Emanuel Ax weighs in on an approach to a single note

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm here just to say..... Shut up you freakin idiot. Lol

[timothy42b]

We do know some things.

We do know that musicians tend to be superstitious.

We do know that few of them have a scientific background, which is not at all the same thing.

We do know that tone in the context of passage work and chords is easily distinguishable even by less sophisticated listeners.  How exactly these tone differences are produced is a matter of uncertainty, but clearly a number of influences exist - articulation, voicing, nuances of dynamics, etc.

The argument is over whether notes played individually, without being in context, can be varied in tone but without changing the volume.  And the debate on these last few pages has been about physics and math, rather than experimental evidence.  (as an engineer I cringe over some of those posts - I do understand math and Newton - but it's not relevant) 

Now I'll assert something few musicians agree with, but that has some degree of self evidence.

When you do an experiment of this type, where you try to observe differences whether from listeners or laboratory measuring equipment, you want to minimize contributing factors, sources of additional variance.  For example, if you were comparing a concert pianist with an auto mechanic using a pencil, you'd not want to have one play a Bechstein grand and the other a Wurlitzer spinet.  You'd want to use the same note on the same piano at the same volume. 

Here is the assertion:  as you minimize the other factors, a real difference becomes more apparent, and an illusory one becomes less apparent.  Does that make sense?

Where is the experimental evidence that listeners can hear a tone difference when a single note is played, and other factors are controlled?  It seems to be totally absent.

Yet when we complicate the listening with advanced repertoire, suddenly we claim to hear these tone differences.  The worse we make the experiment, the more we think we hear differences.  That is diagnostic. 

[eldergeek]

At last - a comment in this thread that I can agree with. Well said!

[pts1]

Here is a simple experiment.

Take 9 concert pianists and one auto mechanic with a pencil (eraser end of a Number 2 standard office pencil)

Each of the ten will play middle C one time and will hold the note for 2 seconds at about a mezzo forte -- the auto mechanic gets a few minutes of tutorial and practice on this with a little arrow Post-it note on the fall board pointing to middle C. (Should they require it, the concert pianists may also reference the Post-it note.)

Then CONCEALED BEHIND A CURTAIN AND ON THE SAME PIANO, each one of the ten will come out in random order and play their one note. All ten will be anonymous to the audience with the sole qualifier that 9 are professionals and one is a rank beginner.

An announcer will simply say before each "performance": "Sample 1", "Sample 2", "Sample 3", etc. and this will be the only sound other than the "samples" themselves.

It will then be the task of a small audience of competent, experienced pianists to listen to and grade the ten Middle C samples and pick the professionals VS the auto mechanic with his pencil.

I would bet a large amount of money on the very high failure rate of the audience to successfully discern the difference.

The auto mechanic may well find he has a new career path opening.

[timothy42b]

Take 9 concert pianists and one auto mechanic with a pencil (eraser end of a Number 2 standard office pencil)

You could do this, but the gold standard in product testing is the triangle test.

One pianist, one auto mechanic, but 3 notes.  (either the pianist plays two and the mechanic one, or vice versa) 

Repeat ten times.

The audience task is to identify which of three notes sounds different at a percentage above chance. 

[pts1]

You could do this, but the gold standard in product testing is the triangle test.

And if the auto-mechanic is determined to be "professional" by the jury, does he get prize money, a record deal and European tour? 

I think this would only be fair.

[pts1]

Clearly, the auto mechanic takes his work seriously.... I think he will be a contender!!

[dima_76557]

Here is a simple experiment.

Take 9 concert pianists and one auto mechanic with a pencil (eraser end of a Number 2 standard office pencil)

Each of the ten will play middle C one time and will hold the note for 2 seconds at about a mezzo forte -- the auto mechanic gets a few minutes of tutorial and practice on this with a little arrow Post-it note on the fall board pointing to middle C. (Should they require it, the concert pianists may also reference the Post-it note.)

Then CONCEALED BEHIND A CURTAIN AND ON THE SAME PIANO, each one of the ten will come out in random order and play their one note. All ten will be anonymous to the audience with the sole qualifier that 9 are professionals and one is a rank beginner.

An announcer will simply say before each "performance": "Sample 1", "Sample 2", "Sample 3", etc. and this will be the only sound other than the "samples" themselves.

It will then be the task of a small audience of competent, experienced pianists to listen to and grade the ten Middle C samples and pick the professionals VS the auto mechanic with his pencil.

I would bet a large amount of money on the very high failure rate of the audience to successfully discern the difference.

The auto mechanic may well find he has a new career path opening.

I think your experiment would become more interesting if some kind of artistic requirements were set for that one tone. Anybody who does not receive that kind of requirement will just hit the key like the average piano tuner in a neutral fashion which is something unnatural and not very akin to what happens when a pianist is inspired and executes a sound image he expects. Not many pianists can do that for one tone, I admit, but make sure to invite Katsaris, Radu Lupu, Volodos and Sokolov. They can deal with such a task.

I can also imagine that forte in open pedal would be more valuable to test than just mezzo forte with no pedal because it's in the forte range that most of the ugliness in piano playing tends to occur.

[pts1]

I think your experiment would become more interesting if some kind of artistic requirements were set for that one tone.

Fine with me. You can put up 9 of the greatest pianists of all time and one very good auto mechanic who can tap a small cylinder into a bearing assembly, with a tiny 100 gram ball ping hammer located in a difficult to access area adjacent to the engine mount of a 1998 Ferrari.

Then decide what you want... forte with pedal down... mf with no pedal... what have you, so all ten perform the same instruction.

REMEMBER.... NO ONE on the jury is to know anything other than 9 of the contestants are pianists and one is not. (minor modification to rule) and that this is all the jury knows about the players.

Therefore, no visuals involved, all behind a curtain between the jury and contestants... so they can't see any inspired glances, arm waving, passionate demeanor, etc.

Just the sound of the one note.

[dima_76557]

Fine with me. You can put up 9 of the greatest pianists of all time and one very good auto mechanic who can tap a small cylinder into a bearing assembly, with a tiny 100 gram ball ping hammer located in a difficult to access area adjacent to the engine mount of a 1998 Ferrari.

Then decide what you want... forte with pedal down... mf with no pedal... what have you, so all ten perform the same instruction.

REMEMBER.... NO ONE on the jury is to know anything other than 9 of the contestants are pianists and one is not. (minor modification to rule) and that this is all the jury knows about the players.

Therefore, no visuals involved, all behind a curtain between the jury and contestants... so they can't see any inspired glances, arm waving, passionate demeanor, etc.

Just the sound of the one note.

Of course, of course. I just hope you also invite really experienced listeners among the audience/jury.

P.S.: I have more than enough confidence in the artists I mentioned to put money on this experiment, provided they receive an ARTISTIC goal. In that case, however, the odds are against your mechanic.

[hardy_practice]

If the idea (propelling mass away from a point of collision results in less impact than directing it right in )

I get it - it's some kind of Koan.  In response I'm supposed to turn my tea cup upside down or something?

[pts1]

P.S.: I have more than enough confidence in the artists I mentioned to put money on this experiment, provided they receive an ARTISTIC goal. In that case, however, the odds are against your mechanic.

Of course this would be hard to pull off in real life, getting artists together, jury pool, etc.

But what we could do would be a reasonable approximation of this test here.

Let's say, I go through recordings on youtube of 10 professionals and amateurs alike and pick a piece of music they all play, and pull out just one note... say a middle c... and have them merged into a recording of 10 performances of that same note, and anyone here is free to guess who is the professional and who is the amateur.

Some editing would have to be involved, obviously, to pull out just the single note played and string the 10 "performances" into one recording. We could adjust the volume on all so it is the same, and nothing else or not....

Then after all the guesses are tabulated, I'd release the identities of the performers and website addresses of the playing from whence the "middle C's" were extracted.

Would this be fair?

[timothy42b]

I think your experiment would become more interesting if some kind of artistic requirements were set for that one tone.

It would be more useful if they could make the tone not only different, but better in an artistic sense.

However, I would be happy with data that they could make the tone different in any way.

If there really is a difference, why are we still arguing?  Why doesn't somebody just post a link to these experiments?  I can post a link to the similar Smith paper for brass instruments.  

[timothy42b]

 We could adjust the volume on all so it is the same, and nothing else or not....

The volume at which the note is originally played affects the strength of the overtones.  You could take a piannissimo note and a fortissimo note and adjust them to the same volume, but they would sound distinctly different.

[dima_76557]

Of course this would be hard to pull off in real life, getting artists together, jury pool, etc.

But what we could do would be a reasonable approximation of this test here.

Let's say, I go through recordings on youtube of 10 professionals and amateurs alike and pick a piece of music they all play, and pull out just one note... say a middle c... and have them merged into a recording of 10 performances of that same note, and anyone here is free to guess who is the professional and who is the amateur.

Some editing would have to be involved, obviously, to pull out just the single note played and string the 10 "performances" into one recording. We could adjust the volume on all so it is the same, and nothing else or not....

Then after all the guesses are tabulated, I'd release the identities of the performers and website addresses of the playing from whence the "middle C's" were extracted.

Would this be fair?

The problems with such recordings wouldn't make the experiment very objective: different locations (hence acoustics), different instruments, different recording equipment, microphones often set up so unbelievably amateurish (especially in life concerts, etc.)... I have my doubts about the validity of such an approach. A single "middle C" is hard to find isolated in the repertoire, I think, so you would have to filter out context and lose part of the "beauty" of that one tone you want to single out, etc. I think that the main conditions should be the same for everybody to get objective results.

P.S.: I'm not against your trying that; just reserved about the outcome.

[pts1]

The volume at which the note is originally played affects the strength of the overtones.  You could take a piannissimo note and a fortissimo note and adjust them to the same volume, but they would sound distinctly different.

Well that's right.

Probably a fair test would be to simply extract 10 middle Cs from ten performers ( and maybe have more than one amateur) and that way the full "artistic" quality of those 10 single note performances would be as the artists and amateurs played them.

And unedited performance of single notes should give the believers of the true pianist's tone being superior to the amateur's should thereby be discernible to those who claim this so, and the result of the challenge would be self evident as to who can and cannot tell the difference, if at all.

[pts1]

so you would have to filter out context and lose part of the "beauty" of that one tone you want to single out

But you've hit on the precise point: the claim is that a single note played by a true pianist has sufficient quality to STAND ON ITS OWN and be superior to the amateur or even non-pianist.

I say this is not true.

I say that the velocity of the hammer alone (aside from keeping the damper off the string) determines all "quality" aspects of a single played note.

[dima_76557]

But you've hit on the precise point: the claim is that a single note played by a true pianist has sufficient quality to STAND ON ITS OWN and be superior to the amateur or even non-pianist.

I say this is not true.

I say that the velocity of the hammer alone (aside from keeping the damper off the string) determines all "quality" aspects of a single played note.

A single tone can stand on its own, yes, but if you filter a tone isolated from the function it had within a certain context, it will no longer be that same tone on its own (it loses overtones).

You have to test what you promise you will test without modifying anything. Accoustics where that one tone can thrive should also be a requirement, so I'm afraid I'll have to reject the idea with recordings completely. Many digital recordings give me the impression I am listening to MIDI, not to people.

[dima_76557]

@ pts1:

I can tell you in advance where Ortmann will go flat on his face in the experiment. For him, there are two types of touch: "percussive" and "follow-through". He assumes that if you lift a finger that the result will be "percussive" when it comes down. This is certainly not true. That's why I wanted the artists I mentioned to come and prove that it is not true and I'm 100% positive that they will get more useful overtones in their tone than the ones who start at the key surface. Ortmann misses a whole gray area that can't be measured between "percussive" and "follow-through" where all the magic happens.

Edited: added the word "useful".

[pianoplayer002]

pts1:

I like your experiment, but you are missing one important factor - what if the mechanic is a natural at producing good tone at the piano? Better would be to do this experiment with nine pianists famous for their amazing tone and one pianist who has unequivocally bad and harsh tone.

[timothy42b]

Or one pianist who claims he/she can vary the tone.

[nyiregyhazi]

And the debate on these last few pages has been about physics and math, rather than experimental evidence.  (as an engineer I cringe over some of those posts - I do understand math and Newton - but it's not relevant)  

As an engineer how you can make such a sweeping statement? What type of engineer? I'm going to detail the very real basis why it would be more improbable to think there is literally no variety possible in a very loud note played into a depressed pedal, than to feel that difference is possible. And if you're a genuine engineer who sincerely feels mechanics is irrelevant, then you can show your engineer balls by specifically debunking its relevance:

Anyway, I'm not going to go into the hammer itself but solely into the keybed thump. It is open to proof that this can be varied indepedently of the musical sound, which is why it would be staggering if it played no role in generating an overtone series, when acting forcefully into a depressed pedal. Also, while science can only isolate by working in single notes, this thud would logically be even more pronounced in thick chords. I've heard a concert where I could easily isolate all the thudding noises from the musical sounds, of a really badly percussive player.

Anyway, see the second group of diagrams at the start of this post:

https://pianoscience.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/tonal-control-efficiency-and-health.html

In the situation where the knuckle is collapsing inward, it moves in faster than the key. Thus considerable energy is travelling towards collision without helping to generate any keyspeed. In the situation where the knuckle is expanding up and away, no arm momentum is necessarily sending any energy in the direction of collision whatsoever- thus there is much less of a heavy blow for the same level of hammer acceleration. The key is accelerated far more efficiently and with neglible momentum arriving at the keybed beyond that carried by the key itself. I can play very loud this way, without sending any arm momentum spiralling down into a thud- which some very bad pianists always do in even moderately loud playing. The more they collapse the hand towards the keybed, the more they have to send energy whacking into the keybed, despite the collapse also reducing how much sound they achieve.

Beyond any doubt there is scope to make notable difference in the energy level that collides with the keybed (as well as to choose whether that energy which does travel is allowed to continue into an aftershock, or be rebounded up and away from the point of landing). This is possible independently of the level of tone produced inside the instrument. It is completely irrational to suppose that there's only one intensity of thud which would always have to correspond to a given level of pianistic volume. Inefficient acceleration with considerable knuckle collapse sends vastly more energy towards collision, but fails miserably to translate the best part of the travelling momentum into hammer acceleration (due to the key failing to reach a speed that is as fast as the knuckle reaches in vain). And I didn't even mention the difference between a locked arm and a loose one, as a shock absorber.

So, perhaps you'd like to either rethink this nonsense or give a detailed description of why you as an engineer are supposedly in a position to casually dismiss these MAJOR issues from the very possibility of playing a role? On an empirical level, some experiments have indeed found differences and I've read some scientists saying that even Ortmann's data showed a number of visible differences that he chose to ignore. Given how much the thump can clearly be varied, it's madness to think that nobody could ever make enough difference to be recorded on a sensitive device, during loud attacks.  Clearly, anyone who speaks of sound always being the same has simply made a subjective judgement of what is not literally "the same" but "same enough". That's not adequate science to hang anything on. Anyway, what is needed to make the differences truly unmissable on paper is that the volume must be extreme and the pedal must be held to be sure it will register in overtones too. No experiment which does not satisfy these requirements can be used to either "disprove" that an audible keythump happens in loud playing, or that a good player can soften it while still playing loud.

PS. To give another practical example, go and play a legato melody with a very short staccato but with pedal. Does it sound anything like the same as legato?

[pts1]

N:

Having looked through your site, while I agree that a collapsing knuckle is quite undesirable and is a failure of support/structure, this statement I think is simply wrong:

ii) If a finger starts with any curvature, any shortening of the distance between fingertip and knuckle during key depression counts as a "negative movement". Any expansion of the distance is a "positive movement".

Since fine motor hand skill primarily originates with the intrinsic muscles which makes the hand feel somewhat "disembodied, and independent" of the wrist and arm (when the arm is held lightly floating flexibly level with the key tops or thereabouts.)

You will notice in films, or perhaps yourself, that during fast passage work on the key, the finger tip pulls down and a tiny bit inward on the key.  This is natural and in this instance, the distance you state as negative movement is in error since the distance between the finger tip and the knuckle is slightly diminished. (this in no way is to be confused with tightly curling the fingers which would then have the flexor digitorum profundus become the primary mover which in turn slows everything down and causes tension... a definite negative movement)

[pts1]

Here's a recording of Michelangeli in which you can see the on-the-key playing in which the slight pulling of the key with the finger tip pulling down and in, shortening the distance between finger tip and knuckle

[nyiregyhazi]

N:

Having looked through your site, while I agree that a collapsing knuckle is quite undesirable and is a failure of support/structure, this statement I think is simply wrong:


Since fine motor hand skill primarily originates with the intrinsic muscles which makes the hand feel somewhat "disembodied, and independent" of the wrist and arm (when the arm is held lightly floating flexibly level with the key tops or thereabouts.)

You will notice in films, or perhaps yourself, that during fast passage work on the key, the finger tip pulls down and a tiny bit inward on the key.  This is natural and in this instance, the distance you state as negative movement is in error since the distance between the finger tip and the knuckle is slightly diminished. (this in no way is to be confused with tightly curling the fingers which would then have the flexor digitorum profundus become the primary mover which in turn slows everything down and causes tension... a definite negative movement)

I'm talking specifically of a type of movement done in a more direct type of path. If the knuckle stays balanced and the distance closes by retraction of the tip, arguably it is indeed exempt from the principle. I think I mentioned some context elsewhere, but thanks for pointing that out. I'll double check the exact wordings, to be sure that it clarifies what situations I'm applying it to. I may have clarified further later in the post but not at the start, as I recall, but I'll double-check.

However, on a practical level what you speak of is problematic for a different reason. It's SO indirect that a fingertip acts virtually completely horizontally if closing, unless flat-fingered. So only a tiny component of any such movement from the final joint contributes acceleration. It's still a very inefficient way to get tone, for this separate reason- compared to what the knuckle can do, as primary instigator. For that reason, I do not personally consider it desirable for normal playing, but only for special effects. I either straighten the joints actively or passively, normally, with only the knuckle acting to close. I felt a lot of strain in the days where I normally tried to close in fingertips. Since dropping that intent (so the tip is pulled purely by the knuckle, with the other joints lengthening to allow a direct descent), playing is far easier. I've written a post all about this issue, primarily regarding joints collapsing, where I give a lot more context on why I don't favour movements of that kind as the norm, but as an exception.

Regardless, it's certainly a valid point so I'll double-check exactly what I wrote and make sure of clarification.

[dima_76557]

PS. To give another practical example, go and play a legato melody with a very short staccato but with pedal. Does it sound anything like the same as legato?

Well, now you are most likely asking too much of your audience.

On a side note. Did you know that you can even suggest pedal usage (without actually pedaling) by using the repetition mechanism on a grand? This mechanism was not solely invented to repeat the same notes fast, but instead to get in closer contact with the string without the dampers spoiling everything by breaking off the sound. Alas, few pianists who even know how to use it. It is one of the most elementary but at the same time one of the hardest things to master.

[nyiregyhazi]

Well, now you are most likely asking too much of your audience.

On a side note. Did you know that you can even suggest pedal usage (without actually pedaling) by using the repetition mechanism on a grand? This mechanism was not solely invented to repeat the same notes fast, but instead to get in closer contact with the string without the dampers spoiling everything by breaking off the sound. Alas, few pianists who even know how to use it. It is one of the most elementary but at the same time one of the hardest things to master.

Sure, I saw Volodos play a remarkably controlled long trill (in the slow movement of the Rachamaninoff 2nd before the recap) without a touch of pedal. Remarkably brave to depend solely on that possibility. Personally, I also like the idea of using the middle pedal as a replacement for the sustain pedal for Bach- so you achieve legato without any of the associated overtones. It's a real test of the precision of legato pedalling.

[hardy_practice]

PS. To give another practical example, go and play a legato melody with a very short staccato but with pedal. Does it sound anything like the same as legato?

I hope that's not what I think it is.  The pedal down both times?  It'll be identical, duh.

[nyiregyhazi]

I hope that's not what I think it is.  The pedal down both times?  It'll be identical, duh.

Assuming the piano action and keybed thump are silent, yes. They're not though. Why not upload a recording of a beautiful melody played pizzicato into the pedal, with one finger?

[hardy_practice]

Yes, why not?  And, are you saying there's a thump with staccato but not legato?  That's certainly not true.  The only difference is in the length of the notes - and the pedal makes those equal.

[dima_76557]

@ hardy_practice

The sound quality you get from finger legato and pedal legato is quite different. You really can't replace the former with the latter because it will be audible for the experienced listeners, even if you are a pedal virtuoso with the greatest command over the fingertips.

[hardy_practice]

We're talking about having the pedal fully down in both instances - staccato and legato. 

[goldentone]

And we want not a hint of harshness in our legato.  We want to blend it in to the ears.

[richard black]

I said pretty much this same thing last time the discussion came up, but I've still not heard a counter-argument...

It's obvious that different approaches to the key can make a difference to the sound. At the very least, the amount of sound a finger makes as it strikes the key surface is a factor. Whether this is significantly audible in context is an entirely different question (excluding extreme cases - and we've all heard fingernails on keys in recital, for instance).

And given that the degree of audibility is likely to be quite small in most practical comparisons, doesn't it make far more sense to concentrate on the (also obvious) overriding factor of relative loudness between simultaneous and successive notes?

Or to put it more succinctly - who cares?

[timothy42b]

Or to put it more succinctly - who cares?

Because there IS such a thing as good tone.  Learning it will be easier for some people if they know how it is really accomplished, which has nothing to do with how you strike the individual keys, but as you pointed out, the other factors. 

For people with other learning styles it doesn't make any difference and there is no need to care.

[hardy_practice]

Or to put it more succinctly - who cares?

You're right it's angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff.

[swagmaster420x]

To show that velocity is not the only variable that affects tone, they should just do an experiment where a machine hits a key, keeping velocity at the moment of impact constant, but varying acceleration.

Also, can I start another thing? All of you are terrible at physics.  

[richard black]

By the way, I do certainly care about the general concept of tone. And I may be terrible at physics now after several years of not using it much, but I did once get a degree in it from a respectable university 

[swagmaster420x]

By the way, I do certainly care about the general concept of tone. And I may be terrible at physics now after several years of not using it much, but I did once get a degree in it from a respectable university 

Nice, which country?

[pianoplayer002]

To show that velocity is not the only variable that affects tone, they should just do an experiment where a machine hits a key, keeping velocity at the moment of impact constant, but varying acceleration.

Also, can I start another thing? All of you are terrible at physics.  

Modify that to ensuring that the machine has the same velocity at the moment of hammer release (which is not the same as impact at either keybed or key surface) and vary acceleration from none (machine has reached full speed before even striking the key, starting from a distance) to maximum (machine starts from the key surface and accelerates to maximum speed during the descent). They should also experiment with having the machine going faster at impact with the key surface than at the point of hammer release.

They should also experiment with how much mass hits the keybed, have the machine drop between a few grams (the weight of a finger) to several kilos (the weight of a whole arm) drop right onto the keybed with no braking.

I'll eat my hat if not all these factors have an effect on tone.

[stringoverstrung]

They should also experiment with how much mass hits the keybed, have the machine drop between a few grams (the weight of a finger) to several kilos (the weight of a whole arm) drop right onto the keybed with no braking.

I'll eat my hat if not all these factors have an effect on tone.

I'm not a physicist but I don't think you will have your hat on your stomach as to my knowledge the laws of physics state that acceleration is proportional to the force.



The acceleration of the key will definitely impact the sound  within the dynamic range of the piano (=before you "hurt" the piano)

Now the a (acceleration) in case of a drop is the acceleration caused by g (9,82 km/s2), representing gravitational pull by the earth.

to several kilos (the weight of a whole arm)

This might be a bit too much as the required force to press a key is in the region of a factor 1000 less then a force created by dropping kilo's in a gravity field (the weight of the key is measured in grams). Of course an arm drop by a pianist doesn't cause to drop his whole arm off.

and vary acceleration from none (machine has reached full speed before even striking the key, starting from a distance) to maximum (machine starts from the key surface and accelerates to maximum speed during the descent). They should also experiment with having the machine going faster at impact with the key surface than at the point of hammer release.

Now you are talking about the force changing over time (the acceleration is changing). If that is the case we need the laws of Momentum and impulse (of which F=ma is a special case namely when a is constant)
Associated formulas



Impulse ( a is not constant):


In case of changing m or a you need to integrate over these values in function of time. (This also applies for every change in the component perpendicular to the key as they are vectorial units (hitting from the side)

So the end result will be that in all these different cases the force applied to the key will be different and should within the dynamic range of the key and the components of the key up unto the snare have logically speaking a different acceleration and thus a different tonal result (at least in volume).

This is all physics for before the key is hit. The Physics from when the key starts to move and the hammer hits the snare are much more difficult.

Everyone can verify for him/herself that 90 % of the statements in this thread ignore these 3 most simple laws of physics.

[swagmaster420x]

I'm not a physicist but I don't think you will have your hat on your stomach as to my knowledge the laws of physics state that acceleration is proportional to the force.



The acceleration of the key will definitely impact the sound  within the dynamic range of the piano (=before you "hurt" the piano)

Now the a (acceleration) in case of a drop is the acceleration caused by g (9,82 km/s2), representing gravitational pull by the earth.

This might be a bit too much as the required force to press a key is in the region of a factor 1000 less then a force created by dropping kilo's in a gravity field (the weight of the key is measured in grams). Of course an arm drop by a pianist doesn't cause to drop his whole arm off.


Now you are talking about the force changing over time (the acceleration is changing). If that is the case we need the laws of Momentum and impulse (of which F=ma is a special case namely when a is constant)
Associated formulas



Impulse ( a is not constant):


In case of changing m or a you need to integrate over these values in function of time. (This also applies for every change in the component perpendicular to the key as they are vectorial units (hitting from the side)

So the end result will be that in all these different cases the force applied to the key will be different and should within the dynamic range of the key and the components of the key up unto the snare have logically speaking a different acceleration and thus a different tonal result (at least in volume).

This is all physics for before the key is hit. The Physics from when the key starts to move and the hammer hits the snare are much more difficult.

Everyone can verify for him/herself that 90 % of the statements in this thread ignore these 3 most simple laws of physics.

I don't think you've applied anything you've stated correctly.

[stringoverstrung]

I don't think you've applied anything you've stated correctly.

I didn't intend to apply anything. I'm just pointing out that anyone who feels the urge to explain this must take into account these 3 basic laws of physics otherwise the conclusion will be wrong. They do play a roll in some way as we are a talking about accelerating and applying force.

[swagmaster420x]

I didn't intend to apply anything. I'm just pointing out that anyone who feels the urge to explain this must take into account these 3 basic laws of physics otherwise the conclusion will be wrong. They do play a roll in some way as we are a talking about accelerating and applying force.

When it was said, or assumed, that the velocity of the hammer when it hits the strings is the primary factor affecting sound, F=ma was indirectly being applied. The hammer transfers momentum over a short period of time, applying a force. You are mixing up the force we care about when you say the 'acceleration is proportional to the force.' The focus is more on the force you hit the key with/the force the key applies to the strings, not the force being applied to your arm/hand/whatever. The more relevant force actually depends more on velocity rather than acceleration.

And it's actually only 1 law you've cited, not three, p=mv is another form of F=ma.

[stringoverstrung]

When it was said, or assumed, that the velocity of the hammer when it hits the strings is the primary factor affecting sound, F=ma was indirectly being applied. The hammer transfers momentum over a short period of time, applying a force. You are mixing up the force we care about when you say the 'acceleration is proportional to the force.' The focus is more on the force you hit the key with/the force the key applies to the strings, not the force being applied to your arm/hand/whatever. The more relevant force actually depends more on velocity rather than acceleration.

The point is that this velocity is the consequence of an acceleration. There is no such thing as velocity alone creating a force. (examples: neutrino (almost massless and even now they are hitting you at high speed but there is no interaction because of the next to nothing mass of the neutrino)
And i was only talking about the physics from before the hammer goes to the strings i.e. I was talking about the hand / arm transferring force / impulse / momentum to the key within the dynamic range.
 

And it's actually only 1 law you've cited, not three, p=mv is another form of F=ma.

I thought i mentioned that in my post no?

[pianoplayer002]

The acceleration of the key will definitely impact the sound  within the dynamic range of the piano (=before you "hurt" the piano)

It's unclear to me what you mean or what your point is. Care to elaborate?

Now the a (acceleration) in case of a drop is the acceleration caused by g (9,82 km/s2), representing gravitational pull by the earth.

If you mean the acceleration of the falling arm, then yes. The acceleration of the key will vary depending on what height you drop the arm from.

This might be a bit too much as the required force to press a key is in the region of a factor 1000 less then a force created by dropping kilo's in a gravity field (the weight of the key is measured in grams). Of course an arm drop by a pianist doesn't cause to drop his whole arm off.

It is certainly ill adviced to use more force than necessary. What I am trying to do is arguing against the statement that the way you physically approach a note does not have any effect on tone as long as the speed of the hammer remains the same. My argument is that a pianist crashing the mass of their whole arm into the keybed will have worse tone the ones that don't, because the impact thud will affect the vibration of the strings. The suggestion you are discussing is an experiment to test that. Maybe I was a bit vague in that part of my description.

Now you are talking about the force changing over time (the acceleration is changing). If that is the case we need the laws of Momentum and impulse (of which F=ma is a special case namely when a is constant)
Associated formulas

Do the associated physics matter though? What I am interested in is investigating how different ways of striking the key will affect tone, provided the hammer speed at the moment of release is the same.

So the end result will be that in all these different cases the force applied to the key will be different and should within the dynamic range of the key and the components of the key up unto the snare have logically speaking a different acceleration and thus a different tonal result (at least in volume).

You mean hitting the key from above with the same velocity as you want it to have at the moment of hammer release will send the key flying faster due to impacts n stuff? In that case, modify the constant speed drop to such a speed that the hammer release will be at the same speed as it would be in the accelerated version of the experiment.

What I am getting at is not so much how the forces vary but how touching/hitting the instrument in different ways affect the vibration of the strings post impact of the hammer, and thus have an influence over tone.

[stringoverstrung]

Pianoplayer002, I completely agree with your statements. Just wanted to point out that the physics part is quite complicated and thus it is very hard to give a definitive answer to the question. Some posters seem to ignore this and put up incredible "truths" not backed up by physics. So some testing would certainly help. Once again I'm pretty sure you can keep your hat on.

[dima_76557]

-

[marik1]

For me, any technical detail taken out of music context would be a waste of time.
A few years ago I attended an all Chopin recital of Mr. Ax. That was by far the most boresome musical experience of my life I ever seen from ANY concert pianist. Yes, he played well and professional, and he did everything correct on a scholar level, but apparent lack of imagination, passion, colors, and... just simple talent doesn't make me trust anything he says, however correct (or for that matter incorrect) it is.

The whole building is built from bricks. In order to build a beautiful building there should be everything beautiful--each individual brick, and also its placement and role in the entire structure. If every brick is beautiful, but there is no structure, or it is taken out of context of entire structure then it doesn't make any sense, either.

In the end, everything one needs to know is how to take a single note correctly (i.e. put a certain amount of energy into it and then to know how to immediately release that energy, so the whole physical structure stays comfortable and relaxed), but also one needs to know which place that single note has in the context and the wave of phrase.

It is possible to talk about how to take single note. It is impossible to talk about it without certain context. We listen to music and its meaning, not a set of single notes (exactly what I heard in Mr. Ax own playing).

Best, M

Various pianists and teachers commented on the premise posed by Ax that it doesn't matter how you physically approach a note in terms of tone production  (notwithstanding volume)
https://arioso7.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/does-approaching-notes-in-different-ways-at-the-piano-affect-tone-production/

[nyiregyhazi]

It is possible to talk about how to take single note. It is impossible to talk about it without certain context. We listen to music and its meaning, not a set of single notes (exactly what I heard in Mr. Ax own playing).

Ax was arguing based on context, not in favour of single notes. Obviously that doesn't guarantee success on his part, but were you trying to use him as an example to imply that thinking about individual sounds will divorce them from the whole? He isn't actually in that camp.