The Greatest Sound Of All

[pts1]

Topic removed due to lack of curiosity, imagination and presumably intelligence on part of responders.

[blink83]

Well... This thread is offensive in more ways than one... To professional pianists. I mean who would pick Lang for anything 

[pts1]

Blinky, my friend, why don't you simply which one had the best sound, Lang or Mo.

You're offended? 

There are well already too many zombie minions of political correctness in the world.

I agree about Lang... don't like him... but many do, and I picked him and his opponent, an "innocent" Muslim savant.... face it, at the rate the world is going, there will be only TWO groups in the world pf the future... Chinese and Muslims.

So have a little fun... which one of the performers in my scenario made the best piano sound.

I do plan to take this somewhere, but it has to get off the ground before it can fly.

[jmanpno]

Beauty can only be determined in relationship to other notes.  See ya!

[j_menz]

This thread gets my vote for most pointless and ridiculous question ever. 

[pts1]

j menz

The post is not pointless at all, and in fact is a veiled attempt to get at one of the biggest
controversies about sound production that exists. Its merely a silly/humorous way of broaching the topic from the simplest example.

But if you're not up to it then adios.

[pts1]

Beauty can only be determined in relationship to other notes.  See ya!

Wow.... Deep!

But can't you simply answer the question?

[ajspiano]

the question is subjective to begin with - i may prefer what another does not.

its dependent on hearing the sounds - you can't judge something that is imaginary and there be a "correct" answer

"best sound" is dependent on the musical context - no one gives applause for your glorious middle C if it's not part of a piece of music.

Given a single attempt and the physics involved with the instrument it would be possible for anyone in the world to produce the better tone by fluke.


...its a daft question at best.

[j_menz]

The post is not pointless at all, and in fact is a veiled attempt to get at one of the biggest
controversies about sound production that exists.

Oh dear!  God help us all.

[pts1]

Given a single attempt and the physics involved with the instrument it would be possible for anyone in the world to produce the better tone by fluke.

This is the only half way decent attempt at answering the question, which is somewhat close.

I thought there were intelligent, humorous people on this forum, but I suppose not given your judgmental, somewhat imperious and humorless remarks. I'm surprised, actually.

I'll go ahead and give you the answer: neither Mo or Lang produced the greatest sound.

This would have led to some discussion about Ortmann's work, and Schultz's work and the misconceptions many pianists have, that I read on this forum, even in this incomplete thread.

Eventually, we could have gotten down to another provacative assertion that there is "only one way to play" -- at a professional level, given the biomechanics and nature of our hands, arms, etc., as they interact with the piano key and the micro-second of control the pianist has, the various "schools" of technique, weight transference/rotation, Taubman (excessive cure to a "religious" piano problem -- Weight Transference that has destroyed many), a demonstration of the "only way to play" using Etude opus 10 no 2, discussions and examination of superior technique and how to achieve it (yes it can be done, and its simple once you form the habits, but most pianists with regard to technique are like "blind squirrels" who occasionally find acorns, due to no fault of their own, but by being acolytes of the various pianism religions.)

But really, what's the point?

You've already demonstrated your ability to pontificate, lack of curiosity, and dismissive imperiousness.

So I'll end this thread by saying... thanks, but no thanks!

[m1469]

I, for one, enjoyed the story, the idea, and the writing quite a bit .  A nice sense of humor, nice detail, good imagery, and alluding to enough pertinence to make me think ... however, I could see it going to a number of different points, many of which I would reach a conclusion of feeling like I didn't find the story to be proving something in particular along the lines of the points I could think of.  But, I applaud you for providing something to read that is different, entertaining, intelligent, and not stupid  .


My score:  8 of 10  *holds up 8 fingers*

[pts1]

m1469

Thanks for  thoughtful post. You got the point, i.e., that I was attempting to broach the topic in a seemingly preposterous way to prove my point.

Had I gotten some intelligent discussion such as yours, the answer to the proposition I posed is -- and let's keep this our little secret -- that neither Lang or Mo made the "most beautiful sound in the world" since the pianist only has control over two elements of "tone" which are: the speed of the hammer into the string and the duration of the sound (up to a point until it will eventually die).

So the grand prize for the most beautiful tone a piano produces should really be given to the piano technician since he/she has the most control over the various elements that shape the sound the piano produces once the pianist sends the hammer to hit the string.

So, in terms of the "quality of sound", the pianist is largely expendable in that he's something of a "Johnny One Note" (not unlike Lang and Mo playing their Middle C) since all he can do is control the speed of the hammer into the string.

Once a person accepts this fact, then one can move on to what is necessary to produce sound and what's not, and that most amateur pianists do a LOT that is not only not necessary, but which prevents them from developing an excellent technique and consistent sound.

Even though this is provable and has been proven numerous times, I'm quite certain many will argue about this talking about so-in-so's "tone" being so "deeply soulful" or "warm and red" when they're really talking about the technician and not the piano player.

And so, if all the pianist can do is control the speed with which the hammer goes into the string, or to put it another way, the speed of the piano key in its 3/8ths of an inch or so descent toward the key bed... what, exactly is the best way to produce this result.

A hint is that the one thing all professional pianists have in common -- regardless of whatever else they do -- is their economy of motion.

Another hint is that it takes only 50 grams of pressure to depress the key of a well regulated grand piano.

So why all the flailing, grimacing, and pounding?

With just a few more bits of information, one would have enough information to develop a professional technique with enough time, curiosity, study and work.

[m1469]

m1469

Thanks for  thoughtful post. You got the point, i.e., that I was attempting to broach the topic in a seemingly preposterous way to prove my point.

Had I gotten some intelligent discussion such as yours, the answer to the proposition I posed is -- and let's keep this our little secret -- that neither Lang or Mo made the "most beautiful sound in the world" since the pianist only has control over two elements of "tone" which are: the speed of the hammer into the string and the duration of the sound (up to a point until it will eventually die).

Yes, one of the leading points, it seemed.  But, I also considered that perhaps it was an illustration of clothing not mattering ... gestures and tears not mattering ... age not mattering ... rank not mattering ... whether or not you need more than one tone to call something beautiful (as was brought up) ... whether or not life experience matters ... why did Lang Lang provide the note that should have been matched by Mo?  Was that really fair?  Why didn't Mo go first?  If Mo was trying to match in volume, etc., maybe he inadvertently matched in quality, too.  And, I happen to believe there is something to tonal quality, including beauty in only one tone, being potentially unique.  So, no, your post didn't prove that for me.  In fact, it didn't prove anything in particular other than your writing skills and imagination to some degree, since we are not hearing an actual sound, but an imaginary one (which would then be related to the listener's psychological perception and biases - which is related to some of what I posted above, which is a real life phenomenon) ... which was also brought up in another post. I also considered along those lines that it has only to do with the individuality; what is in a person and what can be expressed, as I have mentioned on this forum before.  Or maybe it was about sound being the real communicator, since you can't deduce from imagination alone and have to actually hear it in order to know ... seemingly going against my thoughts that communication is not precisely in the sound itself, that music is not in the sound itself, but in something behind it all ... but what is that thing?  Etc.  I also considered the idea of competitions in general.  If we couldn't judge that with one note, how could we judge more than one note?  Maybe it was about how silly competitions could be?

[m1469]

ooops!  Double post!

[pianowolfi]

So, in terms of the "quality of sound", the pianist is largely expendable in that he's something of a "Johnny One Note" (not unlike Lang and Mo playing their Middle C) since all he can do is control the speed of the hammer into the string.

Once a person accepts this fact, then one can move on to what is necessary to produce sound and what's not, and that most amateur pianists do a LOT that is not only not necessary, but which prevents them from developing an excellent technique and consistent sound.

Even though this is provable and has been proven numerous times, I'm quite certain many will argue about this talking about so-in-so's "tone" being so "deeply soulful" or "warm and red" when they're really talking about the technician and not the piano player.

And so, if all the pianist can do is control the speed with which the hammer goes into the string, or to put it another way, the speed of the piano key in its 3/8ths of an inch or so descent toward the key bed... what, exactly is the best way to produce this result.

A hint is that the one thing all professional pianists have in common -- regardless of whatever else they do -- is their economy of motion.

Another hint is that it takes only 50 grams of pressure to depress the key of a well regulated grand piano.

So why all the flailing, grimacing, and pounding?

With just a few more bits of information, one would have enough information to develop a professional technique with enough time, curiosity, study and work.

I might get into a struggle with my English skills with this, but let's try.

This string of thought, though obviously correct, can be somewhat misleading if we are taking it for the one and only truth. It is somewhat similar to the famous claim of a neurologist who said that he couldn't find the soul, no matter how many brains he had dissected. Of course you will never find the soul by dissecting, nor by investigating quarks or neurons or electrons. In this case, at least, you are assigning the responsibility for a soulful or warm or whatever tone to the piano technician.

But of course, what we call a pianist's "good tone" consists always of a combination of zillions of factors. What we call "good tone" or let me call it "the soul of the tone" can by no means be limited down to the pure keystroke velocity. The combination of those zillions of factors, chord voicing, playing with the overtones through using the pedal, shaping musical phrases through very fine dynamic changes etc. still gives the pianist enough opportunities to express his individual, irreplaceable musical intentions. Plus the psychological factor: Brendel said that we can't do a crescendo on one note, but it is sometimes required by the composer, so we have no other option than to suggest it through our movements. Those don't need to be excessive flailing, grimassing and pounding, they can just as well be micro-movements.

  

[pts1]

What really excellent responses by both m1469 and Wolfi!

m1469, you're a sensitive and imaginative reader, and you got everything and more I'd intended with my post! Lang went first because according to throngs of devotees (egad!) he makes the most glorious, transcendent, transformative (didn't Kafka write a story about a guy being transformed into a cockroach?) sound in the world, and Lang brings his entire being, soul, expressionism, dress and emotion and utter and complete Chineseiness into the playing of the Middle C, and were his fans able to "snip" part of that Middle C sound wave and capture it like a clipping of Langs hair (or underwear) they would wear it around their necks forever and into the next life with the love and longing only Justin Bieber deserves.

Poor Mo, by contrast, is merely an unfailing servant savant who can reproduce the exact hammer speed that Lang made, producing the exact same sound, as evidenced in all manner of sound gadgetry and the testimony of white-coated "soundologists" the world over.

So, for sake of discussion, the two sounds were absolutley identical, and the soundologists -- utterly unbiased since they didn't know who was play the Middle C, nor did they see the performance -- concluded without equivocation that the two C's were absolute perfect identical sound twins.

Two humans -- with vastly different qualifications and lives -- making the same piano sound.

But if Mo had been a DiskKlavier Piano, or better yet a Welte Vorsetzer from a much earlier time. Would we be discussing the Vorsetzer's "soul" instead, and attempting to argue that there is more than key or hammer speed involved (aside from dampers), when in fact -- according to the geniuses who built the Vorsetzer -- there is not?

 

Listen and watch this, and you might be surprised at your reactions!<g> Quite astounding!!

And Wolfi, there is no doubt that "zillions of factors" go into the preparation of producing a certain speed on any single keystroke... like voicing, the act of playing one note in a triad for instance, a bit faster than the others to produce that "voice" which "sings" above the others.

Voicing is a bit of piano magic in that the ear conspires to with the finger perpetrator to fool us into hearing something that "we're not". A "voiced" G in a C Maj traid -- is it played at exactly the same time as the c and e? Does the ear knit them together since we "expect" a certain outcome?

A well "voiced" chord in a string of well voiced chords with greater and equally enhanced finger speed, played closely enough together and you fool the listener into "hearing" a legato phrase of singing chords making an even and steady crescendo.

If you go to the cinema and see a "motion picture" that has been done well, you will come out of the experience perhaps emotionally moved having related to the characters' predicament, made sad or happy or inspired by their story or what have you.

Actually, it is all magic in that it is a totally contrived illusion of flashing individual still pictures on a screen, which have been recorded under hyper controlled conditions, likely a number of times in "takes" by "actors" to make the illusion complete and utterly believable.

Unlike a visual art such as cinema, I see piano playing as much more pure in that it should require no visual suggestion to make its illusion complete. Though Brendel said we must suggest a crescendo through movement in an impossible situation like with one note, this is really another example of illusion and a bit of "acting" which is "cheating" a bit in my opinion.

IMHO, the quicker we realize what the piano is really about and recognize there is "no soul", the faster we will be able to create one.

Again, thank you both for your interesting repsonses!

PS
Wolfi -- Your English is Excellent!

[m1469]

I listened/watched the video and then stopped.  I can say for sure there was something missing for me, even if it originally came from somebody else.  I can say that it sounded to me not human, even if originally it was.  You can say it's because I could have been biased (though I didn't actually understand to begin with what was happening), especially upon seeing them open the little lid to the piano roll and me feeling, at that point, that I was supposed to be profoundly amused on many levels (but wasn't).  

What I know is that there are fabulous sounds, fabulous energies, fabulous souls, etc..  But, there is then even somehow this very special ability for somebody to somehow reach right into me and actually grip/grab me, even aside from my biases or nonbiases.  And, not just anybody can do that for me.  Perhaps it has very much to do with an innate connection between performer and listener, and that we will all experience different performers in different ways, as in, somebody may be -in their mind- profoundly gripped by something I am not.  Perhaps that doesn't make it less gripping in a general way, but it does tell that it's possible for different pianists to have different inner affects on a listener, which to me means there is something about a tone which goes beyond sound, even IF outwardly two sounds could be measured as identical in a physical way.  

[perfect_pitch]

Topic removed due to lack of curiosity, imagination and presumably intelligence on part of responders.

Well that there sounds *** insulting to us all... and I didn't even get a chance to read the original damn post.

Must have been controversial.

[j_menz]

You've already demonstrated your ability to pontificate [...]  and dismissive imperiousness.

Not really, these are some of my great strengths, so not even close. 

On reading the explanation, I actually probably agree with the point you were trying to make.  There are any number of threads about these various techniques, and they mostly degenerate into long winded and dreary slanging matches.  Apologies for thinking this was lining up to be another.