Whatever is handiest.
This is the best response I’ve seen today. It’s also amazingly true.
It depends what you mean by "should use". Ultimately, it is up to the performer, despite even an explicit indication by the composer or an editor. I can think of many examples where I do not use the hand that the score would seem to indicate because I believe that it serves the music better, and I would be curious to know whether the composer had any opinion whatsoever about my choice.
What I find odd though is that I know you transfer notation files between notation programs (Sibelius to Musescore for example) my converting them to XML (or i guess music XML) files, and they transfer fine, putting what's in the upper clef in the upper clef, and what's in the lower clef in the lower clef, thus transferring the notation that indicates what hand does what adequately.
I think you're right that it does that, but what is an "upper clef" and "lower clef"? That's my problem - these don't "indicate what hand does what adequately," if my analysis is correct. I've got plenty of pieces where notes on the lower staff are played with the right hand and vice versa, and plenty where the bass clef is fairly obviously indicating right hand notes and vice versa, so neither the clef nor the staff tell you unambiguously which hand to use. That ambiguity is simply copied from file type to file type, because essentially they describe traditional notation.
TL;DR So you can't convert from any traditional notation data file into a notation that would like to indicate specific hands for each note without sufficient human intelligence or artificial intelligence (neither of which I have, lol) and some tedious editing.
Sorry, I meant upper staff line and lower staff line, of course, not upper clef and lower clef
Yeah, I guess it gets harder to make a good algorithm if the composer has notated things ambiguously.I think music XML does handle separate voices though, so that if you have an upper and a lower vocie (presumably with stems up and down) in one staff line only, it's a viable option to do it with two hands.
I presume you could also have some type of statistical approach, the more widely spaced something is, the more likely it's intended to be divided between the hands.
I think I as a pianist would find it fun to provide different use cases to somebody constructing an algorithm, but it'd be easier if you did it in a dialogue, rather than trying to come up with stuff off the top of my head on a forum
Yeah, keypeg really put their finger on it. There are only rules of thumb. <facepalm>
However, I imagine that many keyboardists won't have a clue that there is no specific indication of which hand the composer/editor intended any particular note to be played with. ....
Yes, of course we're free to do things differently from how a composer or editor indicated we "should", but that's a truth that doesn't really have any boundaries. We're free to ignore expression marks, add our own trills or glissando, choose a tempo we like, transpose to another key or change particular notes for whatever reason. But a lot of information is there that describes how the piece was intended to be played.
Why should the composer intend anything about which hand we are to use? Shouldn't that be our choice?
Precisely! The job of the score is not to tell the performer how to play, rather its purpose is to describe the music in an efficient manner so the performer can make educated decisions by themselves.
There is one exception - when Chopin, who played the piano well - shows staccato over pedal. This does not indicate the wanted sound (staccato) and one cancels out the other. In this case as a pianist Chopin envisioned a sound, and gave physical instructions in the score as to what to do physically to create that sound. This may not be the only exception. but "which finger or hand to use" - I don't see that as falling into the same category.
I don't really consider this an exception, rather a further example of how the purpose of the score is to be descriptive. It remains a very efficient manner of describing to the performer, the sentiment of the musical and expressive idea. It is not just staccato, or holding down the pedal, but a very specific sound that is achieved by combining touch in the hand and touch in the pedal. IMO in the present Chopin example, the performer's objective is to first and foremost listen to the sound they are producing, and following that, make the necessary adjustments to achieve the desired sound. A literal holding of the pedal on a modern day piano as indicated in the score may not achieve the same sound as Chopin heard, as pianos in Chopin's day did not have the same sustain characteristics.
How might it be different on Chopin's piano? I don't disagree that Chopin's piano will have different audible characteristics, and the sustain may have been different in some way. I'm just curious how that might be so.
My issue is that if strings are allowed to ring freely, there should be no difference at all between staccato notes and legato playing, except in the sense that staccato is used to mean more than "a short note, unsustained by the finger on it".
Can you describe how the sound is different between staccato and non-staccato playing if the pedal is down, on a modern piano?
Most of the time, however, I think pianists are half pedaling or even less, so it is not the same.
Can you describe how the sound is different between staccato and non-staccato playing if the pedal is down, on a modern piano? How might it be different on Chopin's piano? I don't disagree that Chopin's piano will have different audible characteristics, and the sustain may have been different in some way. I'm just curious how that might be so. Presumably it had a sophisticated enough pedal mechanism that it allowed the strings to vibrate freely, so I'm thinking it must be to do with the strings themselves or the rest of the piano's construction, soundbox, frame, etc.My issue is that if strings are allowed to ring freely, there should be no difference at all between staccato notes and legato playing, except in the sense that staccato is used to mean more than "a short note, unsustained by the finger on it". This is, as I'm sure we're all aware, the case - unless we analyse what we're doing and are sensitive to the movement of the phrases, most of us will play staccato notes faster on the attack as well as release, and therefore they will be louder. It's something beginners in particular have to learn to avoid. Sometimes we should intuit that a staccato note should be delicate and light, other times stronger.So, if a note is struck, but released, or struck with the same force and held, and the pedal is down, I don't see any difference unless the finger-hold extends beyond the pedal release. Perhaps Chopin was intending the player to intuit a lighter touch, but used staccato rather than a dynamic expression mark (which are generally rather course, applying to passages rather than notes).
I hardly ever use half pedal, in fact I don't know many pieces that actually call for that.
It's not a very consistent sound having the dampers slightly off the strings and that becomes more various given different pianos, in fact I would claim its pretty damn difficult to do on some pianos (certainly Yamaha's) where the sustain reacts very quickly. Perhaps some pianos allow it to have some effect but I really think you can create desired sound without relying on rare pedal effects.
Doesn't everyone use varying shades of pedal? I think I always did this instinctively to modify the sustain, much like we change the dynamics of notes. I can see it being unreliable with some pianos, especially uprights, but on a well-maintained grand I don't think it would be so much of an issue.
It was pointed out to me several times that the half pedal idea is quite finicky and requires a super-well balanced, well-made piano to pull off. The distance from all strings must be the same across the gamut. Btw, does half-pedal work for uprights or only grands, given that the structure is entirely different?Instead, I was given what was called "quick pedal" - a very fast touch of the pedal which serves to erase some of the sound but not all of it - and I'm told does the same or similar effect. (?)If you pedal often enough, does it actually get muddy?
On modern pianos the aesthetic is to extend and smooth out the decay and sustain portions of the tone. It means that on a modern piano, a note held for a long time will tend to maintain a lot of sound energy, even during the latter portions of sustain. This effect is amplified even more in lower pitches. What does this translate to when playing actual music? Longer sustain can be perceived as a more supported singing tone. However, the compromise is that the longer sustain tails can create a crowding situation where they get in the way of other notes.
You may have noticed in the videos above that it is possible to hold down the pedal and get a velvety wash of luxurious tone. On a modern piano, too much pedal will result in the sustain tails just creating too much competition to neighbouring notes.
Not really. The velocity of a piano key played staccato differs from the velocity of a key played with the intention of holding. It can be subtle, but one can train oneself to hear the nuance in tone.
Btw, does half-pedal work for uprights or only grands, given that the structure is entirely different?
Yes. None of that speaks to my question.
How might it be different on Chopin's piano?
I don't know what "nuance in tone" you're referring to that one trains oneself to hear, produced by "the velocity of a key played with the intention of holding." Do you mean less velocity, or more?
Very interesting about pedalling, and of course my question (not my original question, but where we got into this) was about how staccato would differ from non-staccato given the same pedal conditions (and on the same piano, obviously). Can you swear you'd know which were which if you closed your eyes and a pianist very carefully played notes at the same volume, staccato and non-staccato, with the pedal fully depressed? The hammers are designed to come away from the strings after striking, surely?
The hammers are designed to come away from the strings after striking, surely?
Several of my mentors were able to hear this, and subsequently trained me how to hear this. So to answer your question, yes, I can hear the difference.
How? If it's at the same hammer velocity, what would be the audible difference?
I think staccato with the pedal down sounds different from legato because when you play staccato you are not aiming to match the volume of a note to the decay of the previous note, whereas when you are playing legato that matching is almost as important as simply overlapping the beginning of one note with the end of the previous one. It's easy to hear when the pianist is not trying to match the volume of a note to the decay of the previous one - it is just the relative volume of the two notes - and that's true regardless of whether the pedal is down.
That's funny, I think it's very rare I press the sustain pedal all the way down. I do a lot of small shifts and press it down maybe quarter to halfway. I find that a lot of repertoire often sounds very muddy very quickly if I press the pedal all the way down.
QuoteI don't know what "nuance in tone" you're referring to that one trains oneself to hear, produced by "the velocity of a key played with the intention of holding." Do you mean less velocity, or more?When teaching advancing students about becoming more sensitive to nuance in tone and touch, part of the challenge lies in the student not being able to hear the nuance in question. A lot of the training therefore is directed to developing one's ear to approach sound from a different perspective. As one of my mentors often said: "if I can teach you to hear it, I can teach you to make that sound."
It is actually more that just velocity, but an entire system of tools that are used when playing.
Music takes place in context, and it is the context of the whole that generates the overall listener perception.
If we micro analyze, we could take the position that: if the dampers are off the strings, the strings should just ring the same way given a consistent velocity.
But that removes music from the context in which it is perceived. It is not just velocity, for instance when a note is timed to be played beside adjacent notes, how is it placed within the context of the sustain tails of previous notes.
What is the pedal doing when the key is played: do the dampers get released before hammer strikes the strings, is there any amount of fractional pedalling going one at the very moment the hammer strikes, are the dampers released ever so slightly after the hammer strike, and so on.
Varying the timing of any one of these things by milliseconds can change the overall sound and listener perception.Continuing with context, velocity isn't simply about playing louder or softer, or creating more or less sustain. On a good piano, the colour of a note, or the ratio of its harmonics, also changes with velocity.
Putting that in the context of surrounding notes gives yet another tool to express musical nuance. There is also the shape of a note's ADSR envelope, each portion of the envelope can be independently modified.
Playing staccato with pedal, might necessitate a change in velocity, which results in a change of tonal colour, which necessitates a change in pedalling, which might modify the ADSR envelope, which might necessitate a change voicing certain notes to be more prominent than others, and so on. All of this in context adds up to the complete sound picture that is presented to the listener. So hearing staccato with pedal isn't simply about reducing the notion to comparing sounds of ringing strings, it is about awareness and sensitivity to context.
It is what distinguished the invention of the piano from earlier keyboard instruments. However, one must realize the hammer is not the only device on the piano able to modify the the vibration of a string.
Do you mean less velocity, or more?
Is the piano in air or under forty feet of water...
Sorry, you had exercises where they held the pedal down completely and then randomly decided to play a staccato note or non-staccato note, repeatedly, and you were "trained" to hear the difference? I find that hard to believe.
Velocity is only part of the system of devices that adds up to the total sound perceived by the listener. As I said earlier, it is part of the context in music where a particular note lies. In real music, it is more useful to tap into the feedback loop of listening and adapting, rather than try to follow hard textbook rules that say in order to sound this way one must do exactly this thing. So to use less or more velocity would be a real time decision made by the pianist.
I will not engage with troll behaviour.
We may not all agree here, and that is fine. Our differences in approaches to music is what keeps it interesting. I will gladly participate in a civilized intellectual debate on musical topics brought up in this thread.
It is unfortunate you feel that way.
Take a break, cool your head.
As I already said, I think this is rather the other way around. Beginners interpret staccato very energetically, banging the keys down, because they know they have to play "quick notes".
I do not primarily understand music as a theoretical motion, analysing the key, harmonic sequences, modulations and so on. Hence I find the whole notation system archaic and over-complicated, due to its evolution through history without any serious overhaul, just add-ons and workarounds. No matter, each to their own.
Beginners will tend to play pieces that don't break the rule of thumb left-on-bottom-using-bass-clef; right-on-top-using-treble clef, and when a confusing passage comes up as they take on more complex pieces, they will either have a teacher to ask, or help on a forum, or enough experience at the keyboard to just do what works for them. And it is kind of odd, given that it's one of the most fundamental, and helpful, indicators one could give about the notes.
This I did not understand at all. What does understanding music "as theoretical motion, analyzing... etc." have to do with anything.
Before I learned anything, when I looked at a score, I heard things. It took several decades later to discover there is such a thing as analyzing.
I didn't even know about finger numbers - I just found the most comfortable way of playing things.
Getting a score that indicates which hand plays what - no idea how that would have helped me.
It's not troll behaviour. It's an attempt to keep someone real. Quite the opposite.
Have you seen beginners do this? (For example, do you teach?) I see no reason why a beginner would "bang" or use velocity. Staccato means a short note. That means releasing it early - not speed of attack.
And after that, to the present, you seem to go into argument mode. I actually had to go back and check whether you were actually the person asking the original question - because now you seem to be the person who is arguing about things, including what seems a tone of sarcasm.