theory of tone production

[keyboardclass]

The onus of proof is on the person who declares tone to be "bunkum"

And the proof is there in Ortmann.

[nyiregyhazi]

And the proof is there in Ortmann.

So obviously you didn't even bother reading anything in the source you asked for? Any scientifically verifiable experiment that reveals differences shows tone CAN occur- regardless of what anyone else did. A top athlete failing to break a certain time does not prove that it's impossible to do so- especially if someone else HAS done so. Are you questioning the methods used? If so, please explain why you feel the experiment was compromised.

[keyboardclass]

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/28/1/1/_pdf

Recording and analysis of notes G3, G4, and G5 showed that the touch can affect the spectrum of sound only for G5 in a very small degree, which might become invisible without careful graphical comparisons.

Not exactly impressive - for the top quarter of the keyboard a difference which might become invisible?  Tested on just three subjects using synthesised sounds not a piano?  Not exactly credible in my book.

[nyiregyhazi]

Not exactly impressive - for the top quarter of the keyboard a difference which might become invisible?  Tested on just three subjects using synthesised sounds?  Not exactly credible in my book.

"might"?!!! Based on what exactly? One moment you are demanding verifiable sources- yet the very next moment your personal unevidenced assumptions are used for dismissing them?

Anyone with half a scientific mind does not leap to "might"- at least not to support an unwavering predetermined conclusion (based on a single piece of out-of-date research). The only way to be faintly scientific about piano tone is take modern research on board and acknowledge that the whole thing remains totally inconclusive and open. Those who make definitive dismissals have no science behind them at all.

[keyboardclass]

Testing the G5 only, the two participants were able to correctly give the touch used about 80% of the time. However, the audio clips were not normalized in volume and the hard touch clip was always louder, which may have completely accounted for the high accuracy.

https://carillontech.org/timbre.html

From the same site what I've said all along:

Goebl tested 22 subjects using 50 tone-touch pairs, compared to Suzuki's 2 subjects and 3 tone pairs. Half of Goebl's tone pairs included the finger-key impact noises, while the noises were edited out of the other half. With the impact noises, "Four of the 22 participants got 80–86% correct, five 70–80%, two 60–70%, and the other 11 rated at chance level"(2). When impact noises were removed, response accuracies were at chance level. Goebl concludes, "these results confirm that the cue for differentiating the two types of touch were the touch noises before the actual tone"(3).

[nyiregyhazi]

https://carillontech.org/timbre.html

From the same site what I've said all along:

So, in other words tone does not exist- IF you edit out these noises? But it does if you don't edit them out. That is supposed to help DISPROVE tone? Are you joking?

Also, I assume this is without pedal, as usual? I wonder how much the accuracy would be improved if they involved it?

[keyboardclass]

The difference in tone is noise in the action and nothing to do with hammers hitting strings.

[nyiregyhazi]

The difference in tone is noise in the action and nothing to do with hammers hitting strings.

Even if it were proven that it's not down to the hammers to any extent (rather than entirely inconclusive) So what? What kind of pedant gives so much as a trace of a damn whether the hideous sounds of a bad pianist are due to the keybed or the hammer? The tone is the end product that you HEAR, for Christ's sake (not something that only sound-editing could ever strip from keybed noises).Have you forgotten why people seek good "tone"?

Also, as I already said, the pedal is a huge issue. Keybed thuds causes overtones in the strings. If you want to be pedantic about tone, you should be referring to the strings- not the hammers. This is exactly where the sound of a thud becomes notable, when the pedal is down. This is TONE.

[keyboardclass]

Whose saying tone isn't paramount?

[nyiregyhazi]

Whose saying tone isn't paramount?

So what are you are arguing is that absolute tone (of the kind only sound-editing can isolate from what can be heard) is impossible (without bothering to mention that it's very much an issue in the reality of the tone that everyone DOES hear)? What a worthwhile thing to argue in favour of...

"He's convinced that using the fleshier portions of the finger in striking the key for legato melodic passages, while still going to key bottom, will improve one's tone. To use the bony tip of the finger just behind the nail (while appropriate for staccato passages) can result in the dreaded "thumping" mentioned above."

If you'd thought about the above before dismissing it as "bunkum"- you might have realised that a bony tip could very obviously produce more keybed noise than a flatter pad. If you acknowledge keybed noises, I'm mystified as to why you would be so dismissive of that.

[keyboardclass]

If you'd thought about the above before dismissing it as "bunkum"- you might have realised that a bony tip could very obviously produce more keybed noise than a flatter pad. If you acknowledge keybed noises, I'm mystified as to why you would be so dismissive of that.

Rubbish.  It doesn't matter what you use to depress the key - it's how you depress it.  As for thinking - I'll take no pointers from you!

[nyiregyhazi]

Rubbish.  It doesn't matter what you use to depress the key - it's how you depress it.  As for thinking - I'll take no pointers from you!

Of course it could matter- when it comes to the idea of curved or flatter fingers. That IS "how" you depress the key. There are various reasons why a flatter finger is more adept at absorbing the impact at the key bed. For a start, any continuation of the action can be directed into pulling the knuckle further forward and up. Momentum is easily redirected around a central pivot rather than sent into crashing impact. With a pointed finger tip, the landing is more of a head on collision due to the path of motion. Hence the thump that Lhevine refers to. You really didn't stop to think that through, did you? (before you responded so rudely and dismissively to the poster who presented it.)

 

[keyboardclass]

Starting from the surface of the key use any touch you like (or even a brick), just don't keybed, and your tone will be 'golden' (and you're hardly in the position to hand out lectures on civility either!).

[richard black]

and your hardly in the position to hand out lectures on civility either!

What's a 'hardly'?

[nyiregyhazi]

Starting from the surface of the key use any touch you like (or even a brick), just don't keybed, and your tone will be 'golden'

You cannot prevent contact with the keybed. It's a myth. A head on collision is still a head-on collision. It's no use braking after a car crash. The difference is whether you use a movement that redirects momentum post keybed, or whether you pile into the keybed.

[keyboardclass]

You cannot prevent contact with the keybed. It's a myth. A head on collision is still a head-on collision. It's no use braking after a car crash. The difference is whether you use a movement that redirects momentum post keybed, or whether you pile into the keybed.

You just made that up.

[nyiregyhazi]

You just made that up.

No I did not. Do you seriously think it's possible to stop a key in the millimetres between escapement and keybed? Even if it were possible to magically dispel momentum in this instant, do you seriously think someone of your standard is constantly using the intricate split second timing to stop adding anything in the instant before the keybed? It's totally irrational nonsense and a completely unrealistic goal. If you think you can time these thousandths of a second on every key depression, you are kidding yourself.

Think of the up movement in your Grieg film. It's forward with the arm and and then up- contacting the keybed and then instantly redirecting further energy into an alternative path. That's why this is the only time in the film that you are visibly comfortable- as the rest jams energy harder into the keybed. The fingers themselves can use exactly the same trick but on a far more refined and less visible scale. Or they can bang head on against the keybed- as they usually do with extreme use of fingertips.

[keyboardclass]

Have the last word - I'm not reading it.

[richard black]

The difference is whether you use a movement that redirects momentum post keybed, or whether you pile into the keybed.

Eh? I simply don't understand that statement.

At first sight, it seems obvious that the key's velocity as it hits the keybed will be directly related to the hammer's velocity, but I suspect it may not be so. Although you can't realistically slow the key down between the critical point at which the escapement launches the hammer and the keybed, you can certainly continue to accelerate it beyond that point. That will or won't happen depending on your approach to the key - which muscles are tight at what instant and so on. It's completely NOT obvious to what extent that could make any difference to anything, though it's perfectly possible to investigate it.

As for the impact into the keybed itself, this can clearly transfer more or less momentum depending on how stiff the finger/arm/hand assembly is at the instant of impact. If they're all stiff you've effectively coupled a lump of mass to the intrinsic mass of the key itself, all moving at the same velocity and therefore carrying greater total momentum. You could reasonably expect that to cause a bigger thump.

All these thought experiments certainly indicate that in extreme cases one can expect to hear extraneous noise that contributes to the tone of a single note. That much is obvious and I wouldn't dream of disputing it. I still don't necessarily accept that it is the dominant contributing factor to a pianist's tone: as I think I said further up this thread, the simple business of relative loudness of simultaneous and adjacent notes strikes me as a considerably greater factor in normal cases.

[keyboardclass]

as I think I said further up this thread, the simple business of relative loudness of simultaneous and adjacent notes strikes me as a considerably greater factor in normal cases.

Exactly, but there are always those who despite the lack of any evidence will insist single tones can have a different tone independent of hammer speed.   And yes, it's bunkum!

[nyiregyhazi]

Exactly, but there are always those who despite the lack of any evidence will insist single tones can have a different tone independent of hammer speed.   And yes, it's bunkum!

Try to be consistent for just a moment or two, please. You already acknowledged keybed thump as audible. THAT is part of tone. How can you make such blatantly contradictory arguments so casually? Are you actually thinking about this first, or just arguing?

[nyiregyhazi]

At first sight, it seems obvious that the key's velocity as it hits the keybed will be directly related to the hammer's velocity, but I suspect it may not be so. Although you can't realistically slow the key down between the critical point at which the escapement launches the hammer and the keybed, you can certainly continue to accelerate it beyond that point.

It goes beyond that too though. Consider the forward and then upward press of the whole arm. You don't have to "relax" from anything. You direct the motion in a path that doesn't jam into a dead stop. After the keybed is contact any additional motion goes AWAY over the top- rather than serve to send momentum into compressing everything together like in a train crash. Similarly, a finger action could be felt as hitting head-on, which requires instant relaxation to avoid impact. Alternatively you feel the point of contact with the key as being a point around which everything else moves in a circular path. Again, there's no head-on collision. There's a style of movement where if you don't relax you keep on moving AROUND the point of contact, rather than crash into it head-on.  

There's so much more to it than stiff or loose. Where the energy comes from and what path the movement takes are all of paramount importance. I believe that those who use the least exertion rarely depend too heavily on split-second release but rather use the paths where any continuation of the action simply doesn't cause impact. It makes for a massive safety net- if accidental excess of effort simply pulls the knuckle a fraction further forward and up.

[richard black]

There's so much more to it than stiff or loose.

Sort of. But at the end of the day the key is travelling in one direction and that's where the momentum vector is pointing. If you redirect the hand/arm's momentum in a different direction and oppose it by other means (absorbed into the body and stool, for instance) you've achieved much the same thing as you would by decoupling the finger shortly before impact.

there are always those who despite the lack of any evidence will insist single tones can have a different tone independent of hammer speed. 

But I was just saying, in fact, that this is evidently the case, even if only in extreme cases. The blindingly obvious example of audible extraneous contributions to piano sound is when you haven't cut your fingernails for rather too long. QED - and it doesn't take much to come up with other examples. What's at issue is the _extent_ to which these things _typically_ matter - it's not black and white.

[nyiregyhazi]

Sort of. But at the end of the day the key is travelling in one direction and that's where the momentum vector is pointing. If you redirect the hand/arm's momentum in a different direction and oppose it by other means (absorbed into the body and stool, for instance) you've achieved much the same thing as you would by decoupling the finger shortly before impact.

Yeah, I see what you mean. However, I do think it's a very important distinction with regard to issues of technique. Do accomplished pianists really time a release to thousandths of a second with each of their notes? Maybe the finest can do so at times. But why put yourself in a position of being dependent on that? Why risk doing it a split second too early in a way that would compromise the energy input and leave a thin sound? Why risk doing it a split second too late and hitting the keybed dead on (possibly while still accelerating directly towards it)? I don't believe that the most accomplished pianists are taking these risks- certainly not note after note. I think they use an approach where a confidently directed action cannot cause the hard landing, even if overdone. If "spare" momentum is naturally directed in a way that means it dissipates rapidly into tiny movement (due to the inertia of the whole arm) it's far healthier than if it crashes into a dead stop. If you can also restrict the initial momentum to the key and finger, all the better to avoid such a crash.

[lostinidlewonder]

I learned a great deal about tone via singing. When music is your native tongue you understand how a phrase of music should be shaped, what is means in context to the rest of the music, what its role is. Phrasing is key to good tone production, if you sing a melodic line of piano with your voice often it will reveal to you how it should be played, but how does one translate a singing voice into the piano?

One strange observation of music which caused quite a revolution in my understanding of tone production was considering the sound coming out of the piano as a woodwind. Almost as if the sound is breathing out instead of a percussive nature. I like to play on digitals and play with different instruments, it makes changes to how you play pieces, your fingers almost want to hold onto the notes more when you choose string or woodwinds, your fingering tends to want to play more clearly if you use pipe organ or voice samples. Different instruments can encourage different types of sounds, thus when playing the piano it might be interesting to consider different phrases in terms of different instruments. When I self discovered observing the sound out of the piano as woodwind (I was playing Ravel Sonatine mvt 2 at the time) I then explored different types of instruments through the piano. I tackled the Gaspard Ondine tone in this manner, considering the instruments of an orchestra in relation to particular parts of the phrases. I thought I was onto something unique and groundbreaking but funnily enough I was visiting the University of West Australia's music department and came across the score of the Gaspard and I noticed someone had scratched in pencil the names of instruments to represent parts of the phrases

If you can hear it from within you will strive to produce it.

[keyboardclass]

Do accomplished pianists really time a release to thousandths of a second with each of their notes? Maybe the finest can do so at times. But why put yourself in a position of being dependent on that? Why risk doing it a split second too early in a way that would compromise the energy input and leave a thin sound?

The 'risk' as you call it is reflex action - it doesn't even need the brain.

[nyiregyhazi]

The 'risk' as you call it is reflex action - it doesn't even need the brain.

In response to what stimulus? Escapement? You claim to perceive that when playing fast and loud? If it's a reflex, does this mean you are lost when you play on keyboards with no escapement? Without that stimulus, how does the action occur reflexively?

Seeing as the above is clearly nonsensical (good pianists can move well on digitals, regardless of escapement) the only thing you can respond reflexively to is the keybed. So, in other words, you are not taking anything out of that landing, between escapement and keybed. The premise of the WHOLE movement is the difference in good pianists- not simply some kind of superhuman feat in the last 1000th of a second. There is no reflex that can contribute a thing before the stimulus of the keybed or which would be any less plausible than a non-reflexive split-second piece of timing. Reflex or not, supposedly "relaxing" in such a miniscule time-frame is not remotely feasible as something that could be done consistently. Too early and you lose tone and too late and you already hit the keybed full on. Claims along those lines are a totally implausible myth. Clearly something else is going on- when advanced pianists consistently avoid both traps note after note, in even the most rapid virtuosic repertoire. The trick is to move in a way where any additional motion simply does not cause compression or impact. It's rationally plausible and it's also very easy to learn to do.

You can't run directly into a wall and then hope that reflexive or split-second relaxation will save anything. When you are carrying serious momentum, relaxing does not prevent impact. It's mere damage limitation. However, you can contact both a wall and a keybed at an indirect angle and allow extra movement to go into something- other than abrupt impact.

[keyboardclass]

In response to what stimulus? Escapement? You claim to perceive that when playing fast and loud? If it's a reflex, does this mean you are lost when you play on keyboards with no escapement?

That's funny,  I have an early piano with no escapement!  And no, I don't get lost.  Hummel himself left instructions on not to keybed on early English pianos.

Reflex or not, supposedly "relaxing" in such a miniscule time-frame is not remotely feasible as something that could be done consistently.

Oh ye of little faith!

[nyiregyhazi]

"That's funny,  I have an early piano with no escapement!  And no, I don't get lost."

You say that as if I might be surprised? That's precisely what I was pointing out. There's no reflexive response to escapement. If there were, you'd be stuck without the stimulus. So your argument about a reflex is simply an unsupportable conjecture, unless it refers to a reflexive response to the keybed. After all, what other stimulus is there for a reflex to respond to? But then you've already hit the thing. So why do you go on to say this:

"Hummel himself left instructions on not to keybed on early English pianos."

? Are you stopping to think here- or simply repeating contradictory and irrational dogma with blind "faith"? Hummel certainly would have contacted the keybed. What must be understood about the notion of keybedding is that's it's not about either doing it or not doing it. It's HOW you do it that matters. Everyone contacts it. If you get it right, it's easy to see why some people come to believe they don't even contact it. When it's done well, it's totally effortless- not a heavy landing. If you don't setup the right movement, relaxing cannot do anything but limit damage (just like relaxing can only limit damage if you run into a wall). With the right quality of action, you don't even need to worry about relaxing from the action- as the energy is still absorbed softly and comfortable whether you do or not.  With the right quality relaxation is an option- not an urgent necessity. There's scarcely anything to relax from. Movements that demand instant relaxation to avoid problems are simply not very good movements to rely on. Far better to learn one that simply redirects excess into movement- rather than strain or compression.

Why leap to these ridiculous assumptions that this spectacularly complex timing is the secret- when there's a very simple rational explanation of something vastly easier- in which impact can never even come into it?

[keyboardclass]

In the first moment we are sensible of something unpleasant, because in forte passages in particular, on our German instruments, we press the keys quite down, while here, they must be touched only superficially or otherwise we could not succeed in executing such runs without excessive effort and double difficulty.

Hummel speaking of English pianos.  But why I even bother...

[nyiregyhazi]

Hummel speaking of English pianos.  But why I even bother...

I have absolutely no idea. Especially as we are talking about technique on modern pianos. Is it easier to cite some random piece of trivia (any possible relevance of which you failed to divulge) than to actually think about the issues I raised?

The issue here is that it's not about either contacting the keybed or (supposedly) avoiding it. The only issue is HOW you contact it. This is a very important thing to understand. Far too many oversimplified explanations have cause far too much confusion over the years. In particular, the idea that it's simply about contacting it and then relaxing has caused a lot of people a very large amount of strain. It's far more sophisticated than that.

[keyboardclass]

Hummel is saying you don't contact the keybed on a piano with more than a 5mm keydip - especially at speed.

[nyiregyhazi]

Hummel is saying you don't contact the keybed on a piano with mre than a 5mm keydip and especially at speed.

Whether this is actually possible on an old piano, I don't personally give a damn-seeing as it's certainly not possible on modern pianos (at any dynamic upward of pianissimo). Hummel was likely making the classic mistake of failing to distinguish between a key that bounces back and a key that never lands at the keybed. This is an extremely important distinction. To take that idea literally and try to repress the last bit can be disastrous. Just because you don't stiffly force the key further into the keybed doesn't mean you don't contact it.

[keyboardclass]

I wouldn't think the greatest pianist of his age made classic mistakes.  He also wrote the most important tutor of his age.   I'll take Hummel's judgement over yours any day.

[nyiregyhazi]

I wouldn't think the greatest pianist of his age made classic mistakes.  He also wrote the most important tutor of his age.   I'll take Himmel's judgement over yours any day.

Even a great genius could mistake the sensations for avoiding the keybed. However, with the advent of modern science, these days we can think rationally about how implausible that would be. Hummel may have been a fine musician, but he was describing a subjective sensation, not a reality.

Sit at a piano and try it yourself. If you really concentrate, you'll discover just how hard it is to avoid the keybed- even on a single very quiet note. When you start to perceive the bounce of the key that really occurs, it opens countless doors. From what I've seen on your films, I think this is something you ought to work on most urgently.

[keyboardclass]

You just don't get it do you?  Hummel was a great genius.  Your delusions just don't bear comparison.  Have the last word as usual.

[nyiregyhazi]

You just don't get it do you?  Hummel was a great genius.  Your delusions just don't bear comparison.  Have the last word as usual.

I will indeed. I will ask you again to do that exercise rather than duck out of it. Are you interested in being "right" or are you interested in understanding the wider nature of possibility? If you seriously believe you are avoiding contact with the keybed, you are kidding yourself. Instead of resorting to insults go and do the exercise and ask yourself honestly whether you can avoid the keybed or whether those keys are bouncing. If you don't believe me then try it yourself.

The keybed is not "on" or "off". There are many levels of contact. Simplifying it to "keybedding" or "not keybedding" is an extremely backward and unsophisticated way to look at it.  

[richard black]

Hummel was a great genius.

So was at least one (deceased) pianist of my close personal acquaintance, for whom I can vouch that he hadn't the faintest idea how he did it, nor indeed how the piano worked in any sense.

[keyboardclass]

So was at least one (deceased) pianist of my close personal acquaintance, for whom I can vouch that he hadn't the faintest idea how he did it, nor indeed how the piano worked in any sense.

Will they still be quoting him 200 years later?

[nyiregyhazi]

Will they still be quoting him 200 years later?

How about instead of dealing in sources, you try the PRACTICAL exercise I mentioned and think seriously about whether those keys are stopping before the keybed or bouncing off it? This isn't about sources or the credentials/prestige of the author. This about finding out for yourself what is and isn't possible. Judging from your failure to respond, should I take it that you're not even interested in that aspect?

[keyboardclass]

Um..., the whole point of respected sources is you don't have to constantly reinvent for yourself. 

[nyiregyhazi]

Um..., the whole point of respected sources is you don't have to constantly reinvent for yourself.  

The whole point of making personal observations is that you can spy a steaming heap of dung and stop aiming to do something impossible. Hummel was talking out of his arse. We can learn by thinking about WHY he might have perceived that. We have nothing to do learn by assuming that a person necessarily did what they say they did (especially not if they claim to have done something impossible).

[keyboardclass]

The whole point of making personal observations is that you can spy bullshit...

In your case spout it!

[nyiregyhazi]

In your case spout it!

Stop typing and go to a piano keyboard. Hell, you can even try this while typing. Are you stopping the keys before they reach the base of keyboard? Do you seriously think so? Because of some 200 year old text, you believe you have the means to achieve the impossible?

[keyboardclass]

Because of some 200 year old text, you believe you have the means to achieve the impossible?

Newton is some 100 years older yet you seem to rely on that! (in rather a twisted fasion I admit)

[nyiregyhazi]

Newton is some 100 years older yet you seem to rely on that! (in rather a twisted fasion I admit)

So, Hummel is an equally respected authority on the nature of mechanical possibility?

As I suspected, clearly you have no interest whatsoever in any of the practical issues. If you want to practise spin then go and join a politics forum. You're not even interested in enough to spend a few seconds trying to notice whether a key actually bounces or not when you play quietly? You'd rather respond with a superficial jibe? You approach this like a member of a religious cult. Why are you so uninterested in asking rational questions- rather than endlessly repeating sources without bothering to think about their validity?

What you don't seem to understand is that even an ingeniously crafted argument in favour of a preconceived idea will not have any bearing on what is actually possible at an instrument. If the nature of ACTUAL possibility is not the first and foremost point of study, argument leads to nothing (even if you win). The only way to "win" is to improve your understanding and play better as a result. To win in a way that does not do anything to further practical skills or personal attainment is a sad "win" indeed.

[keyboardclass]

What you don't seem to understand is that even an ingeniously crafted argument in favour of a preconceived idea will not have any bearing on what is actually possible at an instrument.

Which exactly applies to your less-than-ingenious-in-fact-rather-misleading argument!

[nyiregyhazi]

Why do you display more interest in the argument than in the topic? Yet another irrelevant quip, with no substance and no bearing on either the topic or piano playing? That is known as "trolling".

GO TO A PIANO AND DO THE EXERCISE.

Even with the finger tip alone in pianissimo, it's almost impossible to stop before the keybed while controlling each tone. If you pay close attention it's easy to observe the bounce. Why are you more interested in arguing for something that is unsupportable than in daring to actually learn anything? Do you think that if you simply refuse to try the exercise and ignore my every reference to it, that will somehow make you "right" or change the nature of what is really possible at a piano?  What are you hoping to gain from sticking your fingers in your ears and trying to ignore reality?

[tb230]

A little search on keybed and tone production came up with something I (at least) find interesting:

"A finite element model of an upright piano was developed and used to demonstrate that replacing the keybed with a higher impedance material than conventionally used would reduce the key vibration level, and hence bring the uprights closer in performance to grand pianos, and improve the 'feel' of the instrument for the player. The keybed of one of a pair of identical pianos was replaced with high density fibreboard, and subsequent objective measurements showed that the broadband component of key vibrations was reduced by 3.2 dB while the radiated sound was unchanged. A controlled subjective comparison between the modified and unmodified pianos undertaken by experienced players showed that a statistically significant number preferred the modified piano, and that the upright piano had been improved."

Wonder if any of the piano companies are going to pick up on this? (Quoted from Martin Keane's PhD thesis in mechanical engineering, 2007.)

[keyboardclass]

GO TO A PIANO AND DO THE EXERCISE.

No one who has ever done your 'exercises' has ever agreed with you so speaking personally, I wouldn't waste my time.