"Tone" doesn't exist.

[pbryld]

I have had this discussion many times with pianists, and I am yet to be convinced.

I do not believe one's tone can be "harsh" or "weak" or "colourless".
It's my belief that people use these terms to describe very small differences in dynamics. Whenever my teacher says "no no, that's too harsh", I simply play a little less loudly, and when she asks for a fuller tone, I play more loudly - and she seems very satisfied when I do so.

How can one produce a certain tone by one's touch? All you do is make a hammer hit a string. The only thing you decide is how quickly that happens. All you control is the speed.
If there is a mechanical (scientific) way of explaining how it is possible to alter the way the hammer hits the string, please explain it, for I am yet to encounter someone who can actually account for their belief in "tone" or "touch".

[chicoscalco]

I have had this discussion many times with pianists, and I am yet to be convinced.

I do not believe one's tone can be "harsh" or "weak" or "colourless".
It's my belief that people use these terms to describe very small differences in dynamics. Whenever my teacher says "no no, that's too harsh", I simply play a little less loudly, and when she asks for a fuller tone, I play more loudly - and she seems very satisfied when I do so.

How can one produce a certain tone by one's touch? All you do is make a hammer hit a string. The only thing you decide is how quickly that happens. All you control is the speed.
If there is a mechanical (scientific) way of explaining how it is possible to alter the way the hammer hits the string, please explain it, for I am yet to encounter someone who can actually account for their belief in "tone" or "touch".

You are right when you say that what the hammer only does is hit the string at a certain speed. But these oh so subtle variations on dynamics cannot be produced by just hitting the keys stronger or softer. There are a million different ways of striking a key to produce these subtleties in dynamics. And don't get mistaken: It's not just the striking of the key that produces the tone, but also your use of the pedal. There are cases even when someone holds a certain note just so they can resonate when the next note is played. But I agree that most of the piano tone is given by the piano technician. Tuning, voicing, and all these complicated (yet intriguing) things.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I think tone does exist. You can get several different pianists to play the same passage, on the same piano, in the same acoustic conditions, and they will all sound different. But it is such a complex thing to define what makes it up - control of voicing (where relevant), pedal use, resonance, probably even not just the velocity at which the key is struck but also the level of deceleration inherent in the landing on the key.

[awesom_o]

All you do is make a hammer hit a string. The only thing you decide is how quickly that happens. All you control is the speed.

Of course, all we control is the speed!

However, we make MANY hammers hit MANY strings.... never just one!

And that is where the secret of tone lies!

[timothy42b]

More of "tone" is the subtle nuances in the overlap of notes than you think; if you played single notes in isolation you could not tell the difference in tone between pianists, but when they play a more complex sound field it becomes immediately apparent

[awesom_o]

More of "tone" is the subtle nuances in the overlap of notes than you think; if you played single notes in isolation you could not tell the difference in tone between pianists, but when they play a more complex sound field it becomes immediately apparent

  100% correct!

[nyiregyhazi]

You are right when you say that what the hammer only does is hit the string at a certain speed.

There's a common claim that science says this is all we control. It's oversimplified pseudoscience though and nobody has ever conclusively debunked other issues as a possible factor.

Picture a supermarket trolley that you wanted to push out to coast along with the goal of having it stop somewhere specific. Would you have more control if you pushed it smoothly for a slightly longer contact before releasing, or if you whacked it hard with a baseball bat? Would it end up with nothing more than a "speed" or would it move and vibrate very differently depending on how you set it in motion? Then ask yourself why a piano key would cause nothing but a mere single "speed" in a hammer. There are perfectly good reasons to believe that the hammer itself can move and vibrate differently based on how acceleration is paced, just the same as the trolley. Above all, if you waste energy, you make more noise on grounding the key than if you channel it effectively into the hammer.

[awesom_o]

Above all, if you waste energy, you make more noise on grounding the key than if you channel it effectively into the hammer.

This is absolutely correct!

[dima_76557]

Tone (in the sense of a beautiful or an ugly touch) DOES exist. If it didn't exist, I wouldn't be playing this instrument. The secret is the TIMING of the keystrokes, and that is not only a matter of variations in finger-key to hammer-string speed.

[chicoscalco]

There's a common claim that science says this is all we control. It's oversimplified pseudoscience though and nobody has ever conclusively debunked other issues as a possible factor.

Picture a supermarket trolley that you wanted to push out to coast along with the goal of having it stop somewhere specific. Would you have more control if you pushed it smoothly for a slightly longer contact before releasing, or if you whacked it hard with a baseball bat? Would it end up with nothing more than a "speed" or would it move and vibrate very differently depending on how you set it in motion? Then ask yourself why a piano key would cause nothing but a mere single "speed" in a hammer. There are perfectly good reasons to believe that the hammer itself can move and vibrate differently based on how acceleration is paced, just the same as the trolley. Above all, if you waste energy, you make more noise on grounding the key than if you channel it effectively into the hammer.

I think you misunderstood me. It's quite common, I have a certain difficulty with english. What I meant is that he is right when he says that all we do is control the hammers speed, and that encompasses more than just the speed with which the hammer strikes the strings. I agree 100% with what you said, I just made a mistake writing that sentence.

[awesom_o]

Tone (in the sense of a beautiful or an ugly touch) DOES exist. If it didn't exist, I wouldn't be playing this instrument. The secret is the TIMING of the keystrokes, and that is not only a matter of variations in finger-key to hammer-string speed.

This is also 100% correct! 

[dima_76557]

This is also 100% correct!  

Especially the part about "I wouldn't be playing this instrument".

Once again, I'd like to point out the difference between direct and indirect touches:
1) In direct touches, the motion of the hammer starts immediately with the motion of the key.
2) In indirect touches, the hammer motion starts several milliseconds after key motion.

Good pianists "know" this intuitively and use that to their benefit. These different touches create different series of overtones (harmonics) for each separate tone, creating different timbres.

P.S.: Of course, tone length (do I hold the key or do I release it right away) is also a factor to "play" with as has already been pointed out above by other good pianists.

[awesom_o]

It is indeed a complex and mysterious instrument!

It is both a percussion instrument and a stringed instrument!

Some players are more interested in it as a percussion instrument and others are more interested in it as a stringed instrument!

I myself belong in the latter category!

People who see it more as a percussion instrument tend to have a very different type of tone than those who see it more as a stringed instrument.

[dima_76557]

Some players are more interested in it as a percussion instrument and others are more interested in it as a stringed instrument!

Not to correct you, awesom_o, but I'd like to add this:

Some players are in between, and apply what best fits their perception of the musical requirements. Some forms of percussion approaches don't have to be necessarily "ugly" (marimba, gong, kettledrum effects), and not all attempts at a beautiful "stringed" approach are justified in music of a more aggressive character. The ear and the taste will tell you what to do in what context.

[awesom_o]

There certainly is a spectrum! I just happen to be on the extreme end of it
I like piano playing to be extreme!

Extremely beautiful.... extremely legato....extremely intense....extremely graceful....extremely powerful!

I'm not such a fan of extremely percussive myself, but I acknowledge that it has its place in certain parts of the repertoire!

[chopin2015]

wthell? what about where you hit on a key, closer or further from the end of the keys? then add dynamics controlled by proper weight distribution, at the right point of...you know...incidence...

the way a hammer strikes, or the way we strike a key, has the effect of how much hammer we hear, which affects tone.

there is much more to tone than dynamics. touch exists. so tone exists.

 

 

[kevin69]

The hammer in a piano is not perfectly rigid: it can vibrate.
If you hit the key cleanly and smoothly you have less vibration in the hammer than if you stab at it.

The frequencies in the hammer aren't the same as the natural frequencies in the strings.
The hammer will stay in contact with the strings for a short time, during which the vibrations in the hammer will pass into the strings. If the vibrations are large then they will add disonance to the notes being produced (since the vibrations of the hammer won't match the frequencies we are trying to produce with the strings).

So clean, smooth strikes of the keys will produce purer, more pleasant sounds.

This type of single-note tone is under the control of the pianist.

[nyiregyhazi]

Especially the part about "I wouldn't be playing this instrument".

Once again, I'd like to point out the difference between direct and indirect touches:
1) In direct touches, the motion of the hammer starts immediately with the motion of the key.
2) In indirect touches, the hammer motion starts several milliseconds after key motion.

I'm not clear- why would this be the case? If the action is set right, any key movement should immediately translate to causing hammer movement. There shouldn't be any room for the key to move before the hammer is affected. How could there be a time lag and why would it be specific to indirect touch?

[dima_76557]

I'm not clear- why would this be the case? If the action is set right, any key movement should immediately translate to causing hammer movement. There shouldn't be any room for the key to move before the hammer is affected. How could there be a time lag and why would it be specific to indirect touch?

Beats me actually.
P.S.: It was mentioned in the document (page 2, paragraph 2) I linked earlier in another topic: Computer Analysis of the Indirect Piano Touch: Analysis Methods and Results. by Aristotelis Hadjakos.

[chopin2015]

The hammer in a piano is not perfectly rigid: it can vibrate.
If you hit the key cleanly and smoothly you have less vibration in the hammer than if you stab at it.

The frequencies in the hammer aren't the same as the natural frequencies in the strings.
The hammer will stay in contact with the strings for a short time, during which the vibrations in the hammer will pass into the strings. If the vibrations are large then they will add disonance to the notes being produced (since the vibrations of the hammer won't match the frequencies we are trying to produce with the strings).

So clean, smooth strikes of the keys will produce purer, more pleasant sounds.

This type of single-note tone is under the control of the pianist.

there is also the fact that piano is a percussion instrument. we have the option to manipulate sound in more ways than just manipulating tone. i'm sure there's a lot more to the percussion part, and how it probably parallels with tone...

@dima

cool pdf.

I will take some time to look at it.

also, where you strike the key probably affects the delay time of how fast the hammer reaches the string, without loosing any "touch" energy which controls dynamics. i hope...

[nyiregyhazi]

Beats me actually.
P.S.: It was mentioned in the document I linked earlier in another topic:
Computer Analysis of the Indirect Piano Touch: Analysis Methods and Results. by Aristotelis Hadjakos.

Ah, I'm with you now. I'd heard reference to "indirect touch" as meaning indirect angles of finger movement, but I see what it means now. Still interesting to know about the time lag though. What is that paper actually trying to say overall though? I only had time to skim it, but they didn't seem to draw any obvious practical conclusions or significance after coming up with the reams of data. What is it supposed to be proving or illustrating about pianism? If there was a clear practical implication at the end then I'd probably have gone back through and tried to follow it step by step, but I didn't see any obvious practical implications being raised about anything, just a lot of raw data that seemingly exists for its own sake. It seems to be more science for the sake of science, than science for the sake of learning something practical about what works in pianism. Am I missing something, among all the graphs and talk of angles?

[chopin2015]

energy moves in different ways, as it is conducted

literally, a conductor

[dima_76557]

What is that paper actually trying to say overall though?

Direct touch in this document means: to play from the key surface.
Indirect touch means to lift the playing unit and let it drop.

The differences are not merely a matter of "convenience/inconvenience" or "effective or ineffective piano playing" as one might think. Indirect touch gives an essentially different tone quality (timbre). That's what the document seeks to demonstrate. In that light, it can be understood why the Old Masters did what they did, and that Sokolov and Katsaris do it too. It's not that they were/are too stupid to understand that not lifting is easier and more convenient; there are certain artistic benefits to be had.

[chopin2015]

Dima, you ever write books?

[dima_76557]

Dima, you ever write books?

No. If I ever did, I could only write one for myself because other people with a different background, different perception, different experience, etc. may not understand what I am saying.

[outin]

Tone must exists because on a bad day my piano sounds just dull and harsh and on a good day I can bring out a rather pleasant warm resonant and clear bright tones... Cannot be my imagination only because I hear it in recordings.
Unfortunately I am not aware yet about everything that's essential in producing the latter 

[awesom_o]

energy moves in different ways, as it is conducted

literally, a conductor

Brilliant!!

[awesom_o]

The hammer in a piano is not perfectly rigid: it can vibrate.
If you hit the key cleanly and smoothly you have less vibration in the hammer than if you stab at it.

The frequencies in the hammer aren't the same as the natural frequencies in the strings.
The hammer will stay in contact with the strings for a short time, during which the vibrations in the hammer will pass into the strings. If the vibrations are large then they will add disonance to the notes being produced (since the vibrations of the hammer won't match the frequencies we are trying to produce with the strings).

So clean, smooth strikes of the keys will produce purer, more pleasant sounds.

This type of single-note tone is under the control of the pianist.

Absolutely!

[nyiregyhazi]

Direct touch in this document means: to play from the key surface.
Indirect touch means to lift the playing unit and let it drop.

The differences are not merely a matter of "convenience/inconvenience" or "effective or ineffective piano playing" as one might think. Indirect touch gives an essentially different tone quality (timbre). That's what the document seeks to demonstrate. In that light, it can be understood why the Old Masters did what they did, and that Sokolov and Katsaris do it too. It's not that they were/are too stupid to understand that not lifting is easier and more convenient; there are certain artistic benefits to be had.

Yes, I follow the distinction now. It's definitely interesting to know that it makes such a difference in how the hammer is affected. However, I can't make head nor tail of what the article itself is trying to say after that. That point about the set-off is a citation from someone else's paper. What on earth is all that raw data about afterwards in the experiment itself? Lots of graphs and lots of reference to angles, but I couldn't find any conclusions from them or any evident shred of intelligent thought provoking interpretations. Just lots of data about angles. Have you got any idea what they are actually trying to say with it? I'm not sure if I'm missing something, or if there was simply no particular purposes other than dispassionate collection of data for the sake of collecting data.

[awesom_o]

I think one of the hallmarks of great playing is to have completely inimitable tone!

Very few pianists reach this level.

[dima_76557]

What on earth is all that raw data about afterwards in the experiment itself? Lots of graphs and lots of reference to angles, but I couldn't find any conclusions from them or any evident shred of intelligent thought provoking interpretations. Just lots of data about angles. Have you got any idea what they are actually trying to say with it?

Here is my guess: It's an abstract paper about indirect touches (touches that originate from above the key, not from the key surface) and about the result in timbre of such types of touch under different angles. From what I understand, the data *could* be used by technicians to design a better digital keyboard; one that could distinguish different angles of "attack" and adjust the timbre accordingly.

[kevin69]

I think one of the hallmarks of great playing is to have completely inimitable tone!

I have a tone you wouldn't want to imitate.
Will that do?

[awesom_o]

I have a tone you wouldn't want to imitate.
Will that do?

It'll do for now.... but not for long!!

[noambenhamou]

I have had this discussion many times with pianists, and I am yet to be convinced.

I do not believe one's tone can be "harsh" or "weak" or "colourless".
It's my belief that people use these terms to describe very small differences in dynamics. Whenever my teacher says "no no, that's too harsh", I simply play a little less loudly, and when she asks for a fuller tone, I play more loudly - and she seems very satisfied when I do so.

How can one produce a certain tone by one's touch? All you do is make a hammer hit a string. The only thing you decide is how quickly that happens. All you control is the speed.
If there is a mechanical (scientific) way of explaining how it is possible to alter the way the hammer hits the string, please explain it, for I am yet to encounter someone who can actually account for their belief in "tone" or "touch".

I used to think the same thing

I have a good understanding of the mechanics of the action and there is a thing called a "Let off" which disengages the hammer from the keys about 2mm before it hits the string.

So pretty much it leaves us with fact - a hammer is a projectile and the only thing you can control is its speed at the let off point. The greater the speed, the louder the sound.

With how hammers are designed, to simplify, they are softer on the outside and harder on the inside. So the slow hammer only "brushes" the strings with the surface and you get mellow sound at low volume and the faster it hits, the hammer string compresses the soft skin of the felt and the harder felt underneath takes effect so you get brighter "Color" if you will.

So that's the design on the piano, timbre, and design of the hammer of how it is voiced.
The faster the hammer hits, the brighter and louder, and the slower it hits the darker and softer.

So the conclusion is that its all about velocity and there is no such thing as a "Pianist's special touch".

If pianist A accelerates the hammer to 10m/s at the let off point and so does pianist B who's technique and visual touch look very different, the sound MUST be the same!

That is false and I know it sounds irrational.

The rationality begins with wood.
The hammer shank bends on acceleration. Think of it as a whip.
So depending when in the key down stroke you accelerated the hammer, and how much would change the angle which the hammer hits the string

You can press a note 2mm down slowly, then quickly accelerate the hammer. Or you can hit the note from high above and cause the shank to flex while at its resting position.

There are many ways to produce different sounds.

Another element is the procussive  sound of the action. Press the sustain pedal and smack underneath the keybed with your first. The piano will glow with sound right?

Depending on how you hit the keys, you will cause this effect obviously more noticeable with sustain pedal.

If you dont think that can be heard over your loud playing, think again. If you put a tshirt over the strings at the highest octave which are always open to ring, and play something in the center of the piano, the sound of your piano will be different. There are also strings after the bridge which are aloud to ring by themselves that make the piano sound the way that it does.

Hope this made sense.

Noam

[pianoman53]

Since it's completely impossible to say if someone has good tone, by only hearing one single note, it's also about voicing and how one connects one note to the next.

But to the OP: Be careful with completely relying on your own teacher. I'm not saying s/he isn't accomplished, but there will always be people with a better ear than your teacher, who will hear if you see something as complex as 'tone' only as loud and soft.

[vansh]

Since it's completely impossible to say if someone has good tone, by only hearing one single note, it's also about voicing and how one connects one note to the next.

I used to think this -- that maybe each note really only has loud or not, and so a lot of "tone" comes from how you connect one note to the next, in terms of relative loudness, how much one note overlaps into the next, how you use the pedal, etc.

But recently I had my first piano lesson in over a decade. When I played the very first note in Chopin's Fantaisie Impromptu (I guess technically chord -- two G#'s one octave apart) the piano teacher said that I played it too harshly -- that it needed to sound deep and resonant, while I was just sort of slapping the keys. This was just about that first note and not anything after that. His advice was to play it deeply as if I was trying to get the string to vibrate all the way at the other end of the piano, that I needed to transfer my body weight into it. From just listening he could tell whether or not I was really focusing on this. So apparently tone can come from just one note alone.

It's tempting to consider the hammer action as a solid, incompressible object, but it in reality is "soft" at high speeds and will flex in all sorts of ways when moved quickly, i.e. under impact, that we don't notice because it goes by too quickly. An example video of a solid object flexing under impact, in this case a baseball hitting a baseball bat:

(at around 2:40 for example)

As mentioned above there's the hammer and shank (which the baseball bat demonstrates), but there's also the different parts that make up the hammer itself -- it's not a single piece but is composed of many different pieces, each of which may perhaps move relative to each other under a large enough impulse.

I'm an engineer and not a professional pianist, but I suspect that when pianists talk about producing a good tone, the physical phenomena is actually about not having large overtones when the note is struck, so that the sound consists more of lower frequency tones rather than higher tones which sound more unpleasant. After all, when the finger accelerates the key, it is essentially transmitting compression waves to the key, which then goes through the action to the hammer, which then strikes the key. How the finger accelerates the key, such as more firm (i.e. tensed) versus more pliable (i.e. relaxed) can mean different compression waves are transmitted, independent of the actual volume (i.e. total energy).

I would not be surprised if there's research showing that there are quantitative differences (such as relative sound energy of different frequencies) between what is considered a good tone versus a bad one -- and that how the body/arm/wrist/hand/finger assembly strikes the key can affect the relative sound energies. I would be surprised if there hasn't been research along this direction, since I think it's an intuitive one to try to figure out just what is this "tone" thing that pianists talk about.

[timothy42b]

I would not be surprised if there's research showing that there are quantitative differences (such as relative sound energy of different frequencies) between what is considered a good tone versus a bad one -- and that how the body/arm/wrist/hand/finger assembly strikes the key can affect the relative sound energies. I would be surprised if there hasn't been research along this direction, since I think it's an intuitive one to try to figure out just what is this "tone" thing that pianists talk about.

There is research showing that in blind tests, listeners cannot tell a difference in tone between a note played properly with the fingers and a note played with a pencil held in the teeth.

There are huge differences though in perceived tone from voicing and articulation, and I think those outweigh any changes due to striking the key differently. 

There is also some research that says listeners cannot tell differences in timbre between brass instruments (trombone, horn, trumpet) playing the same note if the beginning of the note is stripped off so they can't hear the articulation. 

[pianoman53]

But recently I had my first piano lesson in over a decade. When I played the very first note in Chopin's Fantaisie Impromptu (I guess technically chord -- two G#'s one octave apart) the piano teacher said that I played it too harshly -- that it needed to sound deep and resonant, while I was just sort of slapping the keys. This was just about that first note and not anything after that. His advice was to play it deeply as if I was trying to get the string to vibrate all the way at the other end of the piano, that I needed to transfer my body weight into it. From just listening he could tell whether or not I was really focusing on this. So apparently tone can come from just one note alone.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. You can't tell if a tone is good or not, if it's only one note Out of context. A single note in a context is a completely different story.
But say that the g# had been in a Prokofiev concerto, or something more percussive. Then, maybe, your attack would be better.
Good is very subjective- it depends on style, taste, meaning... That's why one note (without context) can't be either good or bad.

[nyiregyhazi]

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. You can't tell if a tone is good or not, if it's only one note Out of context. A single note in a context is a completely different story.
But say that the g# had been in a Prokofiev concerto, or something more percussive. Then, maybe, your attack would be better.
Good is very subjective- it depends on style, taste, meaning... That's why one note (without context) can't be either good or bad.

At the time the octave is heard, there is no context except the other note. I heard Kissin make one of the ugliest sounds I ever witnessed on that very octave. My horror did not begin due to the context of what followed. It was merely based on the percussive thud of the octave. You can argue that it was contextual based on the proportion of the two notes, but that is the only context. However, I heard the thud of key against key-bed. It was clear as anything.

[nyiregyhazi]

There is research showing that in blind tests, listeners cannot tell a difference in tone between a note played properly with the fingers and a note played with a pencil held in the teeth.

This is not so. That's like saying that there is research showing that runners cannot break the 10s barrier for 100m- based on getting a number of club runners to attempt it and observing that they fail. Hell, you could even take a number of the world's top 10 and fail to see them achieve it. That doesn't prove that runners cannot break 10 seconds. How do we know that the pianists involved knew how to use their fingers properly? How do we know that the listeners were accomplished? Above all, was the pedal down? It's when the pedal is open that the differences are pronounced, due to the resulting overtone series. Staggeringly, ever experiment I've ever seen makes the oversight of omitting to start with raised dampers.

We should be clear that nothing is conclusively proven either way. Those who speak of a single speed are completely misguided. The fact that the key has left the direct control of the key is no more relevant than the fact that you've lost contact with a trolley (after either setting it into motion with a whack from a baseball bat or a smooth push). So what if you're no longer in contact? In that situation it's a clear as day that the trolley will carry more than a mere single speed and it should self-evident that a hammer carries more than a speed too. HOWEVER, I've never seen a conclusive test to prove that these differences will definitely translate into sound. We shouldn't speak conclusively either way. The area in which you can definitely make for tonal differences is where you bang the keybeds hard with the pedal down. This is absolutely beyond question. It's the staggering oversight of always performing experiments without the pedal down that has prevented this factor from showing up to the extent that it should, when playing at high volumes.

[pianoman53]

At the time the octave is heard, there is no context except the other note. I heard Kissin make one of the ugliest sounds I ever witnessed on that very octave. My horror did not begin due to the context of what followed. It was merely based on the percussive thud of the octave. You can argue that it was contextual based on the proportion of the two notes, but that is the only context. However, I heard the thud of key against key-bed. It was clear as anything.

Well, the context is that it's Chopin, and that it happens to be a very famous first note. The first note in the g minor ballad is the same thing. From that note, you can sort of guess the rest.

However, if this c didn't have any indication or continuation, you wouldn't if it was good,since there are no such thing as 'good'. Good in Chopin isn't the same as good in prokofiev or Beethoven.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm an engineer and not a professional pianist, but I suspect that when pianists talk about producing a good tone, the physical phenomena is actually about not having large overtones when the note is struck, so that the sound consists more of lower frequency tones rather than higher tones which sound more unpleasant. After all, when the finger accelerates the key, it is essentially transmitting compression waves to the key, which then goes through the action to the hammer, which then strikes the key. How the finger accelerates the key, such as more firm (i.e. tensed) versus more pliable (i.e. relaxed) can mean different compression waves are transmitted, independent of the actual volume (i.e. total energy).

This is the usual dichotomy given, but I have to say that I think you're missing something- in terms of the mechanics but above all in terms of getting pianistic results. As you're an engineer I'd be very interested in your thoughts. I wrote a blog post a while back in which I defined terms of positive movement and negative movement, where positive movement aids acceleration and negative movement hinders. I've since been condensing the concept to a more simple and concise version. The problem with thinking in of either tensing against give or allowing it, is that it misses a superior alternative. Tensing is bad for obvious reasons, but allowing give or "pliability" compromises acceleration and means that you need more energy input to get the same volume. This means more energy hits the key bed. It's like a battering ram with two hard end but foam in the middle. Energy is lost to the compression and the potential energy available to transfer is not passed on efficiently. Obviously we don't want to treat piano playing like battering a door down, but if you allow give then you waste energy just the same way, leaving more to pile into the key bed after the hammer was already let off.

The superior alternative is the opposite, which is NOT a fixed structure, as is always portrayed in the traditional pianistic dichotomy. Imagine a battering ram with a powerful spring in the middle. Rather than squashing it EXPANDS in the opposite direction. This is not pliability- which is passive and inert, thus allowing compression and wasted energy. It's movement in the opposite direction, ie what I call positive movement. You get the most sonorous sound of all when the fingers start slightly curled up but then EXPAND in the useful direction of movement, rather than give way under arm force. There is no real wastage with this and thus the arm does not need to put anywhere near as much force in. This means less energy hits the key bed. The expansion also means that the hand pushes any "spare" momentum up and away from impact. It just rolls up and over. Conversely any give in the hand allows remaining momentum to pile straight down, even if the slack is fairly absorbent. Productive movement achieves so much more than inert pliability or stiffness.

I'd interested in your views from an engineer's point of view.

[timothy42b]

It's the staggering oversight of always performing experiments without the pedal down that has prevented this factor from showing up to the extent that it should, when playing at high volumes.

Not all experiments have missed that factor.

But is it really relevant?

You're confusing two claims:  the claim that differences in tone are easily detectable with the pedal up, and the claim that differences in tone are easily detectable with the pedal down.

In fact most people, 99% at least, would be of the opinion that tone differences are easy to hear either way.

You've also suggested you need sophisticated listeners to hear the difference.  Again, that is not the claim being made.  But if it were true, it would suggest that the differences are very very small - and when differences become small enough they become indistinguishable from error.  

Long ago my daughter and I started piano lessons back to back with the same teacher, so I'd be in the waiting room and could hear her play, through a closed door.  At first it was very clear whether she was playing or the teacher was demonstrating.  The piano sounded different, and I would have called it tone, though that's a very imprecise term for a large number of factors.  It wasn't many lessons before the difference disappeared (though this didn't happen before she moved from a cheap keyboard to a good digital for her practice piano).  

So I have no doubt that there is a detectable difference between players that is perceived as or generally called tone.  I doubt strongly that we know with any precision what it is, and further doubt that it has much to do with how the key is pressed (outside the harshness of banging of course).  

[nyiregyhazi]

Well, the context is that it's Chopin, and that it happens to be a very famous first note. The first note in the g minor ballad is the same thing. From that note, you can sort of guess the rest.

However, if this c didn't have any indication or continuation, you wouldn't if it was good,since there are no such thing as 'good'. Good in Chopin isn't the same as good in prokofiev or Beethoven.

I don't find the sound of an attack that is masked by a percussive thud and then followed up with a rapid decay to be effective in any instance. It's a horrible anticlimax. If a note is going to have to last with no new introductions of accompanying sounds, it needs a more lasting resonance. I'd hate that type of sound as much if it began a prokofiev sonata as to start Chopin. Percussive sounds are only suitable for short attacks. They are no use to start a long note that stands alone, within a long pedal, in any composer. I honestly can't think of one exception to this. A short note followed by a rest might be a different matter, but not when you need the sound to last.

[nyiregyhazi]

Not all experiments have missed that factor.

But is it really relevant?

You're confusing two claims:  the claim that differences in tone are easily detectable with the pedal up, and the claim that differences in tone are easily detectable with the pedal down.

In fact most people, 99% at least, would be of the opinion that tone differences are easy to hear either way.

You've also suggested you need sophisticated listeners to hear the difference.  Again, that is not the claim being made.  But if it were true, it would suggest that the differences are very very small - and when differences become small enough they become indistinguishable from error.  

Long ago my daughter and I started piano lessons back to back with the same teacher, so I'd be in the waiting room and could hear her play, through a closed door.  At first it was very clear whether she was playing or the teacher was demonstrating.  The piano sounded different, and I would have called it tone, though that's a very imprecise term for a large number of factors.  It wasn't many lessons before the difference disappeared (though this didn't happen before she moved from a cheap keyboard to a good digital for her practice piano).  

So I have no doubt that there is a detectable difference between players that is perceived as or generally called tone.  I doubt strongly that we know with any precision what it is, and further doubt that it has much to do with how the key is pressed (outside the harshness of banging of course).  

If banging can be heard, why would it not be a sliding scale? Why is it merely "banged" or "not banged"? Why would there not be different levels and indeed a hypothetical optimal way of coaxing sound out for the least possible bang theoretically possible? Logically, either banging does not exist at all, or it exists on a fluid scale of different levels. I heard a competition some years back where one pianist banged so badly that I quickly learned to distinguish the sound of of key against keybed within the overall sound. She actually achieved a very shallow and weak tone, which made it abundantly clear that she wasn't just playing too loud for the piano. The winner of the competition made a much deeper and bigger tone without the audible thuds.

Anyway, the way that you manipulate the key makes the most difference when the pedal is depressed - which is why it is sheer ignorance on the part of any scientist to conduct the experiment without at involving it, for at least half of the experiment. No experiment that neglected something so important and which failed to detect anything has any inherent value. In terms of failing to prove tone, that is merely a failure. It No more disproves anything than the experiment that doesn't see a runner break the ten second barrier. You cannot disprove tone from a negative result - and especially not one where you have failed to do testing under the conditions that would be most conducive towards a positive result.

[timothy42b]

You cannot disprove tone from a negative result - and especially not one where you have failed to do testing under the conditions that would be most conducive towards a positive result.

No, you're missing what I'm saying.

You have to test the claim that's being made.

The claim being made is that tone is affected by something you do when you press a single key.  When you press a single key the damper is up for that string. 

If you lift all the dampers, or if you have chordally related notes pressed, you have additional sources of variability added to your experiment. 

If the claim is that pressing a single key can affect tone, it makes no sense to insist it be tested with all the dampers up.

When a hammer strikes a string, it is a ballistic collision.  The hammer is flying freely through the air at that instant, and it strikes at whatever velocity it has at that instant.  Once it has moved off the jack (I may have the term wrong) there is nothing more you can do to it. 

Ever play malleted percussion like a marimba or glockenspiel?  Beginners always get a dull thud because they haven't learned to let the mallet bounce off.  But drop a ball onto that bar and everybody gets the same tone.  The piano hammer onto the string is like throwing a baseball at a tree, not like hitting the tree with a baseball bat. 

You're probably right that dampers are the largest influence on tone, rather than touch.  We're usually playing multiple notes and using the pedal, and exactly when we play and release those multiple notes creates the sound field.   

[nyiregyhazi]

No, you're missing what I'm saying.

You have to test the claim that's being made.

The claim being made is that tone is affected by something you do when you press a single key.  When you press a single key the damper is up for that string.  

If you lift all the dampers, or if you have chordally related notes pressed, you have additional sources of variability added to your experiment.  

If the claim is that pressing a single key can affect tone, it makes no sense to insist it be tested with all the dampers up.

When a hammer strikes a string, it is a ballistic collision.  The hammer is flying freely through the air at that instant, and it strikes at whatever velocity it has at that instant.  Once it has moved off the jack (I may have the term wrong) there is nothing more you can do to it.  

Ever play malleted percussion like a marimba or glockenspiel?  Beginners always get a dull thud because they haven't learned to let the mallet bounce off.  But drop a ball onto that bar and everybody gets the same tone.  The piano hammer onto the string is like throwing a baseball at a tree, not like hitting the tree with a baseball bat.  

You're probably right that dampers are the largest influence on tone, rather than touch.  We're usually playing multiple notes and using the pedal, and exactly when we play and release those multiple notes creates the sound field.    

What you're saying is missing the point. If tone can be varied on a single key, that difference will be more pronounced with the pedal down.  And that still reflects the tone of a single key depression. The pedal doesn't make the sound, the manner of pressing that one key does. I've heard the percussive thud on a single key without pedal but only at extreme volumes. I didn't say that dampers affect it "rather than" the touch. I said this creates conditions in which the quality of touch is most easily discernible- because it is amplified via the overtones. Playing at high volumes is also essential, to ensuring differences of timbre will show up.

Also, it doesn't matter that the hammer has been released. As stated earlier, the way the hammer is moving is affected by how it was accelerated - just the same as how a trolley moves differently after leaving contact with a whack from a baseball bat compared to when smoothly pushed to the same speed. It's very little like a baseball (where the main variable is spin) but more like how a golf club bends and flexes during a golf swing, according to pacing. This makes for differences in the the state of the hammer other than mere speed. Selecting an analogy that fails to include anything that is equivalent to such significant variables is not going to the make them vanish. Also, the way the key contacts the keybed is exactly the same as hitting the tree while still controlling the movement. How this is dealt with is probably the biggest tonal issue when playing into a depressed pedal. The hammer on the string is not the only sound. With the pedal down, the percussive noise of the collision is picked up by the strings. When playing a large chord very loudly, failure to avoid a hard landing makes for an almighty whack.

[timothy42b]

As stated earlier, the way the hammer is moving is affected by how it was accelerated - just the same as how a trolley moves differently after leaving contact with a whack from a baseball bat compared to when smoothly pushed to the same speed.

You can state it earlier or later, but that won't make it true.  Look at the exploded diagram of a piano key mechanism, there are some available on line.  It's like a baseball in that it's loose and free to bounce.  You can't even slow the bounce down until the escapement catches and by then the hammer is long gone from the string. 

It's very little like a baseball (where the main variable is spin) but more like how a golf club bends and flexes during a golf swing, according to pacing

.

Yes, it's exactly like a golf club, and the same is true in golf:  the clubhead behaves as an independent body in collision, with no contribution from the shaft.  (the shaft flexes slightly as it's loaded, and releases that flex and is bent forward at impact, contrary to intuition;  but you can put a hinge or even a string between the clubhead and shaft, and the flight of the ball is unaffected)

[nyiregyhazi]

You're
You can state it earlier or later, but that won't make it true.  Look at the exploded diagram of a piano key mechanism, there are some available on line.  It's like a baseball in that it's loose and free to bounce.  You can't even slow the bounce down until the escapement catches and by then the hammer is long gone from the string.  
.

I already established why the fact that it is no longer connected after escapement is irrelevant, via the trolley analogy. It travels differently whether hit to speed x with a short baseball bat blow or pushed smoothly to that speed. The trolley version is more blatant, yes, but it establishes that merely because an object is no longer under direct manipulation, it does not mean that the only variable in play is a mere speed.  because the hammer is less self-evident than the vibrating trolley, it does not follow that the fact you are no longer manipulating it leaves no issue other than a mere speed. If cannot recognise this then, sorry to be blunt, but your reasoning is definably in error. You're operating under a simplification without having first proven credible factors to be irrelevant.

Yes, it's exactly like a golf club, and the same is true in golf:  the clubhead behaves as an independent body in collision, with no contribution from the shaft.  (the shaft flexes slightly as it's loaded, and releases that flex and is bent forward at impact, contrary to intuition;  but you can put a hinge or even a string between the clubhead and shaft, and the flight of the ball is unaffected)

You're picking and choosing, and not accurately. Of course the shaft contributes. That's why the wrist action at the moment of contact is so vital. The club is not coasting but ACTIVELY being accelerated through the ball. A player who merely swings fast and lets it coast will not get the same distance as one who gets active acceleration through contact via the timing of wrist action. Clearly you are not a golfer...

Regardless, the point of the golf analogy is that the pacing of acceleration alters the pacing of flexion. This means that a hammer no more contains a mere speed than the supermarket trolley (that is either vibrating like crazy or smoothly coasting at that same speed). None of these factors can be written off.

And if that had actually been correct as you claimed, it would prove that what happens before coasting is relevant. The level of flexion in the golf club and the level of bending or unbending is based on what pacing of acceleration prior to starting to coast, if you do choose to swing that way. So the club hits the ball differently based on that pacing and not merely with a single speed.

[timothy42b]

Here are two collision experiments, one of which you should very definitely not do yourself.

Drop a basketball and a tennisball side by side from about three feet or so.  They'll both bounce back up fairly close to the same distance, somewhere around 2 1/2 feet give or take.  Now carefully hold the tennisball on top of the basketball and drop them as a unit.

What do you predict?  

If you haven't done this, you'll be surprised.  The tennis ball usually hits the ceiling with considerable force.

Now the second experiment, which needs to remain a thought experiment.  Have somebody toss you the tennisball, and hit it hard with a baseball bat.  It bounces off the bat pretty fast, right?  Now do the same with the basketball.

No, DON'T do this with a basketball.  I have seen this attempted just once.  The guy swinging the bat figured a heavy ball like a basketball just wouldn't go very far, he might even have to keep exerting force after impact.

Well, he couldn't, he was down on the ground.  The bat bounced off the basketball and smacked him in the head.  He wasn't out but he was down and dazed.