Activating the sustain pedal mid-note to produce two different sounds.

[csimmons0]

I discovered something pretty cool the other day that I'd like to share. The professionals have probably seen this technique before, but some of my fellow amateurs may not have. I was trying to decide how to use the sustain pedal on the deceptive cadence (Bm7 to C) at the end of measure 20 and the start of measure 21 in the Chopin Em prelude (op. 28, no. 4). I found that what I liked most was to play the Bm7 chord without the pedal, play the C chord without the pedal, wait long enough to let the listener hear the C chord without the pedal, and then press down on the pedal while the C chord was still sounding. I would strike the keys only twice but produce three different sounds, as the other strings would start to vibrate sympathetically with the C chord after I activated the pedal. The final sound was a hollow/echo-ish sound that I really liked.

[jmanpno]

The real question was does the score support this?

[werq34ac]

I discovered something pretty cool the other day that I'd like to share. The professionals have probably seen this technique before, but some of my fellow amateurs may not have. I was trying to decide how to use the sustain pedal on the deceptive cadence (Bm7 to C) at the end of measure 20 and the start of measure 21 in the Chopin Em prelude (op. 28, no. 4). I found that what I liked most was to play the Bm7 chord without the pedal, play the C chord without the pedal, wait long enough to let the listener hear the C chord without the pedal, and then press down on the pedal while the C chord was still sounding. I would strike the keys only twice but produce three different sounds, as the other strings would start to vibrate sympathetically with the C chord after I activated the pedal. The final sound was a hollow/echo-ish sound that I really liked.

I'm not sure of the practicality of such a technique since it seems like it almost creates another note. Which most certainly is going against the score.

My main argument is, it alters the rhythm.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm not sure of the practicality of such a technique since it seems like it almost creates another note. Which most certainly is going against the score.

My main argument is, it alters the rhythm.

? No it doesn't- or at least it doesn't have to. Why should it? This technique is very widely used. The change in sound is actually very subtle. I wouldn't call it a new sound, so much as a sense of establishing the tone and then prolonging it. Listeners scarcely feel the change when the pedal goes down. They just hear clarity followed by resonance.

This style of pedalling is most typically used where the pedal's primary purpose is legato. In some cases, this means only catching the sound at the very last split second before the hands release. However, sometimes it involves getting the pedal down a little earlier. The only thing is that I'd rarely play into not pedal at all. Rather I'd lift the pedal a split second after playing a chord into an open pedal, then wait before re-depressing it. This is actually a pretty standard pedalling technique and I'm surprised it would be controversial. Dependence solely on the straight up and then straight down again technique is amateur hour pedalling. All good pianist regularly wait rather longer before re-depressing- and catch notes all kinds of different times into their length.

[ajspiano]

I'm not sure of the practicality of such a technique since it seems like it almost creates another note. Which most certainly is going against the score.

My main argument is, it alters the rhythm.

no. Adds resonance to an existing sound.

also..   everything nyiregyhazi said

[werq34ac]

Is that what the OP is stating however? It seems that he likes the "echo" effect that putting down the pedal in the middle of a note/chord creates. Which is different from "catching" notes to play the next. I am fully aware that one lifts the pedal after playing a chord so they don't catch previous notes and then putting it down again at some point to add resonance to the new chord. What I was read from the OP seems a bit different from this. It seems like the OP is just putting down the pedal without regard to whether it sounds natural or not.

I can't say I'm completely familiar with different timings of putting back the pedal; mostly I've just been making full advantage of going between quarter length, half length, and 1/8th pedals and how quickly I move between them. However, I was just wondering whether that technique takes into account the natural decay of the sound? The piano is incapable of "warming" up to a sound like a violin, voice, or wind instrument can (through the use of vibrato) and adding resonance seems like an attempt at this. I guess it does change the quality of the sound depending on how you put it back, delayed or not but Physics states that the sound cannot get any more intense once we've played the note (conservation of energy).

[nyiregyhazi]

Is that what the OP is stating however? It seems that he likes the "echo" effect that putting down the pedal in the middle of a note/chord creates. Which is different from "catching" notes to play the next

.

The two are not exclusive. They are different sides of the same coin. While the exact timing of the moment in which the pedal is redepressed makes some difference, after a certain point that difference is pretty slight. It just makes small changes to how the sound continues- it doesn't make radical changes. What he is describing really is standard to advanced pedalling. Amateurs just go up and down but a serious artist will explore every possibility along the way- between an instant change, only just catching the ends of sounds in time for legato and depressing the pedal somewhere in the middle (having first cleared the sound). 99.9% of pedalling is done after the note anyway. The only issue is the extent.

I can't say I'm completely familiar with different timings of putting back the pedal; mostly I've just been making full advantage of going between quarter length, half length, and 1/8th pedals and how quickly I move between them. However, I was just wondering whether that technique takes into account the natural decay of the sound? The piano is incapable of "warming" up to a sound like a violin, voice, or wind instrument can (through the use of vibrato) and adding resonance seems like an attempt at this. I guess it does change the quality of the sound depending on how you put it back, delayed or not but Physics states that the sound cannot get any more intense once we've played the note (conservation of energy).

Exactly. There's a major limit to how much difference you can make anyway. You cannot produce striking effects this way, but merely subtle differences. It's the dry part of the sound that stands out the most when using these effects- not when the pedal is redeployed. There is an interesting effect though, by the way, if you redepress the pedal at the right time. Shortly after the attack there's a slight "swell" that can be heard in the tone. It's hard to convey in words, but there's a distinct change in the sound. If you depress the pedal at this exact moment, it can produce a strikingly change to how the sound develops. It doesn't make for an abruptly new sound, but it does make a change the sense of how the sound blossoms.

[jmanpno]

I'm with werq.  I feel that nyiregyhazi simply is going Joe Benowitz on us.  Given the description from the OP, it's pretty clear he is going for what I'll term "amateur effects" rather than mature artistic pedaling. 

In other cases, of course, Nyiregyhazi is dead on.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm with werq.  I feel that nyiregyhazi simply is going Joe Benowitz on us.  Given the description from the OP, it's pretty clear he is going for what I'll term "amateur effects" rather than mature artistic pedaling.  

In other cases, of course, Nyiregyhazi is dead on.

Given the description, it seems quite clear to me that he is someone who has just made the discovery of how crude the straight up/straight down approach is and started exploring what is actually possible- when you allow the sound to clear fully before depressing the pedal. It may be a new discovery to him, but he is describing the very essence of what makes for good pedalling.

One thing that his post makes clear is that he is listening. The up/down approach is based on complete failure to do so and typically compromises clarity. I don't understand what is controversial about a description of standard syncopated pedalling. All good pianists depress the pedal AFTER the sound. The only place you can really go wrong is putting the pedal down too soon and not allowing clarity. Once clarity has had time to be established with dampers raised, you can go on to put the pedal down as late or early as you please. Frankly, it's hard to go wrong after this point. There are just marginally different effects. He's talking about the most normal pedalling of all- and applying to an advanced effect. Surprise modulations are some of most effective places of all, for what he's talking about. The more clarity the better. Getting the pedal down early swamps the surprise harmony and spoils it.

[werq34ac]

well judging from the OP's words, he "activated" pedal indicating that he sees the pedal as an on/off switch. In other words the "straight up straight down approach." On the other hand, I could be wrong. Eh where is the OP when you need him to clarify something.


Anyway, I sort of see what you are talking about (I was typing without a piano yesterday and this morning). While the sound itself does not swell, the retardation of the decay makes it seem like the sound is swelling.. I think.. On the other hand, I have been able to get the note to blossom depressing the pedal before I even played the note.

And you said that all good pianists depress the pedal ALWAYS after, but if there is a rest before you play the note, can't you create a much more resonant sound if you depress the pedal before the note/chord?

[nyiregyhazi]

well judging from the OP's words, he "activated" pedal indicating that he sees the pedal as an on/off switch. In other words the "straight up straight down approach." On the other hand, I could be wrong. Eh where is the OP when you need him to clarify something.

Yeah, it's quite an old post. However, I see no reason why half pedalling would be spoken of in the context of the post. Funnily enough, I use the exact same trick in a Schubert slow movement- also for a surprise cadence. I've come to the point where I scarcely do the instant up then down without at least lightly fluttering the pedal after it goes down again. However, I wouldn't feel the need to mention such things when speaking of a delayed pedal in that kind of context. I'd just mention the delay.

And you said that all good pianists depress the pedal ALWAYS after, but if there is a rest before you play the note, can't you create a much more resonant sound if you depress the pedal before the note/chord?

Yeah, I think said 99% of the time(?) but apologies if I was careless enough to suggest literally always. Personally, I rarely do this without at least flickering the pedal after the notes sound though. I find the sound rather unpleasantly murky. In louder chords it may only be slightest flick (so as not to completely clear everything) but I personally hate the sound of a loud chord entering into a depressed pedal. Although I start virtually any and every piece with the pedal down, I usually lift it in the instant that the first sound occurs. It takes the edge off the attack without causing a murky and undefined tone.

[jmanpno]

This is an excellent place to segue into a discussion re: the fingers and color!