not interested in a generic fight off the topic.

But you are interested in your paragraphs of ramblings which are off topic to the rest of us lol.

[liszt85]

I gladly assume you might know what you are talking about. I however, have very hard time following your ideas and getting your point with all that verbosity. As it is, it reminds me Einstein: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Try it simpler and much more concise.

Best, M

  +1 The guy has been rambling on and on, saying the same things he's been saying for years on all existing piano forums in the world. Nobody understands a word and the funny thing is, he doesn't care that nobody understands. All he does is hijack threads for his ramblings. His blog is even more verbose. Trying to find sense in his writings is like attempting to find a needle in a haystack. I've tried and I promise you I'm a smart fellow. I wonder where his nemesis is (keyboardklutist or something like that is his handle). They usually have their own side war and people have to wade through that stuff to converse with each other in an otherwise useful thread.

[liszt85]

As long as this is understood clearly by the student, all is good 

Glad you caught that amongst all the rubbish.

[nyiregyhazi]

+1 The guy has been rambling on and on, saying the same things he's been saying for years on all existing piano forums in the world. Nobody understands a word and the funny thing is, he doesn't care that nobody understands. All he does is hijack threads for his ramblings. His blog is even more verbose. Trying to find sense in his writings is like attempting to find a needle in a haystack. I've tried and I promise you I'm a smart fellow. I wonder where his nemesis is (keyboardklutist or something like that is his handle). They usually have their own side war and people have to wade through that stuff to converse with each other in an otherwise useful thread.

Call it verbose if you must, but I've actually summarised the key issue in the most concise and explicit terms possible. What I find verbose is the reams of subjective and ill-defined nonsense about dropping the arm (without reference to the objective fact that only generating movement in the hand can prevent the hand stiffening into the impact, in order to allow it to be a safe and healthy approach) and the mystery of the supposed "right" amount of tension. Tension and release concepts are both highly imprecise and actively misleading with regard to what works.

The reality is possible to convey in a single a paragraph of just a few sentences. The fact that those sentences differ from popular explanations makes it very easy to be dismissive, but it's a simple fact that a relaxed hand collapses and that this reduces energy transfer- whether you drop or play from the back or whatever. Even a rigidly tense hand collapses a little and it's not healthy to attempt that rigidity as a solution to collapse.Thus, based on the style of logic of Sherlock Holmes, having eliminated the impossible we are left with the true explanation, however unlikely it may seem. Hands and fingers need to generate true movement, in order to pass on energy effectively in loud chords - and especially so when giving the arm a big role. Anyone who wants to learn to play loud can either spend a lifetime searching for the Holy grail of the supposed correct amount of tension to pass on arm force, or they can get on with learning to generate adequate movement in their hand to pass energy on without either stiffening or collapsing. The only paths to success are those that lead to simplicity of energy transfer at the point of contact with the key.

If you consider yourself a smart fellow and are making intelligent rather than emotive criticism, then I would welcome a specific explanation of your basis for dismissal. Go ahead and debunk the above with specifics. Smart criticisms are specific and accountable, not generic and vague.

[marik1]

If you want to detail precisely what you felt should have been worded differently, by all means detail how you would have worded it and we'll have something to discuss.

You are a funny person. I am telling you I did not understand what is your point and now you are asking me to tell you how you should've worded it? You might need to figure it out yourself...

Otherwise, whatever your simpler version is might not even be the same point.

Sorry, I don't have any simpler version, let alone understand what is your point (as I indicated earlier). Other than that, there is very big difference between simpler version and simpler explanation--that was exactly my point.

Just because something goes into issues that you do not personally consider, it does not therefore follow that they are not being stated in their simplest form or that information presented is superfluous.

What makes you think you know which issues I personally consider, to start with?

I'm not interested in discussing on a basis of speculations rather than through specific critcisms...

Which speculations are you talking about? How is it possible to make any meaningful criticism to your rumblings?

I don't believe that Einstein was suggesting that a tweet is the right length.

Where did you see me (or for matter, Einstein) using a word "tweet"? What are you talking about?

However, if you will misuse his quote to try to imply that a short concise paragraph on such a big topic as piano technique is not simple enough them expect  to see the implication taken  to its natural absurd conclusion. What I've actually done is summarise the fact that all piano technique demands movement or stiffening the hand to pass on energy and that there's no substitute and no mystical "right" amount of tension. Good stabilisation only comes with changes in muscle state-not through a generic one-size-fits-all state of tightening in the hand. Many authors have written hundreds of thousands of words without even touching on such a simple and overwhelmingly relevant issue. I made the point in a single paragraph, but my apologies if that wasn't concise enough.

Good Lord! What are you talking about? OK, you won--I resign! Congratulations!!!

[nyiregyhazi]

Sorry, but if you don't understand the difference between movement and fixation in the hand, there's no simpler version. It doesn't get more basic than the fact that relaxed joints collapse, stiff ones collapse less but still by a trace and that only being in movement in the right direction means you can't be collapsing in the opposite direction. This is relevant because collapse sends less energy into sound and more of it into keybed impacts. There is no more basic version of the underlying facts. If that doesn't make sense, it's just not the right viewpoint for you because you've never looked at it in those terms. Just because something is new and outside of your personal manner of thought, it doesn't mean that exploring it wouldn't ultimately reveal it to be extremely concise and straight to the point in the revealing the issue under the surface of good and bad ways of producing tone.

. If you don't think of piano in similar objective terms that's fine. Think in the way that already works for you. However simply because something is being described from a different viewpoint, that doesn't give you the right to assert that it is not being condensed to the simplest form possible. You quoted Einstein, but somehow I doubt that you'd make much sense of his most concise proof of e=mc squared. You just don't think in the same objective light that I made the simple analysis, but from a subjective viewpoint that works for you- which is why that doesn't personally give you something to relate to.

Your hand already learned how to move, so you've never had to stop and consider these issues in order to further your technique. Those whose hands are the weak link in the chain (ie 99 percent of pianists) benefit from realising why dropping the arm or pushing from the back is useless if the hand can only stiffen or collapse in response. That shouldn't be at all complex to grasp. Only movement can balance things out healthily- not some theoretical level of tension that is just the right amount.

[thalbergmad]

Sorry, but if you don't understand the difference between movement and fixation in the hand, there's no simpler version. 

Even if he doesn't understand, for someone who can play like Marik, it is not required.

Thal

[nyiregyhazi]

Even if he doesn't understand, for someone who can play like Marik, it is not required.

Thal

Sure, that was my point. The problem is that most people don't play like marik. By appreciating the difference between the limits of fixation (within situations that force it to occur) and those of productive movement, ordinary mortals can come a lot closer. If you don't need to adapt your thinking then there's no reason to. But for those who are not already flourishing, there's more to be gained by taking the time to try to understand a few rather simple objective facts, than in casually writing them off via abuse of an Einstein quote - merely because they do not instantly conform to conventional thoughts.

[m1469]

The problem is that most people don't play like marik.

Marik didn't even always play like Marik.  He also had to find his way there from a pianistic standpoint, and perhaps in ways you may be surprised about.  The fact alone that he has achieved what he has is a good reason to seriously consider his points, but there are more dimensions to his understanding, as well.

[nyiregyhazi]

Marik didn't even always play like Marik.  He also had to find his way there from a pianistic standpoint, and perhaps in ways you may be surprised about.  The fact alone that he has achieved what he has is a good reason to seriously consider his points, but there are more dimensions to his understanding, as well.

Nobody said that a subjective approach is inherently invalid. The problem with subjective descriptions is that they can actively mislead a lot of people unless they start from the right place. I pointed out the objective issues about the role of movement in the hand (which he casually dismissed) because trying to play loud without paying attention to this necessary element does not work. Not unless a very particular set of skills are already unshakeably in place.

A small number of well-trained pianists end up in a place where they can move extremely well with the fingers but do not connect their body well enough to play louder. For 99.9% of pianists, however, the hand simply doesn't move freely enough to start transmitting arm power in a truly meaningful way (without resort to stiffness and tension).

[m1469]

Objectively, the genesis of an effective fortissimo is solely that which is musically fitting.

[j_menz]

Objectively, the genesis of an effective fortissimo is solely that which is musically fitting.

I sometimes find an alternate genesis in the frustration engendered by doing something musically most unfitting. 

[m1469]

I sometimes find an alternate genesis in the frustration engendered by doing something musically most unfitting.  

If it's effective, it's musically fitting ... otherwise it's just sound.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

A small number of well-trained pianists end up in a place where they can move extremely well with the fingers but do not connect their body well enough to play louder. For 99.9% of pianists, however, the hand simply doesn't move freely enough to start transmitting arm power in a truly meaningful way (without resort to stiffness and tension).

99.9%?? That's an extraordinary statistic. I don't feel any tension when I'm playing ff (unless the passage is in itself technically difficult, in which case the passage is the problem, not the dynamic level) - does that place me in the 0.1%? I don't buy the statement at all.

[thalbergmad]

That's an extraordinary statistic.

Given that one must have seen 99.9% of pianists to verify it.

That is a hell of a lot of travel.

Thal

[pianoman53]

But we all know that N is an expert is every single persons body. And since is the expert that he is, he knows things like that, obviously..!

[nyiregyhazi]

Objectively, the genesis of an effective fortissimo is solely that which is musically fitting.

Try telling that to a pianist after cutting his hands off. Everything is based equally on means.

[pianoman53]

But 99.99% of all pianists have their hands left, so that's just stupid.

[nyiregyhazi]

But 99.99% of all pianists have their hands left, so that's just stupid.

Given that it takes but a single counterexample to disprove a fallacious assertion, even a deliberately stupid one serves the purpose. If you rack your brains, perhaps you can also think of ways in which a pianist with hands might also need more than "solely" musical ideas, in order to terrify an audience with the sonorous power of his fortissimo?

Consider the example of Godowsky - who was renowned as a musician by numerous great peers but who was said to be too dynamically weak to sound good in anything bigger than a small room. They said much the same of Chopin. Still, given m1469's comment, obviously neither had any concept of a fortissimo (in spite of Chopin's request for the pianist to play as loud as possible in the score of op 25 no 12).

[pianoman53]

Given that it takes but a single counterexample to disprove a fallacious assertion, even a deliberately stupid one serves the purpose. If you rack your brains, perhaps you can also think of ways in which a pianist with hands might also need more than "solely" musical ideas, in order to terrify an audience with the sonorous power of his fortissimo?

Consider the example of Godowsky - who was renowned as a musician by numerous great peers but who was said to be too dynamically weak to sound good in anything bigger than a small room. They said much the same of Chopin. Still, given m1469's comment, obviously neither had any concept of a fortissimo (in spite of Chopin's request for the pianist to play as loud as possible in the score of op 25 no 12).

I didn't say I agreed with what m1469 wrote. You still made an incredibly stupid comment, and you can't drag Godowsky and Chopin into it, to try to save it, no matter how many words you use.

[m1469]

Everything is based equally on means.

I didn't actually exclude the means since what I wrote is the basis for whatever is necessary, in context, physically.  Marik already pointed these things out, and without musical context, discussions on physical techniques to achieve musical effectiveness are ultimately missing the point.  And, also as Marik pointed out, I agree that it is truly to be explored with a knowledgeable teacher. 

[nyiregyhazi]

I didn't actually exclude the means since what I wrote is the basis for whatever is necessary, in context, physically.  Marik already pointed these things out, and without musical context, discussions on physical techniques to achieve musical effectiveness are ultimately missing the point.  And, also as Marik pointed out, I agree that it is truly to be explored with a knowledgeable teacher. 

If someone has the musical curiosity to ask how to do an effective fortissimo, they are considering musical context by definition.

There are plenty of subtle differences, but the basic mechanism by which to make a big resonant sound is very little different in any. To avoid percussive whacks and ugly tone, the hand needs to be able to generate movement rather than stiffness. The only issue would be that if you really want a percussive tone, you might occasionally stiffen deliberately. Aside from that, there's very little difference in the basic means. At mid levels, there are all kinds of different ways to stroke a key. For a really big fortissimo, there's nothing that compensates for not getting it right in the hand, regardless of musical context. The context dictates the fine details, not the basic technique needed.

[m1469]

If someone has the musical curiosity to ask how to do an effective fortissimo, they are considering musical context by definition.

There are plenty of subtle differences, but the basic mechanism by which to make a big resonant sound is very little different in any. To avoid percussive whacks and ugly tone, the hand needs to be able to generate movement rather than stiffness. The only issue would be that if you really want a percussive tone, you might occasionally stiffen deliberately. Aside from that, there's very little difference in the basic means. At mid levels, there are all kinds of different ways to stroke a key. For a really big fortissimo, there's nothing that compensates for not getting it right in the hand, regardless of musical context. The context dictates the fine details, not the basic technique needed.

In the context of my current life and perception of the context of this topic, there is very little benefit/point in delving any further into this.  In the end, you will continue to post from your certain standpoint for the same reasons you have always done so and I have no desire to try to stand in your way.

[j_menz]

That is a hell of a lot of travel.

FF miles for FF studies? 

[richard black]

OK, here's how you do it:

To play fortissimo you need to get the keys down fast. In turn, to do that, you need a moderate amount of muscle in the fingers (the hands and arms will be strong enough in any person of normal build and good health over the age of 10 or so, so we don't really need to worry about that much).

You also need the control (which can be achieved by various means) to get the keys down at the right time (within surprisingly tight tolerances, order of 10 milliseconds is probably not far off) and _each individual one_ at the right speed. The best way to work out how to do this is to bear these simple (conceptually simple) facts in mind as you practice.

Beyond that, nothing much matters. Different ways of approaching the keyboard may, for a given individual, make this more or less straightforward and more or less comfortable/tiring, of course.

[nyiregyhazi]

OK, here's how you do it:

To play fortissimo you need to get the keys down fast. In turn, to do that, you need a moderate amount of muscle in the fingers (the hands and arms will be strong enough in any person of normal build and good health over the age of 10 or so, so we don't really need to worry about that much).

You also need the control (which can be achieved by various means) to get the keys down at the right time (within surprisingly tight tolerances, order of 10 milliseconds is probably not far off) and _each individual one_ at the right speed. The best way to work out how to do this is to bear these simple (conceptually simple) facts in mind as you practice.

Beyond that, nothing much matters. Different ways of approaching the keyboard may, for a given individual, make this more or less straightforward and more or less comfortable/tiring, of course.

Even if it's necessarily objectively true that the key always moves at extreme speeds (and honestly, I'm not 100% convinced even on that) for loudest sounds, there's a problem with looking at it too simplistically.

In cricket, a player who can hit a six almost certainly generates more speed in the ball. But trying to swing his bat "fast" will not generate the most speed in the ball unless he paces the action. Speed in the ball itself is earned by timing of the motion, not by just trying to swing the bat "fast".  If we speak of playing from contact even, let's compare to hockey. Again, even starting in contact, trying to move the stick as fast as possible is nothing without pacing. Start with a jerk and you lose the all-important bond between stick and puck/ball too soon and can't apply the same acceleration through the moment of let-off. The action where they bond properly, to apply maximum impulse via steadier accleration may not even be perceived as being fast- as the instant of greatest absolute speed is timed so precisely.

That's without even going into the fact that moving fast in the arm (which is where almost everyone tries to create the speed) doesn't make the fingertip or the key itself move so fast, if there's give in the chain that will be compressed. Even if loud playing definitely is just simply from a higher absolute key speed (and I'm really not totally convinced that this is a indisputable truth) the TIMING of where you reach the highest speed is everything to what the hammer receives. People who simplistically try to move a key as fast as possible are almost always doomed to failure (without a background in the kind of technical issues that will allow them to both bond with the resistance of the key and pace the acceleration effectively).

In my opinion, even if it is about speed, the best way to perceive the ingredients for a healthy fortissimo is by subjectively trying to move as slowly but as powerfully as possible. There are too many other factors for me to give a simple way of how to make that mindset effective but, for me, as Bolet said (albeit misquoted completely out the original context, here) "speed is the enemy". If someone can't produce it without notably trying hard to make speed happen, it's probably the wrong kind of speed. I feel almost all healthy actions as if they were slow and gradual, except on rare occasions of wanting a percussive edge from an abrupt attack. If the hammer itself is probably moving faster, I don't feel that in how my body moves.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Hit the weight room!

[ahinton]

OK, here's how you do it:

To play fortissimo you need to get the keys down fast. In turn, to do that, you need a moderate amount of muscle in the fingers (the hands and arms will be strong enough in any person of normal build and good health over the age of 10 or so, so we don't really need to worry about that much).

You also need the control (which can be achieved by various means) to get the keys down at the right time (within surprisingly tight tolerances, order of 10 milliseconds is probably not far off) and _each individual one_ at the right speed. The best way to work out how to do this is to bear these simple (conceptually simple) facts in mind as you practice.

Beyond that, nothing much matters. Different ways of approaching the keyboard may, for a given individual, make this more or less straightforward and more or less comfortable/tiring, of course.

Simply explained. Case closed, methinks!

Best,

Alistair

[nyiregyhazi]

Simply explained. Case closed, methinks!

Best,

Alistair

Sadly simplest isn't always best. has anyone actually tried this is in a teaching context? Teaching a student who plays with a feeble mf to get more tone in a piece of rachmaninoff by thinking about moving faster?

I'm actually going to try this and then use it show the futility of the mindset (before going on to show the student how to interact better and feel the resistance of the keys better). Years back I was taught to think slow in all big sounds. This helped, but I only fully understood it after learning the fundaments of how fingers and keys must interact in a coherently connected manner. A big effortless sound is not simple and advice that is rarely scratches the surface,unless the pianist already mastered what is not simple. If any mindset is to be used, I'd always favour slowness, but I wouldn't expect that in itself to teach anyone anything especially useful.

I have one very advanced student who recently did a diploma, by the way. The speed mindset was exactly what I had to get him to be eradicate. In a faure barcarolle  he tended to "whack" a little at some big chords and produce a rough tone. His sound improved immeasurably when he stopped trying to move fast and instead focused the hand better, so as to transmit energy through a precisely measured action that feels slow and nothing like a quick jerk of the arm.

[ahinton]

Sadly simplest isn't always best.

Not for you, perhaps, but Richard Black has quite a few years of piano playing behind him and does know what he's talking about. I'm not implying that his post tells all on the subject in immense detail - obviously it doesn't and was not intended to do so - but it is still fundamentally to the point.

Best,

Alistair

[nyiregyhazi]

Not for you, perhaps, but Richard Black has quite a few years of piano playing behind him and does know what he's talking about. I'm not implying that his post tells all on the subject in immense detail - obviously it doesn't and was not intended to do so - but it is still fundamentally to the point.

Best,

Alistair

Simple advice is not of any value unless it can be applied simply. This is on a par with telling an ordinary driver who's trying to navigate a formula 1 track for the first time that the trick is to retain as much speed as possible for the tightest corners. That might be great for an accomplished expert, who needs to shave off a couple more tenths of a second to rival the track record, but not for someone who doesn't have the experience.

Honestly, from experience of teaching even very advanced students, encouraging the idea of thinking about how high keyspeed contributes to loud sounds is about as far as I can imagine from anything that typically helps. It encourages forceful stabs that end in horrible tense keybed collisions. They lose the "feel" of interacting with the key and often hit the keybed with substantially more force, without necessarily getting more sound. Some people literally even mistimed it so much that they get less sound, not more, until they learn a slower and more continuous action.

I know that Richard is a fine pianist, but it's what he already acquired that really isn't simple that allows him not to be harmed by a simple speed based mindset. In virtually any inexperienced hands, aiming for more keyspeed is just about the counterproductive thing a person could do, if they're hoping to produce a sonorous and effortless fortissimo with a genuinely simple movement. It's the other bits that will make it work in teaching that references key speed, not the simple talk of keyspeed itself.

[liszt85]

Even if it's necessarily objectively true that the key always moves at extreme speeds (and honestly, I'm not 100% convinced even on that) for loudest sounds, there's a problem with looking at it too simplistically.

Why are you not 100% convinced about the fact that the key has to go down faster for a louder note? Can you press the key down slower and make a loud note for me (on video)?

Just to be clear (anticipating a verbose response from you), tell me if this statement is true or false:

Compared to a softer sound, the key needs to go down faster in order to produce a louder sound.

Remember: TRUE or FALSE.

[faulty_damper]

I think you're misunderstanding what nyiregyhazi is saying.  He's saying that telling a student to do it faster won't necessarily get the desired tone; there are other minute details that must be attended to that allows a large sonorous sound to be achieved.  Speed is one aspect, but not all encompassing.  This is the difference between banging and music.

[richard black]

I never believed in trying to tell anyone all the details about anything. Tell them enough to enable them to work out the details for themselves. The ones who can't be bothered were never going to amount to anything anyway.

[pianoplayer002]

I never believed in trying to tell anyone all the details about anything. Tell them enough to enable them to work out the details for themselves. The ones who can't be bothered were never going to amount to anything anyway.

And what about those students who are really passionate about playing but just can't figure it out for themselves, and are condemned to a lifetime of playing below their potential, discomfort and even injury just because the teacher can't be bothered to work out how to teach the correct technique?

[liszt85]

I think you're misunderstanding what nyiregyhazi is saying.  He's saying that telling a student to do it faster won't necessarily get the desired tone; there are other minute details that must be attended to that allows a large sonorous sound to be achieved.  Speed is one aspect, but not all encompassing.  This is the difference between banging and music.

No he said he wasn't 100% convinced that the key moves faster when producing a loud sound. I've been teaching for some time now as well. When students are required to play loud, I don't tell them "produce a higher velocity of the key". Things like dynamic markings can only be interpreted and applied in their musical context. That is a slightly different discussion. So I know the difference between what Nyir said and what you think he meant.

[nyiregyhazi]

No he said he wasn't 100% convinced that the key moves faster when producing a loud sound. I've been teaching for some time now as well. When students are required to play loud, I don't tell them "produce a higher velocity of the key". Things like dynamic markings can only be interpreted and applied in their musical context. That is a slightly different discussion. So I know the difference between what Nyir said and what you think he meant.

No, he read what I stated in explicit terms and accurately recounted it, based on consideration and understanding of my point. The only "difference" in anything exists between what I wrote and what you falsely assert that I said. Read again.

I indeed believe that fastest key speed doesn't always equal loudest sound. To accelerate something well you need to be continuously in contact with its resistance. It's been shown that when whacking a key, the hammer leaves contact with the mechanism much earlier. You lose the full range of movement in which they could have been coupled. In this case, absolute keyspeed may not be passed on- except to the keybed. A short bond between key and hammer doesn't give good acceleration, if the bond does not last all the way until escapement. Even if hammer speed were the only issue, as some assert in the tone thread, there's not a simple and unbreakable correlation between maximum key speed and getting maximum hammer speed. It isn't remotely so simplistic, or playing piano would be easier for all and not merely for the few. Simply move faster = bullshit advice, except for those with the technique to do it.

In any case, I ALSO said that thinking about speed is not the trick to imparting notable speed into another body. Would I only be able to hold one of the two views you listed? No. I hold both and they are not mutually exclusive.

There's good reason why cricket coaches don't tell batsmen either to achieve a big hit by swinging the bat as fast as possible, or even to try to make the ball move as fast as possible. It wreaks havoc with the coordination to have such an ideal. Moving your body fast doesn't automatically pass a large speed onto an external body. Often, the only way to pass on serious acceleration is to pace the acceleration in a manner where achieving a large absolute speed is not a conscious part or the intention, but the very thing you must hold back from allowing until the instant of separation (ie escapement) . When you learn to interact continuously with the keys resistance, you produce a huge tone without needing to attempt any feeling of speed. It's remarkable how slow it can feel.

Regarding musicality, I doubt whether many students are too unmusical to notice the five or so fs at the end or rachmaninoff's c sharp minor Prelude. Neither asking them to consider the musical context (as if they thought it just said single forte) nor telling them to move keys faster does a jot of good for helping an intermediate student to play with a truly big sound.

[hardy_practice]

It's been shown that when whacking a key, the hammer leaves contact with the mechanism much earlier.

You gotta be kidding right?  It's confirmed by a tech?

[liszt85]

No, he read what I stated in explicit terms and accurately recounted it, based on consideration and understanding of my point. The only "difference" in anything exists between what I wrote and what you falsely assert that I said. Read again.

I indeed believe that fastest key speed doesn't always equal loudest sound.

Isn't this what I said you said? This demonstrates a fundamental flaw in your understanding of physics. We've been through this multiple times before on many forums. Apparently, you think having done one college course on Physics makes you an expert whereas somebody with a masters on the subject doesn't know as much as you do about it.

You continue to say things like "there's not a simple and unbreakable correlation between maximum key speed and getting maximum hammer speed". The way the action is constructed, it is irrefutable that key speed and hammer speed, and hammer speed and loudness are directly and absolutely (unbreakably) related.

Now of course, "play with a faster key speed" is not the advice you'd give someone (so please don't construct strawmen here, that isn't what I said). You'll need to teach people how to achieve key speeds using an effective technique. Whether or not the hammer leaves early is a matter about tone (so you need to incorporate advice about tone as well, all that is fine). So I do believe that "whacking" does do terrible things for tone but we weren't talking about tone. We were talking about the absolute relationship between key speed, hammer speed and loudness. You said you weren't 100% convinced that they were unbreakably related and I called your BS.

Now you can continue saying all you want. You can twist my words all you want. I've been very clear about what I'm saying here.

[liszt85]

You gotta be kidding right?  It's confirmed by a tech?

The reason "whacking" does harm to your tone is not because it was proven that the hammer leaves the strings earlier. It is probably the outcome of a complex interaction of dampening of the strings (because when you release the key, you dampen those strings) and some minor variation in how the hammer gets rebounded from the strings (as Nyir suggested, but I wouldn't say it has been proven beyond doubt that there is a significant difference there unless he shows me a source.. but I don't have a problem with the claim either). Also, when you have a big chord, when there are multiple keys being held down, the overtone structure of the sound changes because there are multiple reverberating strings inside the piano because the damper cloth is lifted off all those keys. So banging on the keys don't give you the advantage of having reverberating strings inside the piano compared to when you have a more solid technique of playing loud (which takes into account how you attack the keys and the precise timing with which you hold them down, the precise timing of the pedaling, etc). It is difficult to attribute tone to any of these factors by themselves because like I said, it is a complex interaction. Somebody qualified in the science of acoustics needs to do a controlled study about these things.

[nyiregyhazi]

You gotta be kidding right?  It's confirmed by a tech?

Ortmann observed it as I recall. I think it was mentioned in the tone thread.

It's nothing more than common sense anyway. It's similar to the way swiping a cricket bat "fast" will not make a ball spring off it fast if you swing it without awareness of pacing through the ball. If you get too fast too soon and fail to accelerate through contact with the ball, it rebounds off too soon. You don't have enough chance to apply energy to it before you stop acting on it, so you pass on less speed than a more measured action can. Likewise, jab at a piano key without being sure to pace acceleration through the action and the hammer will simply bounce right off the mechanism and it will be as good as if the escapement level came earlier in the motion. If you're not in contact with the hammer, you can't be accelerating it - no matter how fast the key itself might be travelling.

To put it another way, it's no different to how hitting a trolley with a very wild swipe of a baseball bat (that moves very fast indeed) may not generate much speed at all in the trolley. It compared rebounds to quick to pass on acceleration effectively. Compare to a slightly longer push that is done with minimal intent to move quickly, compared to the bat- and you may very well generate notably more speed on the trolley. The action that feels (and indeed is) slower can pass on more speed.

Simplicity of thought all too often gives a totally inaccurate and misleading picture - even if it superficially appears to be solid logic, until you expand on the thinking behind it.

[nyiregyhazi]

The reason "whacking" does harm to your tone is not because it was proven that the hammer leaves the strings earlier. It is probably the outcome of a complex interaction of dampening of the strings (because when you release the key, you dampen those strings) and some minor variation in how the hammer gets rebounded from the strings (as Nyir suggested, but I wouldn't say it has been proven beyond doubt that there is a significant difference there unless he shows me a source.. but I don't have a problem with the claim either). Also, when you have a big chord, when there are multiple keys being held down, the overtone structure of the sound changes because there are multiple reverberating strings inside the piano because the damper cloth is lifted off all those keys. So banging on the keys don't give you the advantage of having reverberating strings inside the piano compared to when you have a more solid technique of playing loud (which takes into account how you attack the keys and the precise timing with which you hold them down, the precise timing of the pedaling, etc). It is difficult to attribute tone to any of these factors by themselves because like I said, it is a complex interaction. Somebody qualified in the science of acoustics needs to do a controlled study about these things.

I didnt speak of rebounding from the strings and neither does whacking necessarily mean releasing the key quickly . It's a matter of the hammer being able to leave contact with the key mechanism too early, rather than being consistently accelerated by it all the way from beginning to escapement. This illustrates that key speed is not automatically translated to hammer speed, without fail. Obviously there's a huge degree of correlation, but it's not a simple case of key speed turning automatically into hammer speed without scope for variable loss in transmission.


I ALSO said, most importantly of all, that trying to make a hammer go faster by trying to force bigger speeds to come about is not a reliable way of passing on speed. That's what the other poster summarised entirely accurately and what you had no business "correcting" him on. People can make more than one point. They summarised the point that I stressed as being the most significant factor, with complete accuracy. Anyway, I've given the reason behind the how the more minor point (that I only even made in passing) can be an issue too. If you doubt it, go to a supermarket with a baseball bat and see how much speed you generate by whacking trolleys with a fast swipe, compared to a slower push from your hands (in which you scarcely even need to try, in order to bring about plenty of speed).

If two things are not coupled at all times, speed generated in one thing cannot be anywhere near fully passed on to the next. Arm speed doesn't necessarily turn into finger speed. Finger speed doesn't necessarily get passed to key speed. Key speed doesn't necessarily get passed to hammer speed. It's not so simple, or nobody would have a problem playing loud. When speed starts in the arm, you're so many stages removed that only a tiny fraction of the perceived speed caused by the arm may reach the hammer (which is why the hand itself needs not merely to brace but to actually generate movement, for any serious hammer speed

[richard black]

It is probably the outcome of a complex interaction of dampening of the strings (because when you release the key, you dampen those strings

Anybody dampening my strings is going to get whacked. Rust on strings is a bastard.

Why is it surprising that the hammer assembly loses contact with the rest of the mechanism earlier if the key is 'whacked'? I would have thought this is a classic semi-elastic collision. But it doesn't really make any difference to anything much, does it? The loudness is still determined by the speed with with the hammer hits the string, and the tone is still determined almost entirely by the relative loudness and time of attack of the notes sounding (more or less) simultaneously. I really can't understand why so many people seem to want it to be more complicated than that. It's plenty complicated enough already - more to the point, it's plenty hard enough to deal with in practice.

[nyiregyhazi]

Anybody dampening my strings is going to get whacked. Rust on strings is a bastard.

Why is it surprising that the hammer assembly loses contact with the rest of the mechanism earlier if the key is 'whacked'? I would have thought this is a classic semi-elastic collision. But it doesn't really make any difference to anything much, does it? The loudness is still determined by the speed with with the hammer hits the string, and the tone is still determined almost entirely by the relative loudness and time of attack of the notes sounding (more or less) simultaneously. I really can't understand why so many people seem to want it to be more complicated than that. It's plenty complicated enough already - more to the point, it's plenty hard enough to deal with in practice.

I understand fully- that even if it's true, it's on a par with stressing nothing to a marathon runner than the key to winning to is to get to the end fastest. The challenge in both is in pacing things in order to achieve the end goal. Part of each is is about holding speed back early on rather than going all out. In each, too much sudden speed at the beginning will prevent a good result (albeit in very different ways). Success does not come from fixating on the blindingly obvious. It comes from consideration of the practical factors that will actually help you to achieve that in practise.

PS. The whack vs the smooth acceleration affects hammer flexion. An unbending hammer can credibly apply more impulse to a string than one that isn't springing back out of a bend. A whacked note can also influence how much of whack goes into the keybed. And potentially how the hammer vibrates, which has never been disproven as a factor in a pianist's sound. All of the evidence about sound waves being the same hinges on interpretation of waves being subjectively judged  "close enough", not on truly identical results over and over.

The simple reason that the "easy" explanation becomes complicated is because it is so far short of conveying what makes the differences that occur. Thus it leaves them a total mystery - which is not simple. Appreciate a few extra factors and you can start to realise the specific causes of problems - rather than leave the case of someone who is already trying to move keys as fast as they can as a mystery. Or the case of someone who barely even seems to move for a huge FFF as a seemingly supernatural enigma. Simple explanations that leave complicated questions are directly responsible for making the important part look so complex - by being coarsely and impractically oversimplified to the point of confusing things.

[blazekenny]

Fortissimo is always a contrast to a good pianissimo. Also, never do speed and strength at once.