"Tone" doesn't exist.

[nyiregyhazi]

Of course tone exists, in the sense that when you vary the speed at which the key strikes the hammer, the harmonic spectrum of the resulting sound will vary as well.

OTOH the only way we have of controlling tone is by varying the speed at which the key strikes the hammer. As Timothy has corrected pointed out, the hammer is in freefall at the moment of collision. Our job is done, and there is nothing more we can do. Voicing of chords, legato and use of the pedal also affect the perception of tone of course, but if you're talking about a single note there is only speed.

It doesn't really matter though. If someone has some highly poetic way that they think striking the key "differently" changes the tone - and it allows them to control very fine nuances of speed that create a beautiful effect - then who cares that what they're doing is not what they think they're doing?

I appreciate that there have been many posts in this thread but I have already given a clear and simple illustration that the logic you use to draw that conclusion is totally 100 percent in error. It doesn't matter one jot that you are not in contact with the hammer. This is a total red herring.

To repeat :

If you accelerate a supermarket trolley to speed x by pushing it smoothly and then releasing, it coasts totally differently to if you batter it with a baseball bat to the same speed and let it coast. The difference here is in waves. One is vibrating one is not. The fact you are not in contact any more is altogether irrelevant and this irrefutable example proves that utter irrelevance. Your logic is plain wrong. That two things are coasting at the same speed does not prove them to be moving identically. The pseudoscientific claim that only a speed can exist hinges on a complete fallacy.

Likewise the example of a golf club relates to hammer bend. The pacing of acceleration in a golf swing determines the pacing of bend in the shaft. A hammer shaft will not be so much but it certainly will bend. If that bend is springing out at the right time, it would change how long the contact is. This enables the possibility of both a different tone from the string and of more sound from the string with less percussive thud between key and key bed.

You can argue about what extent these factors come into play in practise, but you cannot make any valid argument that the scientific theory would say it's all about a single speed. That is utterly bogus pseudoscience.

[nyiregyhazi]

The document does nothing of the sort.

The document doesn't even compare direct and indirect touch; it compares different kinds of finger shape within indirect touch.

Furthermore, it doesn't appear to say anything about the resulting sound whatsoever. The researchers don't even appear to have recorded or attempted to measure the sound. They just videoed the finger strokes and processed the visual data in various ways.

TBH I'm struggling to work out what the point of the study was at all. But it certainly wasn't what you're claiming.

I'm as baffled as you are, but they did mention the idea of capturing things for use on a digital. The problem is that they didn't define what differences on sound would be triggered, rendering the whole exercise utterly pointless. The only point of interest was what they mentioned from someone else's study regarding a different type of hammer motion. That was worth being aware of, but I couldn't make any sense out of what their own data was for or what it was supposed to reveal.

[nyiregyhazi]

I was always taught that the direct touch puts more energy directly into the tone, whereas the indirect method of touch wastes energy by vibrating the actual key.

I practise a lot both ways. The key with lifting is that you bond with the key in the SAME way for a split second. Both are deeply interrelated to each other, so you gain much from practising in both (seeming) opposites and discovering what transfers from doing one well to doing the other well. If you simply hit without bonding right (just as the same as you do when preparing a finger directly against a key) it doesn't work one bit. Pianists who start only from close early in training are usually very stiff. Especially on the thumb on scales, I get students to lift their fingers literally as high as possible to open out over the thumb before letting the fingers back down. I don't let them think sideways yet but only of reaching straight up. This is the only consistently effective way to get them to join to the piano properly. When they go on to a more concise movement, they will then continue to feel a sense of opening that automatically flicks the fingers into the new position. If they start with a concise sideways movement with no sense of lifting he fingers over the thumb, they will inevitably grind into the next position with great stiffness.

This is what I like about double rotation from Taubman (except done to add to active finger movement rather than to replace it). It teaches you to open up on top of each finger, rather than to be squashed down into it. It's very hard to free yourself up when you start off immediately with the idea of trying to stay close. Lifting fingers (which should always be aided by a little rotation, to protect against tightening) helps you to open out better over the last finger and to create length in the arm rather than be cramping up. It checks whether you are joining to active fingers and exposes where you are simply drooping the finger and tightening the arm instead.

Above all, people forget that you can lift the fingers AND let them back to play from contact. The best way to make an effective direct strike, for those not yet experienced, is to lift the finger first to get the knuckle up and then to let the finger down without letting the knuckle droop. This gives you the best of both worlds. You don't have any sense of a hit, but the preparatory lifting both readies the awareness of the finger and gets it into the most effective position from which to pass on energy. This kind of lifting actually trains you in the best way to play from direct contact.

[nyiregyhazi]

Love for whatever object of that love is subjective, but it is contagious. If I love someone or something, it will be expressed in what I do and in how I do it, and everybody will recognize it as such on an intuitive level and believe that what they see or hear is true. Only the most insecure will start asking questions about the objective value of it all.

I don't agree at all with this. By extension, must all great artists be so ignorant and foolish as to believe in homeopathy too? I think not. You can be objective and artistic too. The problem is when supposed but totally dubious objectivity muddies the waters about how things work. As an objective person, I need cause to believe that my search for tone is not on the same ludicrous level as trying to cure cancer with bullshit homeopathy.

If I thought that the secret to the biggest sound was to move keys as fast as possible (with no awareness of the relevance of pacing) then I'd be a poor pianist for it. Comparisons to other things are very helpful. Anyone who tells people to hit a six in cricket by swinging the bat as fast as they can will do untold harm. To give a pianist the same atrocious concept (and to claim it's science) will wreak havoc on anyone who believes it's a final objective truth and that anything else is as real as homeopathy. They must be cured of such impediments by more accurate objective information, so they're not made to feel like they believe in fairies. As all good cricketers know, you can't start with a wild swipe. You progress smoothly towards the ball and start the most of your acceleration through contact. Pianists benefit from knowing these things about pacing and from not being told the nonsense that it's all about absolute speed.

I don't want to search for tone via the same blind and ignorant faith that a person in a religious cult requires. I want to search for it via a simple practical understanding of a manner of the in which energy can be passed on most efficiently and without a heavy thud between key and key bed. Artistry and objectively accurate understanding of simple practical concepts are not mutually exclusive. It's when actively unhelpful misinformation is falsely portrayed as a scientific truth, that there a problem.

[awesom_o]

If I thought that the secret to the biggest sound was to move keys as fast as possible...... Pianists benefit from knowing these things about pacing and from not being told the nonsense that it's all about absolute speed.
 

I guarantee that I can produce a much, much bigger tone than you can, and it's because my control of absolute hammer speed is greater.

[dima_76557]

I don't agree at all with this. By extension, must all great artists be so ignorant and foolish as to believe in homeopathy too? I think not. You can be objective and artistic too. The problem is when supposed but totally dubious objectivity muddies the waters about how things work. As an objective person, I need cause to believe that my search for tone is not on the same ludicrous level as trying to cure cancer with bullshit homeopathy.

That was not exactly the message I intended to convey. I am not against objectivity as such in search for development; your or my own development that is. It's just that the wrong kind of "objectivity" at the wrong moment from people who don't have a clue what you are trying to achieve can spoil just about everything that has to do with art.

For example, I remember Rubinstein saying in an interview that he was really insulted by a "positive" review about one of his concerts. All the critic pointed out was something about Rubinstein's fluent left hand and masterful pedal usage in a certain piece. However "objective" and "positive" that may have been intended, that kind of focus in the listener on material stuff is NOT what artists work for.

I don't want to search for tone via the same blind and ignorant faith that a person in a religious cult requires. I want to search for it via a simple practical understanding of a manner of the in which energy can be passed on most efficiently and without a heavy thud between key and key bed.

Have you read the book by Heinrich Neuhaus I mentioned? Although it doesn't seem to give much at first sight since it is merely his empiric knowledge (not science), it opens new depths every time you read it again. Neuhaus's students are also generally known for their excellent touch. He gives all the components that should be experimented with to get satisfying results in terms of tone: height (h), mass (m), and speed or accelaration (v) in different ratios for different sound qualities. Too much v, for example, will give a harsh tone, etc. I don't think it can be made any simpler than that.

[nyiregyhazi]

I guarantee that I can produce a much, much bigger tone than you can, and it's because my control of absolute hammer speed is greater.

I don't know why it would be a contest, but maybe/maybe not on both counts.

If you hit a trolley with a very fast swing of a baseball bat then you'll produce less speed in it that if you push it more gently but stay in contact for longer. That's why a speed mindset is misleading. Just because you strive to move faster, it doesn't mean the hammer will. I know that you're a good pianist but inepexperienced amateurs are usually completely misled when they make speed their goal. Secondky, the same applies to the hammer on string contact itself. It's theoretically possible to find more energy via the timing of the motion to get the hammer bending and  unbending at the right point. If a flexed hammer is unbending at the right time it could be transferring more energy not by absolute speed but by "following through" as the bend springs out and makes a longer contact. This could transfer more energy at a slow speed. It would be about pacing, not merely about raw speed.

Those are possibilities rather than certainties, but the main point is that you don't simplistically achieve the most action on the hammer by merely attempting to move as fast possible. You need to understand pacing of acceleration and what best transmits speed. Even if hammer speed were definitely the lone issue, to merely speak of the hammer itself (without speaking of the means of passing on speed via the finger and the key) would be misleading.

Regarding my own volume, producing a big sound in chordal writing is probably my greatest strength. I have live recordings of the Liszt sonata and Dante sonata that would probably convey it far better, but the middle section of this recording on an antique upright gives some idea.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O3PY2tTuaFs&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DO3PY2tTuaFs

I don't get that by thinking about moving fast, but by awareness of quality of contact and of efficiency of energy transfer (by which I'm primarily speaking of pacing of acceleration).

[nyiregyhazi]

That was not exactly the message I intended to convey. I am not against objectivity as such in search for development; your or my own development that is. It's just that the wrong kind of "objectivity" at the wrong moment from people who don't have a clue what you are trying to achieve can spoil just about everything that has to do with art.

Sure, but we must be clear if this is down to misinformation or poorly contextualised information that creates the wrong impression. Better use of objectivity usually aids. We must not blame objectivity itself for misinformation. That's actually due to lack of objectivity.

Have you read the book by Heinrich Neuhaus I mentioned? Although it doesn't seem to give much at first sight since it is merely his empiric knowledge (not science), it opens new depths every time you read it again. Neuhaus's students are also generally known for their excellent touch. He gives all the components that should be experimented with to get satisfying results in terms of tone: height (h), mass (m), and speed or accelaration (v) in different ratios for different sound qualities. Too much v, for example, will give a harsh tone, etc. I don't think it can be made any simpler than that.

To be honest, I really don't rate that part of the book. He's trying to find quantify things but doing a bad job. Too much abrupt speed produces a bang, but the real explanation is the pacing of that speed and how well the pianist interacted with the key. You cannot use height "instead" of applying velocity. These things can make for subjective illusions, but what they really change is the pacing of how acceleration and thus velocity itself is applied to the key. My point elsewhere is not to say that velocity isn't the primary issue. It's just to say that if you don't consider PACING as well as the speed, hoping to simply move the keys faster is not the way to get a big tone. Above all, it's about  improving pacing and understanding the direct interaction between every separate finger and the key itself. Height is worthless if the fingers can only stiffen or collapse and do not know the means of bonding with that resistance and lengthening out through it.

[chopin2015]

That was not exactly the message I intended to convey. I am not against objectivity as such in search for development; your or my own development that is. It's just that the wrong kind of "objectivity" at the wrong moment from people who don't have a clue what you are trying to achieve can spoil just about everything that has to do with art.

For example, I remember Rubinstein saying in an interview that he was really insulted by a "positive" review about one of his concerts. All the critic pointed out was something about Rubinstein's fluent left hand and masterful pedal usage in a certain piece. However "objective" and "positive" that may have been intended, that kind of focus in the listener on material stuff is NOT what artists work for.

Have you read the book by Heinrich Neuhaus I mentioned? Although it doesn't seem to give much at first sight since it is merely his empiric knowledge (not science), it opens new depths every time you read it again. Neuhaus's students are also generally known for their excellent touch. He gives all the components that should be experimented with to get satisfying results in terms of tone: height (h), mass (m), and speed or accelaration (v) in different ratios for different sound qualities. Too much v, for example, will give a harsh tone, etc. I don't think it can be made any simpler than that.

yes!! now, that's what love is all about. simplicity.
although, dima, what may seem like basics of knowledge to you, may be the first time some have ever had to think about piano in such a way! in a different way! they say liszt used to read poems and whole books to his students, to inspire them, but chopin said very few words and always showed tye student what he was thinking, on the piano, often failing to do so the first time, playing a part multiple times, to get a true sound.

i actually do not own the Neuhaus book but i really really want to. i've read parts of it but i have never bought a copy. they run kind of expensive! but, i actually think I may have the opportunity to purchase it this semester!

another book that is just wonderful is the cortot art of pianoforte technique and chopin:pianist and teacher

@nyi

the only way to do so is to know the differences between touches, understand the effect different touches have on a GOOD tone, and train your ear to listen to differences in touch and listen to changing the sound by adjusting your technique. it's all a natural response of body to sound, but you can help your tone by observing basic musts of hand and body movements.

[pianoparent2013]

As a first year adult piano student, I debated whether to jump in here because my own first-hand experience totally invalidates several of the claims here.

My teacher showed how different ways of playing a single key would produce different sounds. He proved it by asking me to close my eyes and just hear the differences. The exercise was to demonstrate the importance of (1) proper body and arm and wrist and hand positions and (2) the importance of "finger practice" and also (3) the emphasis on listening skills.

I went home and was able to demonstrate some of the simpler "mistakes" to myself. Play a key one way, and my family asks if it needs tuning.  Play that same key another way, the fundamental shows through nice and clean.

So I do not know what this debate is about . A total amateur novice like me can play the same key in different ways to produce different tones. Part of my practice is to NOT play the key in the "wrong" way.

If it is as simple as the hammer always hitting the string in the same precise manner producing precisely the same frequency and resonance, then why bother with finger techniques and everything else?

What gives?  

[pianoman53]

I have a very sencere question: How is golf or a trolley anything like playing piano? ".. because you would use this movement in golf" is not a valid argument in how to produce a good tone. I think we can all agree that the OP is led in a wrong direction, when s/he thinks that tone is either loud or soft, but to argue about it with golf terms?!

[pianoman53]

and can't we just agree on that tone exists, and leave it at that?

[nyiregyhazi]

I have a very sencere question: How is golf or a trolley anything like playing piano? ".. because you would use this movement in golf" is not a valid argument in how to produce a good tone. I think we can all agree that the OP is led in a wrong direction, when s/he thinks that tone is either loud or soft, but to argue about it with golf terms?!

Then my question to you is how is it different - in a way that specifically applies to the piano yet not the trolley? The trolley is just one of many examples I could have chosen to show the fallacy of a chain of thought that people are trying to apply to a hammer. INot being in contact is simply not a valid "proof" that only a speed is therefore being carried. Only one counterexample is needed to disprove a bogus chain of logic. Mine is the trolley. The onus is on those who claim to be using accurate logic to show why it would prove anything about the hammer, when the same chain of logic would suggest that a trolley too (or any of countless other examples that could be given) ought to be carrying nothing but a speed.

If the supposed rule about a coasting body carrying nothing but a speed does not accurately describe the coasting trolley, there is no basis to assume it can accurately describe movement of a hammer. The chain of logic is thus proven to be invalid, beyond any reasonable doubt. The fact that something is no longer be actively controlled does not prove that it carries nothing but a speed. Any conclusion that hinges upon this proven error is totally invalid. If something makes a hammer different, that must be proven by something that actually stands up to scrutiny.

[pianoman53]

... because pushing a trolley isn't done to create a beautiful tone at the piano...?

[nyiregyhazi]

... because pushing a trolley isn't done to create a beautiful tone at the piano...?

Nobody is under the delusion that analogies are literally identical in all respects. If you thought that were the case, you haven't understood the concept of analogy in general. Analogies are crafted to illustrate aspects of an issue. In this case, it illustrates the greater control afforded from smoother acceleration from a longer rather than abrupt contact. And it proves that a coasting body cannot accurately be assumed to carry nothing but a speed, regardless of the means and pacing acceleration that took it there.

If you're only prepared to argue emotively and not objectively (in spite of being a physics student), this is pointless. I've actually found the analogy very useful for teaching students how to produce better tone. Nobody would be silly enough to accelerate a trolley with a wild hit or by kicking it. Everyone naturally understand the need to accelerate it smoothly away. Apply that same intent to the pacing of accelerating a piano keys (where many students instinctively apply awkward hits and jerks rather than a smooth interaction) you instantly remove the jerks/hits. This both aids control and reduces the likelihood of poor sound quality.

[pianoman53]

Aha. So now, when I know that a trolley is better pushed than hit, I can now play the piano better. Thank you.

[awesom_o]

Just don't hit the keys if you want to produce good tone. The keys are your friends! We shouldn't hit our friends!

[nyiregyhazi]

Aha. So now, when I know that a trolley is better pushed than hit, I can now play the piano better. Thank you.

Wilfully misrepresenting the point being made (rather than having the capacity to argue against the point that is actually being made) is possibly the cheapest argumentative technique there is. It typically results from frustration at being incapable of coming up with a valid rebutall of what has really been said.

The point I am actually making is that everyone ALREADY knows how to smoothly accelerate a trolley (except the most overwhelmingly uncoordinated). The problem is that only a tiny minority actually apply the same smooth and fluid process to moving a piano key- which why is why we hear so much ugly and percussive piano playing. When you take what you can instinctively do elsewhere already and start to understand piano playing in the same light, suddenly playing the piano becomes much easier.

[pianoman53]

Wilfully misrepresenting the point being made (rather than having the capacity to argue against the point that is actually being made) is possibly the cheapest argumentative technique there is.

The point I am actually making is that everyone ALREADY knows how to smoothly accelerate a trolley (except the most overwhelmingly uncoordinated). The problem is that only a tiny minority actually apply the same smooth and fluid process to moving a piano key- which why is why we hear so much ugly and percussive piano playing. When you take what you can instinctively do elsewhere already and start to understand piano playing in the same light, suddenly playing the piano becomes much easier.

When I came up with exceptions, you said "It's only the exception that confirms the rule". How can I ever reply seriously to you?

[nyiregyhazi]

When I came up with exceptions, you said "It's only the exception that confirms the rule". How can I ever reply seriously to you?

I said no such thing. Exceptions DISPROVE rules and I would never misuse the phrase about "exceptions proving the rule" in the common misinterpretation. What the phrase accurately means is that any definitive exception disproves a rule and renders it completely invalid for proving anything. I have never felt otherwise and if you want to make such ridiculous assertions then quote them.

If you cannot argue honestly, then I'll simply ignore whatever you want to follow up with.

[pianoman53]

okay, so your reply made even less sense. Now I will reply even less seriously.

[nick]

I practise a lot both ways. The key with lifting is that you bond with the key in the SAME way for a split second. Both are deeply interrelated to each other, so you gain much from practising in both (seeming) opposites and discovering what transfers from doing one well to doing the other well. If you simply hit without bonding right (just as the same as you do when preparing a finger directly against a key) it doesn't work one bit. Pianists who start only from close early in training are usually very stiff. Especially on the thumb on scales, I get students to lift their fingers literally as high as possible to open out over the thumb before letting the fingers back down. I don't let them think sideways yet but only of reaching straight up. This is the only consistently effective way to get them to join to the piano properly. When they go on to a more concise movement, they will then continue to feel a sense of opening that automatically flicks the fingers into the new position. If they start with a concise sideways movement with no sense of lifting he fingers over the thumb, they will inevitably grind into the next position with great stiffness.

This is what I like about double rotation from Taubman (except done to add to active finger movement rather than to replace it). It teaches you to open up on top of each finger, rather than to be squashed down into it. It's very hard to free yourself up when you start off immediately with the idea of trying to stay close. Lifting fingers (which should always be aided by a little rotation, to protect against tightening) helps you to open out better over the last finger and to create length in the arm rather than be cramping up. It checks whether you are joining to active fingers and exposes where you are simply drooping the finger and tightening the arm instead.

Above all, people forget that you can lift the fingers AND let them back to play from contact. The best way to make an effective direct strike, for those not yet experienced, is to lift the finger first to get the knuckle up and then to let the finger down without letting the knuckle droop. This gives you the best of both worlds. You don't have any sense of a hit, but the preparatory lifting both readies the awareness of the finger and gets it into the most effective position from which to pass on energy. This kind of lifting actually trains you in the best way to play from direct contact.

I don't understand any of this. If one has stiffness getting into the next position, rather than doing different movement to counteract this why not just concentrate of a relaxed hand at all times? And this "grinding down" problem seems the result of tension as well, pressing too hard etc. Reminds me of a teacher I had that had me raising and lowering my wrist at different beats through out the piece, with arrows up and down at every measure. When asked why,  it was to reduce tension in the wrist and keep it supple. When asked why not get at why there is tension there to begin with, the answer was that playing the piano just creates tension. I never understood that either as it does not appear to be a necessary by product. I know when I create tension and usually it is because of going faster that I can at a given point. Fingers begin to rise uncontrollably etc, so I can both see it and feel it. Oh well, maybe I'm just too old to get it.

Nick

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't understand any of this. If one has stiffness getting into the next position, rather than doing different movement to counteract this why not just concentrate of a relaxed hand at all times? And this "grinding down" problem seems the result of tension as well, pressing too hard etc. Reminds me of a teacher I had that had me raising and lowering my wrist at different beats through out the piece, with arrows up and down at every measure. When asked why,  it was to reduce tension in the wrist and keep it supple. When asked why not get at why there is tension there to begin with, the answer was that playing the piano just creates tension. I never understood that either as it does not appear to be a necessary by product. I know when I create tension and usually it is because of going faster that I can at a given point. Fingers begin to rise uncontrollably etc, so I can both see it and feel it. Oh well, maybe I'm just too old to get it.

Nick

It's not a problem with pressing. That's a worse problem still. But doing nothing doesn't bring the hand into the next position. It squashes the hand into a position that requires all the more muscular effort than opening up properly and standing on the thumb. If you fall down and sag into your thumb, your fingers are left behind in the last position. When the thumb expands the arch open, they are lifted over the top and automatically brought into into the next position.

No amount of passivity does that for you. You can do exercises to wipe the slate clean first and remove general tension before focusing on the necessary activitied. But if the thumb doesn't act to automatically lift your fingers over the top and into their next position, it takes vastly more muscular effort to being them around in a deliberate way. You have to learn how to open up the arch in the hand before striving to stay close can be effective. Droop in the arch will always cause stiffness to compensate for the instability that comes with it. It's like trying to "relax" by squatting over an imaginary chair instead of standing upright. Elevating your knuckles is less effort than letting them droop shut.


PS I found a solution for students whose fingers rise uncontrollably. It's a "panic" response to instability, like throwing your arms out if about to fall over. Exaggerate the movements even further at first. Deliberately lift every finger out and then carry on standing properly on the last finger with high knuckles when you let them back down. You'll become more stable and the fingers will stop doing the panic movements by themselves.

[richard black]

There are several possible contributing factors to a pianist's tone:

The relative loudness of different notes struck at the same time (or very nearly the same time - within a few tens of milliseconds so generally perceived as a single chord);

The relative loudness of notes struck in sequence, as in a run for instance;

Sounds emitted by bits of the piano (or indeed the player) other than the strings.

I list those in that order because, while no one can deny that the third of those contributes (as you can easily prove by hitting, with your finger, a piano key wedged so that it can't move), I reckon the first and second are WAAAYYY more significant in practice. Witness that fact that recordings made on the reproducing Bösendorfer piano (most of you know what I mean - the computerised roll-piano they were showing a few years ago) retain a very great deal of the tone of the pianist who made the recording. Maybe not every last detail of the tone, but certainly enough of it that expert listeners couldn't agree on how much, if anything, was lost. 'Nuff said, I think.

[nyiregyhazi]

There are several possible contributing factors to a pianist's tone:

The relative loudness of different notes struck at the same time (or very nearly the same time - within a few tens of milliseconds so generally perceived as a single chord);

The relative loudness of notes struck in sequence, as in a run for instance;

Sounds emitted by bits of the piano (or indeed the player) other than the strings.

I list those in that order because, while no one can deny that the third of those contributes (as you can easily prove by hitting, with your finger, a piano key wedged so that it can't move), I reckon the first and second are WAAAYYY more significant in practice. Witness that fact that recordings made on the reproducing Bösendorfer piano (most of you know what I mean - the computerised roll-piano they were showing a few years ago) retain a very great deal of the tone of the pianist who made the recording. Maybe not every last detail of the tone, but certainly enough of it that expert listeners couldn't agree on how much, if anything, was lost. 'Nuff said, I think.

Are there any online recordings of an original performance plus the reproduction? I've often wondered how closely this would compare with modern instruments  but I've never had the chance to hear things side by side.

[richard black]

Are there any online recordings of an original performance plus the reproduction?

Never seen any, though never looked specifically for it. I heard a couple of public demos and a few private tests too, in company with a few others. Mind you, I wouldn't trust the sound quality of most online recordings to tell me much about the finer details of anything... A CD might be a bit more revealing. I'd be surprised if there isn't something available, somewhere.

[falala]

I appreciate that there have been many posts in this thread but I have already given a clear and simple illustration that the logic you use to draw that conclusion is totally 100 percent in error. It doesn't matter one jot that you are not in contact with the hammer. This is a total red herring.

To repeat :

If you accelerate a supermarket trolley to speed x by pushing it smoothly and then releasing, it coasts totally differently to if you batter it with a baseball bat to the same speed and let it coast. The difference here is in waves. One is vibrating one is not. The fact you are not in contact any more is altogether irrelevant and this irrefutable example proves that utter irrelevance. Your logic is plain wrong. That two things are coasting at the same speed does not prove them to be moving identically. The pseudoscientific claim that only a speed can exist hinges on a complete fallacy.

Likewise the example of a golf club relates to hammer bend. The pacing of acceleration in a golf swing determines the pacing of bend in the shaft. A hammer shaft will not be so much but it certainly will bend. If that bend is springing out at the right time, it would change how long the contact is. This enables the possibility of both a different tone from the string and of more sound from the string with less percussive thud between key and key bed.

You can argue about what extent these factors come into play in practise, but you cannot make any valid argument that the scientific theory would say it's all about a single speed. That is utterly bogus pseudoscience.

OK let's go with that. I'm nothing if not open-minded, but I see one major flaw with your trolley analogy.

You're comparing the trolley with the piano string, but the comparison is not valid. You hit the trolley directly with the baseball bat, but you don't hit the string directly with your finger. You hit the KEY, which then raises the MECHANISM, on the end of which is the HAMMER, and finally it is the hammer that hits the string.

You're assuming that the properties belonging to the action of your finger find their way through this complex series of chain reactions into the string. I don't think we can assume that. At the very least, it probably has to do with some questions of physics (inertia, absorption of energy etc.) that are certainly not within my field of knowledge. Maybe they're within yours, I don't know.

To return to your shopping trolley, a more accurate comparison might be taking two trolleys, pushing one and hitting the other with a baseball bat, and causing them to travel at the same velocity, hitting a person, and then that person being thrown against a wall by the force. Would the characteristics of the hole the person makes in the wall be affected by the manner in which the shopping trolley is hit, or only by the velocity that it was traveling at?

Is there anyone out there that has scientifically investigated this? It must be possible to test physically whether the factors you're referring to actually result in differences of flex in the hammer as it hits the string, and actually result in a different sound from the string. In fact I vaguely seem to remember seeing something like that when I was looking into Matthay's works a few years ago. Maybe I'll go look...

[swagmaster420x]

technically it's the same if the two objects are moving at the same velocity

[nyiregyhazi]

technically it's the same if the two objects are moving at the same velocity

Yes, if we assume that the hammer is perfectly stiff and unbendable and that it's completely incapable of carrying any vibration waves of any form. Seeing as neither of those conditions are actually true, however, the above statement is plain and simple bullshit, regardless of how many posters might assert it.

[nyiregyhazi]

OK let's go with that. I'm nothing if not open-minded, but I see one major flaw with your trolley analogy.

You're comparing the trolley with the piano string, but the comparison is not valid. You hit the trolley directly with the baseball bat, but you don't hit the string directly with your finger. You hit the KEY, which then raises the MECHANISM, on the end of which is the HAMMER, and finally it is the hammer that hits the string.

You're assuming that the properties belonging to the action of your finger find their way through this complex series of chain reactions into the string. I don't think we can assume that. At the very least, it probably has to do with some questions of physics (inertia, absorption of energy etc.) that are certainly not within my field of knowledge. Maybe they're within yours, I don't know.

To return to your shopping trolley, a more accurate comparison might be taking two trolleys, pushing one and hitting the other with a baseball bat, and causing them to travel at the same velocity, hitting a person, and then that person being thrown against a wall by the force. Would the characteristics of the hole the person makes in the wall be affected by the manner in which the shopping trolley is hit, or only by the velocity that it was traveling at?

Is there anyone out there that has scientifically investigated this? It must be possible to test physically whether the factors you're referring to actually result in differences of flex in the hammer as it hits the string, and actually result in a different sound from the string. In fact I vaguely seem to remember seeing something like that when I was looking into Matthay's works a few years ago. Maybe I'll go look...

Fine, put an extra object between bat and trolley and then whack the sh*t out of that. Yes, it's a step removed and thus slightly less direct, but that doesn't negate the vibration factor outright. Add an extra step in the chain by whacking an item that is touching the trolley (rather than directly whacking the trolley itself) and it's a near perfect equivalent to whacking a piano key from a height. For equivalence to a piano action, all objects should be touching, so that movement is passed on near instantaneously between each part of of the chain. Only the bat and whatever it hits should start apart. The trolley would still be expected to vibrate like crazy via the abrupt acceleration being passed through the chain and there's no rational reason to exclude the idea that the hammer would also be carrying notable vibration waves when accelerated by a thump that is carried down a chain of touching components. If the trolley then hit a string, I'd expect any vibrations in it to change the sound. The issue with a hammer would be whether vibrations could pass through the softer felt on the hammer or whether that damps them out to a negligible level. But it wouldn't be acceptable scientific practise to casually exclude this. At the piano we also have the additional factor in the hammer- which is the fact that flexion will vary depending on how acceleration is paced. There's absolutely no grounding to ignore such factors without conclusive proof that they don't have an effect, nevermind to say that science supposedly says a speed is the only factor in play.

[awesom_o]

You have to learn how to open up the arch in the hand before striving to stay close can be effective. Droop in the arch will always cause stiffness to compensate for the instability that comes with it.

You could be right about this, Andrew. But should people who haven't yet developed their arch compensate by NOT staying close to the keys? Or should they develop the arch and focus on getting closer to the keys?

Speaking of closeness to the keys, how are you doing with the ABC's?

[falala]

Fine, put an extra object between bat and trolley and then whack the sh*t out of that. Yes, it's a step removed and thus slightly less direct, but that doesn't negate the vibration factor outright. Add an extra step in the chain by whacking an item that is touching the trolley (rather than directly whacking the trolley itself) and it's a near perfect equivalent to whacking a piano key from a height. For equivalence to a piano action, all objects should be touching, so that movement is passed on near instantaneously between each part of of the chain. Only the bat and whatever it hits should start apart. The trolley would still be expected to vibrate like crazy via the abrupt acceleration being passed through the chain and there's no rational reason to exclude the idea that the hammer would also be carrying notable vibration waves when accelerated by a thump that is carried down a chain of touching components. It wouldn't be acceptable scientific practise to casually exclude this. At the piano we also have the additional factor in the hammer- which is the fact that flexion will vary depending on how acceleration is paced. There's absolutely no grounding to ignore such factors without conclusive proof that they don't have an effect, nevermind to say that science supposedly says a speed is the only factor in play.

Indeed. I accept that there is a theoretical possibility that acceleration of the finger will affect flexion of the hammer, which will affect the way it hits the string. It now remains to determine whether that actually happens.

What, out of interest, do you postulate would be the physical effects of different degrees of vibration in the hammer itself, and their effect upon the string?

I couldn't find the article I saw before, but here's Ortmann on the subject:

https://www.max.grenkowitz.net/?topic=608

https://www.max.grenkowitz.net/?topic=605

To be fair it was a long time ago he wrote that. Do you know whether his science is still considered sound?

He seems to be claiming to prove, both theoretically and empirically, that there is no possibility of any increase of velocity in the hammer between leaving the escapement and hitting the string. If I understood your description above of the shaft flexing and then unbending, wouldn't this translate into an increase in velocity? ie the action of the shaft unbending would add velocity to the actual point of the hammer as it travels in free flight, beyond what was given to it by the playing action.

It may be that there is some effect of this, but Ortmann's testing apparatus was too course to detect it. Or it may be that there is no such effect, since any differences in vibration are absorbed by the key, action and/or hammer before it gets to that point.

[falala]

Yes, if we assume that the hammer is perfectly stiff and unbendable and that it's completely incapable of carrying any vibration waves of any form. Seeing as neither of those conditions are actually true, however, the above statement is plain and simple bullshit, regardless of how many posters might assert it.

Or even if we assume that the hammer (and the rest of the apparatus, working as a whole) is sufficiently stiff that it absorbs any vibrations of a magnitude the finger is capable of transmitting, before the hammer hits the string.

That's still not something I want to assume, but it becomes a lot more plausible that way, and I certainly wouldn't write it off as "plain and simple bullshit", until someone can explain to me the details of physics involved.

[nyiregyhazi]

Or even if we assume that the hammer (and the rest of the apparatus, working as a whole) is sufficiently stiff that it absorbs any vibrations of a magnitude the finger is capable of transmitting, before the hammer hits the string.

That's still not something I want to assume, but it becomes a lot more plausible that way, and I certainly wouldn't write it off as "plain and simple bullshit", until someone can explain to me the details of physics involved.

When people simply parrot this statement as if it were proven fact (not due to a deep understanding of whether or not other factors play a role, but due to complete and utter ignorance towards the existence of other issues) there is no pertinent response other than to call bullshit. It's on a level with the "some guy in the pub told me so I know that this is a fact" type of argument. You don't get to assert that velocity is the only factor unless you first prove the other credible factors to be incapable of making an effect- especially not after quite so many posters took the time to detail additional issues. If someone wants assert the oversimplified version they first need to debunk what others have taken the time to explain to the forum.

[nyiregyhazi]

Indeed. I accept that there is a theoretical possibility that acceleration of the finger will affect flexion of the hammer, which will affect the way it hits the string. It now remains to determine whether that actually happens.

What, out of interest, do you postulate would be the physical effects of different degrees of vibration in the hammer itself, and their effect upon the string?

I couldn't find the article I saw before, but here's Ortmann on the subject:

https://www.max.grenkowitz.net/?topic=608

https://www.max.grenkowitz.net/?topic=605

To be fair it was a long time ago he wrote that. Do you know whether his science is still considered sound?

He seems to be claiming to prove, both theoretically and empirically, that there is no possibility of any increase of velocity in the hammer between leaving the escapement and hitting the string. If I understood your description above of the shaft flexing and then unbending, wouldn't this translate into an increase in velocity? ie the action of the shaft unbending would add velocity to the actual point of the hammer as it travels in free flight, beyond what was given to it by the playing action.

It may be that there is some effect of this, but Ortmann's testing apparatus was too course to detect it. Or it may be that there is no such effect, since any differences in vibration are absorbed by the key, action and/or hammer before it gets to that point.

As I understand it, the gravity would always be slowing the hammer after escapement (both on an upright and on a grand but perhaps most significantly on a grand) However, in relative terms, the unbending could create relative angular acceleration around the point of pivot. This wouldn't necessarily be acceleration in absolute terms, but it could quite credibly produce some sense of a "follow through" that changes both the time hammer contacts string for and the way in which the felt compresses against the string. Let's think of it more as the possibility of reducing deceleration (due to acceleration on a relative level) rather than as literal acceleration through space. I believe that the springing out (which would naturally be expected to occur after escapement, when the pivot stop being actively accelerated faster than the hammer end of the lever) could still have a notable effect on how the hammer compresses into into the string. The pivot end could be slowing quicker, with the hammer end being sprung out in a way that may not conquer gravity but which would mean much less deceleration than if the shaft were perfectly stiff and thus unable to bend and then spring back to shape.

Also terms of general vibration, it certainly makes sense that a less pure sound could result from vibration, as some have suggested. The vibration could clearly be passed on, if notable enough. Probably the harder the felt, the more it would be passed on whereas as a softer hammer would be expected to transmit less.

This might even be an issue on some pianos but not on others. On some pianos I perceive virtually nothing but absolute volume regardless of how I move the key. Particularly on older pianos, I often perceive significant difference to the quality of tone, depending on the quality of movement.

[falala]

You don't get to assert that velocity is the only factor unless you first prove the other credible factors to be incapable of making an effect- especially not after quite so many posters took the time to detail additional issues. If someone wants assert the oversimplified version they first need to debunk what others have taken the time to explain to the forum.

I think we may have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the scientific method. I would put the burden of proof on those who DO claim that this or that factor affects "tone", not on those who don't. The effect of key velocity on tone is clearly observable and measurable, so we know that to be a fact. When someone can show us proven measurable evidence of other things having an effect, we can call those facts as well. Until then, there is only the facts we know, and the great mass of things we don't know.

Having said that, I basically agree with you and would like to see results of more recent and precise experiments than Ortmann's on the effect of other factors than velocity, before completely making up my mind.

All you have shown us so far (and I'll be honest and admit that you have changed my mind to this extent) is that it's theoretically possible for other factors to affect tone. As I have described, I think verification of that claim requires some consideration of more detailed aspects of physics than I am in a position to judge.

OTOH, it's also theoretically possible that there's a pink unicorn at the end of my garden.

[falala]

As I understand it, the gravity would always be slowing the hammer after escapement (both on an upright and on a grand but perhaps most significantly on a grand) However, in relative terms, the unbending could create relative angular acceleration around the point of pivot. This wouldn't necessarily be acceleration in absolute terms, but it could quite credibly produce some sense of a "follow through" that keep changes both the time hammer contacts string for and the way in which the felt compresses against the string. Let's think of it more as the possibility of reducing deceleration (due to acceleration on a relative level) rather than as literal acceleration through space. I believe that the springing out (which would naturally be expected to occur after escapement, when the pivot stop being actively accelerated ahead of the hammer end of the lever) could still have a notable effect on how the hammer compresses into into the string. The pivot end could be slowing quicker, with the hammer end being sprung out in a way that may not conquer gravity but which would mean much less deceleration than if the shaft were perfectly stiff.

That makes sense.

Here's another issue that occured to me when pondering your shopping trolley analogy.

When you hit the shopping trolley with the baseball bat, you are bringing the bat from a position away from the trolley, into contact with it. That is the fundamental difference between the bat and your hands. Indeed if you started with the bat already in contact with the trolley, you wouldn't be able to apply any different kind of force from that which you apply with your hands.

So is it only the sudden contact between bat and trolley that creates the vibrations in the trolley, which aren't created when you push it with your hands?

The implications of the piano action are crucial. Your finger may well come into contact with the key from a distance away, but the action moved by the key doesn't do so with the hammer. The hammer is already sitting upon it, in contact with it. So whatever properties are due to the fact of initiating contact, simply don't apply here.

[nyiregyhazi]

I think we may have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the scientific method. I would put the burden of proof on those who DO claim that this or that factor affects "tone", not on those who don't. The effect of key velocity on tone is clearly observable and measurable, so we know that to be a fact. When someone can show us proven measurable evidence of other things having an effect, we can call those facts as well. Until then, there is only the facts we know, and the great mass of things we don't know.

Having said that, I basically agree with you and would like to see results of more recent and precise experiments than Ortmann's on the effect of other factors than velocity, before completely making up my mind.

All you have shown us so far (and I'll be honest and admit that you have changed my mind to this extent) is that it's theoretically possible for other factors to affect tone. As I have described, I think verification of that claim requires some consideration of more detailed aspects of physics than I am in a position to judge.

OTOH, it's also theoretically possible that there's a pink unicorn at the end of my garden.

I see your point, but such a stance would determine that nobody can run 100m in ten seconds, were it not for the number of occasions on which it has been recorded. You could test some of the world's top runners many times before seeing it happen. It's not either acceptable to incorrect application of theory to "prove" something impossible, or to use the absence of a positive result as a conclusive disproof.

When it comes to empirical data, I've seen some studies suggest differences in the spectrum. It's simply extraordinarily inconclusive still. Given that it's clearly possible to have more or less thud of key against keybed for a single dynamic level (based on efficiency of energy transfer and the quality of movement) it's outright suspicious if an experiment claims that there is no difference at all in the results. It should be harder to achieve an identical keybed thud every time than to end up with differences. If this is not registering as something that is at least variable to some extent, the data must logically be compromised- otherwise I cannot see any rational explanation for an absence of fluctuation. As I pointed out earlier though, it's when the pedal is down that the differences are most audible. The fact that experiments never seem to consider this is totally unforgivable in my opinion. It's a shocking oversight. I can't see any value in an experiment that has neglected something so important.

[vansh]

Well my posting the baseball bat video is specifically to show that oftentimes in impact events, we can't assume that normally-stiff objects will stay stiff. We usually assume that wood is pretty stiff because the forces we exert on them are relatively low. The finger can strike the key very quickly, however, causing the key (and subsequent action all the way to the hammer, and ultimately the string) to flex in various ways that we don't see because it goes by too quickly. The question is whether or not this can actually produce a different tone.

I admittedly only briefly skimmed Ortmann's thing, but in it he makes a bunch of assumptions that waves all this away. For example, he says that "The three fundamental properties of a moving body, as we have seen, are mass, direction, and speed. For any one key the mass is fixed; the direction for all keys is fixed; the only variable remaining is speed. Consequently, any differences of effect of touch upon key -movement must be differences in speed. There is no other variable." But when you assume that the only relevant properties of a moving body are its mass, direction, and speed, then you are ignoring all other properties such as internal vibrations, flexing, compression, etc. He didn't prove that these factors don't have any impact, so much as that he assumed a simpler model of the action which inherently does not account for them. He's making a rigid body assumption when the discussion is about whether or not that can properly apply here.

A more accurate way would be to assume that the flexing, etc. could affect how the hammer hits the string (i.e. have them as part of the model) and then show that regardless of (for example) how the finger accelerates the key, its effect on the string is negligible (basically zero). I think for this thread the discussion is more about whether or not tone is independent of volume, i.e. if a single key, played at the same volume but differently (i.e. different hand positions, curved or straight fingers, etc.) can result in different vibrations and overtones on the piano. I am assuming that "tone" here is really the spectrum of frequencies and relative intensities of different frequencies when a key is pressed.

There's more here that I'd like to post about but I'll get around to them later. Regarding the damper thing, I was using the damper during the piano lesson, i.e. I'd have it down prior to beginning Chopin's FI, then I would hit the G# octave from far above the keys and let my hand bounce off. The piano teacher said it'd be better (better tone, not louder/quieter) if I started with my hands on the keys and pressed into them as if I were trying to make the other end of the piano vibrate. He said it would sound much better that way.

P.S. With regards to the original post, I'd like to point out that it's possible that when you started playing less loud, you were also doing something else that ended up producing a different tone (less tense, hands staying closer to the keys, etc.) and your piano teacher was picking up on that rather than the volume.

[nyiregyhazi]

Well my posting the baseball bat video is specifically to show that oftentimes in impact events, we can't assume that normally-stiff objects will stay stiff. We usually assume that wood is pretty stiff because the forces we exert on them are relatively low. The finger can strike the key very quickly, however, causing the key (and subsequent action all the way to the hammer, and ultimately the string) to flex in various ways that we don't see because it goes by too quickly. The question is whether or not this can actually produce a different tone.

I admittedly only briefly skimmed Ortmann's thing, but in it he makes a bunch of assumptions that waves all this away. For example, he says that "The three fundamental properties of a moving body, as we have seen, are mass, direction, and speed. For any one key the mass is fixed; the direction for all keys is fixed; the only variable remaining is speed. Consequently, any differences of effect of touch upon key -movement must be differences in speed. There is no other variable." But when you assume that the only relevant properties of a moving body are its mass, direction, and speed, then you are ignoring all other properties such as internal vibrations, flexing, compression, etc. He didn't prove that these factors don't have any impact, so much as that he assumed a simpler model of the action which inherently does not account for them. He's making a rigid body assumption when the discussion is about whether or not that can properly apply here.

A more accurate way would be to assume that the flexing, etc. could affect how the hammer hits the string (i.e. have them as part of the model) and then show that regardless of (for example) how the finger accelerates the key, its effect on the string is negligible (basically zero). I think for this thread the discussion is more about whether or not tone is independent of volume, i.e. if a single key, played at the same volume but differently (i.e. different hand positions, curved or straight fingers, etc.) can result in different vibrations and overtones on the piano. I am assuming that "tone" here is really the spectrum of frequencies and relative intensities of different frequencies when a key is pressed.

There's more here that I'd like to post about but I'll get around to them later. Regarding the damper thing, I was using the damper during the piano lesson, i.e. I'd have it down prior to beginning Chopin's FI, then I would hit the G# octave from far above the keys and let my hand bounce off. The piano teacher said it'd be better (better tone, not louder/quieter) if I started with my hands on the keys and pressed into them as if I were trying to make the other end of the piano vibrate. He said it would sound much better that way.

P.S. With regards to the original post, I'd like to point out that it's possible that when you started playing less loud, you were also doing something else that ended up producing a different tone (less tense, hands staying closer to the keys, etc.) and your piano teacher was picking up on that rather than the volume.

I should clarify that the baseball bat on trolley example I've given was independent of yours. It's one I've been using before this thread began, to illustrate to students how you need to bond with the resistance of the key and not just whack at it. Your own example is a great illustration of issues that ignorant people seem determined to remain ignorant about (when chanting the doctrine about how speed is supposedly the lone issue), but I was using it for separate purposes in a different context.

It's interesting that Ortmann's oversight is so commonly repeated. It's become a strange kind of religious cult like thing, where everyone seems intent on not only reciting a poorly understood mistruth but attributing it to science. Another shocking fallacy on Ortmann's part is the nonsense of a lever needing a "fixed" fulcrum, which is completely in error. It's a similar fallacy- where even the stiffest physical fixation leaves some trace of unwanted movement anyway (just as even building sway in high winds). Only traces of movement in a productive direction (which is overwhelmingly less effort to employ) can ever truly eradicate the ill effects of movement in an unwanted direction. Fighting against things with generic fixation both fails to do the job and demands extraordinary exertion and wastage of energy. The man has done untold harm to scientific approaches, via such terrible oversights.

[nyiregyhazi]

That makes sense.

Here's another issue that occured to me when pondering your shopping trolley analogy.

When you hit the shopping trolley with the baseball bat, you are bringing the bat from a position away from the trolley, into contact with it. That is the fundamental difference between the bat and your hands. Indeed if you started with the bat already in contact with the trolley, you wouldn't be able to apply any different kind of force from that which you apply with your hands.

So is it only the sudden contact between bat and trolley that creates the vibrations in the trolley, which aren't created when you push it with your hands?

The implications of the piano action are crucial. Your finger may well come into contact with the key from a distance away, but the action moved by the key doesn't do so with the hammer. The hammer is already sitting upon it, in contact with it. So whatever properties are due to the fact of initiating contact, simply don't apply here.

Yes, the difference between starting in or out of contact are highly significant. However, two points:

1. It's possible to "bond" with a piano key when approaching from height. So it's not as simple as having a disconnect is always bad and that having a starting contact is always good. It's just an important way of illustrating that there's more than speed involved. When you whack at a piano key aggressively and from a height, of course the hammer moves differently! It's remarkable to think that they myth about only speed mattering could have become so prevalent as a doctrine that anyone might assume otherwise. However, there is a way to join finger and key in a way that softens the initial judder.

2. If you start from contact but move wrong, you may still cause differences in terms of flexion from your pacing. If you try to find speed instantly and from nowhere, it doesn't work as well as when you build acceleration a little more gradually- even if you're already touching the key. Also, you may still move in a way that produces relatively little hammer acceleration but which hits the keybed with tremendous force. So it's definitely relevant, but it's not as simple as starting close is necessarily good and coming from a distance is necessarily bad.  

PS. The last paragraph doesn't add up. In the baseball bat and trolley example, you can add a few more pieces so that everything is in contact except trolley and bat. The trolley would still vibrate like crazy with a proper whack- so the closeness of parts in the piano action really doesn't negate the possibility that a whack will affect how the hammer vibrates. If there's a disconnect and a whack at the start of chain, you should expect the vibrations and abruptness of acceleration to be transferred to the final connected component and you should expect that to move erratically and chaotically.

[falala]

I should clarify that the baseball bat on trolley example I've given was independent of yours. It's one I've been using before this thread began, to illustrate to students how you need to bond with the resistance of the key and not just whack at it.

Why?

As I've clarified above, the relationship between finger and key is of no direct relevance to the sound. The thing of possible relevance is the relationship between action and hammer. And it's impossible to make the action "whack" the hammer, because the hammer is already sitting on it before it moves.

For your claim to be valid, you would have to show that playing the key without first feeling the contact with it results in a discernible difference of relationship between action and hammer, which results in a discernible difference of sound. But the only things the action can do is send the hammer up quickly or slowly, or somewhere in between. The fundamental difference you are speaking of, of starting in contact or out of contact, simply can't apply there. I suppose what you're claiming is that not just contact, but suddenness of initiation of the movement makes a difference to the hammer, causing it to vibrate in such as way as to affect the sound. That if the action starts by moving the hammer a little, then get's faster, it causes less vibration in the hammer itself than if it just starts moving it suddenly (and enough less to make a difference to the sound).

I don't even know whether physics supports that claim, does it? Does the suddenness with which something starts moving affect the internal vibrations of that thing?

There is another explanation why feeling contact with the key creates a "better" tone, and Ortmann refers to it in that link. Tone is a result not of the way individual notes in isolation are played, but of the relationship between notes. Starting in contact with the key gives one a finer degree of control over velocity, and thus leads to a more convincing effect of dynamic shading, legato etc - all adding up to the sensation of "tone".

[falala]

As a first year adult piano student, I debated whether to jump in here because my own first-hand experience totally invalidates several of the claims here.

My teacher showed how different ways of playing a single key would produce different sounds. He proved it by asking me to close my eyes and just hear the differences. The exercise was to demonstrate the importance of (1) proper body and arm and wrist and hand positions and (2) the importance of "finger practice" and also (3) the emphasis on listening skills.

I went home and was able to demonstrate some of the simpler "mistakes" to myself. Play a key one way, and my family asks if it needs tuning.  Play that same key another way, the fundamental shows through nice and clean.

So I do not know what this debate is about . A total amateur novice like me can play the same key in different ways to produce different tones. Part of my practice is to NOT play the key in the "wrong" way.

If it is as simple as the hammer always hitting the string in the same precise manner producing precisely the same frequency and resonance, then why bother with finger techniques and everything else?

What gives?  

I invite you and anyone else to try an experiment. I've done this myself, since reading this thread.

Take a single key, and play it mezzo-forte with the finger starting on the key, with a nice, firm stroke using the pad of the finger to try and get a "rich", or "full" sound.

Then try to play the key at the same dynamic level, but suddenly, from above the key using the end of the finger, to try and get a "harsh" sound. Do this a few times and try to memorize the sensation of harshness as accurately as possible.

Now, return to the pad of the finger on the key technique, but TRY to get the same "harsh" sound that you got playing from above. Can you do it?

Personally, I can, as long as the dynamic is not too loud (and thus the harshness not too great). From which I surmise that the difference in the sound I make when starting from above and starting on the key, is really just because I played louder when starting from above. If I bring the dynamic level of the other technique truly up to the same volume, it sounds the same.

Now the same is not true when playing FFF from above the key. If I raise my hand a metre above the piano, stiffen a finger and bring it crashing down as hard as I can, then I create a sound that I can't possibly replicate from on the key. Because it's louder than I'm physically capable of playing from there.

It may be that the only factor influencing tone is velocity, but that the fact of playing from close to the keys or on them, with not too sudden an action, causes us to play below the level of velocity at which things sound "harsh". And more importantly, as I said above, it gives finer control over the changes in velocity from one note to another, so certain notes don't stick out and give the impression of harshness due to attack volumes that don't make sense in the musical line.

[swagmaster420x]

I invite you and anyone else to try an experiment. I've done this myself, since reading this thread.

Take a single key, and play it mezzo-forte with the finger starting on the key, with a nice, firm stroke using the pad of the finger to try and get a "rich", or "full" sound.

Then try to play the key at the same dynamic level, but suddenly, from above the key using the end of the finger, to try and get a "harsh" sound. Do this a few times and try to memorize the sensation of harshness as accurately as possible.

Now, return to the pad of the finger on the key technique, but TRY to get the same "harsh" sound that you got playing from above. Can you do it?

Personally, I can, as long as the dynamic is not too loud (and thus the harshness not too great). From which I surmise that the difference in the sound I make when starting from above and starting on the key, is really just because I played louder when starting from above. If I bring the dynamic level of the other technique truly up to the same volume, it sounds the same.

Now the same is not true when playing FFF from above the key. If I raise my hand a metre above the piano, stiffen a finger and bring it crashing down as hard as I can, then I create a sound that I can't possibly replicate from on the key. Because it's louder than I'm physically capable of playing from there.

It may be that the only factor influencing tone is velocity, but that the fact of playing from close to the keys or on them, with not too sudden an action, causes us to play below the level of velocity at which things sound "harsh". And more importantly, as I said above, it gives finer control over the changes in velocity from one note to another, so certain notes don't stick out and give the impression of harshness due to attack volumes that don't make sense in the musical line.

ye, it's pretty much indisputable that greater velocity => greater volume.

[nyiregyhazi]

Why?

As I've clarified above, the relationship between finger and key is of no direct relevance to the sound. The thing of possible relevance is the relationship between action and hammer. And it's impossible to make the action "whack" the hammer, because the hammer is already sitting on it before it moves.

Sorry, but that didn't follow. If you can make a supermarket trolley rattle like hell by hitting an object that is touching another that is touching the trolley, your premise fails. I certainly wouldn't expect the trolley to accelerate smoothly or quietly in such circumstances. It would be almost as noisy as when whacking it direct with a bat (minus a certain amount of energy loss through the inherent inefficiency of passing energy through a chain of different parts). Vibrations don't just vanish because there are extra links after the whack. When ALL parts start connected, you indeed limit the scope for juddering (I stress the word limit - not "eradicate" altogether) but if it starts with a disconnected whack then it doesn't change the scope for the final part to start with a real judder, simply because the rest of the parts are all touching. It would be like suggesting that only the exact part of a trolley you hit would vibrate. It doesn't work that way. Waves run through connected objects. The more connected, the more scope there is for vibration to be transmitted. Separations are actually more likely to reduce transmission of the initial whack. Connections pass them on very directly.

It simply doesn't follow that merely because the piano action is connected, it wouldn't matter if you whack the key. Unless there's extreme damping and cushioning between components in the chain of energy transfer, whacking one end will send vibrations all the the way through the chain of parts. An extreme judder at one end will show up at the other too. Your logic simply doesn't follow. The only valid argument is one of extent, not of whether it will be transmitted at all.

For your claim to be valid, you would have to show that playing the key without first feeling the contact with it results in a discernible difference of relationship between action and hammer, which results in a discernible difference of sound.

See the paper dima_76557linked. It references another that indeed shows a difference in how the hammer moves.

But the only things the action can do is send the hammer up quickly or slowly, or somewhere in between.

? You're just repeating the same old fallacy from before. Pacing matters. The right pacing will achieve the maximum possible hammer flexion before escapement. After escapement it will begin to spring back, providing more action between hammer and string. It's a matter of velocity but the pacing of the velocity is everything. It's not about any single moment in time but about the whole product.

I don't even know whether physics supports that claim, does it? Does the suddenness with which something starts moving affect the internal vibrations of that thing?

Of course it does. What do you think I was illustrating by referencing the difference between accelerating a trolley with a whack from a baseball bat vs a longer and steadier push? An instantaneous jab with extreme force but short contact has a totally different effect to longer and more steady acceleration. This is not exclusive to when whacking from a distance.

There is another explanation why feeling contact with the key creates a "better" tone, and Ortmann refers to it in that link. Tone is a result not of the way individual notes in isolation are played, but of the relationship between notes. Starting in contact with the key gives one a finer degree of control over velocity, and thus leads to a more convincing effect of dynamic shading, legato etc - all adding up to the sensation of "tone".

The self-evident and obvious truth that relativity can create illusions does not negate the possibility of absolute tone. There's no rational reason why the fact we can make illusions would prove that individual sounds cannot have inherent differences. You speak as if believers in absolute tone might deny such an obvious truth as the issue of relativity? They don't. Funnily enough, it has occurred to me that playing at different intensities can create illusions. I'm not going to exclaim that such a thing had simply not occurred to me before and then change my mind. I just believe there's something else too.

[nyiregyhazi]

I invite you and anyone else to try an experiment. I've done this myself, since reading this thread.

Take a single key, and play it mezzo-forte with the finger starting on the key, with a nice, firm stroke using the pad of the finger to try and get a "rich", or "full" sound.

Then try to play the key at the same dynamic level, but suddenly, from above the key using the end of the finger, to try and get a "harsh" sound. Do this a few times and try to memorize the sensation of harshness as accurately as possible.

Now, return to the pad of the finger on the key technique, but TRY to get the same "harsh" sound that you got playing from above. Can you do it?

Personally, I can, as long as the dynamic is not too loud (and thus the harshness not too great). From which I surmise that the difference in the sound I make when starting from above and starting on the key, is really just because I played louder when starting from above. If I bring the dynamic level of the other technique truly up to the same volume, it sounds the same.

Now the same is not true when playing FFF from above the key. If I raise my hand a metre above the piano, stiffen a finger and bring it crashing down as hard as I can, then I create a sound that I can't possibly replicate from on the key. Because it's louder than I'm physically capable of playing from there.

It may be that the only factor influencing tone is velocity, but that the fact of playing from close to the keys or on them, with not too sudden an action, causes us to play below the level of velocity at which things sound "harsh". And more importantly, as I said above, it gives finer control over the changes in velocity from one note to another, so certain notes don't stick out and give the impression of harshness due to attack volumes that don't make sense in the musical line.

Look for film footage of nyiregyhazi on youtube and listen to mosonyis funeral March and the Liszt rhapsody no 3. I don't believe that's only down to illusions and nothing else. He made almost every sound from contact. He plays louder than most people could play by punching the keys. And he makes a huge sound before he even starts trying. Sometimes his very loudest gets percussive, but the sounds that fascinate me are the effortlessly massive ones that he makes without even coming close to his limits. Those who try to recreate such depth almost always start trying trying to hit or to move as faster. But they get a percussive tone and simply max out, before even approaching the level of volume or resonance that he reaches in his moderate dynamics, with no effort at all. I don't see any explanation at all other than the pacing of acceleration. To speak of him moving keys "faster" than other pianists couldn't explain the first thing and neither could anyone recreate his sound with such a mindset. Pianists who think it's about moving faster hit their upper limit without getting anywhere near how far a piano can go (while still avoiding the hard percussive thuds). Volodos is another excellent example of a pianist who can play far louder than the point where most people assume it will sound percussive. It's all about the technique used, not about the piano's limit. The true upper limit is determined by quality of technique.

[dima_76557]

May I throw in another factor? I haven't seen anything here about the POINT OF SOUND. (Is that the so-called "let-off" in English?)

In keyboards, for example, the point of sound seems to be set at the bottom of the key, but it doesn't work that way in a real piano, where that point is slightly higher. What about the timing of the keystroke into the heart of that point of sound, slightly lower, slightly higher, etc.? Isn't that where all the variations in sound QUALITY come from? Isn't that why a "relaxed" touch gives a much more beautiful tone, while a tense movement aimed at the bottom of the key (and thus "missing the point", haha) will cause a harsh tone? When you are "relaxed" and you "drop" your finger into the point of sound, you simply land where you have to be without interfering (like a cat that always lands on its four) and the instrument will play itself so to speak, something that will never happen by aiming with tension. Just saying.

EDIT: The more I think about this, the more it seems to make sense to me. Not very scientific, but the point of sound is like an erogenous zone, which should be stimulated just right to make the piano react under your hands the way you want it to react. One instrument may resent a certain kind of stimulation that another instrument finds arousing, and not all pianists are equally good lovers. How do you like that?

[swagmaster420x]

May I throw in another factor? I haven't seen anything here about the POINT OF SOUND. (Is that the so-called "let-off" in English?)

In keyboards, for example, the point of sound seems to be set at the bottom of the key, but it doesn't work that way in a real piano, where that point is slightly higher. What about the timing of the keystroke into the heart of that point of sound, slightly lower, slightly higher, etc.? Isn't that where all the variations in sound QUALITY come from? Isn't that why a "relaxed" touch gives a much more beautiful tone, while a tense movement aimed at the bottom of the key (and thus "missing the point", haha) will cause a harsh tone? When you are "relaxed" and you "drop" your finger into the point of sound, you simply land where you have to be without interfering (like a cat that always lands on its four) and the instrument will play itself so to speak, something that will never happen by aiming with tension. Just saying.

EDIT: The more I think about this, the more it seems to make sense to me. Not very scientific, but the point of sound is like an erogenous zone, which should be stimulated just right to make the piano react under your hands the way you want it to react. One instrument may resent a certain kind of stimulation that another instrument finds arousing, and not all pianists are equally good lovers. How do you like that?

this makes sense. if your intended point of sound (i.e. where you think the point of sound is as you are playing a key) doesn't line up with the actual point of sound, the velocity of your finger at contact will not be what you intended it to be. of course the sound that comes out will not be what you intially desired.

[dima_76557]

this makes sense. if your intended point of sound (i.e. where you think the point of sound is as you are playing a key) doesn't line up with the actual point of sound, the velocity of your finger at contact will not be what you intended it to be. of course the sound that comes out will not be what you intially desired.

If this is indeed true, then the problem becomes the following: many pianists simply don't know what to intend or what to desire. They miss the sensitivity to regulate and adjust their touch, because they have no sound purpose other than loud, soft and in between. The reactions of the instrument itself leave them cold. That's why a beautiful touch is so rarely heard these days.

[swagmaster420x]

If this is indeed true, then the problem becomes the following: many pianists simply don't know what to intend or what to desire. They miss the sensitivity to regulate and adjust their touch, because they have no sound purpose other than loud, soft and in between. The reactions of the instrument itself leave them cold. That's why a beautiful touch is so rarely heard these days.

ye, in my opinion sensitivity is the most important thing to have in anything artistic. chefs constantly taste what theyre preparing, and in order to achieve the optimal taste, they have to be able to sense the difference between what they are currently tasting and what they want. plus, they need to know what dimension of taste they are missing, e.g. acidity, and know how much vinegar will boost the taste to the desired. knowing how much vinegar is the easy, learnable part. having the sensibility to sense that it needs vinegar is the hard part.