Yes it does. There are many ways of hitting the keyboard. And it takes years of acquiring that ''touch''. By itself the concept might sound simple. But if you tensely hit it, our modern instruments are great at projecting your touch to sound. So don't fool yourself brah
If, for two strikes of the same note, the speeds are identical, the sound will be identical.
Of course you can touch the keys in many ways:- You can lightly brush them as if you were tickling somebody- You can caress them as you would a cat- You can plough into them as if you were kneading bread- You can make your fingers dance on them like tap dancers- You can stab them and imagine you are planting a knife in your worst enemy- You can drop from a height onto them
Yes. And no.The sound will vary if other strings are open. By varying degrees of use of the damper pedal (or sustenuto pedal. or una corda pedal). Or because they are open for keys that have been pressed or held, or because other keys are played as the sound continues. And it depends on how much other strings may be already vibrating, or what other forces may be acting on them (such as other notes being played and how). These are infinitely variable combinations, and allow for much greater variety of tone than just the note being played itself. There's nothing wrong with the physics as it relates to a single note in complete isolation, just that it doesn't consider all the variables.
Four key elements are voicing (dynamic differences between notes played simultaneously), shaping (the sequence of dynamic differences within a melody), articulation and the use of the pedal.
i found this interesting because it's something i have thought a lot about as well. when i posted various recordings of myself playing a lot of the advice comes in artsy adjectives like "play angrier" and when i say "so should i play it louder or longer" they reply it has nothing to do with that.
Agree with this, but I'd add one other thing - the mechanical noise of the pianist's fingers striking the keys... Latest research seems to suggest that listeners pick up on this (although presumably it depends on their proximity to the piano) and that it can influence their perception of the quality of the tone produced.
Our results suggest that only some musicians are able to distinguish between a struck and a pressed touch using the touch noises as cue, especially the finger–key noise that characterises a struck attack, whereas others could not tell any difference. Without those touch noises none of them could tell a difference anymore. When they could not hear the touch differences, they tend to rate louder tones as being struck, and soft tones as being pressed. We can only speculate about how the present findings generalise to a real-world concert situation (including pedals, reverberation, reflections, and the listener at a certain distance away from the piano). In the light of the present results, we consider the pure aural effect of touch noises (excluding visual and other cues) a rather small one.
Many of the listed things I completely agree, and don't argue, and there's nothing to argue about. However, what is your experience with playing the piano? No offense but you seem like you are giving yourself excuses for not being able to produce diversity in tone. To me tone is the mastery of dynamics, and your simplification of the whole process is not helping no one.
For me, it just really boils down to how strongly you push on the key, and how abruptly you lift your finger from it (duration and intensity). People keep stressing that the keys 'need to be caressed', 'push down to get deeper tones', etc. etc.
Do people still do that?
I don't really know what the allure of 'famous pianists' is to be honest. I don't watch sports either.
But the change is not coming from a particular "touch", it's coming from pedal technique or which other notes are being held.
Hi hardy,I think there are many pianists who use unnecessary moves (of which the "percussive" touch is only one example). Otherwise, neither the study, nor this thread would exist, I think. Perhaps some aspect would be -to justify in a way- one or two unnecessary movements / moves, for example, the (visual) effect on the audience, but since I'm an amateur, I don't know exactly who teaches or where are taught those moves. But they exist. Even famous pianist in my opinion are sometimes annoying to watch.Second aspect to justify -rarely- such moves like "hammering from the air" etc., would be given, in my opinion, when it's the goal to evoke uncontrolled effects, which can be possible. ( "martellato", or other wild instructions known to us) , but if so, then it would be prescribed by composers. What do you think?Cordially, 8_oct!
The Gracious Rhythm of the Body: Chopin, Whiteside, and Expressive Timing Daniel B. Stevens, University of DelawareHow do musicians’ bodies influence the expressive timing of a performance? Building on studies by Rothstein, Pierce, and Hatten, this paper uses the pedagogical principles of Chopin and pianist Abby Whiteside to develop a theory of expressive timing that takes into account what Whiteside called “the gracious and sensitive rhythm in the body.” Whiteside’s method, developed through her study of Chopin’s etudes, explains how to use the body to coordinate physical gestures of different time spans. It also provides a basis for understanding how the body influences expressive timing and how temporal shaping results from a confluence of layered expressive gestures. Thinking of expressive timing as a composite of different gestural layers allows musicians to conceive expressive effects like rubato in a nuanced manner, rather than as a simple push or pull of tempo. Expressive timing can also convey additional shades of meaning, since the physical gestures that shape time may work together or against one another in various ways. This paper considers performances by Whiteside protégé Robert Helps of 11 Chopin’s nouvelle étude in A-flat major and Godowsky’s first study of this etude to explore this generative quality of physical gestures in compositions and their expression.https://societymusictheory.org/sites/default/files/34th_Annual_Meeting_SMT_%282011%29_abstracts.pdf[Godowsky Study 45:https://www.musanim.com/pdf/GodowskyChopinEtude45.pdfhttps://picosong.com/4NYL]
1. ) These expressive movements aren't done because they directly affect tone, but because they affect the spacing and timing between tones, which is an important part of expression. They also allow you to use different physical gestural levels to control multiple layers of music over different times spans, and the longer line. 2. ) You can minimize excessive movements for the sake of good taste, and for fast pieces, they will look minimized such that most people will barely notice them; [...]
Why do I have a feeling that something's missing from this thread?
N hasn't posted since December, that's why.
Hi anamnesis, I read through your post, and I found -in my opinion- the most important aspects being the 2 ones mentioned and I marked them with 1.) and 2.).I'll answer as follows (and, note pls, that the following is rather my opinion, but confirmed since at least 1974 (so the statement of some antecedent poster, that it would be "latest status quo of science" isn't really correct, e.g. the additional sounds of finger-key-impact (and other disadvantages ) were spotted as being no good no later than 1974, too) and, insuper, by e.g. Horowitz. ad 1. ) : All of the (in my opinion: unnecessary) movements can be transformed into the controlled, non-percussive movements, themselves being in the "continuum" of the actual piece. Non-percussive movements allow to control sound better, we can "lead" the key its way downwards form top to bottom (or to the point of escapement, or anywhere we want) and moves which don't contribute to the actual tone production are unnecessary and -in a way- dangerous, I think. They distract the audience, in final instance, and can produce laughter.Wanda said to Vladimir: "Don't make grimaces!" - She was intelligent.Vladimir, somewhen, said: "I never do this: " [making grimaces]. He added: "Feelings should go THERE, and nowhere else." [pointing on his fingers](In case you know about the interview(s) given and published on TV, years ago, at their house).ad 2. ) : You can minimize them for slow pieces, too, I think. But speaking of all pieces: Furthermore, in my opinion we'll have to differentiate between "normal" pieces, ( up to Ondine, etc), and pieces, which were especially composed, IN MY OPINION (!), to IMPEDE a ) the existing, easily learnable grasping-patterns and to make them (consciously (!!! ) , from the "composers" "point of view) inapplicable, and, additionally, b ) to demand the - not recommendable - ( Horowitz e.al.) percussive use of the piano. I dislike such pieces - as, seemingly, do others (including Horowitz).And, concluding (since I don't seem to know more), I would say:We should orientate ourselves on the BEST. Horowitz, Michelangeli, Cziffra, Petri (as recorded by lore), Gieseking (as recorded by lore), Haskil (as recorded by lore), Gould, Gulda and others. Some of them we can watch AND listen to.They avoid unnecessary movements / moves, and so should we., in my opinion.But your answer was interesting and, in a way, revealing, @anamnesis! Thank you for that, andcordially, 8_octaves! PS.: @Gould: We all know about his "conducting" moves, and his "singing". But I added him in full consciousness, since he is an exception.
Yeh, an early Xmas present.
I know you had your disagreements with him and that he liked to debate every little point, but I still always found his points worthwhile to read even if I didn't always quite agree.
You must have had a lot of time on your hands!
I strongly disagree. Just one example to prove you wrong. - Today I was working with a pupil on a little Etude, which requires jumping thirds over octave-distances - piano and staccato. The instrument was an e-piano; so there were no chords involded; no pedal was used either. She was doing quite well and accurately but with angular-shaped motions of hand and wrist, a little anxious not to move away from the keys too much. I encouraged her to move her hand more "elegantly", more relaxed and - in arcs. When she did - she's a talented pupil, often able to implement my advices instantly - the sound of the jumping thirds immediately improved; it gained more clearness and subtlety in addition to a vivid rhythmical quality. We both agreed that the sound or 'tone' was much better than before.
I understand that a highly experienced master is capable of producing some very good 'singing'/cantabile tones, but in my opinion it has nothing at all to do with the 'texture' of the striking of the key.For me, it just really boils down to how strongly you push on the key, and how abruptly you lift your finger from it (duration and intensity). People keep stressing that the keys 'need to be caressed', 'push down to get deeper tones', etc. etc.Don't you all just think this is a matter of how fast and how loud? Really. I can't think of how the manner in which a mallet striking a string can be interpreted in too many ways.
Perhaps some aspect would be -to justify in a way- one or two unnecessary movements / moves, for example, the (visual) effect on the audience, but since I'm an amateur, I don't know exactly who teaches or where are taught those moves. But they exist. Even famous pianist in my opinion are sometimes annoying to watch.
So yes: do work on relaxation, fluidity of movement, etc. But don't expect those terribly expressive arm movements to actually alter the timbre of the instrument. You need to know what you can really influence and what you can't. Listen, listen and listen again to what is actually coming out of the piano.
I agree. "Expressive" arm movements won't do the trick. But what I mean is something different. You can alter the tone by deciding which parts of your arms you use and which you keep relaxed or passive when you strike the keys. You can play forte by piercing your fingers into the keys (with a stiffened wrist); you will get a 'hard' or even 'harsh' tone. Or you can rest your fingers on the keys before you give them a quick impulse with your extensor muscle of your upper arm; the tone will be loud, too, but softer and richer in color. - This is just a rough example, but I think it's stating an undeniable fact.
When you're actually playing, there are many grades and differences in how you "strike" the keys - mostly made involuntarily and influenced by your musical imagination - that can and will alter the tone of the instrument. The differences can be so big that a listener may have the impression that two pianists who play one after another on the same piano are actually playing on different instruments. I experienced this so often that personal 'tone' is a provable fact to me; no myth involved there.
If you play the same note with the same dynamic level, it will have the same tone colour. This is an undeniable fact. There is a tiny difference between sound produced by the two types of touch you mention: the small percussive sound produced by the finger hitting the key (present in the first case, absent in the second). If you listen carefully for it, it is possible to hear (not all listeners can hear it), but it's tiny in relation to the sound of the actual note, produced by the hammer hitting the string, which is strictly identical for an identical dynamic level. Anybody who pretends that this minute difference is responsible for the difference between a "harsh" tone and a "richer" one is grasping at straws. There's a controlled study of this here.Yes, two pianists can sound very different when playing actual music. What you are hearing, however, is not an actual difference in tone colour. You're hearing the way they shape the phrases, the way they bring out (or not) a melody against an accompaniment, how much dynamic contrast they use between two successive passages, the way they articulate, the way they use micro-rubato, the way they use the pedal... Your brain translates all this into differences in timbre.
What do you mean by "other strings being open"?
He's talking about other strings not being damped, thus being able to resonate sympathetically. A single note will have a different timbre if all the other strings can resonate sympathetically (damper pedal down), or if only the strings without dampers can resonate (damper pedal up), or if some particular combination of strings have the dampers lifted (fingers holding down other notes silently or certain notes being held with the sostenuto pedal).
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=4161.msg38677#msg38677See post 18 in the thread I linked. It contradicts what michael_c says in this thread. I'm surprised, as I believe what michael_c says, yet I know from reading xvimbi's posts that he's got lots of valuable advice to give. Would I be saying that this one time, xvimbi is wrong?
Just try to play beautifully and work toward the sounds/effects you want, and don't worry about the rest
I do not believe in a single beautiful tone on the piano. Tone on the piano can only be beautiful in the right place—that is, in relation to other tones. You or I, or the man in the street, who knows nothing about music, may each touch a piano key, and that key will sound the same, whoever moves it, from the nature of the instrument. A beautiful tone may result when two or more notes are played successively, through their difference of intensity, which gives variety.
Now the singer or the violinist can make a single tone on his instrument beautiful through variety; for it is impossible for him to make even one tone which does not have shades of variation in it, however slight they may be, which render it expressive. But you cannot do this on the piano: you cannot color a single tone; but you can do this with a succession of tones, through their difference, through their relation to each other.
The frequent trouble is that piano teachers and players generally do not understand their instrument. A singer understands his, a violinist, flutist or drummer knows his, but not a pianist. As he only has keys to put down and they are right under his hand, he does not bother himself further. To obviate this difficulty, for those who come to me, I have had this complete model of piano-key mechanism made. You see I can touch the key in a variety of ways, and the results will be different each time. It is necessary for the pianist to look into his instrument, learn its construction, and know what happens inside when he touches a key.
[...] Well I challenge any one of you to play this C on this piano with this intensity and try to change the tone color somehow. ( I'm not counting the use of pedal. ) Of course it's impossible. And there are many pianists who will be devastated by this news; there is still today [1974] the widespread belief in some kind of miraculous "touch". The famous English theoretician and teacher Matthay spoke continually of "sympathetic" and "nonsympathetic" tones. The late Philipp ( who wrote many exercises ) affirmed that well-padded fingertips produce a better tone than lean, bony fingertips. ( Yet nothing can be leaner than this pencil which produces a nice enough tone when I press the key with it. ) So how is it possible that Gieseking sounds better than a bad pianist? [...]As soon as we press the key it becomes a moving body which possesses three properties: Direction, mass, and speed. The direction and the mass are given; the only thing we can influence, as I have said, is the speed with which we move the key down its three-eights of an inch. Of course you can move it starting slowly and accelerating, or vice versa, or with a continuus, steady speed; the advocates of a "sympathetic" tone affirm that we can produce a beautiful tone if we bring the string in vibration by a gradual strike. But see what happens.When we press the key down the three-eights of an inch, the hammer goes through a distance about four times as big; this means the hammer moves four times as fast as the key and is also now subject to the laws established for a moving body. The intensity of sound depends on the amplitude of vibration of the string, which, as I have said, depends solely on the force with which it is struck. For practical purposes we may say that the force of a moving body is equal to the mass multiplied by the velocity.Now to put the string into vibration gradually it would be necessary for the hammer, after it first reaches the string, to get additional force. Where would it get this force? Once the hammer reaches the string it is no more in contact with the rest of the action; this hopper lifts the hammer to about one-eighth of an inch below the string, and the rest of the way the hammer makes by itself, so there is no physical possibility to influence the hammer after it has left the hopper, this little thing that makes it tick. Its force must decrease because of the elasticity of its felt and the string's resistance.A violinist, of course, can influence the quality of his tone because [...]
Yes, you can view the piano as a sort of "black box": you play the keys here and sound comes out here. Some wonderful pianists have indeed functioned like this, but it's certainly not the most efficient way of proceeding. I'll leave you with these quotes from Harold Bauer, one of the greatest pianists of the first half of the 20th century:(from Piano Mastery: Talks with Master Pianists and Teachers by Harriette Brower