Emanuel Ax weighs in on an approach to a single note

[music32]

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/

[faulty_damper]

Ax is incorrect because he fails to identify the percussive sounds striking a key makes.

There are up to three percussive sounds when a key is struck:
1) the sound of the hammer striking the strings (this will always be present)
2) the key striking the keybed (may not always occur)
3) the hammer butt being stopped by the backcheck (not always)

The first percussive sound is the key striking the keybed. This can easily be modulated by the pianist. This makes a noticealbe "dth.." sound.  However, if the key never strikes the keybed, this sound will not be produced.

The second is the hammer striking the strings.  This will always occur and the intensity depends on the speed of the hammer striking the strings, as well as the piano's tone itself.  This sound is largely masked by the tone of the vibrating strings. However, the difference can be easily heard if you play on (most) digital pianos because these DPs don't reproduce this sound.

The third may or may not occur depending on whether the key is released prior to the hammer making contact with the backcheck.  If the key is held down long enough for the backcheck to stop the hammer, it will make a "czh.." sound.  This is the last sound that may or may not occur.

By being aware of these three percussive sounds, the tone can be modulated to either produce them or not.  For example:

a) "Sparkling" runs can be made by minimizing the key striking the keybed, by being lighter on the fingers, as well as releasing the key prior to the hammer being caught by the backcheck.  This reduces the percussive sound to only the hammer striking the strings.

b) "Angry" chords can be produced by making sure all three percussive tones are audibly heard by 1) making fast contact with the keybed, and 2) holding keys long enough for the hammers to be caught by the backcheck.

[falala]

Refreshing realism from Mr. Ax. Charles Rosen has made similar comments that are around somewhere on the web and have been discussed here - haven't got time to find them right now.

Ax is incorrect because he fails to identify the percussive sounds striking a key makes.

There are up to three percussive sounds when a key is struck:
1) the sound of the hammer striking the strings (this will always be present)
2) the key striking the keybed (may not always occur)
3) the hammer butt being stopped by the backcheck (not always)

But none of these negate what Ax has said because - as you yourself go on to describe - they are all functions of the speed at which the key is depressed, and in one case the duration that it is held for. These are exactly the two areas of control that Ax says the pianist has over a single note.

The voluminous objections on the page linked to in the OP, are likewise largely irrelevant. They all miss the basic point that the effects the various techniques described achieve are all to do with the relative strength of notes, to do with balance and phrasing.

You can strike a piano key from a metre above the keyboard with a relaxed arm and wrist rolling forward to exactly 134 degrees while exhaling and thinking of a beautiful summer's day on the ocean. At the end of it all, the hammer still strikes at a particular speed, and it's that speed that determines the sound that is heard.

[faulty_damper]

Read carefully, I was very specific and that it's not about speed at all. Everything mentioned had to do with percussive effects.  Thus, while keeping the dynamics the same, you can have two (or more) different sounds depending on whether those percussive effects are used.

[vansh]

What about the depth to which the key is pressed? As an extreme example, if the key is pressed with whatever speed but stopped just before it hits the keybed, then there's no sound from the keybed.

I would think that this is a relatively straightforward science experiment to do (although it would require some hardware): simply have a machine that pushes a key down that is repeatable (i.e. you measure the force exerted and the position of the finger over time) and then you could try out different x(t) (based on F(t)) to answer this question. It hasn't been done already?

[pts1]

Ax is correct. Anyone who thinks anything other than speed of key descent effects sound is simply wrong.

These delusions of arm waving, inspired glances,  excessive movements, force, imagery, etc., effecting the sound are also the reason very few ever attain a professional technique.

The basic secret is the quickness of the finger playing on the key. End of story.

Here's a different video addressing subject a bit more scientifically.

[pianoplayer002]

Ax is correct. Anyone who thinks anything other than speed of key descent effects sound is simply wrong.

These delusions of arm waving, inspired glances,  excessive movements, force, imagery, etc., effecting the sound are also the reason very few ever attain a professional technique.

The basic secret is the quickness of the finger playing on the key. End of story.

Here's a different video addressing subject a bit more scientifically.

Not quite. Remember that if you hit the keys with a stiff arm (or hit the piano in general) there will be an additional resonance caused by the impact that also affects beauty of tone. At the moment the hammer is sent flying it is going at the same speed but how you impact the piano or keybed will also affect tone.

[hardy_practice]

For once I agree with our resident redneck!

[pts1]

Not quite. Remember that if you hit the keys with a stiff arm (or hit the piano in general) there will be an additional resonance caused by the impact that also affects beauty of tone. At the moment the hammer is sent flying it is going at the same speed but how you impact the piano or keybed will also affect tone.

Well, I suppose this is true.. i.e. non-music related sounds interfering with the sound of the vibrating string, including but not limited to squeaking piano benches due to wiggly bottoms, coughing from the audience, cell phones going off, and humming by the pianist.

But why would you want to hurt yourself whacking the key so hard you make a "thunk" against the key bed? It -- the key bed -- ain't gonna yield, you realize, and will win that battle in the end.

Since the static touch weight of the key is about 50 grams, then I'd guess sufficient finger speed to generate kinetic energy roughly twice this, would result in a nice piano to mezzo forte volume.

But that's just a guess, because the physics gets really complex at this point.

If you want a good answer on that -- velocity, mass, speed, weight of finger, kinetic energy, overcoming friction, etc -- then Nyiregyhazi is your man!

[pianoplayer002]

Well, I suppose this is true.. i.e. non-music related sounds interfering with the sound of the vibrating string, including but not limited to squeaking piano benches due to wiggly bottoms, coughing from the audience, cell phones going off, and humming by the pianist.

But why would you want to hurt yourself whacking the key so hard you make a "thunk" against the key bed? It -- the key bed -- ain't gonna yield, you realize, and will win that battle in the end.

I'm not talking about big forces here - play fortissimo octaves with stiff wrists and it will be enough. Not everyone who plays knows how to be completely free or aren't completely free even when they think they are. Try for yourself if you have access to a grand, press down the pedal and knock anywhere on the wood.

I don't view these sounds as non music related because they are a direct byproduct of how you press down the keys, i e work your craft as a musician, compared to humming , piano benches, coughing etc. The piano bench squeaking is annoying but doesn't directly interfere with the vibration of the strings.

[pts1]

Music32

I watched/listened to you play on your website, and your playing is very musical, expressive and clean.

Also I notice you employ a great deal of what I'd call "expressive gestures" of the hands, wrists, arms.

Though one could say they appropriately follow the phrasing of your playing, they really would be a hindrance were the tempos of the pieces presented faster.

For instance, if you were to play the A minor Invention at twice the speed you present (which is imminently doable) you'd find it not possible to perform using all the expressive gestures you employ.

I also notice that in the Chopin Waltz, when the little fast trill like turns occur, you no longer employ large gestures, but your fingers are right on the keys very quickly and cleanly playing these motifs.

Also, it would not be possible to play the Opus 10 number 2 Chopin etude using the gestures you employ.

IMO, Chopin wrote this as a challenge that forces the player able to perform this up to speed, to adhere to ONLY the necessities of sound production, and all others will simply fail.

Same is true of the first etude and the one in thirds and most of the others in varying degrees..i.e. not being able to "get away with" excessive movement.

You are enjoyable to listen to and you seem like an excellent and devoted teacher.

All the best.

[dima_76557]

Ax is correct.

Nope, he's not.

To find out that there is more than Ax thinks there is, one should simply listen to a lot of music for four hands on one piano (play with different partners is even a better option!), especially by pianists who don't "go well together". Let's take, for example Schubert's famous Fantasy in F minor by Radu Lupu and Murray Perahia:

Can you spot who's who and why one makes beautiful rich fortes and the other one ugly, metallic ones on the same instrument?

[goldentone]

Let's take, for example Schubert's famous Fantasy in F minor by Radu Lupu and Murray Perahia:

Can you spot who's who and why one makes beautiful rich fortes and the other one ugly, metallic ones on the same instrument?

The Fantasy in F Minor.  Great piece, Dima.  I downloaded the Lupu-Perahia rendition and was disappointed.  I recommend my immortal-vintage Eschenbach-Frantz on EMI.  There's only one other performance that would be more sublime.

I do not agree with Ax's contention that how you strike a note does not create any difference.  

[pts1]

Can you spot who's who and why one makes beautiful rich fortes and the other one ugly, metallic ones on the same instrument?

Hmmmm.... you're sort of proving the point that the only thing the pianist can control is the speed of the key descent.

The one making "ugly" sounds on the same piano would be the one using excessive or inappropriate force related to the other player.

I assume you are familiar with the Diskclavier, which can faithfully reproduce any pianist playing it.

How would you explain if this pair recorded the Schubert on a Diskclavier and it faithfully played back the performance, 100% exactly as it was played by the humans?

[nyiregyhazi]

There is no question of stopping key hitting keybed at anything other than pp. The issue is HOW the key lands on the keybed and how much energy is still travelling. When using big arm drops like rubinstein, I reverse the direction of arm movement a split second before producing tone. The hand continues in motion from the wrist and the fingers generate movement. This produces plenty of key speed without piling the whole mass of the arm into the collision. But there's a world of difference between landing with less momentum at the point of impact, compared to the myth that you can actually slow down the key and duck out of even landing it. Continuing the arm into impact makes a louder noise with more energy. Of course it's possible to vary this independently of key speed. It would be madness to assume otherwise.

[pts1]

Here's something for your listening Pleasure

Glenn Gould: Goldberg Variations (1955 performance)

[dima_76557]

Hmmmm.... you're sort of proving the point that the only thing the pianist can control is the speed of the key descent.

What you do or don't do with acceleration seems to be the key, not the desire to control speed of key descent. Lupu has a more "lazy" approach to making tone and that's what gives better tone results. Instead of trying too hard to "control speed of key descent" as Perahia seems to be (over-)doing constantly, one should let go and let the instrument play itself. Of course, you need the flexibilty (both mental and physical) of a Radu Lupu to pull it off.
P.S.: Radu Lupu is a Neuhaus student as you may know, one of the few left who still believe that "touch" really exists and that are ready to put years of work in to acquire it.

[pianoplayer002]

What you do or don't do with acceleration seems to be the key, not the desire to control speed of key descent. Lupu has a more "lazy" approach to making tone and that's what gives better tone results. Instead of trying too hard to "control speed of key descent" as Perahia seems to be (over-)doing constantly, one should let go and let the instrument play itself. Of course, you need the flexibilty (both mental and physical) of a Radu Lupu to pull it off.
P.S.: Radu Lupu is a Neuhaus student as you may know, one of the few left who still believe that "touch" really exists and that are ready to put years of work in to acquire it.

What do you think of Perahia's tone in general, especially in more recent recordings of his?

[pts1]

What you do or don't do with acceleration seems to be the key, not the desire to control speed of key descent.

I mean what's really the difference?

Since the player can only make the key go down, descent is a given regardless of what one does, so we can throw that out of your statement and restate it as:

"What you do or don't do with acceleration seems to be the key, not the desire to control speed."

Is the discussion now about the difference of "doing or not doing with acceleration" VS "speed control"

As a practical matter they seem one in the same.

Acceleration is the velocity of an object changes over time, according to Wikipedia, and speed is
the speed of an object is the magnitude of its velocity (the rate of change of its position)

Since the key moves only about 3/8ths of an inch and only 1/4 of an inch (or so) is responsible for sound production, i.e. the jack pushing up against the hammer knuckle and then sliding off (escapement), as a practical matter velocity and speed from an on-the-key approach of playing the piano are roughly identical.

IOW, your finger has reached maximum velocity  by the time it has descended 1/4 inch, and anything more (i.e. deeper toward the key bed) is for naught.

BTW, what did you think of the Glenn Gould recording?

[dima_76557]

I mean what's really the difference?

Up to now, science has told us that more hammer speed gives louder noise (tone and touch don't exist, remember?) and that's it. That is not true and new scientific experiments are warranted to prove that that is not the end of the story. You can actually get a greater richer forte by slowing down acceleration (!) and using mass instead and your forte will be huge while with acceleration only the tone will be harsh or even worse - dead.

BTW, what did you think of the Glenn Gould recording?

It's not Gould. Obviously, they reworked a recording by Gould and killed the spirit of the artist himself.

[pts1]

You can actually get a greater richer forte by slowing down acceleration (!) and using mass instead and your forte will be huge while with acceleration only the tone will be harsh or even worse - dead.

You're confusing your "perception" of being slower when you are really playing faster, but with larger muscles and greater leverage. The key speed is faster but it feels slower.

So you think the Diskclavier kills "the spirit".

I'm a science kind of person, not a spirit/mystical type, so I disagree with you.

Also, no recording, be it digital or otherwise, is truly "the" pianist, since the conditions are different, and the sound we hear on a record is removed several times from the original having been heard by artificial ears (microphones) and edited for various factors.

However, having said this, the Diskclavier gives the truest representation of the artist since hearing the Diskclavier in person is like hearing the artist, since it is the identical key movements of the artist reproduced accurately and scientifically. (Though were the artist playing the piano on which the Disklavier is installed, the pianist might make spontaneous adjustments due to the unique sound of the particular instrument)

If indeed you did listen to the recording, the playing is unmistakably Gould, and the difference might be the piano, since its a modern Yamaha and not Gould's Steinway of nearly 60 years ago.

Nevertheless, I think we are done here.

Have a nice day.

[pianoplayer002]

stuff

The Disklavier still won't reproduce the additional resonance, the cause of "dead" tone, that stiff joints impacting the piano produce.

[nyiregyhazi]

I mean what's really the difference?

Since the player can only make the key go down, descent is a given regardless of what one does, so we can throw that out of your statement and restate it as:

"What you do or don't do with acceleration seems to be the key, not the desire to control speed."

Is the discussion now about the difference of "doing or not doing with acceleration" VS "speed control"

As a practical matter they seem one in the same.

Acceleration is the velocity of an object changes over time, according to Wikipedia, and speed is
the speed of an object is the magnitude of its velocity (the rate of change of its position)

Since the key moves only about 3/8ths of an inch and only 1/4 of an inch (or so) is responsible for sound production, i.e. the jack pushing up against the hammer knuckle and then sliding off (escapement), as a practical matter velocity and speed from an on-the-key approach of playing the piano are roughly identical.

IOW, your finger has reached maximum velocity  by the time it has descended 1/4 inch, and anything more (i.e. deeper toward the key bed) is for naught.

BTW, what did you think of the Glenn Gould recording?

You can't use the fact that various factors haven't occurred to you as a basis for anything. It's easy to say that there's no possibility of a difference when you only give consideration to factors in which there really is no difference. But it's the ones you haven't even considered that explain the difference, so you really need to investigate them before coming to any conclusions.

On the level of a simple analogy, any golfer or cricketer knows that simply trying to swing a club or bat as fast as possible will not yield the greatest distance, unless the pacing of acceleration is properly carried out. Get too fast too soon and it doesn't work. Pacing of acceleration matters and this is utterly beyond question for anyone who has played such sports. Ditto for tennis.

If you want to know the particular reasons why there's so much more than a keyspeed, read this post:

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

and the follow-up (which also details why differences in the quality of movement affect how much margin of error there is in terms of the intensity of the tone produced).

[nyiregyhazi]

However, having said this, the Diskclavier gives the truest representation of the artist since hearing the Diskclavier in person is like hearing the artist, since it is the identical key movements of the artist reproduced accurately and scientifically. (Though were the artist playing the piano on which the Disklavier is installed, the pianist might make spontaneous adjustments due to the unique sound of the particular instrument)

If that is true, firstly it needs to be played back on the same instrument. And every key stroke must be reproduced with the exact same PACING of acceleration (so the hammer speed is matched correctly at every individual split second of its flight). I'm not aware as to whether there's any evidence that this is the case. Certainly not in Zenph recordings, although I cannot pass comment on those recorded direct into the instrument.

[nyiregyhazi]

You can actually get a greater richer forte by slowing down acceleration (!) and using mass instead and your forte will be huge while with acceleration only the tone will be harsh or even worse - dead.

As pts says, this is very unlikely to be a literal truth. The speed achieved by the finger tip is the only one that counts. Mass will not produce good acceleration unless the hand is either rigid or expanding. In fact, mass frequently collapses the hand (unless it is in the act of expansion)- moving the knuckle faster than the key- which means the bulk of the energy will actually hit the keybed as an aftershock, rather than pass into acceleration of the key. There are ways to reduce impact at identical levels of acceleration in the key, but there's no replacement for the acceleration itself.

It can be said with near objective certainty that situation in which mass is attributed to replacing accleration, this is nothing but an illusion. Mass can create acceleration, but it has no magical properties that will replace it. If the movement looks and feels strangely slow, it's because movement is being passed on more efficiently and in a way where the fingertip separates out and reaches the fastest speed (without the whole arm having to jam down into movement at that same faster speed). In fact, it's only by stopping the momentum of the arm from crashing down as an after shock, that armweight technique really works. Only by lightening up the arm a split second BEFORE the key is being moved (not after, as the popular myth claims) can you achieve the effortless feeling, if you employ big arm gestures. When the whole arm piles in, it sure doesn't feel slow or effortless.

Anyway, the underlying principles about the differences in how energy/speed passes to a key are explained in full in the post I linked before, with diagrams. They illustrate the objective certainty of how what I term "positive movement" and "negative movement" play a collosal role in determining the difference between efficient transfer of speed and very wasteful transfer with a crash landing.

[pts1]

But it's the ones you haven't even considered that explain the difference, so you really need to investigate them before coming to any conclusions.

I understand that there's a difference between velocity and speed (terminal speed)

Like someone jumping out of an airplane, a few seconds pass before the velocity reaches the terminal velocity of 32ft per second, as I recall, and then the aren't going to go any faster, if I remember correctly.

Sure the finger will "speed up" before the hammer knuckle "flies" the hammer head into the string, and I assume that when the jack pushes past the knuckle, the hammer is at terminal velocity.

I don't know if anyone has measured ONLY the speed of the hammer head when it hits the string and if acceleration is a factor or if its already going as fast as possible (like a golf club at the moment it contacts the ball)

Nevertheless, even if this is not true, we are talking about very, very small distances with the correctly trained pianist playing primarily from the key spending most effort for the quarter of an inch so in descent, then allowing muscle activity to cease allowing the key to lift itself and the finger back up into a playing position.

Be this as it may, the ear  is the final arbiter for any adjustments be they velocity or terminal speed, for the pianist who is employing correct mechanics, IMO.

[nyiregyhazi]

I understand that there's a difference between velocity and speed (terminal speed)

Not one that matters here. Velocity is defined as being specific to a direction, whereas a speed doesn't have to be. It's a pretty irrelevant technicality here (although a fast speed that gives the key a glancing blow will produces a smaller velocity in the direction that matters, than its actual speed)

I don't know if anyone has measured ONLY the speed of the hammer head when it hits the string and if acceleration is a factor or if its already going as fast as possible (like a golf club at the moment it contacts the ball)

Actually, a golf club quite possibly shouldn't be (and I don't believe that anyone could ever reach terminal velocity- which would be a point where air resistance is too great for any further acceleration to be possible).The art of passing on acceleration is not to be too fast too soon. You must have room to INCREASE acceleration when you encounter the resistance. Otherwise the target escapes too soon (when the thing that accelerates it gets instantly slowed down by resistance) and you apply far less energy within the shortened duration of contact, before it's too late to do any more. See my blog posts for more on this issue, if you're interested in knowing about quite how much scope there is for very notable differences to exist based on pacing. The same is true of finger on key.

Nevertheless, even if this is not true, we are talking about very, very small distances with the correctly trained pianist playing primarily from the key spending most effort for the quarter of an inch so in descent, then allowing muscle activity to cease allowing the key to lift itself and the finger back up into a playing position.

So what? How far does a club stay in contact with a golf ball? I can only estimate but I doubt it's notably longer. A world of difference can be attributed to the pacing of acceleration within that tiny distance.

Be this as it may, the ear  is the final arbiter for any adjustments be they velocity or terminal speed, for the pianist who is employing correct mechanics, IMO.

Well obviously. But it doesn't inform as to the solution, only of the fault. My tastebuds are pretty good at detecting the difference between a turd and a souffle, but they won't tell me anything about how to bake a souffle.

[pts1]

Well obviously. But it doesn't inform as to the solution, only of the fault. My tastebuds are pretty good at detecting the difference between a turd and a souffle, but they won't tell me anything about how to bake a souffle.

Then again, you could have the worst of both worlds -- the turd souffle.

If we can agree that playing from on or very close the the key is generally optimum, with proper body mechanics, then finding the sound you desire will yield to experimentation, aka practice.

I think one can be aware of speed and acceleration, etc., but at the point of fine tuning one's sound, I think this is best left to the more "artistic" processing centers of the brain aided by the feedback loop generated by discriminating hearing.

[pts1]

                Music32.... see what you started? 

[nyiregyhazi]

Then again, you could have the worst of both worlds -- the turd souffle.

If we can agree that playing from on or very close the the key is generally optimum, with proper body mechanics, then finding the sound you desire will yield to experimentation, aka practice.

I think one can be aware of speed and acceleration, etc., but at the point of fine tuning one's sound, I think this is best left to the more "artistic" processing centers of the brain aided by the feedback loop generated by discriminating hearing.

I don't agree with any rules about staying close. I often do, but there are places where it doesn't give the right result. I also believe in the value of mastering the extreme arm drops employed by Rubinstein. I made sure I learned to do this for various passages, even those where I ultimately stay very close.

Also, try making this sound without the r.h. drop:

I don't usually play with drops, but it really works when you use the technique Gilels employs, for a special voicing.

[pts1]

I don't agree with any rules about staying close. I often do, but there are places where it doesn't give the right result. I also believe in the value of mastering the extreme arm drops employed by Rubinstein. I made sure I learned to do this for various passages, even those where I ultimately stay very close.

That's fine, but then I'm of the other mind, and like to stay close, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

[music32]

I wasn't impressed with the Dr. M's (Cedarville U) presentation. His chords seemed to be played very angular. which could have been better rendered with a  supple wrist. He negates "illusions" in playing as well... which is another point of disagreement. If 5 pianists play a Mozart passage in allegro (without pedal), there will be a qualitative tonal difference for each... and much will have to do with shaping and contouring the line. I don't think scientific analyses of piano playing go very far when we're dealing with a subjective, artistic realm.

[nyiregyhazi]

That's fine, but then I'm of the other mind, and like to stay close, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

If you feel all else is banned, yes. Gilels produces wonderful sounds there. I use the same technique for the same style of voicing.

[falala]

Nope, he's not.

To find out that there is more than Ax thinks there is, one should simply listen to a lot of music for four hands on one piano (play with different partners is even a better option!), especially by pianists who don't "go well together". Let's take, for example Schubert's famous Fantasy in F minor by Radu Lupu and Murray Perahia:

Can you spot who's who and why one makes beautiful rich fortes and the other one ugly, metallic ones on the same instrument?

That doesn't make any sense.

There's nothing Ax said, or anyone said upthread, that contradicts the fact that it's possible to play a forte passage of piano music in a way that is either "beautiful" or "metallic".

[pts1]

I wasn't impressed with the Dr. M's (Cedarville U) presentation. His chords seemed to be played very angular. which could have been better rendered with a  supple wrist. He negates "illusions" in playing as well... which is another point of disagreement. If 5 pianists play a Mozart passage in allegro (without pedal), there will be a qualitative tonal difference for each... and much will have to do with shaping and contouring the line. I don't think scientific analyses of piano playing go very far when we're dealing with a subjective, artistic realm.

I think you basically see sound production on the piano more from a broader musician's point of than a pianist's point of view. It seems you love the architecture, ballet, and simulation of bowing instruments as the "illusion" part of the process, and hence given the likely many years you've studied in this vein, perhaps you see merely being able to control key speed/velocity as some form of artistic heresy. 

But I think it is a scientific fact that a single note played on the piano can only be controlled with regard to its duration and loudness. On your blog you have quoted a number of authorities who agree. I would add to this you might be interested in "Famous Pianists and Their Technique" in which Reginal Gehrig talks of not only famed pianists, but references the genuine scientists who exhaustively studied piano/pianists and sound production, i.e. Otto Ortman: "The Physical Basis of Touch and Tone", and Arnold Schultz: "The Riddle of the Pianist's Finger". 

These two musical scientists have thoroughly put the issue to bed regarding what the pianist can and cannot control.

I realize this is crude compared to what can be done with a single violin note, or human voice, but it is nevertheless how this percussive instrument is constructed. Having said this, it has much more potential than either the violin or solo unaccompanied voice, which is why it remains the most popular and challenging of instruments, IMO.

Here is a Glenn Gould recording of the A Minor Invention, and at this speed you can well imagine there is little in the way of the type of movement you like.

This is not to say anything is "wrong" with what you are doing, but necessity is a different issue.

All the best

[pianoplayer002]

I think you basically see sound production on the piano more from a broader musician's point of than a pianist's point of view. It seems you love the architecture, ballet, and simulation of bowing instruments as the "illusion" part of the process, and hence given the likely many years you've studied in this vein, perhaps you see merely being able to control key speed/velocity as some form of artistic heresy. 

But I think it is a scientific fact that a single note played on the piano can only be controlled with regard to its duration and loudness. On your blog you have quoted a number of authorities who agree. I would add to this you might be interested in "Famous Pianists and Their Technique" in which Reginal Gehrig talks of not only famed pianists, but references the genuine scientists who exhaustively studied piano/pianists and sound production, i.e. Otto Ortman: "The Physical Basis of Touch and Tone", and Arnold Schultz: "The Riddle of the Pianist's Finger". 

These two musical scientists have thoroughly put the issue to bed regarding what the pianist can and cannot control.

I realize this is crude compared to what can be done with a single violin note, or human voice, but it is nevertheless how this percussive instrument is constructed. Having said this, it has much more potential than either the violin or solo unaccompanied voice, which is why it remains the most popular and challenging of instruments, IMO.

Here is a Glenn Gould recording of the A Minor Invention, and at this speed you can well imagine there is little in the way of the type of movement you like.

This is not to say anything is "wrong" with what you are doing, but necessity is a different issue.

All the best

You are still ignoring the fact that a pianist with bad tone will produce additional "ugly" resonance in the instrument when striking the key, while a pianist with good tone won't.

[pts1]

You are still ignoring the fact that a pianist with bad tone will produce additional "ugly" resonance in the instrument when striking the key, while a pianist with good tone won't.

No, I'm not ignoring it. I acknowledge that this is so if I understand you correctly.

Its just that I think the conversation is about sound control, not ugly sounds.

[pianoplayer002]

No, I'm not ignoring it. I acknowledge that this is so if I understand you correctly.

Its just that I think the conversation is about sound control, not ugly sounds.

Isn't controlling your tone to be beautiful a part of sound control?

On the other hand, if you assume the playing apparatus is perfectly supple throughout the entire movement, then yes, I'll agree that the tone will not be any different regardless what movement you employ, as long as the speed of the key at the moment of hammer release is the same. But this seems like we're getting into pedantery - if you do this assumption that technique has been perfected, then what's interesting is what you do with voicing, pedals, and so forth, no?

[j_menz]

But this seems like we're getting into pedantery

Or even pedantry. 

[dima_76557]

You're confusing your "perception" of being slower when you are really playing faster, but with larger muscles and greater leverage. The key speed is faster but it feels slower.

No. All you (and anybody else who is serious about this) have to do is put on wrist weights and use your ears to see what happens to how the instrument reacts. Better do it with somebody else in the room present too so you'll know it's not subjective. You may even blindfold your witness. The result of this experiment will also be the end of all discussions and arguments here.

So you think the Diskclavier kills "the spirit".

I'm a science kind of person, not a spirit/mystical type, so I disagree with you.

Yes. The recording has changed the perception of rhythm or this Diskclavier is simply unable to produce human rhythm among other factors, and rhythm/timing is one of the main components in touch and tone.

[nyiregyhazi]

No. All you (and anybody else who is serious about this) have to do is put on wrist weights and use your ears to see what happens to how the instrument reacts. Better do it with somebody else in the room present too so you'll know it's not subjective. You may even blindfold your witness. The result of this experiment will also be the end of all discussions and arguments here.

This example doesn't actually work. Firstly, innate mass cannot be changed except by doing exactly that- putting external mass on the arm. So there's nothing a pianist can do while playing to directly simulate that addition. Secondly, the benefits usually stay rather well after removing the weights, so they are a trigger rather than a necessary ingredient.

What wrist weights do is make it extremely uncomfortable to generate the acceleration from the rear and to collapse the hand while playing from impulse further back. They wake-up the hand, to stop the larger impacts of collapsing under this greater mass and get more movement coming from the business end (ie the finger) rather than from places further back. So the arm is no longer the part that moves fastest but a slower part of the mechanism. This is literal. Yet the fingertip is what moves the the key. The point where fingertip joins with the key goes no slower at all, only the bulky parts which feel ungainly if moving at high-speed on every note. This is why the illusion can be so powerful, but also why the improvement when can remain after removing them, when the arm feels extremely LIGHT. It's not about resting down more but rather engaging the hand from a light but connected arm. Even the best free fall drops require the arm to be lightened split seconds before landing- so the finger expands out through the key without the arm squashing down into impact.


PS in cases where pianists shove the arm fast yet fail to transmit that speed fully to the key, reducing to passive weight will do better (not by giving more but less). Also, in cases where pianists lock the arm then learning to free it will give support to hand action. But it's only by increasing hand action that you generate a reality of keys moving faster than the arm, rather than slower. The fingertip is what moves the key, which is why it's perfectly literal for the arm to accelerate less. But the fact that acceleration comes in the finger action is the true explanation, not the idea that mass replaced acceleration. Just a trace of positive movement (as defined in my blog post) makes a world of difference to the acceleration achieved, compared to just a trace of negative movement (ie collapse) under weight. It defines whether the key is travelling notably faster or slower than the arm- hence the illusions.

[nyiregyhazi]

These two musical scientists have thoroughly put the issue to bed regarding what the pianist can and cannot control.

So you've been through more recent scientific research and debunked it, before going back to very dated work that many have questioned the scientific validity of? Or have you simply taken what seems to confirm the view you already held and decided to stick with that for convenience?

The best way to show tonal difference is to play one note into an open pedal. I believe that virtually all scientists failed to do so. If you read my blog, you'll see the concrete proof of how much scope there is to vary keybed impact at identical hammer energies. It would staggering if this were not reflected in the overtone series with an open pedal. Some studies have found evidence that, as should be expected, it is possible to notably vary the percussion in the resulting sound.

[hardy_practice]

you'll see ... how much scope there is to vary keybed impact at identical hammer energies.

Obviously, but not that any outside observer could tell.

[nyiregyhazi]

Obviously, but not that any outside observer could tell.

Indeed, assuming that the outside observer is both blind and deaf. Eyesight alone tells you how much more impact kissin generates compared to someone like volodos and the difference in the sound is enormous.

[dima_76557]

This example doesn't actually work. Firstly, innate mass cannot be changed except by doing exactly that- putting external mass on the arm. So there's nothing a pianist can do while playing to directly simulate that addition. Secondly, the benefits usually stay rather well after removing the weights, so they are a trigger rather than a necessary ingredient.

The only point I wanted to make using the example of wrist weights is to illustrate that different elements in piano playing can indeed cause different ratios of core tone/overtones (hence different sound quality), audible to even an untrained ear. I am not exactly concerned with the explanation of why this is so, a subject that is over the heads anyway of most of the forum users and even of those scientists who consider the subject closed.

[hardy_practice]

Eyesight alone tells you how much more impact kissin generates compared to someone like volodos and the difference in the sound is enormous.

You, as usual, manage to hear what you want to hear.

[nyiregyhazi]

You, as usual, manage to hear what you want to hear.

There's nothing I like less than people who hit the piano. Why would I want to hear that? I nearly left last time I heard kissin live and only stayed out of pure curiosity.

[nyiregyhazi]

The only point I wanted to make using the example of wrist weights is to illustrate that different elements in piano playing can indeed cause different ratios of core tone/overtones (hence different sound quality), audible to even an untrained ear. I am not exactly concerned with the explanation of why this is so, a subject that is over the heads anyway of most of the forum users and even of those scientists who consider the subject closed.

But it's no different as empirical evidence than hearing a good and a bad pianist play the same piano. It gives nothing that lies outside of the possibility of being accounted for by relativity issues. Much as I believe that there really is the possibility of bad percussive tone, the example cannot in itself satisfy any burden of proof. The thing I object to though is speaking of mass replacing acceleration. This literally impossible. Mass can generate acceleration by falling (which tends to cause impact and squash the hand, unless you lighten the arm fractionally BEFORE reaching the keys-which actually takes mass out of it ) but it cannot produce tone independently of acceleration . Use of weights actually trains LESS use of falling mass and better focus of acceleration into the point where it matters. Some people are lucky to get this right regardless, but it's very easy to attempt to take such subjective impressions literally and fail to succeed. I had forget virtually everything in standard armweight doctrines preach in order to learn how to land softly in the rubinstein style of technique. The key is in the lightening of the arm and activation of the hand during key movement, not in the release of dead mass before that. It's virtually the opposite of what the doctrines say, to make it actually work.

Movements that feel slow but make a big sound are attributable to focusing acceleration into the business end where you meet the key, rather than generating high speeds in the whole arm which don't necessarily make it through to the key until the sound already occurred. This aftershock is what I'm personally sure creates bad tone, but I don't think the example you give satisfies any true burden of incontrovertible proof.

[hardy_practice]

There's nothing I like less than people who hit the piano. Why would I want to hear that?

Because it would confirm the rather dubious theory you wish to hold, duh.

[nyiregyhazi]

Because it would confirm the rather dubious theory you wish to hold, duh.

 Percussive piano offends my my ear, whether I've seen the pianist or not. If you think it's dubious that sending different energy levels into impact (with different types of shock absorbency in a braced or loose arm) leads to different levels of noise effect, I suggest you go back to school. The only people who say nothing can account for a difference in the sound haven't thought through the most basic issues. Most experiments are even so short sighted as to neglect the effect of an open pedal and thus prove literally nothing about playing with raised dampers and the overtone series. Some empirical data has confirmed the expectation that different levels of thud affect the sound.