Emanuel Ax weighs in on an approach to a single note

[hardy_practice]

If you think it's dubious that sending different energy levels into impact create different levels of noise effect, I suggest you go back to school.

There's no science to say it make a difference to an outside observer besides what does it matter?  Hummel says not to keybed - that's good enough for me.

[dima_76557]

But it's no different as empirical evidence than hearing a good and a bad pianist play the same piano.

The problem with comparing good and bad pianists is that they play tones in context and do that either well or badly. It doesn't do much for those who have their minds made up already about tone quality as such, which they think is something the piano manufacturer is responsible for and nobody else. They will just tell you that one pianist connects the tones "better" and "more musically" than the other one.

The shock, however, of putting wrist weights on and experiencing with one's own ears how something so physical drastically changes the quality of ONE TONE in isolation seems to me a more convincing experiment, even if my explanation of mass or weight (or whatever one may call that factor) is incorrect.

[nyiregyhazi]

There's no science to say it make a difference to an outside observer besides what does it matter?  Hummel says not to keybed - that's good enough for me.

Everyone keybeds from piano upwards. The issue is how you make the contact and whether it compresses down or expands up and away. And there are experiments that recorded differences of tone. Sound theory does not support the idea that there is no explanation for differences and empirical evidence exists that there can be differences.

[nyiregyhazi]

The problem with comparing good and bad pianists is that they play tones in context and do that either well or badly. It doesn't do much for those who have their minds made up already about tone quality as such, which they think is something the piano manufacturer is responsible for and nobody else. They will just tell you that one pianist connects the tones "better" and "more musically" than the other one.

The shock, however, of putting wrist weights on and experiencing with one's own ears how something so physical drastically changes the quality of ONE TONE in isolation seems to me a more convincing experiment, even if my explanation of mass or weight (or whatever one may call that factor) is incorrect.

There's still a problem. The shock can be to attributed to a richer (as in louder) sound than expected, if a pianist usually wastes energy through collapse. The contrast between expectation and result gives a surprise, especially for a repressed player who usually goes with a flimsy thin sound. More tone comes for less effort than normal. I believe in subtle differences in tone, but I think this is a better explanation for anything startling. In my opinion, the conditions in which absolute differences are most likely to show up are those in which science cannot isolate the separate tones for analysis. Only when playing loud into an open pedal would I expect really notable difference on a single note. This is the situation which all experiments must focus on, in order to come close to having "disproved" tone. After all, it's in dense writing where ugly tone is most typically perceived. If there's even a tiny difference it stands to reason that a ten note chord would show even greater difference. Science could not isolate the data, but that doesn't mean it isn't the situation where absolute differences are detected best by the ear- which is why anyone anyone who says science conclusively disproved tone is most grossly in error.

[hardy_practice]

The issue is how you make the contact and whether it compresses down or expands up and away.

Now that's totally bogus!  Your physics is totally on its own there.  I'm not getting dragged in - I'll stick to Newton or Einstein.

[nyiregyhazi]

Now that's totally bogus!  Your physics is totally on its own there.  I'm not getting dragged in - I'll stick to Newton or Einstein.

Yes, just like it's bogus that it makes any difference to the level of impact whether a runner springs his leg into length as it hits the ground (to spring himself into freedom with his next stride) or passively collapses his leg and lets his whole body slump to the floor over the top of it (potentially even  breaking his leg if he's a big enough guy, with enough momentum) Total pseudoscience to think that there's any difference in the level of impact associated with those two different ways of organising the collision with the foot and floor.

Rather than make flippant remarks about Newton go and ACTUALLY read some, or *** off and stop pretending that you know the first thing about the nature of impact. The first thing to understand about either running or depressing a key is that impact occurs when too much mass is allowed to continue down. Bounce it back away in an upward direction and you have a totally different scenario.

So by all means ignore this and make some stupid remark and then return to the piano and continue collapsing your hand into impact at the keybed, before violently relaxing as if that's supposed to do the first thing to help with what is already an impact that has occurred in the past.

[hardy_practice]

Rather than make flippant remarks about Newton go and ACTUALLY read some, or *** off

Now that's the authentic pianoscience for you!

[nyiregyhazi]

Now that's the authentic pianoscience for you!

And the only part you have a response to? Go and read the Newton you are sticking to and then come back and tell me where he contradicts the very simple principle I outlined about the nature of impact during a collision. You're all mouth and no trousers. If you're not interested in opening it, put some substance behind that closed mind of yours instead. If you want to reply you with another example of your dry sense of humourlessness, however, I'll leave you to it.

[hardy_practice]

And the only part you have a response to?

Yeh, I think the ***off bit kinda caught my attention.  Not a scientific rationale I'm familiar with.

[nyiregyhazi]

Yeh, I think the ***off bit kinda caught my attention.  Not a scientific rationale I'm familiar with.

In the world of science, people who heckle simple and widely accepted concepts (such as the one regarding impact I presented) are either expected to present some reasoning for their dismissal, or *** off. You're not interested in the topic, only in asserting a belief system founded solely on faith, so I'll leave you to your doctrines.

[hardy_practice]

In the world of science, people who heckle simple and widely accepted concepts

A widely accepted concept!?  I must have missed that somewhere.  All I saw was your usual allusion to Newton's entire body of work (as if you'd read them, duh).

[dima_76557]

More tone comes for less effort than normal.

Which is enough to prove that what one physically does or doesn't do (regardless of one's focus on control over speed/acceleration) does have an impact on sound QUALITY. Not only does the tone itself become objectively richer in all dynamic ranges without the usual effort, but the ratio between core tone and sympathetic resonance of overtones also changes. I think this could be measured objectively with the right equipment installed in "acoustically correct" locations.
P.S.: And yes, pedal enhances the effect significantly.

[nyiregyhazi]

A widely accepted concept!?  I must have missed that somewhere.  All I saw was your usual allusion to Newton's entire body of work (as if you'd read them, duh).

I never introduced his name. You did. Regardless I'll spell it out. When something falls down towards a point of impact, it carries momentum which then collides and increases impact. If you crush a finger into compression then it carries momentum via the extra mass of the arm moving downwards towards the stopping point. Conversely, when everything is expanding up and AWAY from the point of landing, a tiny amount of mass actually carries any further momentum towards the point of collision. It's all going away in a path where it is smoothly slowed by gravity, rather than stopped violently in a collision. In both pianism and running, impact is easily prevented by pushing mass up and away, rather than by pretending that you can avoid ever reaching the point of collision outright. In both cases, collapsing the joints rather than growing things up and away allows more mass to carry momentum on a path bound for collision- hence more impact. People who think relaxation of a finger will help are plain wrong, as relaxing it allows more collapse and thus more momentum travelling towards collision (just like if a runner allows a leg to crumple up and get crushed by their body weight, rather push the mass upwards towards a place of freedom, via a normal stride). The necessary common link to low impact is movement upward into expansion, not relaxation and the downward collapse of further energy towards the floor or keybed. Also not fixation during the moment of landing (which limits collapse of either a leg or finger, yet offers exceedingly bad shock absorbency during the point of impact).

I already know that you have no response to this except an irrelevant humourless quip, so get it out the way and then *** off. I'm not arguing any further unless you have some substance. Take the above to any scientist you please, if you wish to debunk. Better still, go and actually research mechanics for yourself and try to find any holes in the premise, if you feel you're in an informed position to scoff. It is completely consistent with all basics of classical mechanics.

[nyiregyhazi]

Which is enough to prove that what one physically does or doesn't do (regardless of one's focus on control over speed/acceleration) does have an impact on sound QUALITY. Not only does the tone itself become objectively richer in all dynamic ranges without the usual effort, but the ratio between core tone and sympathetic resonance of overtones also changes. I think this could be measured objectively with the right equipment installed in "acoustically correct" locations.
P.S.: And yes, pedal enhances the effect significantly.

That's not what I'm agreeing with though. I think the effect is primarily psychological due to the difference between expectation and result. I do believe subtle absolute differences MIGHT be possible, but it's really too subjective to count the phenomenon as actual evidence without empirical data. In my opinion, the really striking difference is psychological, due to simply getting a stronger sound for less effort. Only when really loud chords are played into the pedal do I believe that the objective reduction in noise effect becomes significant.

PS did you know that in a test of sacd vs cd quality on experts who swear to hear the difference revealed that the accuracy of detection was pretty much identical to what would  expected had they simply flipped coins to give the answers? It's very important that what people think is absolute is confirmed by empirical data in blind testing, before taken as being evidence. While I believe there are situations where small differences accumulate, I'm far more doubtful that they are really big on single notes. I place more on the surprise factor than on a really big absolute here.

[hardy_practice]

I'm not arguing any further unless you have some substance. Take the above to any scientist you please, if you wish to debunk.

I'll tell you what, if it's so 'widely accepted' find me another source.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'll tell you what, if it's so 'widely accepted' find me another source.

I didn't copy it secondhand, sorry. It's an original contextual application of accepted newtonian laws. So debunk the application of those laws, by listing the errors of logic, or find someone who can. Do you think people who solve maths theorems provide sources where someone else says the exact same thing as the specific applications of logic they have made? They don't. They show the show the working around accepted principled and the onus then lies on others to debunk it, if they have made errors of application. I've started with a straightforward application of the law of momentum. I then followed up by stating that additional travelling momentum means more impact. That is proved by the law of energy conservation. Energy cannot be destroyed. So when larger amounts of momentum are travel towards a point where they violently decelerate they result in more impact than when momentum travels directly away from the point of impact.

These two very basic laws can be found in any gcse text book, so I really am done now. Happy trolling! Oh and why don't you go on a run and collapse your knees and hips down, with every step, if you're so sure you're right? I'll make sure my knees are lengthening out, thanks. and that I'm also expanding up and away from the keybeds, rather than allowing momentum to spiral down into collisions.

[hardy_practice]

I didn't copy it secondhand. It's an original application of accepted newtonian laws.

Look mate, you are extrapolating from basic laws of physics.  These extrapolations you call 'widely accepted'.  By whom?  Find me a source if that is the case.

[nyiregyhazi]

Look mate, you are extrapolating from basic laws of physics.  These extrapolations you call 'widely accepted'.  By whom?  Find me a source if that is the case.

If you don't understand how science works you can *** off. Applications of accepted laws are not referred to sources. The fact that no book specifically says 1*13333 = 13333 does not put it in question that it is true. People who dispute applications of such simple laws are required to debunk them.  you can't be bothered to learn gcse physics, reference the very simple applications by any qualified scientist. Better still, *** off and stop wasting everybody's time with your closed indoctrinated mind.

[hardy_practice]

If you don't understand how science works you can *** off. Applications of accepted laws are not referred to sources. They are original work. People who dispute their accuracy are required to debunk them.

What in god's name then are the 'widely accepted concepts' you're going on about?  Also, I'll have a source for your last claim if you please!

[nyiregyhazi]

What in god's name then are the 'widely accepted concepts' you're going on about?  Also, I'll have a source for your last claim if you please!

The law of momentum and law of energy conservation, as I already told you. So either get a gcse textbook out and start reading it or *** off and stop trolling with your cynicism about something you know nothing about. If you want to provide a source that says mass can travel without carrying momentum or that momentum can stop abruptly in collision with a static object, without passing its associated energy into an impact, post them here. I'm afraid that the onus of proof is on controversial statements, not on a simple application of a basic law. For either of my statements to be untrue, specific newtonian laws are necessarily broken. Thus it follows that they are indeed true- regardless of how squarely they contradict with any sources that you have accepted on mere faith.

[hardy_practice]

The law of momentum and law of energy conservation,

Let me get this straight - your 'widely accepted concepts' are 'The law of momentum and law of energy conservation'??  Bit of an understatement don't you think?  Applicable to keybedding sure, but I think a bit abstruse.  You might as well site the Earth going round the Sun for all its relevance.

And that's the problem isn't it?  Your complete obfuscation - not just of everyone here but also of yourself!  But when push comes to shove what do we get?  A big ***off!!

[nyiregyhazi]

Let me get this straight - your 'widely accepted concepts' are 'The law of momentum and law of energy conservation'??  Bit of an understatement don't you think?  Applicable to keybedding sure, but I think a bit abstruse.  You might as well site the Earth going round the Sun for all its relevance.

And that's the problem isn't it?  Your complete obfuscation - not just of everyone here but also of yourself!  But when push comes to shove what do we get?  A big ***off!!

The relevance is the specific fact that holding back from the keybed cannot achieve anything, based on irrefutable mechanics regarding energy conservation. Directing movement away from it during the point of collision (which can neither be achieved through tension or passivity in the finger) is the only means of dealing with the moment of arrival meaningfully if you don't want to strain or suffer impact. I sure wish this was as obvious as the earth going round the sun. Then I wouldn't have wasted so much of my time listening to idiots telling me to do something that it is utterly impossible as means of dealing with keybeds without impact.

PS if you aren't interested in actually researching something before drawing the conclusion that it is wrong based on mere sentiment and no evidence or relevant knowledge, then being told to *** off is the only relevant response.

[hardy_practice]

You see, what you don't understand is the nature of science.  It's not so much about a set of rules, concepts etc. it's more about peer review - a way of working.  Scientists (people who do science as opposed to bloggers and posters) have a list of publications to their name - no one is about to take them seriously otherwise.  Comprendez?   Even Newton had to publish his findings for his peers.  Now what I'd like to see is yours and in a peer reviewed journal.  Then we could all take you seriously (I'd leave out the ***off bits if I were you). 

[nyiregyhazi]

You see, what you don't understand is the nature of science.  It's not so much about a set of rules, concepts etc. it's more about peer review - a way of working.  Scientists (people who do science as opposed to bloggers and posters) have a list of publications to their name - no one is about to take them seriously otherwise.  Comprendez?   Even Newton had to publish his findings for his peers.  Now what I'd like to see is yours and in a peer reviewed journal.  Then we could all take you seriously (I'd leave out the ***off bits if I were you).  

I'd be laughed out of the place if a physicist were asked to check such a piffingly basic application of newtonian mechanics and publish it in a magazine on physics. It's not even A level physics, nevermind an advanced application worthy of a journal about physics. The relevance is solely to pianists in understanding how to avoid impact. The only mystery is why something so simple is not widely considered among pianists.

Show what I said to anyone you like and ask them to review it. Better still, seeing as you think you're in a position to have an informed opinion, debunk it yourself. You certainly wouldn't find a physicist willing to dispute the self evident notion that that moving mass towards a collision and stopping it sharply means more impact than actively moving mass AWAY during the instant of collision. I can't believe I've actually let you waste so much of my time on bothering to defend such a simple and irrefutable truth.
.

[hardy_practice]

Just get something accepted for publication - then maybe you'll be taken seriously.

[nyiregyhazi]

Just get something accepted for publication - then maybe you'll be taken seriously.

Why would a science journal want to publish a gsce level application of fact? As for musicians journals, they publish all kinds of rubbish. Such fields as body mechanics are overloaded with publications that are riddled with foundation level errors. The field of pianistic ergonomics is loaded with charlatans preaching things that contradicted classical mechanics left right and centre (and which could never possibly pass review by a physicist).

[hardy_practice]

The field of pianistic ergonomics is loaded with charlatans preaching things that contradicted classical mechanics left right and centre (and which could never possibly pass review by a physicist).

Like you to be honest!  How many science journals have you actually sent work to?  I find it very hard to believe they wouldn't be interested in the physics of piano playing.

[pts1]

Hmmmm


I see this discussion which was started by someone asking "what time is it", so to speak, has degraded into a discussion about the inaccuracies of atomic clocks in as much as Einstein has "proven" that time can go backwards.


One needs no collisions with brick walls or any other extrapolations of Newtonian physics to understand what makes a piano action work, and the best way to work this clever piece of machinery.

As I've noted before, the key travels downward about 3/8ths of an inch or so, and ONLY the first 1/4 of an inch moves the hammer. The last 8th is dead space, after which the key hits the key bed.

So the best way to play as a standard is with the finger on the key, pull the key down quickly and briefly so that the sound occurs, but your finger does not hit cause the key to hit the key bed hard, but to touch it and rebound naturally from the energy of the key bringing the at rest-finger with it, ready to play again.

For clarity's sake, imagine that the key mechanism was a huge model whereby we're talking about a travel distance of 3 feet instead of 3/8ths of an inch.

Why, after pushing the enormous key down 2 feet at which point it has pushed the jack past the hammer knuckle and sent the hammer flying upward into a long large string, would you continue to push the key down with effort to collide hard against the key bed, both doing nothing to effect sound, and incrementally injuring yourself?

Anyone who can look at a key mechanism, think logically, get past their bias, etc., can prove this to one's self.

Again, this has been proven to a scientific certainty by real "piano scientists" many years ago, as well anecdotal evidence from many professional pianists. (Ortmann and Schultz, scientists)

Why would anyone doubt that the faster you pull down the key, the faster the hammer will hit the string and the louder the resulting sound?

[hardy_practice]

but to touch it and rebound naturally from the energy of the key bringing the at rest-finger with it, ready to play again.

I don't think you'll find that in Schultz or Ortmann (both of which I have here).

[nyiregyhazi]

Hmmmm


I see this discussion which was started by someone asking "what time is it", so to speak, has degraded into a discussion about the inaccuracies of atomic clocks in as much as Einstein has "proven" that time can go backwards.


One needs no collisions with brick walls or any other extrapolations of Newtonian physics to understand what makes a piano action work, and the best way to work this clever piece of machinery.

As I've noted before, the key travels downward about 3/8ths of an inch or so, and ONLY the first 1/4 of an inch moves the hammer. The last 8th is dead space, after which the key hits the key bed.

So the best way to play as a standard is with the finger on the key, pull the key down quickly and briefly so that the sound occurs, but your finger does not hit cause the key to hit the key bed hard, but to touch it and rebound naturally from the energy of the key bringing the at rest-finger with it, ready to play again.

For clarity's sake, imagine that the key mechanism was a huge model whereby we're talking about a travel distance of 3 feet instead of 3/8ths of an inch.

Why, after pushing the enormous key down 2 feet at which point it has pushed the jack past the hammer knuckle and sent the hammer flying upward into a long large string, would you continue to push the key down with effort to collide hard against the key bed, both doing nothing to effect sound, and incrementally injuring yourself?

Anyone who can look at a key mechanism, think logically, get past their bias, etc., can prove this to one's self.

Again, this has been proven to a scientific certainty by real "piano scientists" many years ago, as well anecdotal evidence from many professional pianists. (Ortmann and Schultz, scientists)

Superficial logic (except in staccato- where the finger really does just release). I explain why plenty on my blog, but I'll give a brief rundown. Firstly, the quality of balance on the last note played determines control over the next note. Looking to do as little as possible destabilises the whole mechanism, whereas looking to carry on trying to "stand" the knuckle up and away from the keybed creates stability in return for a negligible degree of added effort.

Let's say that you're going to stroke a hamster with one foot while standing on the other leg. Would you feel more comfortable about doing so while standing clearly on the one leg? Or would you want to allow your knee to start wobbling about due to the fact that this leg is supposedly not involved in any way? It's pretty safe to say which is most likely to result in a dead hamster. To only speak of the sound that already occurred grossly misses the relevance of what matters on held notes. Balance on a depressed key is the beginning of how you control the next sound and not merely an afterthought.

Secondly, trying to relax in the split second that sound occurs is prone to error. When the finger aims to continue (not squashing down but expanding AWAY from the keybed) you completely eradicate any problems with prolonging the action. And you also eliminate the risk of pulling back too soon. See my most recent blog post for more details, in reference to the superb control achieved by cherkassky and why trying to stop abruptly at the keybed will easily ruin that. Continuing a slower confident action gives far more reliable tonal control than trying to do a short sharp application of force followed by nothing. Any hint of repression destroys control over tone. It's far easier to learn how to make continuation safe and healthy than to think of on and off stabs.

[pts1]

Giving without asking is admirable, but doing something in return for something else is nothing more than everyday life.

Well, I don't have those books, though a long, long time ago I struggled through parts of them at the library and have read excerpts at times.

I think both of the proved beyond any doubt that it is the speed of the hammer into the string that is solely responsible for the sound.

I mean... duh!

The part about the articulation of the key, the escapement, etc., is simple logic, and you can read about anecdotal evidence from pianists who were taught to quickly pull the key down and cease all effort. Example, Glenn Gould with the "tapping" exercise, which is exactly designed to do just that. The proof is in his technique, which was really second to none.

I see no point in arguing about this. The proof is in the "pudding" and I'll cite Glenn Gould as my "proof".

[pts1]

Superficial logic.

Perhaps so, but I don't need a thorough explanation of Newtonian physics, Anatomy, and Psychology to explain why pounding myself in the head with a hammer is a bad idea.

[hardy_practice]

Well, I don't have those books, though a long, long time ago I struggled through parts of them at the library and have read excerpts at times.

I think both of the proved beyond any doubt that it is the speed of the hammer into the string that is solely responsible for the sound.

I mean... duh!

You'll get no argument from me!

[nyiregyhazi]

Like you to be honest!  How many science journals have you actually sent work to?  I find it very hard to believe they wouldn't be interested in the physics of piano playing.

Perhaps if pianists. But on level of mechanics it's so simple that a non pianist would just express shock that what I've observed might be even faintly controversial. Feel free to run anything I've said by any physicist in the world. I post my blog in public specifically so anybody is free to review what I am saying. Once I've edited my post on positive and negative movement, I will indeed be running it by professional physicist- under the insistence that they specify anything that could be seen as contentious rather than definitively true. If something is wrong, I have zero interest in labouring under misapprehension-which is why I apply extremely strict scrutiny to everything I write before publishing.

PS if you want to libel me then back it up with some specific substance.

[hardy_practice]

Perhaps if pianists. But on level of mechanics it's so simple that a non pianist would just express shock that what I've observed might be even faintly controversial.

If you can't find even an itsy-bitsy obscure journal that'll accept your work then the label scientific will just have to elude you.  I'm sorry if your scientific 'colleagues' have no interest in your work.  I wonder why? NOT!

[nyiregyhazi]

Perhaps so, but I don't need a thorough explanation of Newtonian physics, Anatomy, and Psychology to explain why pounding myself in the head with a hammer is a bad idea.

If you want to make concrete assertions I'm afraid you really DO need to run through them. You can't assert facts based on having casually ignored the areas that comprehensively disprove that things are a simple as your extraordinarily selective version of events would portray. It's easy to pretend something is simple when you choose to leave out each and every one of the issues that contradicts your assertion. But I'm afraid selective portrayal neither changes reality or serves a basis for a genuine proof. To be permitted to ignore the additional factors, you have to debunk them first, not put your fingers in your ears. You don't get to call your portrayal scientific when you not only leave out the important bits that contradict your view, but refuse to even listen when someone tells you what you have missed. Science either debunks new information, or adapts the theory to fit relevant information as best as possible.

[nyiregyhazi]

If you can't find even an itsy-bitsy obscure journal that'll accept your work then the label scientific will just have to evade you.  I'm sorry if your scientific 'colleagues' have no interest in your work.  I wonder why? NOT!

I said no such thing, but i don't see why a non pianist would be terribly interested in such basic applications as I make. None are controversial, with regard to mechanics - only against the doctrines that pianists preach. The article I am currently polishing will be submitted to physicists shortly, as I said, under strict instructions to apply full standards of scrutiny. In the meantime I warmly invite you and anyone to define any objective error that can be found, should any exist. Seriously, I actually WANT to know if I do make any errors, which is why your unsubstantiated cynicism is so infuriating. Get off your butt and debunk me! It's simply pathetic to make big accusations without having any supporting evidence.

[hardy_practice]

The article I am currently polishing will be submitted to physicists shortly, as I said, under strict instructions to apply full standards of scrutiny.

I won't hold my breath but I'll buy a dozen copies when (if) it comes out!  Meanwhile you're just Joe Layman.

[nyiregyhazi]

I won't hold my breath but I'll buy a dozen copies when (if) it comes out!  Meanwhile you're just Joe Layman.

Then show my application to any physicist of your choosing and tell them to debunk it. It would take some bribe to find one who'd testify in a witness stand. Alternatively, learn mechanics to gsce level so you can appreciate the simple of truth of what causes impact. If you need an authority to prove that finding an action which propels mass directly away from the point of collision results in less impact that letting it continue to proceed directly into one and then relaxing, you really should have tried harder at school. It might not be easy to let go of doctrine, but there's only one view that contradicts physics here.

[hardy_practice]

I think you've missed something - I don't go out and get your work peer reviewed, you do.

[nyiregyhazi]

I think you've missed something - I don't go out and get your work peer reviewed, you do.

I've done so, with both a relative and friend with PhD. If they're wrong about the outrageous idea that propelling mass directly away from collision reduces impact then try to find someone to say so. Contentious ideas need proof. Not ones in gcse textbooks. Are you going to heckle all day or go out and actually learn something about the subject?

[hardy_practice]

I've done so, with both a relative and friend with PhD.

I don't think asking your mates quite rates with the scientific community.

[pts1]

You don't get to call your portrayal scientific when you not only leave out the important bits that contradict your view, but refuse to even listen when someone tells you what you have missed.

 Ah... but I'm just a "pretend" scientist... (I might actually pass as a real Global Warming scientist... you know, the ones who assert without any doubt the planet is getting warmer and close their eyes and ears to any and all dissent and facts to the contrary)

I will further assert that as an adult with decades of experience, I have "mastered" the task of mobility, both on foot (aka walking) and driving a car.

However, If my "freedom" to either walk or drive depended on anything other than being able to give "superficial" explanations -- all in the guise of pretend science -- as to how one REALLY walks and/or drives a car, then I'd be doomed to sitting on my rear, locked away somewhere to practice the piano, assuming piano playing also was not vetted by one's true scientific knowledge of all the complex and multiple disciplines that go into it.

Ergo -- "ignorance is indeed bliss"

You guys have a good time hashing this out!

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't think asking your mates quite rates with the scientific community.

Yes, I suppose they'll give any plonker a PhD in physics these days. I'm sure that you're far more qualified to have an opinion on whether I'm capable of applying gcse level physics about momentum, based solely on sentiment, than a doctor of the subject. Really, *** off and stop wasting everyone's time.

[hardy_practice]

You just don't get it do you?  Asking your mates, whether they have a PhD or not, isn't science!  (and telling people to ***off hardly strengthens your case either)

[nyiregyhazi]

Ah... but I'm just a "pretend" scientist... (I might actually pass as a real Global Warming scientist... you know, the ones who assert without any doubt the planet is getting warmer and close their eyes and ears to any and all dissent and facts to the contrary)

I will further assert that as an adult with decades of experience, I have "mastered" the task of mobility, both on foot (aka walking) and driving a car.

However, If my "freedom" to either walk or drive depended on anything other than being able to give "superficial" explanations -- all in the guise of pretend science -- as to how one REALLY walks and/or drives a car, then I'd be doomed to sitting on my rear, locked away somewhere to practice the piano, assuming piano playing also was not vetted by one's true scientific knowledge of all the complex and multiple disciplines that go into it.

Ergo -- "ignorance is indeed bliss"

You guys have a good time hashing this out!

Well here's the funny thing. When I realised that the on off approach is completely unnecessary and that it's perfectly safe to move with confidence rather than repression (as long as continuation is directed away into freedom rather than down into impact) I learned to play with both more confidence, more tonal control and less impact. Also, you've frequently told your selective piece of scientific advice to others. So it's okay for people to work around a piece of flawed superficial logic, but if someone explains a means to play with both greater confidence and less impact, then pianists ought to just get on with it without using science? You didn't seem to mind it when you were the one saying we should remember what science says (but missing part of the full picture).

Anything that encourages a student to be frightened of playing right through the escapement is going to do more to limit things than to open doors. All pianists should learn how to contact the keybed in a safe but positive fashion before going on to judge how to refine things to a deliberate minimum. As soon as you're playing loud, the only question is HOW you contact the keybed. A badly organised contact followed by release is useless compared to the value of learning a confident movement that by nature sends momentum up and away, rather than down into compression.

[nyiregyhazi]

You just don't get it do you?  Asking your mates, whether they have a PhD or not, isn't science!  (and telling people to ***off hardly strengthens your case either)

Which is exactly why I openly invited you to run it by any physicist in the world and see whether you can persuade a single expert to disagree with what is a straightforward and direct GCSE level application of the law of conservation of momentum. Either do so or *** off and stop wasting everyone's time with irrational faith-based dissent, that you are incapable of putting a shred of substance behind (for the simple reason that only debunking classical mechanics itself could actually do so).

[hardy_practice]

Which is exactly why I openly invited you to run it by any physicist in the world

No.  You arrange for the peer review not us!

[j_menz]

For anyone (other than the guilty parties) whose got this far... here, on me....

[nyiregyhazi]

No.  You arrange for the peer review not us!

If the idea (propelling mass away from a point of collision results in less impact than directing it right in ) requires a peer review, I can only presume that you also demand a peer review if someone tells you that it's more painful to fall to the floor than to walk. *** off and buy a gcse textbook.