Does 'tone' really exist?!

[eldergeek]

I hate to be a true pedant (although as a professional mathematician, I guess it goes with the territory):

<pedantic rant>

If we are going to make precise statements about velocity and acceleration and whether they are absolute or relative quantities, then we need to be very precise about the sorts of transformations between coordinate frames that we are allowing.

If we restrict our attention to coordinate frames which are either stationary or moving with constant velocity to each other, then we can certainly claim that velocity is relative and that acceleration is absolute (to be more precise: "invariant between the two frames of reference".

If, however we allowing transformations between frames which are not moving with constant velocity with respect to each other (for instance if we allow rotating frames of reference e.g. surface of the earth compared to a background such as the milky way), then neither velocity nor acceleration are absolute quantities at all.

</pedantic rant>

[michael_sayers]

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:

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.


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

. . . 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,

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.


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_c]

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.

I'm not interested in playing silly games. What Debussy of Horowitz may or may not have said is of no relevance to the subject under discussion.

[michael_c]

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.

[michael_sayers]

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.

Hi michael_c,

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?


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

What Debussy of Horowitz may or may not have said is of no relevance to the subject under discussion.

Hi michael_c,

They can be quoted on the very subject which is under discussion, so how is what they said not relevant?


Mvh,
Michael

[j_menz]

I hate to be a true pedant

One suspects you quite enjoy it. 

That said, have you ever played a piano not in your frame? Inertial, rotating or otherwise?

[j_menz]

I'm not interested in silly games.

It seems you are interested in nothing else.

Unless it's the digital equivalent of the sound of your own voice.

[8_octaves]

They [Horowitz and Debussy] can be quoted on the very subject which is under discussion, so how is what they said not relevant?

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.

___________

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?

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!

[eldergeek]

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.

[michael_sayers]

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.

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

[michael_sayers]

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 8_octaves,

I am sorry about my delay.  I needed to take a nap.  Here are replies #44 and #49 which give a statement of my views on the subject of this thread:

******************************

reply #44

The tone can and does vary, to observe it properly you need a grand piano . . . and not one that tends to make everything come out as the same . . .

So . . . take Vladimir Horowitz, put him on a 1930s N.Y. Steinway D, and there is variance of tone.

Put other pianists on CD 503 and you don't get quite the same thing . . . meaning, not compared with Horowitz on CD 503, as the action and hammers were replaced after Horowitz died, but pianists now compared between themselves on CD 503.

I've heard such differences myself, and in person, from one pianist to another and on the same Steinway grand (meaning not CD 503, but other Steinway grands).

Don't pay any attention to the studies.  Just try to play as beautifully as you can.

Studies work like this: at one time, the studies said that red wine is good for the heart.  Later, studies said that red wine drinkers have, on average, a higher income and better health care/habits than non-red wine drinkers, and in fact that there is no benefit to the heart from intake of red wine.  Now - no surprise - the studies say that red wine, in fact, is beneficial for the heart . . . et c.  Depending on who is in charge of a study, what is being looked for, how it is being looked for, who the participants are, et c., outcomes can vary widely.

Just try to play beautifully and work toward the sounds/effects you want, and don't worry about the rest - and do this even though it is true that the tone of a grand piano can be varied.

******************************

reply #49

I guess what I am getting at - and back to Vladimir Horowitz - is that, though he is known for his flat fingered technique [as was Liszt], he also used curved fingers, straight fingers, et c., to achieve the myriad of tonal effects he wanted.  A staccato passage that is pedaled through should sound different than if it were played legato and pedaled through, depending on one's staccato technique(s), the angle of "attack", the shape of one's fingers to facilitate the desired tone, and many other things which also include the grand piano in question.

There are reasons so many pianists have preferred N.Y. Steinway grands . . . and nothing against the other piano makers, although I think maybe they would have done better to keep their uniquenesses than try to compete with Steinway [just compare the Bechstein grands used by Jorge Bolet to the brilliante ones of recent years, for instance] . . . a N.Y. Steinway D is able to expose a pianist's innermost soul and the most candid of disclosures with a minimum of interference, with the risk of course that the absence of a real artist at the keys is exposed immediately - a N.Y. Steinway D doesn't sound particularly nice in that instance, although (for example) an Imperial Bösendorfer always sounds lovely even if in trade off for tonal security the range of tonal palette in terms of what the pianist can select is compromised.

About grand piano hammer shanks, these are drop tested for resonance and sorted from the bass through the treble.

They are far more flexible than one would suppose. There are close up videos much better than the ones at Youtube which show this, and the double contact with the strings, and other such things.  How a key is accelerated definitely effects the energies of the hammer/hammer shanks for transference into the two contacts with the strings and with how much purity - or dissipation of energy and distortion - relative to the desired resonances.

There are many theories of piano technique and each has its differences.

Pianists need to be guided by the sound from the piano and let that instruct refinements and improvements in technique, whether they are very much flat fingered like Liszt and Horowitz, or otherwise.  Seating position is important in controlling tone and ease of technique, maybe back and further down than what one usually sees.

Horowitz sat that way at the piano, as did Liszt in his later years, and also Paderewski.

******************************


Mvh,
Michael

[eldergeek]

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

[michael_sayers]

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

Hi Eldergeek,

Well - just speaking for myself - I don't use Newton's Principia to help me out with my piano playing.  I much prefer Einstein's Annus Mirabilis papers, and also Plank's law regarding black body radiation.

But maybe I need to just work on my Latin a bit more?


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_sayers]

p.s. - It was michael_c who brought Newton into these discussions, and I don't know why he keeps going back to that.   I have an idea: I am going to explain how Bobby Fischer beat Boris Spassky at chess, and I will do this using Newton's Principia to describe the motions of the pieces.  Newton is, unfortunately, equally as irrelevant to the art of piano playing and tone production on a grand piano, as it is to explaining how Bobby Fischer beat Boris Spassky.  And yet we get the Principia thrown in our faces here, and for reason of which I haven't yet been able to discern.

[8_octaves]

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!

[michael_sayers]

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!

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

[goldentone]

Thank you, 8_octaves, for your detailed response to my query.  A lot transpired here since I fell asleep last night.  To characterize your authoritative position and point of contention, it would be your term point of escapement.

The tone will stay completely unimpressed by these unnecessary movements.

The tone here would seem to be a steeled soul unmoved by any wiggling to influence the keys below it. In such a position of authority as you have repeated many times, it would indicate a familiarity to hand down some wisdom.  As I have read more of your thinking, you do seem to recognize the infinite palette of our soul to create tone color, but that after the point of escapement, once a "color" has been initially imparted, there is no going back.  Although in the overall musical effect, successive notes can create a "more red" accumulative effect, however we paint our tones:  "Redden the canvas, redden the eyes" as they say.  I am interested, you may notice, in our power to convey emotion, tone color, etc. through the piano rather than what apparent physical limitations are imposed upon the freedom of the pianist by the mechanism itself.  Soul over science.

You mention "surprises". . . Hopefully the development of your theory will prove flush to experience.

[michael_sayers]

Hi Everyone,

While I wait to see what is posted next in this thread, I am going to go work on improving my piano tone in a particular type of passage.


Mvh,
Michael

[8_octaves]

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

Hi Michael_sayers,

hmm.. a Scott Joplin Rag.. I had a short look into my Vera Brodsky-Lawrence volume 1 of his Collected Piano Works: Rags, Waltzes and Marches ( = or after 1981 ), and it doesn't seem to be in it. But it could be that it's in the 2nd volume, in which other works and ragtime-songs and Treemonisha-excerpts of Joplin are. Or Ragtimes with words ( e.g. the ragtime-dance-version of 1902 with words. Somebody had asked here on the forum for a score of it, I vaguely remember to have read. But he successfully was helped and he got the score.)
 
But unfortunately I don't have the 2nd volume.

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!  

But who knows. Perhaps I'm wrong and just haven't seen the correct Joplin-Ragtime in my vol. 1.

Ah, to the playing of the Lady: Yes, that's in some ways very interesting, I think. No unnecessary movements, but full of ease, and very efficient, I think. I think, if I could play like that, I would be happy!!

Cordially, 8_octaves!

  

[michael_c]

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?

[jknott]

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?

[8_octaves]

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 stay

with many cordial greetings, 8_octaves!!  

 

[michael_c]

Many, many thanks, 8_octaves. I'll see if I can get that book through the university library.

[anamnesis]

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 stay

with many cordial greetings, 8_octaves!!  

 

It would be interesting to read, because while I definitely agree on some principles, there are other aspects where I disagree, but then I can't say much without seeing the full context.  At least from the points you take from the work, you emphasize how you need none of these extraneous movements because they have nothing to do with the ability to affect tone past the point of escapement.  

But that's not why some of these movements are done.  They are part and parcel of the rhythmic expression of a piece of music, which doesn't attempt to affect the tone, but the time between and duration of tones.

After all, when people talk about tone quality, it isn't just dynamics.  It is the overlap or non-overlap of tones, which we certainly have control over as well.

Let me quote from my own approach:

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.

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.

[michael_c]

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?

The bandwidth theorem basically states that, for a pulse of information, the shorter the pulse, the greater the bandwidth required to transmit it. A consequence of this is that if a note is heard for a very short duration (just a few milliseconds), it becomes impossible to define its pitch exactly. Even the shortest staccatissimo notes on a piano are not that short, so we don't have that problem when listening to piano music.

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.

[timothy42b]

Perhaps those great masters of tone are able to control the pulse duration - and hence the frequency range?

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. 

[jknott]

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.

I don't see why it couldn't be part of what's being discussed here. There's a problem to be solved (we perceive tone which so far hasn't been explained physically) so why not look at all possible angles on it? Couldn't the pianist impart a pulse to the hammer?

[jknott]

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. 

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?

[michael_c]

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.

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.

[timothy42b]

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).

Can you vary the tone on a single note?

[jknott]

Yes of course. It's one of the things I focus on with my teacher.

[michael_c]

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?

This is where knowledge of physics can indeed be useful. There is no sort of "pulse" that could be imparted to the hammer. All the hammer has when it leaves the escapement is
- its velocity (determined by the pianist).
- possible vibratory motions (outside of the pianist's control). These oscillations can only produce random variations in the tone (see the quote from Bruce Clark earlier in this thread). They will be more pronounced in an inferior action.

[michael_sayers]

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?

Hi jnkott,

Some things appertaining to such 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.


Mvh,
Michael

[michael_c]

Yes of course. It's one of the things I focus on with my teacher.

If you are concentrating on varying the tonal effect of a musical phrase, that's great. If you are really focusing on trying to change the tone quality of a single isolated note, you are wasting your time.

[michael_sayers]

Yes of course. It's one of the things I focus on with my teacher.

Hi jnkott,

I can do this as well and best with a grand piano, and better with a N.Y. Steinway D, and best of all with a 1930s to about 1968 N.Y. Steinway D.


Mvh,
Michael

[anamnesis]

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.

Of course these gestures cannot effect the quality of the note as we are not in direct contact with the vibrating mechanism, but they can subtlety influence how it times and relates to the other notes (as well as dynamic balance).  So there can be a produced aural affect, but not for the reasons they think.

I believe as you probably do that is better to be aware of what you are actually able to affect, and the reasons why so that you are better able to manipulate it.

I believe in body gestures as the physical counterpart of phrase modeling and  polyphonic expression, which is why I'm always a bit defensive of them. [Of course needless visual, theatrics are another thing entirely.]

[jknott]

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.

[michael_sayers]

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 michael_c,

The revelation of what is attainable in the area of control over piano tone comes into force most dramatically during the application of extreme dynamics, e.g. Cortot being able to project a super pianissimo sonority to the very back of a hall, and in the super fortissimo of Hofmann and other pianists as achieved without diminution of tone quality.  This is quite different than the banging and other exertions which dominate the world's stages in 2015 and with a mediocre size/quality of fortissimo as the result.


Mvh,
Michael

[timothy42b]

Yes of course. It's one of the things I focus on with my teacher.

Here I have to throw the BS flag.

There has never been a single well designed experiment that showed different tone when playing a single note.  

There are MANY people who think they can hear a difference.  It is easy to show they are wrong.  

It is of course impossible to convince them of that.  

[michael_sayers]

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.

Hi jnott,

I've been around too long, and have heard and seen too much, to not know there is something to it.  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.  And especially this is so when one ends up as a private student of such a master for a small span of years.


Mvh,
Michael

[jknott]

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.

[michael_sayers]

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.

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

[michael_c]

And guess what?  Sir Isaac Newton is not cited even one time in that paper, as hard as that is to believe!

Newton doesn't need to be cited in that paper because his laws of motion are simply common knowledge to any physicist. You will rarely find Newton's laws cited in any scientific paper for that reason. For a physicist it is a simple known fact that a piano hammer, like any other object, will obey Newton's laws. I only needed to cite Newton when suggestions that the hammers would be acting contrary to these laws appeared.

[anamnesis]

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

My question is on the discussion of the effect of a single tone.  Is how do you separate the percussive noises from what people perceive as tone, or what is actually produced as tone on the piano?  

The percussive noises are NOT the same thing as the tone being produced by the vibrating string.

At the same time does the sounding board, notably pick up these percussive noises such that it is noticeably detectable in a performance?  

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? 

People before debating tone, should make it distinctly clear where they stand on what they mean by tone as well as how they understand the percussive noises that can be made on the piano.

Otherwise we will all be talking in circles. 

[themeandvariation]

In Michael_C's first reply, there is a video..  At the 7.50 mark, it is stated that 10 different "tones" can be differentiated by the ear -depending on the speed at which the Single note is struck….  Perhaps this is obvious; so to say there is No "tone" is a misnomer in this specific context… But to try to decipher that "tone" while other notes are playing -- like an audience member listening to a performance, as M.Sayers says, how does one know that the "tone" of the pianist is Not solely created by the voicing, and surrounding tones or pedal?
One must try an experiment to see…Recording oneself playing from very quiet to very loud, on a Single tone, employing One particular arm movement…Then trying another arm movement -- or any of the myriad ways a note could be struck--   and for those who believe that they can affect the 'tone' quality -then employ That for the second recording of playing very quiet to very loud on a single note….  Then, listen back and compare …does the pianissimo tone of a single note vary between the two recordings…And What of the Fortissimo?…  Does that have a qualitative difference between the 2 recordings? That, Being as the same volume yet a Different timbre?

[8_octaves]

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?  

A non-percussive fortissimo is at first the ANNIHILATION of ONE noise, which otherwise would exist: The finger-key-impact.

But there are other noises, which might be disturbing, but can only be minimized, e.g. the sound of the key reaching the "bottom". Another annoying example would be a pedal, which always squeaks,   or hammers, which on their way BACK, rumble.

These specific sounds and their intensity are explicitely - or by chance - part of our continuum: The given piano.

For the principles we're talking about, the ones which cannot easily be avoided by us, might play a subordinate role for our "models" , but the ones we actively can avoid, like "banging" ( percussive touch ), if not prescribed explicitely by composers to EVOKE uncontrolled effects consciously, we should avoid. And not only for the reason of avoiding the finger-key-impact-sound, but also, which is very important, I think, since the parameters of tone, which we would give the hammer on its way by unmotivated hammering, cannot be as controlled and exact as if we would LEAD the key down ( non-percussive ).

3rd reason not to hammer, is the efficiency: As I already pointed out somewhen, we have to bring up too much energy, to get a loud tone, because, the harder we strike something, the more it recoils. We have to bring up tremendously much power - and get a result which we could have got much more efficiently, with less energy-input, and MUCH more controlled, and  without finger-key-impact-sounds, by using non-percussive touch.

To the "single note" - topic: Remember, please, what was said some time ago: No pianist plays one note and then goes away.

For making up physical "tests" or "experimental models", I think we have to free the scenery from already clear / discussed things. Which means: Finger-key-impact: AVOID. The other "additional sounds", of which kind ever they might be, are part of the continuum = the given piano / grand, and , thus, can be neglected.

But what cannot be neglected, in my opinion, is: Pressing the key ( speed of key descent is important, and "floor" ), starting the hammer, hammer reaches point of escapement, hammer reaches string and strikes it / them, tone is heard. Tone color of this tone cannot be influenced, unless by pedal, or, by playing other tones legato additionally, mixing them for a given timespan to the already played tone.

Cordially, 8_octaves.

[michael_c]

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? 

I doubt that the percussive noises make much difference in a fortissimo: the intensity of the actual sound coming from the soundboard will probably cover the percussive noises on the keyboard.

I think it works like this: in a "banging" fortissimo, the pianist plays everything, be it melody, accompaniment or secondary voices, at the upper dynamic limit. The phrases have no musical shape and the rhythm is stiff due to extreme physical tension. This is tiring for the listener's ears: all we hear is someone banging the keys.

In a "non banging" fortissimo, the pianist is not at the limit: there is room for the phrase to have a musical shape. There are also different levels of intensity between the hands and between notes in the same hands, creating ever changing differences of texture. The pianist stays supple and fluid and the rhythm likewise. Maybe this pianist is at times hitting the keys as hard as the "banging" pianist, but we hear the variations, we hear the elasticity of the rhythm, we hear expressive accents instead of aggressive bangs.

[michael_c]

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.

The listener is gripped by the tonal effect of music played by a great pianist. The pianist uses the means of the piano to transmit the tonal world inside his head into the listener's head.

The real magic happens inside our heads: the pianist shapes a phrase, rhythmically and in intensity, as it would be shaped by a good singer and we hear that phrase as a whole with a sensation of legato, with a feeling of one note running into another, even though each note is decaying just as fast as it always does. We hear warmth, sadness, longing in the tone because the art of the pianist brings us to create these feelings in our heads, just as the art of a novelist brings us to create the most diverse emotions in our heads when we read a book, even though we are only looking at rows of black signs on white paper.