What is "tone"?

[youngpianist]

Hello. People talk so much about "tone", this pianist has such good tone, that pianist's tone is so heavy, you know the drill. But what actually is "tone"? Some people say it doesn't exist. All you control is the speed the hammer hits the string. But then, why does some pianists sound "heavy" and others "golden"? Why can some be heard over an orchestra while others sound really small on stage? So which way is it? What do you think?

[bwl_13]

To me, tone refers to the quality of the sound you make. It differs based on context. It's not too strong/harsh, it's not too weak or thin. The tone accomplishes what it's meant to, whether that means a singing line, a full choral, or bombastic explosion. I don't know enough about physics to let you know how the sound is created and how it can differ specifically, but that's how I've come to understand the term.

[brogers70]

I think that tone is hard to talk about. It's true that the only thing you have control over when you strike a note is the velocity with which the hammer hits the string. The same velocity at impact will produce the same sound, no matter how much you worry about plucking the keys, or pulling out the sound, or kneading the keys. If the dampers are off, it's impossible to hear anything other than differences in volume (and if you are really close, differences in extraneous mechanical noises).

What makes the effect that people perceive as beautiful tone depends on how notes end (ie, how you let the dampers back down) , on voicing of chords, and on the relation between the volume of notes coming one after another. Because the things you have to do to control those factors, specifically subtle control of volume and the speed at which you come off a note, make you feel like you are caressing the key, or whatever you like to visualize, people get the feeling that such things change the tone of individual notes, even when what they do is help you control relations between notes.

For example, it seems common to think that you get a mellower more lyrical sound to the extent that you strike the key from a shallow angle rather than from the vertical. I think what is really happening is that you are getting better control of the volume of individual notes. You have to think about vectors. If you strike the key at a very shallow angle your motion is composed of a small component perpendicular to the key, which determines the velocity the hammer strikes the strong, and a large component parallel to the key, which has no effect. So a relatively large change in the force you apply at the shallow angle produces a very subtle change in the force perpendicular to the key, so by striking the key from a shallow angle you can get better subtle control of volume than you can striking the key perpendicularly. When you have subtle control of volume in a line, the line sounds beautiful and people say you have a great tone.

There are people who swear that tone is real and that you can change the quality of the onset (independent of the volume) by the manner in which you strike the key. I think that's wrong, but plenty of people think it's right.

[youngpianist]

I think that tone is hard to talk about. It's true that the only thing you have control over when you strike a note is the velocity with which the hammer hits the string. The same velocity at impact will produce the same sound, no matter how much you worry about plucking the keys, or pulling out the sound, or kneading the keys. If the dampers are off, it's impossible to hear anything other than differences in volume (and if you are really close, differences in extraneous mechanical noises).

What makes the effect that people perceive as beautiful tone depends on how notes end (ie, how you let the dampers back down) , on voicing of chords, and on the relation between the volume of notes coming one after another. Because the things you have to do to control those factors, specifically subtle control of volume and the speed at which you come off a note, make you feel like you are caressing the key, or whatever you like to visualize, people get the feeling that such things change the tone of individual notes, even when what they do is help you control relations between notes.

For example, it seems common to think that you get a mellower more lyrical sound to the extent that you strike the key from a shallow angle rather than from the vertical. I think what is really happening is that you are getting better control of the volume of individual notes. You have to think about vectors. If you strike the key at a very shallow angle your motion is composed of a small component perpendicular to the key, which determines the velocity the hammer strikes the strong, and a large component parallel to the key, which has no effect. So a relatively large change in the force you apply at the shallow angle produces a very subtle change in the force perpendicular to the key, so by striking the key from a shallow angle you can get better subtle control of volume than you can striking the key perpendicularly. When you have subtle control of volume in a line, the line sounds beautiful and people say you have a great tone.

There are people who swear that tone is real and that you can change the quality of the onset (independent of the volume) by the manner in which you strike the key. I think that's wrong, but plenty of people think it's right.

Clearly there seems to be a psychological effect. Maybe if you think about kneading versus striking, your body will move different and you'll be more relaxed. And that has an effect on your ability to control the speed of the hammers. So it's not useless to think about pressing versus striking. What do you think?

[ranjit]

I think that tone is hard to talk about. It's true that the only thing you have control over when you strike a note is the velocity with which the hammer hits the string. The same velocity at impact will produce the same sound, no matter how much you worry about plucking the keys, or pulling out the sound, or kneading the keys. If the dampers are off, it's impossible to hear anything other than differences in volume (and if you are really close, differences in extraneous mechanical noises).

What makes the effect that people perceive as beautiful tone depends on how notes end (ie, how you let the dampers back down) , on voicing of chords, and on the relation between the volume of notes coming one after another. Because the things you have to do to control those factors, specifically subtle control of volume and the speed at which you come off a note, make you feel like you are caressing the key, or whatever you like to visualize, people get the feeling that such things change the tone of individual notes, even when what they do is help you control relations between notes.

For example, it seems common to think that you get a mellower more lyrical sound to the extent that you strike the key from a shallow angle rather than from the vertical. I think what is really happening is that you are getting better control of the volume of individual notes. You have to think about vectors. If you strike the key at a very shallow angle your motion is composed of a small component perpendicular to the key, which determines the velocity the hammer strikes the strong, and a large component parallel to the key, which has no effect. So a relatively large change in the force you apply at the shallow angle produces a very subtle change in the force perpendicular to the key, so by striking the key from a shallow angle you can get better subtle control of volume than you can striking the key perpendicularly. When you have subtle control of volume in a line, the line sounds beautiful and people say you have a great tone.

There are people who swear that tone is real and that you can change the quality of the onset (independent of the volume) by the manner in which you strike the key. I think that's wrong, but plenty of people think it's right.

Two thoughts:
One, there's technology which allows you to reproduce a piano performance note for note based on hammer speed. There was a video in which undergrads pretended to play while what was actually being played was that of a professional. They successfully fooled professors who were judging this.

Two, there was a paper I read in which it was found that professionals could tell apart an actual  piano performance from one where the hammers were simply hitting the notes. The difference was found to be the sound of the actual fingers hitting the piano keys, which results in a difference in the perceived "tone" of the sound, and makes it sound more human.

[brogers70]

Clearly there seems to be a psychological effect. Maybe if you think about kneading versus striking, your body will move different and you'll be more relaxed. And that has an effect on your ability to control the speed of the hammers. So it's not useless to think about pressing versus striking. What do you think?

Indeed. I did not claim that it was useless to think about pressing versus striking. My only claim is that the only thing you can control when you press the key is the velocity with which the hammer hits the string. What thought processes or physical processes you use to exert that control are up to you. All sorts of people use all sorts of images to help them produce a sound. And I tried to give a physical explanation of why stroking the keys at a shallow angle might let you better control small differences in volume and thus produce a more beautiful line. It's likely that many people will prefer to think in images like stroking or plucking or whatever - and they'll use them in combination with careful listening to make a better "tone" (in the sense of better controlled relations between sequential notes). Most people, almost certainly, will not find it especially helpful to think of orthogonal basis vectors of the force vector of their finger.

[ranjit]

Indeed. I did not claim that it was useless to think about pressing versus striking. My only claim is that the only thing you can control when you press the key is the velocity with which the hammer hits the string. What thought processes or physical processes you use to exert that control are up to you. All sorts of people use all sorts of images to help them produce a sound. And I tried to give a physical explanation of why stroking the keys at a shallow angle might let you better control small differences in volume and thus produce a more beautiful line. It's likely that many people will prefer to think in images like stroking or plucking or whatever - and they'll use them in combination with careful listening to make a better "tone" (in the sense of better controlled relations between sequential notes). Most people, almost certainly, will not find it especially to think of orthogonal basis vectors of the force vector of their finger.

Just wanted to add, kneading vs striking the keyboard will create a difference in terms of the noise the hand makes, as I was talking about above. This also creates a small but noticeable difference. However no difference was found in terms of controlling the actual hammer.

[brogers70]

Just wanted to add, kneading vs striking the keyboard will create a difference in terms of the noise the hand makes, as I was talking about above. This also creates a small but noticeable difference. However no difference was found in terms of controlling the actual hammer.

Yes. If we are thinking of the same studies, the difference in the mechanical sounds, including those made by the fingers themselves, was very small and could be detected by only a subset of trained musician listeners, and only if they were close to the instrument.

My own experience was that if my teacher ever told me I was making a harsh sound and that I should modify how I struck the key, that when I played it again and she thought it was an improvement, what had really happened was that I had decreased the volume, or decreased the volume compared to the immediately preceding and following notes.

My view is that all the things people do in order to improve the tone of individual notes (if they believe it is possible to do so) really just help control the relations between the timing and volume multiple notes, either by voicing or shaping a line. Since it works, why worry too much about whether it is strictly physically correct?

[lostinidlewonder]

Speed of the hammer is far too sterile and simplistic a way to consider everything comes from alterations to that. It is akin to saying that it's the contact of the artists brush to the canvas is all which controls what art is created.

To me "tone" is merely expression and emotion of the playing connected to a strong understanding to what the capabilities of the instrument you are playing can manage and the space you are projecting into.

You can play with great expression but if you are not connected with the specific piano you are playing your tone can suffer. It takes time to connect with certain pianos to bring out the best it can. This is why for instance pianists might be critiqued as being too harsh if they over play a piano that has a lighter touch than they are accustomed to, or can sound too weak playing on an instrument with heavier action.

The space in which you are projecting into also commands your tone. So a pianist who is not accustomed in playing in a huge concert hall or underestimates it can sound puny and weak, one who plays always in large venues or is conditioned to play in large spaces can sound overly harsh in small intimate settings.

[lelle]

I subscribe to the notion that instrument noise makes for dirty tone. I think it's fairly agreed upon that stiff muscles lead to ugly, blocked tone, whereas supple muscles lead to richer, resonant tone. The resonance box of the piano amplifies the vibrations of the strings. Stiff, hard impacts with the instrument are reasonable to expect that they produce more noise than well-coordinated, supple, cushioned impacts, and if you have a bunch of other noise also being picked up by the resonance box, it seems logical that this would interfere/diminish with the vibrations created by purely by the strings. I.e. the less instrument noise, the purer tone.

Many other instrument likewise sound better when you are supple - think of stiff violinists vs supple violinists for example.



















But I do not have any actual scientific evidence for that.

[truecam]

There is a very good book called "Basic Principles in Playing the Pianoforte" that has a good section talking about the basics to having a great tone. Good tone is a lot more subtle on piano than other instruments, but it requires loose relaxed muscles. Its very important to play with the pads of your fingers since a good tone comes from how quickly/ slowly you press down a key and playing with the pads will give you more control, but also delicacy in your playing.

Its very easy to discern a bad tone by listening to the way a child who has not played piano before, will play a note. Typically loud and lacking control. This comes from lack of coordination, finger strength (controversial) , and technique. Its also important to realize that tone is determined a lot by the action of your piano. If it is unweighted / bad action/ sticky keys then it will be way difficult to get a good tone than playing a keyboard with great action/ a good weight/ fluid keys.

[ranjit]

I subscribe to the notion that instrument noise makes for dirty tone. I think it's fairly agreed upon that stiff muscles lead to ugly, blocked tone, whereas supple muscles lead to richer, resonant tone. The resonance box of the piano amplifies the vibrations of the strings. Stiff, hard impacts with the instrument are reasonable to expect that they produce more noise than well-coordinated, supple, cushioned impacts, and if you have a bunch of other noise also being picked up by the resonance box, it seems logical that this would interfere/diminish with the vibrations created by purely by the strings. I.e. the less instrument noise, the purer tone.

Many other instrument likewise sound better when you are supple - think of stiff violinists vs supple violinists for example.



















But I do not have any actual scientific evidence for that.

I think the question is whether instrument noise is identical as long as the hammers go down with the same force.

[lelle]

I think the question is whether instrument noise is identical as long as the hammers go down with the same force.

Do you mean force or speed? It's the speed at which the key is moving when the hammer is sent away - which is not at the keybed but slightly before - that impacts the volume.

I vaguely recall reading this somewhere but maybe I'm making it up but like press down the pedal and - don't actually do this lol - drop a 1kg brick on the resonance box and then compare that to dropping a 1kg brick shaped pillow from the same height on the resonance box. The noise level from the impact is likely to be quite different. They're travelling at the same speed due to gravity but one is a blunt impact with a stiff object, the other is a cushioned impact.

[brogers70]

Do you mean force or speed? It's the speed at which the key is moving when the hammer is sent away - which is not at the keybed but slightly before - that impacts the volume.

I vaguely recall reading this somewhere but maybe I'm making it up but like press down the pedal and - don't actually do this lol - drop a 1kg brick on the resonance box and then compare that to dropping a 1kg brick shaped pillow from the same height on the resonance box. The noise level from the impact is likely to be quite different. They're travelling at the same speed due to gravity but one is a blunt impact with a stiff object, the other is a cushioned impact.

I think that the physics in what you recall reading is incorrect. The objects won't be travelling at the same speed because a 1 kg pillow will necessarily be larger than a 1 kg brick and thus more affected by air resistance. If you ignore air resistance, then everything will fall at the same speed due to gravity, even if the masses are different.

But who cares? Maybe a more doable and relevant experiment is to keep the dampers off and to press a key with either (1) a pencil with a hard eraser or (2) a pencil where the hard eraser has been replaced with a marshmallow, or something similarly squishy, making sure that in both cases the pencil's end is already in contact with the key. Practice until a decibel meter confirms that you are getting the identical volume of sound with both pencils, and then see if a blinded observer can hear any difference.

I think that tone quality on a piano is quite different from tone quality on a flute or violin. In the latter cases the musician has many ways to alter the tonal character of an individual note. On the piano, you just cannot do much at all with the tone quality of individual notes (apart from volume and duration), so that production of a beautiful tone on the piano involves carefully setting up the relations between different notes rather than by changing the tonal qualities of individual ones.

[youngpianist]

The question is this though. Why does the piano sound bad and harsh when some people play, and beautiful when other people play? Even if the dynamic is piano, forte or or fortissimo. If all that matters is the speed of the hammers, then everyone should have good tone in at least one dynamic. But they don't. What do you think? Why is that?

[brogers70]

The question is this though. Why does the piano sound bad and harsh when some people play, and beautiful when other people play? Even if the dynamic is piano, forte or or fortissimo. If all that matters is the speed of the hammers, then everyone should have good tone in at least one dynamic. But they don't. What do you think? Why is that?

What makes a harsh sound is not the tone of any individual note, but the relative volumes of simultaneous notes (ie voicing), the duration of notes and the extent they overlap (legato), and the relative volume of sequential notes (phrasing).  Banging on the piano without much control will produce a harsh sound, not because there's something special and bad about the attack you make on an individual note, but because when you bang away you have no ability to voice or phrase or carefully control the way you release a note. And the things that people do, under the impression that they will produce a more beautiful sound on individual notes, really work by allowing them more control over subtle differences in voicing and phrasing.

[lelle]

What makes a harsh sound is not the tone of any individual note, but the relative volumes of simultaneous notes (ie voicing), the duration of notes and the extent they overlap (legato), and the relative volume of sequential notes (phrasing).  Banging on the piano without much control will produce a harsh sound, not because there's something special and bad about the attack you make on an individual note, but because when you bang away you have no ability to voice or phrase or carefully control the way you release a note. And the things that people do, under the impression that they will produce a more beautiful sound on individual notes, really work by allowing them more control over subtle differences in voicing and phrasing.

Cortot writes about "impurity of tone" that can be caused by moving the hand in such a way as to cause heaviness to the finger touch. Check out his commented study edition of the Chopin Etudes, Op 25. no. 1 specifically. He had amazing tone so I'd like to think he knew what he was talking about.

I do think there is more to tone than just relative volume and voicing.

[ranjit]

Cortot writes about "impurity of tone" that can be caused by moving the hand in such a way as to cause heaviness to the finger touch. Check out his commented study edition of the Chopin Etudes, Op 25. no. 1 specifically. He had amazing tone so I'd like to think he knew what he was talking about.

I do think there is more to tone than just relative volume and voicing.

To an extent, this can still be explained by relative volume. At high volume, there is some extraneous sound produced by the hammers. If you constantly play at that 'volume', you will have too much of that sound. So there's a certain range in which the piano functions best.

Not saying that this is the correct explanation, but it still fits the facts. I think what mostly convinced me that it's volume is that some magnet-based replications of piano playing still sound pretty much like the original pianist playing and can fool professionals.

[brogers70]

Cortot writes about "impurity of tone" that can be caused by moving the hand in such a way as to cause heaviness to the finger touch. Check out his commented study edition of the Chopin Etudes, Op 25. no. 1 specifically. He had amazing tone so I'd like to think he knew what he was talking about.

I do think there is more to tone than just relative volume and voicing.

I like his edition of the etudes and all his exercises. Still, when people, like Cortot, talk about tone they are rarely examining the pure sound of a single note without dampers. They are almost always talking of tone in a musical context. When experiments have been done to look at differences in the "tone" of individual notes struck in different ways, but with the same volume and without dampers, almost nobody can hear the difference, and those who do are hearing different mechanical noises. It is very much unlike a bowed string instrument or a wind instrument, with which it is obviously possible to produce different tone qualities at the same volume.

There's nothing at all "less than" or "sterile" about seeing that what is called beautiful tone on the piano is really beautiful, delicately controlled relations of volume and timing between many notes, rather than the sound quality of a single note. Pedalling, too can change the sound quality. And there's not even any particular harm in believing that you can change the tone of individual notes, since the ways of moving that you do under the guise of improving the tone of individual notes often do give you better control over the relations between notes.

[lelle]

I like his edition of the etudes and all his exercises. Still, when people, like Cortot, talk about tone they are rarely examining the pure sound of a single note without dampers. They are almost always talking of tone in a musical context. When experiments have been done to look at differences in the "tone" of individual notes struck in different ways, but with the same volume and without dampers, almost nobody can hear the difference, and those who do are hearing different mechanical noises. It is very much unlike a bowed string instrument or a wind instrument, with which it is obviously possible to produce different tone qualities at the same volume.

There's nothing at all "less than" or "sterile" about seeing that what is called beautiful tone on the piano is really beautiful, delicately controlled relations of volume and timing between many notes, rather than the sound quality of a single note. Pedalling, too can change the sound quality. And there's not even any particular harm in believing that you can change the tone of individual notes, since the ways of moving that you do under the guise of improving the tone of individual notes often do give you better control over the relations between notes.

I'm not convinced, but I do see where you are coming from with your point of view. It seems like a thing that is really difficult to set up and conduct a proper scientific experiment on.

[youngpianist]

What makes a harsh sound is not the tone of any individual note, but the relative volumes of simultaneous notes (ie voicing), the duration of notes and the extent they overlap (legato), and the relative volume of sequential notes (phrasing).  Banging on the piano without much control will produce a harsh sound, not because there's something special and bad about the attack you make on an individual note, but because when you bang away you have no ability to voice or phrase or carefully control the way you release a note. And the things that people do, under the impression that they will produce a more beautiful sound on individual notes, really work by allowing them more control over subtle differences in voicing and phrasing.

What are you basing this on, do you have scientific evidence? Just curious.

[brogers70]

What are you basing this on, do you have scientific evidence? Just curious.

There is good scientific evidence that it is either impossible or extremely difficult to hear any difference between notes of identical volume at the piano regardless of how they are struck, as long as the dampers are lifted. Experienced pianists, sitting close to the instrument can, sometimes, hear differences in the mechanical noise associated with different ways of striking the keys (e.g. starting with the finger in contact with the key, versus dropping down on the key from a height). But since these differences are hard even for professionals to hear, it is very unlikely that they correspond to what most listeners perceive as "good" or "bad" tone.

Note that this is completely unlike the situation with many other instruments. I can sing a note for you at a given volume and, keeping the volume constant, change the tone quality by raising or lowering my soft palate or my larynx, or by adjusting the position of my tongue, and almost anyone will hear the difference, no careful scientific study required. Likewise, if I play you a note at constant volume on the viola, I can change the tone quality by altering my vibrato, shifting my bow closer to, or farther from, the bridge, by changing the angle at which the bow touches the strings, etc. Again, no careful science required to identify the changes in tone. On a piano, the way in which you strike a single, undamped note has either no effect at all on tone quality, or only affects it to the extent that you generate mechanical noise, and even that is hard for most listeners to detect.

You *can* change the tone of individual notes by using the una corde pedal, or, if the dampers are not all lifted, by letting the damper of the key you are playing approach but not fully damp the string. Apart from that, you are really confined to manipulating the volume and timing of notes, and establishing beautiful relationships between the volume and timing of different notes. That is where the art mostly lies.

Here is a relatively recent article. It is the most positive study suggesting that touch can affect the tone of individual notes, but even it finds the effects to be very small. It contains references to the many earlier studies that found no effect. All of this suggests to me that what listeners hear as a beautiful tone is more related to relations between notes (ie voicing and phrasing) rather than to the tone quality of each individual note. Clearly this is different from the bowed (or plucked) string instruments, and the winds.

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/28/1/28_1_1/_pdf

[anacrusis]

Here is a relatively recent article. It is the most positive study suggesting that touch can affect the tone of individual notes, but even it finds the effects to be very small. It contains references to the many earlier studies that found no effect. All of this suggests to me that what listeners hear as a beautiful tone is more related to relations between notes (ie voicing and phrasing) rather than to the tone quality of each individual note. Clearly this is different from the bowed (or plucked) string instruments, and the winds.

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/28/1/28_1_1/_pdf

That has me curious if what is a very small effect on an individual note becomes a very large effect when there are many notes, some of which need to be played very loudly to project in a big hall? We all know that some pianists sound heavy and strangled in a big hall no matter how much effort they seem to put in, whereas other pianists seemingly effortlessly fill the whole room with a big, resonant sound.

[brogers70]

That has me curious if what is a very small effect on an individual note becomes a very large effect when there are many notes, some of which need to be played very loudly to project in a big hall? We all know that some pianists sound heavy and strangled in a big hall no matter how much effort they seem to put in, whereas other pianists seemingly effortlessly fill the whole room with a big, resonant sound.

That's something that I don't think has been the direct subject of experiments, so I couldn't rule it out. Still, in very simple terms, to fill a big hall you have to play louder. To fill a big hall with a beautiful tone you have to play louder and yet not lose the ability to voice and make subtle distinctions in volume and timing between sequential notes. It is easiest to control those beautiful subtleties at a medium volume because at a loud volume there's a risk that your movements will become larger and coarser and less well controlled, and at a very soft volume you are trying to make very small changes in a sound that is already very quiet, or to be more mechanistic, at pianissimo a 10% reduction or increase in hammer speed at impact requires a very small and precise change in the force with which you strike the key.

[anacrusis]

That's something that I don't think has been the direct subject of experiments, so I couldn't rule it out. Still, in very simple terms, to fill a big hall you have to play louder. To fill a big hall with a beautiful tone you have to play louder and yet not lose the ability to voice and make subtle distinctions in volume and timing between sequential notes. It is easiest to control those beautiful subtleties at a medium volume because at a loud volume there's a risk that your movements will become larger and coarser and less well controlled, and at a very soft volume you are trying to make very small changes in a sound that is already very quiet, or to be more mechanistic, at pianissimo a 10% reduction or increase in hammer speed at impact requires a very small and precise change in the force with which you strike the key.

That might be it. So pianists who struggle to be heard over an orchestra despite using a lot of effort don't have weak tone, but simply aren't able to play loud enough, maybe their movements are effortful but inefficient in terms of bringing enough speed to the keys?

[brogers70]

That might be it. So pianists who struggle to be heard over an orchestra despite using a lot of effort don't have weak tone, but simply aren't able to play loud enough, maybe their movements are effortful but inefficient in terms of bringing enough speed to the keys?

An opera singer projects over the orchestra by learning to modify the shape of their vocal passages in such a way that it emphasizes particular overtones of the fundamental notes they are singing such that those overtones fall in a frequency range in which the orchestra does not produce a lot of volume. So without increasing the total volume of sound they produce, they can, when well trained, cut through the sound of an orchestra by modifying their tone.

There is no way to do something analogous on the piano; you cannot change the shape of the soundboard in mid concert. All you have to work with is the total volume. I suspect that almost anyone, by banging hard enough, can make enough noise on a piano to be heard over an orchestra; the difficulty is in produce a large volume of sound and still retaining fine control over voicing and phrasing.

[thomas10]

It's spiritual.  The energy you emit is unlike anyone else.

[lelle]

An opera singer projects over the orchestra by learning to modify the shape of their vocal passages in such a way that it emphasizes particular overtones of the fundamental notes they are singing such that those overtones fall in a frequency range in which the orchestra does not produce a lot of volume. So without increasing the total volume of sound they produce, they can, when well trained, cut through the sound of an orchestra by modifying their tone.

There is no way to do something analogous on the piano; you cannot change the shape of the soundboard in mid concert. All you have to work with is the total volume. I suspect that almost anyone, by banging hard enough, can make enough noise on a piano to be heard over an orchestra; the difficulty is in produce a large volume of sound and still retaining fine control over voicing and phrasing.

I think there could be something analogous, which is what I have been arguing from the beginning. With good technique, the amount of overtones that resonate are maximized, with poor technique, overtones get choked/killed by instrument noise or hard physical impacts interfering with the resonance box's vibrations. The main note is still heard but there are impurities in or loss of overtones.

[brogers70]

I think there could be something analogous, which is what I have been arguing from the beginning. With good technique, the amount of overtones that resonate are maximized, with poor technique, overtones get choked/killed by instrument noise or hard physical impacts interfering with the resonance box's vibrations. The main note is still heard but there are impurities in or loss of overtones.

That is testable, and to some extent has been tested in that article I linked to a few posts back. The (very small, not always audible) differences in the wave forms depending on "touch" are indeed differences in the relative strength of different overtones. Whether that effect is enough to account for what people hear as good versus bad tone projecting over an orchestra I'm not sure. The thing I keep coming back to is that for singers or other instruments it is trivially easy to detect differences in tone for a given, constant volume, and it is easy to see how those differences translate into acoustic beauty. With the piano, any such differences are extremely difficult even for professional musicians (or scientific equipment) to detect. It seems unlikely to me that such differences are what most people are hearing when they hear "good tone" from a pianist. On the other hand, it is easy even for an amateur to detect the difference between careful voicing of a chord versus clumsy voicing, or subtle shaping of a phrase versus midi-style monotony. It seems far more likely to me that what we are hearing when we hear a beautiful tone at the piano is simply excellent control of voicing and phrasing. I also know that my point of view is a minority one and that many, many pianists are convinced that they can control the tone of individual notes independent of the volume or the musical context. I could certainly be wrong.

[ranjit]

I think there could be something analogous, which is what I have been arguing from the beginning. With good technique, the amount of overtones that resonate are maximized, with poor technique, overtones get choked/killed by instrument noise or hard physical impacts interfering with the resonance box's vibrations. The main note is still heard but there are impurities in or loss of overtones.

I don't think there are loss of overtones based on the attack of a single key. Overtones, i.e. the sound quality at a particular volume is determined pretty much by the velocity at which the hammer strikes a string.

[ranjit]

I think there could be something analogous, which is what I have been arguing from the beginning. With good technique, the amount of overtones that resonate are maximized, with poor technique, overtones get choked/killed by instrument noise or hard physical impacts interfering with the resonance box's vibrations. The main note is still heard but there are impurities in or loss of overtones.

I don't think there occurs loss of overtones based on the attack of a single key. Overtones, i.e. the sound quality at a particular volume is determined pretty much by the velocity at which the hammer strikes a string, unless you change something about the piano of course.

[ranjit]

An interesting link I found which may be relevant.
https://www.pianoeu.com/engprint.html