Tone development and interpretation/tempo ?

[m19834]

So, you play one note to find out how long it will sound in the air.  It's quite awhile actually, especially if it is played in the mid to lower regions of the instrument.  The tone has an attack, a development, and a decay -- other than that, I don't know too much more regarding the physics of it all.  What I hear though is that the tone is not at its fullest right away, but develops into its fullest after the initial attack.  If my desire were to establish each tone in its more fuller state before moving on to the next tone, because of a natural development in piano tones itself, a natural tempo would establish itself (depending on my rate of attack and desired tonal affect).  If the piano tones are moved on from before they have a chance to establish their more fuller sound, all we are hearing is more or less the initial attack sound, which to me is more percussive.  All of this would, of course, depend somewhat on the particular instrument, and along those lines, the pianos from the days of Mozart and even Beethoven had different physics than the pianos of Shostakovich and Rachmaninov (I am having deja vu) -- I believe the pianos of Mozart and Beethoven had a much quicker decay, for example.

This all seems significant to me, and the actual tone quality that is being sounded from the instrument seems somewhat dependent on all of this, and it seems that it would affect the embodiment of the music itself.  But, how much should this be taken into consideration when interpreting pieces, and especially for those pieces written by composers of different times (okay, I know I have talked about this a little bit before) ?  To me, if a person is achieving mainly the "attack" of a tone, it is a more percussive sound, vs. a fuller development that is more like "singing" to me.  And, if quicker tempos don't allow for a fuller tone development, is it safe to say that the aim in actual "sound" is to be more percussive in general ?

I will stop there and I realize I am probably thinking a bit much on this, but this question has been in the back of my mind for quite some time and is just now coming out.  In listening to my own improvs, I already know that I am not thinking in the classic terms of tempo and bars and so on, for better or for worse with that.  But, I am finally realizing that I am thinking more in terms of the actual sound that is coming from the instrument and that seems to be setting up my tempo for the "piece" or improv.  But, how does that all relate to other composers ?

Okay, bye bye for now

[general disarray]

Overtones.  That's what you need to explore.  The string is struck, vibrates -- not as a single entity only -- but as many vibrations splitting off into many parts.  These are overtones.

The overtone series of say, C, has six partials.

Check out W.A. Mathieu's book "Harmonic Experience" for further, enlightening details on acoustics.  Sounds like you'd love this book.

[landru]

Actually I was thinking of these ideas on the piece I'm learning now. In the first movement's second "theme" (or the stuff right after the measure long rest if it isn't strictly a theme) of Beethoven's Op. 10 No. 1 sonata there is a forte single note E-flat that stands alone for a measure and then is held on for the next measure while the second theme starts in piano.

For me, it seems that note is meant to lay a foundation of overtones in its decay that the second theme is interacting with. And then I thought that the tempo you choose for the piece affects how that interaction will sound - if you play it really fast, the overtone will last relatively long (but of course it will be over so quick that the interaction might not register!), if you play it slow there will be less interaction. And then of course it depends on the instrument as well - some pianos will have a deep sound while others won't.

As far as what is "correct" in terms of how you play that E-flat and tempo, I don't know, but I do think you have to recognize that it is there and is intentional - I mean this is Beethoven, he *knew* what was happening! And I find it fascinating to work with yet another thing in his music.

[general disarray]

Actually I was thinking of these ideas on the piece I'm learning now. In the first movement's second "theme" (or the stuff right after the measure long rest if it isn't strictly a theme) of Beethoven's Op. 10 No. 1 sonata there is a forte single note E-flat that stands alone for a measure and then is held on for the next measure while the second theme starts in piano.

For me, it seems that note is meant to lay a foundation of overtones in its decay that the second theme is interacting with.

As far as what is "correct" in terms of how you play that E-flat and tempo, I don't know, but I do think you have to recognize that it is there and is intentional - I mean this is Beethoven, he *knew* what was happening! And I find it fascinating to work with yet another thing in his music.

I agree.  When I began studying the matter of overtones it explained so much to me about the choices composers make -- whether conscious or unconscious.  I noticed it first in Rachmaninov, in some particularly difficult passages in the Second Concerto.  I wondered why Rach wrote, what seemed to my medium-sized hand, such awkward stretches.  Well, the first thought was the usual one:  because he COULD with his large hands!  But, the real reason, when I analyzed his choices harmonically, was his exploitation of overtones that gives his sound such ringing richness.

Chopin and Liszt, too, are constantly exploiting this aspect of harmony to make the piano sound more sonorous. 

Well, I'm sure this issue is old hat to all accomplished composers.

[richard black]

Big subject! Yes, the rate at which the various harmonics (including the fundamental) of each note build up and decay is the foundation of each individual instrument's sound, and is influenced by _everything_ string dimensions and condition, hammer condition, construction of soundboard and the rest of the piano, etc. etc. The best pianists and composers have always understood (instinctively - few of them were scientific acousticians!) how to make the sounds they wanted by controlling the intensity and timing of every hammer impact, and this is indeed the foundation of piano tone - dammit, it's about all we've got to play with.

And all this stuff is a major reason why it's so fascinating to play instruments of 100, 150, 200... years ago.

[faulty_damper]

There is no development.  What is perceived as development is actually the tone settling into the pitch from the attack.  It's just attack and decay.

[general disarray]

There is no development.  What is perceived as development is actually the tone settling into the pitch from the attack.  It's just attack and decay.

No, there's much more than that.  Let's walk through it:

First, the generating tone, let's say C, is struck (first partial); then, the second partial (or first overtone) vibrates at the octave; then, the third partial (or second overtone) at the 12th, G, vibrates; then the fourth partial (or third overtone) at C (two octaves above the generating C); then the fifth partial (fourth overtone) sounds at the third above that, E; and finally the sixth partial (fifth overtone) sounds at the fifth, G.

It's not just attack and decay.  It's an acoustic miracle that, roughly speaking, is music's equivalent of quantum mechanics in physics. 

[faulty_damper]

Um, I thought that's what was meant with "settling into the pitch".

Dynamically, after the attack, it's all decay - nothing "develops", at least according to an aural spectrometer.

[general disarray]

Um, I thought that's what was meant with "settling into the pitch".

Dynamically, after the attack, it's all decay - nothing "develops", at least according to an aural spectrometer.

"Aural spectrometer," notwithstanding, any musician's ear can hear what occurs as the result of the attack.  Without the attack, you have no aural production.  Aural memory recreates the experience of the attack and the overtones produced.

But, pursuing this with you is useless.  So I won't.

Disagree at your pleasure.  When you inserted your ego, as you invariably do, I lost interest in this "debate."

Aloha.

[m]

Um, I thought that's what was meant with "settling into the pitch".

Dynamically, after the attack, it's all decay - nothing "develops", at least according to an aural spectrometer.

What do you mean by "aural spectrometer"? Do you have any idea what the spectrometer is, to start with?
How do you know if it's all decay only and nothing develops?
Is it your intuition, aural perception, or result of some scientific research?

[m]

This all seems significant to me, and the actual tone quality that is being sounded from the instrument seems somewhat dependent on all of this, and it seems that it would affect the embodiment of the music itself.  But, how much should this be taken into consideration when interpreting pieces, and especially for those pieces written by composers of different times (okay, I know I have talked about this a little bit before) ?  To me, if a person is achieving mainly the "attack" of a tone, it is a more percussive sound, vs. a fuller development that is more like "singing" to me.  And, if quicker tempos don't allow for a fuller tone development, is it safe to say that the aim in actual "sound" is to be more percussive in general ?

I think, in the way you put your question, you are somehow already limiting yourself in the answer... unless I understand your question wrong.
In fact, not the tone affects the music, but the music itself dictates the tone.
Such thing as "tone beauty" taken out of musical context IMO, is a very limited concept and I personally, don't see any value in pursuing it without connection with certain musical ideas, styles, or genres. Sometimes, the ugliest tone might be the most beautiful thing if it serves the musical purpose.

Best, M

[m19834]

I think, in the way you put your question, you are somehow already limiting yourself in the answer... unless I understand your question wrong.
In fact, not the tone affects the music, but the music itself dictates the tone.
Such thing as "tone beauty" taken out of musical context IMO, is a very limited concept and I personally, don't see any value in pursuing it without connection with certain musical ideas, styles, or genres. Sometimes, the ugliest tone might be the most beautiful thing if it serves the musical purpose.

Best, M

Yes, I see your point.  I guess I am not just talking about "tone beauty" necessarily, but I am more just realizing that the seeming physics of the sound, or at least how I hear a tone behaving on the piano, that it has various characteristics throughout just one length of one tone.  If a tone length were put on a time-line of sorts and we thought of that length of tone as something like cookie dough (okay, I realy like cookie dough), and you could cookie-cut different portions of that dough, it would seem that each "cookie" would be slightly different.  What I am trying to say in my initial post is that if a person were to, say, "cookie cut" just the point of attack, the actual "cookie" would be a more abrassive or percussive sound in general, since what is being heard is the point of attack, than if we "cookie cut" the sound right after the point of attack (which to me is a bit fuller and more rich) or let the tone last longer from the point of attack into what seems like a richer sound.  In a sense, it seems to me that with quicker tempos there is no way around sort of cookie cutting the sound at only the point of attack, since there is not time for the sound to be anything else. 

I am not saying there is anything less beautiful necessarily about that sound than another, because I do see your point about it needing to fit the context of the music.  I guess I am just wondering if something like a quicker tempo would already indicate what kind of sound we are aiming for in the instrument ?  Probably though, this is a subject that needs to have sound accompanying the discussion, and would probably be more fruitful in the context of a piece, as you say .

Okay, I just thought of another "analogy," though it's pretty cheesy, so sorry about that.  To me, each tone is something like a blooming flower, with the point of attack being, say, a closed bud.  If I wanted to make a Hawaiian lei, let's say my two choices are a wreath of buds or a wreath of flowers, the flowers needing more time to bloom.  If I want to make a wreath of buds, I would make the wreath maybe a day before I am to give it away so as to ensure that the buds do not bloom.  If I want to make a wreath of flowers but I am starting with buds, I would make the wreath perhaps several days in advance so as to give the buds time to flower.  Perhaps, depending on the occasion and the meaning of either a lei of buds or a lei of flowers, I would make my decision, but either way, the physics of how a flower blooms is still the same and I must keep that in mind as I go about choosing how I want to make my lei. 

I don't know if this makes any sense or if I can truly explain it any better over the forum through writing, perhaps I will just do some more experimenting in my practice.

Thanks to all .

[richard black]

There is no development.  What is perceived as development is actually the tone settling into the pitch from the attack.  It's just attack and decay.

But the attack is far from instantaneous, so there certainly is development. At high frequencies the development is so rapid as to be imperceptible to a human ear, but at low frequencies you can hear it all right. I edit a lot of recordings, so I'm used to looking at the waveform of piano notes and very high resolution, and I have observed very clearly that the 'attack' of bass notes is a phenomenon that takes many milliseconds.

[faulty_damper]

But the attack is far from instantaneous, so there certainly is development. At high frequencies the development is so rapid as to be imperceptible to a human ear, but at low frequencies you can hear it all right. I edit a lot of recordings, so I'm used to looking at the waveform of piano notes and very high resolution, and I have observed very clearly that the 'attack' of bass notes is a phenomenon that takes many milliseconds.

You are right.  The attack will reach it's climax as the energy transfers throughout the string length.  But is this the "development" of a tone?  I don't think so.

If there is any kind of "development", it is the transfer of energy to the other strings and soundboard which will vibrate and make the tone fuller which can be perceived as such.  But this is not the development of a tone.

Other possibilities for this perceived "development" is the lack of uniformity of unisons.  If it is out of tune, it can definitely sound like it's growing, and then shrinking, and then growing... what tuners call "beats".  It could also be the different timbral qualities of each string.

[rc]

If it is percieved as a development, we can call it a development.  It happens on a single note, and of course is very noticable when we lift the dampers.

We're musicians (or at least wannabes ).  This is about perception.  Not semantics.

[lostinidlewonder]

I might have missed the point of this post but.. Looking at one note we can find lots of marvelous weird things it causes to the rest of the piano. However with music we are dealing with multiple notes and the overall sound of them all working together. To me this is like watching a ballet dancer and then trying to observe the entire dance in terms of the dust that they disturb, so then try to write a ballet focusing on how you can effect dust moving.

We deal with overall character of sound, not the sound of one note. One note cannot tell us much but can be played in so many different ways and heard in many ways because it has no other notes to encourage a way to listen to it.

[“No one notices inequality in the power of the notes of a scale when it is played very fast... The aim is not to play everything with an equal sound, but to acquire a beautiful quality of touch and a perfect shading of sound. For a long time players have acted against nature in seeking to give equal power to each finger. On the contrary, each finger should have an appropriate part assigned it ... There are, many different qualities of sound, just as there are several fingers. The point is to utilize the differences; and this, in other words, is the art of fingering.”] Chopin