In classical mechanics, velocity is measured relative to a particular inertial frame. Acceleration is an absolute quantity.This is common knowledge to anyone who has studied physics, but if you want a reference you can see for instance in the New World Encyclopedia:
. . . once the accelerating force is no longer there, the object simply continues with the same velocity. This is as true for a piano hammer as it is for a rock. So it doesn't matter that Newton didn't write anything explicitly about grand pianos. A grand piano is still subject to the laws of mechanics.
Hi michael_c,And what does this have to do with grand piano tone production?In Debussy's writings on how to play his piano music and how to achieve the desired effects, he doesn't talk about classical mechanics, fluid mechanics, or any other such category of mechanics.Horowitz, as well, was mute on these subjects.
Hi michael_c,The last time I checked on it, grand piano hammers decelerate past the point of escapement - the velocity does not continue unchanged.You might want to reread your copy of Newton. Or else get a better edition/translation.
Once more, I'm not interested in silly games. Of course the hammer is subject to deceleration due to the force of gravity and the force of friction. Since these forces do not change and we cannot influence them, their effect is always the same.
What Debussy of Horowitz may or may not have said is of no relevance to the subject under discussion.
I hate to be a true pedant
I'm not interested in silly games.
They [Horowitz and Debussy] can be quoted on the very subject which is under discussion, so how is what they said not relevant?
I also am not interested in silly games, so why then are you playing them with me here in this forum by citing Newton dogmatically is if everything about grand piano tone production can be figured out from that one source and without any need for further research or additional resources?
One suspects you quite enjoy it. That said, have you ever played a piano not in your frame? Inertial, rotating or otherwise?
Spot on!No, never tried to play a piano in any other frame, as I find it all sufficiently challenging (even at my humble level) with everything in the same inertial frame.
Perhaps it would be helpful to read, then, WHAT de Bussy said, @Michael_sayers? And as far as Horowitz is referred to, he - at least - talked a ) about the PEDAL, which gives us, as also the teacher I quoted said, the chance to mix tones for a millisecond or other timespans, opening a whole world of color, AND b ) he, of course, was of the opinion that some movements aren't appropriate for piano playing: He didn't like percussive touch, for example.So, "mute" isn't directly, what he was. Furthermore, he said in an interview ( I mentioned that in another thread a while ago ) , that feelings shouldn't go into the pianists' face-muscles, but into his fingers.___________First, Newton's laws and other physical laws ARE, unfortunately, dogmas and laws. And as such they have to be accepted, until human beings are able to avoid them / make them null.If something is based on reliable laws of nature, it's a good basis to build on. And further research has taken place, Michael. Remember the teacher, and his sleepless nights. What I don't understand ( but I cannot understand very much of this world, perhaps ), , is: If you haven't anything AGAINST the fact that tone color - after a certain point - isn't controllable, Michael: Then, why - and what - are you a ) discussing, and b ) what is your clear standpoint ?Vague names, which "somewhen have said something" don't help. ( Since even the great de Bussy cannot be called the "mega-master of piano playing". There were others, who easily would outmaneuvre him and his techniques, I think. But that's only subjectively. Perhaps, dear Michael_sayers, could you make your standpoint clear here in this discussion, and give clear quotations by a ) teachers, b ) pianists and c ) composers, and d ) scientists, then, if possible, to harden whatever your standpoint is ? That's necessary here, because the topic is important, I would say.Cordial greetings from 8_octaves!
Hi Eldergeek,What is needed to resolve pianistic challenges is a sufficient knowledge of Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica which - though it dates from the 17th century - is, I assure you, highly relevant. If you don't believe me, just ask michael_c. Mvh,Michael
I can assure you that I know exactly what is in Newton's Principia (in English and the original Latin) and can also assure everyone here that almost all of it is totally irrelevant for any arguments about tone production on a piano. You may also rest assured that this will be my last ever contribution to this thread
I think, we should listen to some friendly music, inbetween. Then, discussions will stay friendly, too, I think. Hmm, btw.: does anybody perhaps know the name of the piece the Lady is performing in the video ? I like it very much!! ....Cordially, 8_octaves!
The tone will stay completely unimpressed by these unnecessary movements.
Hi 8_octaves,This is, as I am sure you know, a Scott Joplin rag. He wrote so many of them that I don't remember all the titles, and, to make matters worse, it has been about ten years since I looked through them. I wish I had the music here to check on it.I quite enjoyed the video, and her totally at ease and nervousness-free playing on the quasi-antique Bösendorfer!Mvh,Michael
First I thought, the piece the Lady ( who is very good at typewriting, and at recording masterclass-lessons of teachers on audio-tapes, too ) is playing is a little bit "newer" / more "modern" than the Joplin-works. And that perhaps the Lady ( without whom it would have been impossible to - in written form - quote the teacher I quoted here sometimes ) had composed it herself. Since the Lady is a composer, too!
I have greatly enjoyed reading those thoughtful and intelligent quotes from the mysterious teacher: many thanks for taking the trouble to add them to this discussion. Is there much more that could be quoted? Is there any chance that these writings could be published?
Hi michael_c,and I, in the same manner, enjoyed very much your approach, and your thoughtful writings here.So I will lead you to the teacher now ( unless not everybody has spotted him yet ).But let me, finally, add some words myself - I hope I don't disturb jknott's question and further discussion about the bandwith theorem / pulse duration too much.The most important lessons he gave have been recorded on tape by the Lady you all saw in the video linked above: Elinor Armer. She was his student, and she also typewrote the lessons.I estimate there are TWO versions of the typewritten material. One of 1974, which I have, in original, because my friend from the USA, who ALSO was student of Elinor Armer's teacher, gave it to me as a present. He just asked me whether I wanted the material - I said "yes". And he sent it via airmail.Check out the Lady on WP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Armer and follow the link to her PIANO-teacher. There, you will find the data of the PUBLISHED version of the material ( from 1984 ) . Its title is slightly different from my version.1984: A comprehensive approach to the piano.1974: ( my version ): Eleven Lectures on Technique of Practicing, Playing and Teaching Piano 120 pages. typewritten. Loose leaves, ring-bound by hand.What I don't know, is, in which points the versions would differ. I have spoken about that problem with an accomplished piano professor on another place, but to a clear result he / I havent come either But what I know, is, that the 1974-version probably is very very rare, because, NORMALLY, only the direct students of the teacher got it, and since I'm not a direct student of him, but an "exception", because I got it from my FRIEND, who was his student, but not "in common sense" my teacher ( since we only met online for many years, and sent post-packages "over the ocean" with infos, hints, tips, and material, and wrote many e-mails ) , I only can rely on this 1974-version, when quoting him here. The 1984-version I will not try to get. Seems difficult, as well, even if published. ( Arif Press , as you can see ).And at last, a little "warning" may be appropriate: As I already pointed out, these lectures, which are - and contain - HIGHLY developed material, contain ideas which for many "schools" are NOT WELCOME, because they can endanger whole (insufficient) concepts existing and taught for centuries. The lectures by the mentioned teacher, who was Petri's student and friend, are, thus, kind of "hermetic", and can be seen as "Last Resort" against unreasonable nonsense. Seldomly you will find people on the web, like myself, who quote from the lectures, because most of them who own the valuable writings, are seemingly of the opinion, that they are more valuable if NOBODY knows about them except the owners.. .But since my friend - and I, too, - are of a different opinion, - as far as I am concerned, I think: "Information is a rare good: It increases its value, getting bigger, if shared." - I sometimes quote from them.People who are interested in the material, should try to get the 1984 versions somehow. Or, if they know somebody, try to get the 1974 version, too and COMPARE them!But, again: The ideas in the lectures can - and will - lead to hatred by some traditional "schools". That's what we have to include in our thoughts. But the ideas can be of VERY much help, too, and some people will like them very much, too.My friend from the US, who gave me the lectures' 1974-version, perhaps his OWN specimen (!!), might have thought, that they would fit my OWN approaches very nicely, because, he knew, that I was self-taught ( autodidact ), but was of the opinion, that I got very far. So, he added to what I already had found out for myself, the lectures. And I will be forever thankful to him!!@Michael_c: I spotted in many postings of you some ideas, which are very close to the ideas in the lectures. So, I would very much recommend to you, that you under all circumstances try to get the 1984 version ( or even the 1974 ). And then..read.. .________________But now, I think, jknott had some interesting question to some interesting other facts, so, I staywith many cordial greetings, 8_octaves!!
Torso. In a sitting position the resistance which makes the delivery of power effective is the chair seat. The torso rests upon a chair seat against the two ischial bones of the pelvis. For the pianist the muscles under these ischial bones create activity in the torso, much as manipulation of the feet against the floor resistance creates activity in the entire body as we stand. It is easy to feel the rhythm of skating and dancing when movement is not restricted. It is less easy to feel the same rhythmic exhilaration when the sitting posture limits movement. But it is exactly the same rhythmic response to the music which is so natural in dancing and skating that is needed for a thrilling performance at the piano-a response throughout the body. We sit upon a cushion of large muscles. By contracting these muscles the cushion becomes thicker and harder, and the torso is boosted slightly higher. By relaxing these same muscles the cushion becomes thinner and softer, and the torso is lowered: the bones are closer to the chair seat. This contraction and relaxation can be sudden or it may be gradual. When it is sudden, the effect is a sort of bouncing up and down of the torso; the torso dances the gigue. When the muscular action is gradual, one contraction may last for a long crescendo, and the relaxation may be sustained for the following decrescendo; the torso dances a slow waltz. This activity, dancing, is the rhythm of the music for the pianist. These movements are an extension of the action of the top arm-a necessary part of the total mechanism for articulating tone. Besides these important lifting and lowering actions, this cushion of muscles can sway the torso in all directions, and in so doing create an outlet for the rhythmic response to the music. To annihilate this activity of the torso by labeling it mannerism ism and objectionable is to dam up a source of emotional expression without which a performance loses its reason for being. Either the emotional expression is inhibited or it finds its outlet in the movements of articulation. One thing or the other is almost as damaging to the performance-insufficient expression or far too many explosions and climaxes. The physical expression of the emotion of a dramatic sforzando or pianissimo may be, as a part of the delivery of power, a sudden relaxing of the spine, a collapse in the middle of the torso. Not uncommonly one sees a lifting of the entire torso away from the chair seat. This involves a transfer of resistance to feet and floor, away from bones and chair seat. It is not unlike the transfer from saddle to stirrup in posting. Any or all of these movements may constitute the activity which expresses the rhythmic and emotional response to the music in conjunction with the delivery of power. The cultivation of these movements will heighten the awareness of the relation of a fundamental rhythm to the production of subtle phrase modeling. The activity of the torso as a fulcrum for the articulating of tone is creative rhythmically-because it is absolutely a part of the activity of the top arm. "Sit in the driver's seat and hold the reins" is good imagery for fulcrum activity. Being well seated in the driver's seat is the only way to implement the holding of the reins. But it does not mean a stodgy sitting-rather, an alive, active part of the whole performance.
Going back to the original topic of this thread, I wonder whether piano tone may have something to do with the bandwidth theorem - that is, the shorter the pulse, the greater the range of frequencies. Perhaps those great masters of tone are able to control the pulse duration - and hence the frequency range?
Perhaps those great masters of tone are able to control the pulse duration - and hence the frequency range?
Certainly notes of different lengths create different auditory impressions, but that's not pertinent to what we are discussing here. If we play the same note twice for the same duration, there is no "pulse" that we could make shorter or longer in order to change the timbre.
Here's the problem with your idea.At the moment the hammer leaves the escapement (or whatever it's called) it is in free flight at a particular velocity. There is nothing anybody can do to affect it at that point. The hammer does not "care" HOW it got to that velocity. The only thing important is what that velocity is at the point in time and space that acceleration ends. After acceleration ends the hammer is just a missile in free flight on the way to the string.
For you see, worrying about the control of every little tone should NOT be the first concern of pianist, before the pianist has developed the rhythmic balance of the larger line of the music. The absolute, control you worry about on a single tone level for articulation should be subservient to the larger scale form of the piece, of which rhythm and timing are key.
But this is what is always said to deny the existence of tone - yet I know from playing the piano that I can vary the tone (not of course to Horowitz's standard but still perceptibly).
But this is what is always said to deny the existence of tone - yet I know from playing the piano that I can vary the tone (not of course to Horowitz's standard but still perceptibly). As I've said in the previous post, couldn't the pianist impart a variable pulse of some kind to the hammer which then carries it and imparts it to the string? Please note I'm not a physicist and am probably expressing this poorly but the fact that a short pulse would produce an ugly sound across a wider range of frequencies might surely be part of the answer here?
Yes of course. It's one of the things I focus on with my teacher.
I agree absolutely. I've seen pianists trying to make a single note "beautiful". They try all sorts of ways of touching a note, ending up by convincing themselves that this particular gesture will make that B-flat sound beautiful. They miss the essential point that the note can only sound beautiful (or aggressive, or sad, or whatever) in the context of a musical phrase.
Hi jnkott,Some things appertaining to tsuch a notion of "pulse" are, in my interpretation of the paper, discussed in relation to a particular study of grand piano tone production which was done in Sweden.And guess what? Sir Isaac Newton is not cited even one time in that paper, as hard as that is to believe!In my opinion the study could have gone much deeper and been conclusive, and is in need of follow up and more exactly focused research.
So you think there might be something in it? It seems to me that there's definitely something to explain, so it's worth seeking explanations rather than denying the evidence of experience and saying that tone in a single note doesn't exist.
The argument that it's BS seems to run as follows: we can't think of any physical explanation of what's happening, therefore tone in a single note doesn't exist. If science had proceeded in that way it wouldn't have got far. An alternative procedure might be to observe from experience that one can vary tone in a single note - something I do every time I play - and explore reasons for it.
And guess what? Sir Isaac Newton is not cited even one time in that paper, as hard as that is to believe!
Hi jknott,Dogmatists, though, do not axiomatically adjust their positions to properly accommodate new empirical experiences, do they? Maybe michael_c hasn't had the necessary empirical experiences - and though he gives an appearance that all propositions are to be evaluated by citing Newton, he does not strike me personally as a dogmatist. I think that maybe he doesn't really believe 100% in the definitude of the things he is posting here.Mvh,Michael
People always bringing up the banging example, but I have to ask...what if a non-banging fortisimissio is merely the minimization of the percussive noises?
When one is in the audience, and in person is gripped by this presence of tonal control from a real artist who can do it, there is no looking back.
Topic: Does 'tone' really exist?! 