Does 'tone' really exist?!

[cuberdrift]

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.

[michael_c]

You are right. This subject has been much discussed and there have been serious controlled studies. The hammer is being thrown at the string; it is no longer under your control at the moment it hits the string.

As you say, all you can control is the intensity and the duration of each separate note. With every change in intensity there also comes a change in tone. A string struck with more force does not simply produce a louder version of the sound when the string is struck with less force, but you can only control the dynamic level: for each dynamic level there is a certain timbre coupled with it and you can't change that.

As soon as you consider two notes in succession, or two notes together, the magic starts. With two notes in succession, the second note can be just so much softer than the first, or just so much louder. If you play two notes together, you also have a potentially infinite control of the relation between the two.

Start playing a melody, or a sequence of chords, and the possibilities of variation become unimaginably large.

And yet different pianists do seem to have their distinctive "sounds" when playing actual music. How this happens and what goes on in the listener's and the pianist's heads is a huge subject. 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. What's important is your musical conception and how you manage to communicate it to your audience by remotely controllling the speeds at which the hammers are being thrown at the metal wires.

Here's a video to watch:

[expressman70]

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

[michael_c]

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

It is you who are fooling yourself. The hammers are not under your control when they hit the strings.

- You can't control the acceleration of the hammer as it hits the strings: the acceleration is determined by the forces acting on it at this moment, which are gravity and friction (we hope as little as possible!). These forces do not change.
- You can't control where the hammer hits the string: it's on a shaft and always hits at the same place. There's no possibility of making it glide along the string, or anything like that: it's just a direct hit, always at the same spot.
- You can't control the rebound of the hammer away from the string: it's swinging freely and simply obeys the laws of conservation of momentum and energy.
- The only parameter which you can control is the speed of the hammer. You don't do this directly: you control the speed at which it is thrown, which determines the speed at which it hits the string.

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
- ... ... ... (add your favourite ways of touching a piano here)

With all these different ways of touching the keys, do you make different sounds? Yes, indeed, but the only difference in these sounds comes from the speed of the hammer at the end. For instance, you can get a nicely controllable range of softer sounds by "caressing" the keys, and a different range by dropping freely from a height: there will be differences in timbre but in each case the difference is irremediably coupled with the speed of the hammer.

If, for two strikes of the same note, the speeds are identical, the sound will be identical.

[j_menz]

If, for two strikes of the same note, the speeds are identical, the sound will be identical.

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.

[stoat_king]

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

Lol - love your list.

[michael_c]

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.

Yes, of course all those things will change the sound. But the change is not coming from a particular "touch", it's coming from pedal technique or which other notes are being held. We can analyse all this with physics as well: we just have to add in these variables.

What I am trying to dispel is the curious myth that pianists can make changes in the timbre (without changing the volume) by their way of touching the keys. A pianist who thinks she can produce differences between a "warm, rounded, ff sound" and an "aggressive, hard ff sound" by holding the hand a certain way, using "weight" instead of "force" or making flowing gestures with her arms is deluding herself. In order to make a difference in timbre at the same dynamic level, changing "touch" won't help: you need to use the methods you mention.

[markh13]

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.

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.

[cwjalex]

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. it made me confused because without any pedal what else is there?  what other control do i have over the keys?

[timothy42b]

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.

For some people an analogy like play angry really does help them produce the results they want, even though it has nothing to do with how they do it.

For others, probably for most, it is simply frustrating.  A good teacher will realize this and fit their instructions to the student's learning style, but there are a lot of "one size fits all" teachers out there. 

You can be results oriented (inner game) or mechanics oriented and get equally good results, but a lot depends on your own personality. 

Tone on the piano is often instantly recognizable from player to player.  It's not how the keys are struck; it's a very complicated combination of how strong the voices are in relation to each other, how much overlap of the the notes, etc.  It exists and is real, it's just that it is not really a function of hammer acceleration. 

Because it's so complex it isn't easy to explain how to do it, and that's where all the mythology comes in.

[outin]

I use the words touch and tone to describe the whole package not just the way one touches the keys.

Especially on acoustic instruments the final combination of tones one hears varies from a lot of factors. People must also hear the overall tone differently depending on how well they can hear, especially when it comes to the higher overtones. Most older people don't hear them anymore. Would that mean that your preference on pianists may change as well with aging?

[michael_c]

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.

This effect is tiny. Certain musicians, when specifically listening for the effect, can tell the difference between a "struck" and a "pressed" tone because they hear the small percussive noise of the finger hitting the key just before the hammer hits the string. Here's a study of that effect. From the conclusion of that study:

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.

I found that I was capable of hearing that tiny sound of the finger hitting the key when carefully listening to a single note. To my ears this doesn't make any noticeable change in perceived tone: it's just a noise that I can hear if I'm really paying attention.

[richard black]

I'm pretty sure I've written this before on this forum, but since it's a new query...

For sure there's _some_ effect on the tone of a single note due to 'extraneous' factors like exactly how one hits the key, but in the real world _by far_ the dominant effect is down to the loudness relation between keys hit simultaneously (or near-simultaneously) in chords, and also between keys hit successively in runs and other passagework. If you can control the latter effectively you're 99% there - and way ahead of most pianists (not excluding respected performers).

[expressman70]

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.

[michael_c]

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.

I don't know if you are addressing me here, or somebody else, but I'll reply anyway.

I'm a professional pianist and conductor, I play a lot of chamber music and when my musician colleagues ask me how I can extract such a variety of tone from the piano (and believe me, they do!), I tell them that I spend a lot of time studying the means that are at my disposal for influencing the sound, and don't waste my time chasing myths.

As I said above, it's a huge subject: how does a pianist create a distinctive "sound" on a piano, and communicate the music inside his/her head into the heads of the listeners? I already cited some of the key elements. I could write a book about it.

I continue harping on this because I see so many pianists getting it wrong. I see pianists massaging the keys in strange ways, doing mystical arm movements or stretching the fingers from one note to the next in order to create a legato when in fact the pedal is already taking care of joining one note to the next. It's important to know how the instrument works, what it can do and what it can't do. Once that's sorted out, you can get down to the business of finding the best way of coaxing beautiful music out of it.

[j_menz]

I think part of the mythology surrounding this is a result of the fact that really quite small changes in many if the factors above can produce quite significant changes. Pianists are often quite unreliable in their descriptions of what they actually do, and for these very subtle things they are probably reasonably unaware of the mechanics (at an intellectual level, not a practical one). As a result what may in fact be a subtle difference in key timing and velocity may feel to them like some mysterious way of striking the chord, or when asked they simply don't know exactly how they do it and fill the empty space with mysterious sounding waffle.

[lostinidlewonder]

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.

If all we did was focus on the intensity of the key strike without imagining a touch then playing would be difficult. We create an idea of a touch so the desired sound is more naturally produced/controlled. We play thousands of notes in a piece we need to control large groups not segment our observations.

[sashaco]

If all we did was focus on the intensity of the key strike without imagining a touch then playing would be difficult. We create an idea of a touch so the desired sound is more naturally produced/controlled. We play thousands of notes in a piece we need to control large groups not segment our observations.
[/quote]

Exactly.  Physical actions intended to produce "touch" and "tone" are a means for players to maintain a mental approach to a series of notes.   A player trying to produce a languid sound will use languid motions so that there is no disconnect between her mind and the sound she intends to produce.  It is not that the specific motions change the "tone" but, as has been suggested above, changes in overlap, voicing etc.  Over years of playing the motions come more and more to reflect the desired sounds and are, in a sense, a short cut to achieving effects.

[hardy_practice]

Exactly.  There are plenty of movements on the piano carried out by the body not the mind - mostly instant relaxing.  I know pianist whose only recourse to playing is mimicking others' interpretation because their bodies are not adding that 'natural' component.  It doesn't work. 

[8_octaves]

Hi all  

In my opinion, there are disadvantages in "striking" keys from out of the air.

First, in the most interesting study mentioned above, the sound of fingers hitting the key. As michael pointed out, the effect might be small, but it exists, which is clearly visible in the waveform diagrams. Imagining concert-situations, and, e.g., pianists who always like to use the percussive touch, this can, I think, add itself up to annoying sounds people could nevertheless (as far as the study is concerned) hear. These additional sounds are unnecessary, in my opinion.

That's, because of another thing, too: If there's in a concert hall only people who cannot hear the key-finger-impact - and if there's no other disadvantage, why then use a "air-strike" instead of a non-percussive touch?

There were pianists, who were more successful in playing piano concertos, with big orchestras, than they were in smaller recitals... . They liked very much to "strike" every chord from out of the air, from high above the keys.. .

Second, the mere additional distance the "striking-affine" piano players have to move their fingers / hands / maybe: arms. That means spending more energy than necessary, and thus it should be minimized, in my opinion, as far as possible.

Third, it might have taken a long time for the "striking" pianist from the study, to create 2 or more "strikes" which evoke the same volume and sound: That's, because this percussive touch is more uncontrolled than the non-percussive one.

Imagine you drive a tank, and some other tank has got a puncture: You want to move the other tank with yours: Should you a ) give full speed, from a distance of e.g. 100 meters, and run full throttle into the other tank, to help him out of the calamity? Or isn't it MUCH better to b ) very slowly touch the other tank, first, with your tank, and then under full control push him forward, controlling him all the way you want?

Fourth: People may think: "By hammering from the air onto the keys I can play very loud." May be one can. But think: The more one strikes something, the more it repulses and the more physical resistance it opposes. So, you need a tremendous power - to achieve the same or minimal more than a player who uses the non-percussive touch. Not spoken of the other disadvantages.

Imagine a marble of 100 pounds of weight. Strike it with full power with your bare fist....: Where does it roll? And: How far ? ... And , after that ( if you still are able to ), touch it first, and doing so, roll it, control it. Stay in touch.

In my opinion unnecessary movements should disappear from piano playing.

Of course there are pieces, some difficult ones, some easy ones, where we have to lift our hands to reach, e.g., the extremes of the keyboard. But even then the lifting should be as minimized as possible.

IMHO.

Cordially, and greetings from 8_octaves!  

[hardy_practice]

Do people still do that?

[8_octaves]

Do people still do that?

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!

[hardy_practice]

I don't really know what the allure of 'famous pianists' is to be honest.  I don't watch sports either.

[8_octaves]

I don't really know what the allure of 'famous pianists' is to be honest.  I don't watch sports either.

Then, let's go the other way round: Let's take one of the most famous ones, if not the most famous one:

Horowitz. Sources quote him. He suggested the piano should not be being used in a percussive way. And he added, that he didn't like playing works of composers (pls note: which doesn't mean he didn't PLAY them) , in which the piano is treated in the percussive way.

And here's my last 2 cents: Searching for unnecessary and distracting air-movements, body-bendings, grimaces etc. we can often find such things especially when we watch LangLang, but sometimes even Sokolov. And there are many others.

A man who hardly ever makes unnecessary moves from the groups already mentioned is Michelangeli.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XHYIRps2jg

But of course, it's only my opinion. However: Tank driving and moving heavy marbles can, perhaps, mean some kind of sports, too, can't it?    I'm sure some people compare professional pianists with competitive sportsmen (meaning: people who do competitive sports at high levels)!

Perhaps it's not too wrong, at least.

Many greetings from: 8_oct!

[ppianista]

But the change is not coming from a particular "touch", it's coming from pedal technique or which other notes are being held.

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.

[anamnesis]

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!

Years ago, I used to believe that excessive movements were completely unnecessary, and I still don't believe in obvious fake acting; however, I've since then changed my mind. 

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. (They are essentially the physical counterpart to Schenker's diminution  and linear elaboration or Peter Westergaard's tonal-rhythmic time spans.)

They are also a natural part of free technique because they allow you to take multiple tones while taking advantage of muscle synergy from stronger muscles. (Oddly enough they seem to occur more often when you learn how to use your biceps/brachioradialis  to contribute more to your playing). Despite looking like wasted effort, it ends up being less effort because you are minimizing the number of impulses. 

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; however, they are still present underneath and very aware to the performer. 

The process of minimizing these movements simply happens over time due to refinement and efficiency.  If you directly try to inhibit it, more often than not, you disturb the rhythm and nothing flows together. 

I read this post years ago, didn't really understand it, and I now see how true it rings:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=1808.msg24157#msg24157

Also take a look at this abstract:

The Gracious Rhythm of the Body: Chopin, Whiteside, and Expressive Timing Daniel B. Stevens, University of Delaware

How 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.pdf
https://picosong.com/4NYL]

[outin]

Why do I have a feeling that something's missing from this thread? 

[8_octaves]

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; [...]

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 from 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, and

cordially, 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.  

[timothy42b]

Why do I have a feeling that something's missing from this thread? 

N hasn't posted since December, that's why.

One thing anamnesis did not mention is head movement.  The head is in a complex multi-path sound field, and it is necessary to move the head to perceive what is going on with room acoustics.

[hardy_practice]

N hasn't posted since December, that's why.

Yeh, an early Xmas present.

[anamnesis]

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, and

cordially, 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. 

The thing is when I talk about expressive movements, I'm not talking about the ridiculous movements pianists do to manipulate single tone intonation.  I'm not actually sure we are talking about the same thing. Are you only referring to the excessive movements used create percussive movements, or just what most people would consider to be excessive movements in general?

I'm talking about the basic, rhythmic dance that allows you to bring rhythmic, continuity to the piece.  And oddly enough, it's the obsession with the manipulations of single tones at the start of  learning a piece of music before the form of the piece is realized and embodied that utterly destroys this rhythmic dance.  You aren't doing this dance to affect the piano, but to self-organize your own movements with yourself being the primary reference point.  The piano is simply a resistive element that gets in the way.  

When you actually learn how to use all your movements to create tone, it actually starts to create the illusion that you are using excessive movements, because it looks more flowy for lack of a better term.  

Most people only play down torward the piano, but there's also away to play up and still create tone that involves a distinct flexion at the elbow with the only activity at the hands/fingers primarily being those of closing a fist or grasping an object. These "up" actions can give the illusion of a excessive flowy movement when not tempered by the downward draw of the shoulder girdle and back torward the torso to keep playing toward the keys.

Knowing how to to flow these up and down actions and transition them is the key to being able to perform at top speed, difficult figures such as double third trills scales, fast repetitive octaves, alternating thirds and sixths, etc.  The trick isn't fast, individualized fingers, but the rapid alternation of the flexion and extension of the elbow and using that synergy to flow into the rapid alternation between opening and closing the hand.  It takes a rhythm and dance to learn how to incorporate these movements, and trying to individually control each little action, trying to minimize the movement from the start is going to be a futile exercise.  

[anamnesis]

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. 

[hardy_practice]

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!

[timothy42b]

You must have had a lot of time on your hands!

He actually was knowledgable on some subjects and there were certainly some gems in his posts, none of which I managed to read in entirety due to the length.

[michael_c]

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'm sure it sounded different. But the actual tone of that digital piano only changes together with the dynamic level. Hit a key twice with the same force and the sound that comes out is identical: it's the same sample!

So what did sound different? You already mentioned rhythm: an essential element. You also spoke of "clearness and subtlety": the clearness comes through articulation and the passage may have sounded more subtle simply because it was softer. There can also be subtlety in the relationships between successive notes: here we touch on the most important subject of phrasing.

Of course these elements are affected by how you move: concentrating on elegance, efficiency, relaxation and suppleness can help you be more rhythmical, more in control of dynamics and more in contact with the musical idea. 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. It's no surprise that the great pianists with the most exquisite control over dynamic shading are mostly very economical with their movements, with an intense concentration near to a meditative state (see the names cited by 8_octaves above). The calmer your body, the better you can listen.

[johnlewisgrant]

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.

Agree completely. I would add that the most advanced midi programs are now capable of EXACT reproduction of All the variables you mention.   Thus Yamaha and Bosedorfer have equipped their best concert grands with midi recording devices that can record and then reproduce with absolute precision a performance.  The implications for recorded performances are obviously huge.  For example, a performance deemed perfect, except for the miking of the instrument, could be re-recorded over and over until the miking was perfect.

[markh13]

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.

I've had the good fortune to watch some top pianists play over the last year, and one thing that has struck me about most of them is how they (consciously or unconsciously) use gestures and movements as part of their performance (i.e. over and above the basic movements necessary to play the notes).

It seems to me that this 'choreography' is a reasonably important part of the art of performing, and that it helps to signpost and reinforce the musical messages being created.

Of course overdoing it (a la Lang Lang) is never good, so there is a balance to be struck!

[ppianista]

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.

[michael_c]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[timothy42b]

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.

+1

[perfect_playing]

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.

What do you mean by "other strings being open"?

[michael_c]

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).

[j_menz]

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).

Indeed. I'd only add that dampers can have effects in-between on and off through half pedalling, and that the use of the una corda pedal changes the decay pattern of notes (lower peak, longer/flatter decay), thereby changing the effect they may have on other open strings.

[perfect_playing]

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=4161.msg38677#msg38677

See 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?

Thanks

[michael_sayers]

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.

[michael_c]

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=4161.msg38677#msg38677

See 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?

You'll have to make up your own mind about what you are saying. As for me, I say that xvimbi is wrong in that post. I'll explain why.

xvimbi talks of the fact that hammer shanks flex during acceleration and proposes that different amounts of flexing could produce different tone colours. The knowledge that the most expensive, highest quality shanks are chosen to be as rigid as possible should be enough in itself to dispel the notion that flexing could be a useful way of changing the tone colour, but it could be interesting to go into some more detail as to why:

When a hammer shank flexes this does not give the hammer more impact, it gives it less: the flexing absorbs some of the kinetic energy that has been transferred to the shank, leaving less energy to be transferred to the string.

The amount and direction of flexing is unpredictable, depending on irregularities in the wood. Wood, being an organic material, is never completely homogenous. In a set of 88 hammer shanks cut from the same piece of wood, some will be stronger and more rigid than others. The most rigid ones will be the most predictable ones, always hitting the string at the same point and transferring the maximum amount of energy to it. The more a shank flexes, the more unpredictable the behaviour of the hammer will be.

Thus, for a set of the best quality shanks, not only will the wood will be chosen to be as rigid as possible, but also once the shanks have been cut from the wood, any that are found to be too flexible will be discarded. If there are any differences in timbre due to different amounts of hammer flexing, they should be more apparent on a lower quality piano with more flexible hammer shanks!

In a less than perfect action, flexing of the hammer shanks could cause the hammers to strike at slightly different points, maybe causing a difference in timbre, or the tone of one note might simply be weaker than another due to the flexion absorbing some of the energy that would otherwise have gone into the string. These effects are beyond the pianist's control.

Instead of bothering ourselves with minimal effects that are beyond our control, it's better to preoccupy ourselves with what we can control: the dynamic level. Instead of vaguely trying to "make a beautiful sound", we can go into details: ask ourselves how the most expressive singer would shape that melody, where it would get louder, where softer, where the strongest point would be. Or experiment with differences in volume between notes in a chord, between melody and accompaniment or between two contrapuntal lines.

In order to create all the fine differences of dynamic that we need, we can use all sorts of different touches: stroking, pressing, letting the full weight of the arm go into the key or letting the hands float as if weightless. The important thing to remember is this: all these different touches serve one purpose: the finest control possible of the intensity of each individual note.

[michael_c]

Just try to play beautifully and work toward the sounds/effects you want, and don't worry about the rest

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:

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.

(from Piano Mastery: Talks with Master Pianists and Teachers by Harriette Brower

[8_octaves]

Hi michael_c,

@ your reply #45: That's a very good posting of you, and a good description of the matters, I think!

A longer time ago, on another place, I read ( and took part ) in a discussion about "how is it possible to influence tone", too. The discussion was lengthy, interesting, and hard. The argument of the flexing hammer shanks was brought in by others into that discussion, too. And if I remember correctly, they showed diagrams made up by a company ( on the web ) showing the "bent" hammer shanks ( of course made of the "best material" etc.. ), as part of a parabolic curve. Which led to comparisons to the "action" of fishing rods ( I'm a hobby-fisherman, but I didn't bring in that argument. )
 
But some of the participants couldn't understand the hindrance in it, which is exactly what you mentioned:

There's no way to actively control these flexions when playing piano. Additionally, hammer shanks in a given piano will behave slightly or much differently to hammer shanks of another piano, so even if we could control their (unpredictable) flexing in one piano while touching / playing (on the keys), then it would be tremendously difficult / impossible to control their movements while playing another piano.

The hammers and the other mechanical elements are part of a continuum, a unity: The piano we are just playing.

Some teacher would say this:

[...] 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 [...]    

Cordially, 8_octaves!  

[goldentone]

The physical school of thought believes, because of the laws of physics/construction of the piano, that the tone produced by any pianist can only vary within a quite limited continuum.  Thus the force applied to the instrument becomes a prime factor, and then I believe also the speed as well.  But is there not a relationship between our tone and what can be emotionally conveyed through the instrument?  This is where we should step back and consider the greater picture of individuality in our playing.  We can convey emotion and feeling.  We can immediately recognize the playing of Arthur Rubinstein because the instrument is capable of transmitting his soul.  Or rather that human beings are of such power that we can affect the inert.  

The "hard" physics are therefore responsive to the emotional spectrum with which we can draw from. So being inflexible in this particular matter, matters of mere force and speed, having only a continued eye on the physics, deceives from what experience reveals.  I see a relationship in this to science, which arrogates a hold on truth, overstepping its boundaries of physical fact, for us in force and speed, a demagnifying of nature.  A transgression rich in time can be quenched always the same with truth's unvarying anvil.              

[michael_sayers]

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

Hi michael_c,

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