What tells a pianist which hand to use?

[lettersquash]

This came up from analysing music in XML format, and the question's been bubbling up for a while anyway. What, other than explicit "LH" or "RH" marks, indicates which hand we should use? I'm guessing there's no hard and fast rule, and it's not top vs bottom staff, obviously (since I presume we can't squeeze that many ledger lines in between the staves, even switching clef).

I get the impression beams are often used to indicate a continual phrase played with the same hand, but I'm not sure.

I was puzzled to find no <hand> element in XML, and then realised there's no such beast in the notation. It seems odd. If we were devising a notation for keyboard music from scratch, it would seem one of the most important things to indicate. However, I can also see it as just an extension of fingering, which is usually thought of as too individual a decision for most composers to inscribe in the score. Most of the time, choice of hand is fairly obvious, so it's only notated in specific instances.

Also, are there other conventions besides "RH" and "LH" in the score?

[lelle]

Off the top of my head:
* Most common: Notating stuff for the right hand in the upper staff line, stuff for the left hand in the lower line, changing the clefs according to your needs
* Notating both left hand and right hand in the same staff line (assuming both hands play in a register that makes this possible of course), but pointing stems up for the right hand and stems down for the left hand. Often clarified by not having rests in the other, empty line, to indicate that the hand that usually plays is that line still is busy.
* explicitly writing r.h., l.h. or similar, including using brackets to indicate which hand should play something
* not making it explicitly clear, and leaving it up to the pianist to decide what suits him/her best - usually used in more complex compositions

Most often though, if the piece was written by someone who plays piano, the writing will be idiomatic and it will often be quite clear to the experienced player which hand does what

[lettersquash]

Thanks, lelle. As I thought, it's a complex mix of inferences, so to extract anything like an explicit handedness for each note from the score (or XML) would require a complex algorithm, maybe even machine learning. Hmm...interesting.

[napede]

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.

[keypeg]

Whatever is handiest.

[danesi]

Whatever is handiest.

This is the best response I’ve seen today. It’s also amazingly true.

[lettersquash]

This is the best response I’ve seen today. It’s also amazingly true.

Yeah, keypeg really put their finger on it. There are only rules of thumb. <facepalm>

[lettersquash]

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.

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.

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. It isn't generally an issue, which is probably why people often don't notice that. 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.

The context - which is what alerted me to this odd fact - is that I am interested in alternative notation systems for music, and the best way to approach designing one of those is to go back to first principles and consider all the possible variables and what might be the best combination to try to represent. So, for keyboard music, it seems useful to include a suggested/likely hand to use with every note (given people can ignore that at will). Not only is it helpful to a player - we often practise hands separate, for instance - it also helps visually on a score, and in terms of hand-eye coordination when we play HT.

One of the more successful (it's all relative!) systems is Klavarskribo, which represents the whole, or a section, of the keyboard, rather than beginning with the (ultimately vain) attempt to have different staves for each hand. This means the notes of each hand or voice just intermingle on the page when hands cross, and it uses stem direction to indicate the hand. It does it badly, incidentally, and a whole keyboard of staff is also a bad choice!

Long story short: since the data file types we use to describe music represents traditional notation and doesn't therefore indicate handedness of notes, there is no parsing routine possible (other than complex analysis of note groupings, leading to hit-and-miss results) to convert a, say .musicxml file into Klavarskribo. The one app I know of that imports XML and MIDI files to Klavarskribo makes crude choices. If the XML has <voice>n</voice> tags for notes, say in a baroque multi-voice piece, it might use those, but it's often necessary to play middle voices with alternate hands. If it imports MIDI, without any staves or voices, it does an even worse thing - anything from middle-C up it puts in the RH, everything below in the left.

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.

TMI? Some AI might be doing that already - like for Synthesia (I don't know if it colour-codes notes for each hand differently) - and the technology must be fairly close to doing it with machine learning, analysing video of someone playing the piano alongside the data, it would be able to train its neural nets so that, given any other piece of keyboard music as XML, it could decide which hand, indeed which finger, to use for each note ... and then a ten-fingered, two-handed robot could sit down and play it!

[lelle]

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.

[lettersquash]

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.

[lelle]

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.

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

[brogers70]

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.

I think there is a tension in music notation between showing the musical idea clearly and showing how to play the notes on an instrument. An extreme example of the latter would be lute tablature - if you know the system, it tells you exactly what fingers to use on which strings, but if you are a singer looking at the accompanying lute's tablature, you'll have no clue what the harmonies are. A slightly less extreme form of the same idea is the example of Bach notating the fugues in Art of the Fugue with each voice on a separate staff. Keyboardists who are really into such things can play directly from such a score, but for most people that kind of notation does not give you enough information on how to hit the notes. A still less extreme example is that of writing the Bb trumpet part a whole step above the desired pitch - that means the instrumentalist only has to learn one set of fingerings regardless of the tuning of his instrument, but it makes  it (marginally) less convenient for someone reading the score. In piano music Beethoven often wrote across the grand staff without making any indication of which hands should do what, but more recent editions do tend to segregate upper staff/right hand lower staff/left hand, and adjust the clefs as needed. And then there are some pieces written in 3 staffs so you can see the musical idea more clearly, even at the expense of having to figure out which hand(s) play which notes in the middle staff.

My experience (as a middling amateur) is that by the time I was good enough to play music where which hand to use was not dead obvious from the score, I had already gotten good at figuring out which hand to use anyway. I slightly prefer to read from music notation that's biased towards showing the musical idea rather than the mechanics; I think only in the densest most complex music is explicitly marking which hand to use likely to be helpful, and then people who are likely to be playing that sort of music may not need the help.

[lettersquash]

Sorry, I meant upper staff line and lower staff line, of course, not upper clef and lower clef

Yeah, I thought it must be a slip. You clearly got what I was talking about above.

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.

Hmm, yes, I hadn't thought of that. Opposite stems are often used for voices on the same staff (obviously). That might help analyse the hands. I'm far too inexperienced in reading music for this task! The attached picture, the first five bars of Goldberg Variation No.1, shows what you mentioned earlier. Even with just two voices, the lower voice switches to downward stems in bar 4 to accommodate the upper voice when it shares the lower staff. and also how in bars 2 and 3 the upper obeys the stems-towards-the-middle rule.

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.

Yes, that should be a very clear indication, at least of those impossible spans.

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

Yes, if I continued down this rabbit-hole, I'd have to gather a lot of examples of keyboard music, with video of them being played, and work out an algorithm. But I'm rethinking those first principles again, and I'll have to abandon the attempt to extract explicit hands from XML or other files.

Thanks for helping me figure this out!
¬~

P.S. I see brogers70 has replied while I was writing this - thanks, that is a lot more to think about. My intention in this project is to help more people learn to play music, especially keyboards, and there is a lot about traditional notation that I find quite cryptic, largely due to its history. I think this puts a lot of people off once they realise the simple explanations of notation aren't the whole picture. But "which hand" is a relatively minor consideration, and obviously only pertaining to keyboard music (AFAIK).

[keypeg]

Yeah, keypeg really put their finger on it. There are only rules of thumb. <facepalm>

I could have written a thesis around this. 

Here's what we have at play:
The nature of the keyboard, the nature of our hands and bodies, and the nature of the instrument.  The keyboard has the black and white keys in their configuration, with the blacks further back and higher: the hand having shorter more flexible outer fingers and longer middle fingers.  That hand can expand, contract, and be angled various ways.  Finally the nature of the piano is such that as soon as you let go of a note the damper comes down and stops the sound from continuing - but you can circumvent that with a touch of pedal.

When we are confronted with a piece of music, there is the sound we want to produce, and then we weight these variables so as to be able to produce that sound.

You will also have badly written music by someone who doesn't understand the piano or won't bother (like if they're thinking orchestrally) and then the music should simply be rewritten so that it does work.  For example, you cannot have a note sustain for 16 beats.  You also cannot have a longer note get louder and softer while it sustains; but you can create the illusion of it by making the accompaniment do that.

This is the unpacking of my short first reply.

[keypeg]

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. ....

Reaction:  Why should the composer intend anything about which hand we are to use?  Shouldn't that be our choice?

[napede]

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.

Sure, but all of those things affect how the music sounds. Which hand to use is merely a means to an end, and so any indications are merely for the performer's convenience.
Speaking of convenience, In most cases I prefer the composer/editor to write the score "musically" as opposed to "functionally": show me the various lines and relationships the music is intended to express, and let me figure out how to reproduce them--it is why I have a pencil! Grouping notes for convenience might be useful if I am sight reading, but if it obscures the musical ideas and relationships it is a short-sighted approach (in my opinion).

[quantum]

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. 

[keypeg]

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.

[lettersquash]

Hmm, I suppose I have a different approach. There is a lot to be said for "convenience" in creating a score, which is why editors put fingerings on certain notes. It helps us understand how a pattern of notes might be played - was played by them, presumably - which can guide our decisions as a player or circumvent a lot of head-scratching and trying different solutions. Indeed, since we program our brains as we're trying different things, changing fingerings before you find one that's convenient has drawbacks. For experience pianists, this may be unimportant convenience, but I'm concerned about the beginners and improvers.

Which hand may be more usually fairly obvious, but I'm sure there will be plenty of pieces where it's not, either due to a section where crossing is useful or even where interleaving of L and R fingers might be good. Not only does this work in the interests of convenience, it may also express musical sense, indicating different voices passing or intermingling. Again, the less experienced are helped enormously by these aids.

My approach is more functional, sure. If instruction were given for exactly how to play a piece (obviously impossible), a composer could express their musical idea (as some here say is what they want expressed) precisely. There is no musicality that cannot be reduced to functional facts about when and how each note is produced - to deny that is to fly in the face of basic physics.

But my approach is probably pretty radical to most here. 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.

[quantum]

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. 

[lettersquash]

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.

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).

[quantum]

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.

Let's do some listening.  Pay close attention to the ADSR envelope of the tone. 

Erard 1859

Erard 1843 and a Pleyel 1843

1848 Pleyel.  This piano was owned by Chopin.

[quantum]

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. 

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".

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. 

[ranjit]

Can you describe how the sound is different between staccato and non-staccato playing if the pedal is down, on a modern piano?

At the most basic level, I would say the sustain would be identical only if the dampers are fully released from the strings (full pedal). (Of course, the overtone frequencies would still ring differently.) Most of the time, however, I think pianists are half pedaling or even less, so it is not the same.

[lostinidlewonder]

Most of the time, however, I think pianists are half pedaling or even less, so it is not the same.

I hardly ever use half pedal, in fact I don't know many pieces that actually call for that.

[brogers70]

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 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.

[lostinidlewonder]

There is no noticeable difference between staccato touch and legato touch when the sustain pedal is held down. How the sustain pedal "frees the hand" is a very important tool too allow you to withdraw from a note rapidly and move to another position, this would feel much worse if you were forced to maintain some kind of legato touch.

[ranjit]

I hardly ever use half pedal, in fact I don't know many pieces that actually call for that.

Interesting. I find I'm always "fractional" pedaling because I find the sustain too much.

[lostinidlewonder]

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.

[ranjit]

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.

[lelle]

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.

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.

[keypeg]

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?

[quantum]

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.

I constantly use fractional pedalling, and find your analogy to dynamics quite fitting.  There is an entire world of sound colour available in that small physical range of pedal movement where the dampers are in partial contact with the strings. 

[quantum]

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?

The damper regulation has to be good in order to get consistent results.  However, I have found that on instruments with less consistent damper alignment, one can combine both fractional pedalling and finger pedalling to achieve a successful result.  It only takes a few minutes of rehearsal to work out which keys need the assistance of finger pedalling. 

There is also flutter pedalling, constantly moving the dampers on an off the strings.  Sort of like doing a tremolo with one's foot.  However, in my experience it produces a lot more mechanical noise. 

Quick pedaling, I find particularly effective for bass notes with changing upper harmony.  As bass strings have much more sound energy, it takes more damper energy to mute them.  One can use quick pedal through harmonic changes in the treble creating clarity in that range, while maintaining a sounding bass note through the harmonic changes. 

[lettersquash]

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. 

Yes. None of that speaks to my question.

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. 

Yes, I acknowledged that different pianos have different characteristics.

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.

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". But it doesn't mean that, and one trains oneself to play short notes, with one's judgement of volume (which comes from the velocity of the down-strike) independent of that. 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?

In playing one of the Goldbergs (XIII, if I remember correctly), there is staccato on single notes leading to a stressed tone, which would be glaringly wrong to play with more velocity (=volume) than the phrase they lead to. They are almost like grace notes without a change of rhythm, and their staccato helps de-emphasize them.

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?

I suppose this may not have been as quick on Chopin's piano, so some damping may be produced by the hammer if the finger remains on the key...? That might explain pedalled staccato.

FWIW, I have an upright and use all the range of pedal it provides, like a clutch in a car, very often just releasing enough to damp and avoid muddiness, or just depressing slightly to allow a longer sustain, depending on the type of passage. There are times I might use full pedal, to allow notes of chords to combine, with short damping between changes...although I can't think of any off hand.

[lettersquash]

...but not like a clutch in a car. I'd get through too many clutches.

[quantum]

Btw, does half-pedal work for uprights or only grands, given that the structure is entirely different?

The one of primary differences between upright and grand is the escapement mechanism.  Modern grands have a repetition lever that lets the jack reset under the hammer before the key is completely released by the finger.  On uprights, the point at which the jack resets is very close to the key's rest position.  This means it is much easier to play repeated notes on a grand than an upright.

The damper mechanism is mostly separate from the hammer mechanism.  The damper pedal on an upright will very much allow fractional pedalling.  If you have an upright piano that you are able to open, remove the fallboard and upper panel.  Operate the pedal while watching how the dampers move.  You will see that it is possible to partially mute the strings with the dampers, which is what fractional pedalling is all about. 

[quantum]

Yes. None of that speaks to my question.

To review, your question was:

How might it be different on Chopin's piano?

The response I provided directly addressed your inquiry into the differences experienced on a piano of Chopin's time period. 

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?

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.

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?

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. 

The hammers are designed to come away from the strings after striking, surely?

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. 

[ranjit]

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?

[quantum]

How? If it's at the same hammer velocity, what would be the audible difference?

It is because the hammer is not the only variable that influences or modifies the manner in which a string vibrates. 

The timing of the damper lift along the onset of hammer strike will affect how a note speaks.  Also, one could argue that the process of a full pedal application includes in its movement, a portion of fractional pedalling, as in order for the dampers to pass from the state of fully damped to fully undamped there is by necessity a period where the dampers are in partial contact with the strings, even if for a very short moment in time.  Depending whether the damper is applied before, during the fractional portion of the damper lift, or after a full damper lift will result in a different sound. 

The sustain tails and lingering resonance of previously sounded notes can also affect the way a note speaks.  Brogers70 brought this up earlier:

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.

From the perspective of the piano action, a held note would put the hammer in what is referred to as placed in check, whereas a staccato note would quickly do a complete reset of the hammer movement.  If you observe the hammers in the piano, you can see that these are actually different hammer to string distances. 

Playing a held note, the finger is in solid contact with the key while the jack propels the hammer past the let off point to the strings.  While with certain types of staccato where the hand bounces off the keys, there is less direct assertion of energy from the finger as the action goes through its cycle. 


Then there is also the acoustics of the room that can greatly affect the pedalling choice of a pianist.  A dry room like a living room or university practice room can benefit from more pedal and holding down keys, utilizing the instrument to bring out a more resonant tone.  Whereas a recital hall, church or other large performance space can often benefit from less pedal, more articulated touch and a brighter tonal palette.  The hall will provide plenty of resonance, and in this case the pianist needs to work to achieve clarity.   Staccato and pedal in these two contrasting spaces will be perceived very differently. 

[lostinidlewonder]

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.

I achieved distinction grades on exams (and my students too) and won plenty of competitions without ever doing such things as regulary as users here are promoting. I guess people like to use pedal in different ways to help create effects that otherwise could be done with the fingers themselves and normal pedalling.

Pedalling with a quick release of a note which otherwise would sound staccato like is undiscernably different to holding that note with a legato touch. If it was then the freeing of the hands and pedalling would not work and playing would feel a lot more difficult in many cases. A large technical pedalling point in teaching is how the hands are freed and how we can  release notes quickly to find another position which without a pedal would sound quite staccato like on the release to the position movement. I don't think we are talking about sharp accented staccato touches, but quick releases which sound certainly staccato like and of which are undetectable when the sustain pedal is held.

[lettersquash]

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?

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." 

Do you mean less velocity, or more?

It is actually more that just velocity, but an entire system of tools that are used when playing. 

But you cited a change in velocity as the reason it's different. Do you mean less velocity, or more?

Music takes place in context, and it is the context of the whole that generates the overall listener perception.

Please try not to patronise me. This is bleeding obivious.

  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. 

That was my suggestion.

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. 

And obviously I was assuming other conditions don't change. This is just beginning to look like spurious waffle.

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.

Is the piano in air or under forty feet of water...

  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. 

Irrelevant. Do you mean less velocity, or more?

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. 

Technical spurious waffle.

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.

Did I say this is spurious waffle?

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. 

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.

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.

I'll try to remember that.

[quantum]

Do you mean less velocity, or more?

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. 

Is the piano in air or under forty feet of water...

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. 

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.

It is unfortunate you feel that way.


Take a break, cool your head. 

[lettersquash]

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'm sorry to criticise your method of replying, but I find it quite irritating. You give the impression that you know absolutely everything about sound, and talk down to me like I'm an idiot. Nobody, for example, said anything about "follow(ing) hard textbook rules", did they? I certainly didn't. I said nothing about having to do "exactly this thing in order to sound this way". And it is, as I said, bleeding obvious that music is heard as a result of a complex combination of lots of things. However, in order to learn anything about that complex combination, sometimes it's useful to isolate one issue, which is why I kept trying to get you to discuss just ONE issue - whether a staccato note will sound different from a non-staccato note with the pedal fully depressed, all other things being equal.

I acknowledge that, and have increased my understanding of how, certain other considerations might make a difference. How quickly the hammers disengage (which will be different on an older piano mechanism from a modern grand) might create a difference. I am sorry that acknowledging this point got lost in my frustration with your over-inclusivity of all manner of possible conditions, most of which can easily be kept the same in order to isolate one variable.

In particular, you seemed to indicate that there would be a different velocity that a player used when they knew they were going to hold a note from not holding it. Perhaps wrongly, I took this as a critical point relating to the question, but of course this is an example of a condition that can be kept the same, I contend, playing staccato or otherwise, and with or without full pedal, and I was interested to know whether you were referring to increased or reduced velocity. When pressed, this just merged with all your other vague generalisations about music being complex - I know, but we can analyse too - and it's annoying if you don't have a clue whether you meant more or less velocity. It all adds - rightly or wrongly - to my sense of smoke being blown in a certain dark portion of my nethers.

I will not engage with troll behaviour.

It's not troll behaviour. It's an attempt to keep someone real. Quite the opposite.

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. 

I hope you will.

It is unfortunate you feel that way.

So you literally sat with your eyes closed while your teacher played (very carefully keeping all other variables the same) random-choice staccato / non-staccato with the sustain pedal fully down, and you learned to say which was which? Good grief! It's staggering not only that you did this, but that I landed on the idea out of the blue.

Take a break, cool your head.

All water under the piano.

[keypeg]

I'm going back a bit.

Yes. None of that speaks to my question.

No, it did not speak to your question, but MY question was being answered!  And that involved something I wrote in answer to your original question where I made an exception to the idea of composers dictating how the piano is played physically, instead of what sounds / sound qualities the composer intends to be produced.  In the case of staccato + pedal, the composer is not indicating wanted sound (staccato), but wanted motion of the hand.  I don't know if I saw any response by you to what I wrote on the matter.  However, you do object to someone answering me, and giving extra information - for which, btw, I'm grateful.

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".

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.

[keypeg]

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.

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.

[keypeg]

I was lost on this one before:

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.

mostly because "thumb left-on-bottom...." and I kept thinking the bottom notes are played with the hand that has a thumb on the right, not the left.  With a bit of punctuation I finally figured it out:  "rule of thumb:  left (hand) on bottom ..... " so now I can answer.

There are students who played another instrument first before taking up piano, where you had to place your hand in "positions" and keep them there.  Also piano instruction books which start off telling students "positions" for the hands.  Either of these lead to later confusion, because they lead to thinking about the hands, instead of the keyboard.

We have a landscape on which to dance, of multiple octaves.  The notes we play live on that landscape.  We place our hands in a region for reaching the notes in that landscape.  I do not want to have notation that directs me via my hands or which hand, beyond what already exists.  There are also teaching methodologies - some printed, some belonging to the teacher who teaches that way - which do not do the "treble clef left hand/ bass clef right hand" thing - or at least not for that long.  This way the student soon learns to travel to the "place where the group of notes live".  I don't think I like this "directing the hands" thing.

[lettersquash]

Regarding your earlier reply, I'm glad you got your answer to your question, and thank you for clarifying how we got into that. I understand - and understood at the time - that you see the pedal + staccato as you do generally with musical notation, as conveying a particular sound (or trying to), which is why I wondered how staccato affects the sound if the pedal is down.

This I did not understand at all.  What does understanding music "as theoretical motion, analyzing... etc." have to do with anything. 

It wasn't a good description. What I was trying to point to has various aspects. The main one is that traditional notation is based on the diatonic scale of C major, which has a number of odd consequences for how we think about music. Being grounded in the major and minor scales, having positions on the staff only for the "naturals", and adjusting these with key signatures, then with accidentals, appears to force a particular theoretical approach to music. For example, unless a person knows the (essentially arbitrary) rules, they cannot write music with any degree of confidence, since, confronted with their first black note, they do not know whether to notate it as a sharp or flat, and might choose the "wrong" one, despite these actually producing the exact same tone in 12-TET. Similarly, they do not know when they should tie a note to another half its value or dot it, or even what time signature they "should" use. Music as a written art is a dark art practised by graduates.

These rules we largely pass over without noticing when learning to read music, because we're interpreting notes already analysed according to those rules by composers and editors. We have oddities, however, that crop up - as when the same note is notated as a sharp one moment, a flat the next, because of the harmonic movement of the piece as constructed by a theoretically knowledgable composer (Chopin's Prelude in Em, for example, as I asked about here many months ago).

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. 

How could you look at a score and hear things before you were taught what a score was, before you "learned anything"?

I didn't even know about finger numbers - I just found the most comfortable way of playing things.

Of course. I often ignored finger suggestions in scores. I still do.

Getting a score that indicates which hand plays what - no idea how that would have helped me.

Well I suggested a way it might help - by avoiding some of the work in deciding which hand to use. The same as finger numbers can help by avoiding some of the work in figuring out which finger to use. I'm not suggesting a dictatorial handedness any more than dictating fingering, it's just something that helps. I think we often don't notice that this is there when we approach any piano score with its grand staff. Its functions obviously include adding range by using different clefs, and the layout of the keys automatically lends itself to a default use of hands, but the staff surely indicates a default handedness as well.

But as I said, each to their own. I was influenced by the invention of Klavarskribo, which, for all its many faults, has note stems pointing left or right to indicate which hand is intended for each note, and when designing my own notation system I thought that was a useful thing to include. Naively, I took it for granted that keyboard music showed which hand to use, only to realise later that it doesn't, or not explicitly.

It is a wonderful gift to have a good ear for music, or a great ability to learn music theory and gain proficiency through study and deliberate application of rules. I see a lot of musicians who have one or other of these or both. I'm very aural and have only recently begun to try to understand music theory, which is a struggle for me. But I also intuit that there are a lot of people who, although they are "musical" enough to enjoy music and know the difference between beautiful sounds and bad ones, aren't as gifted either in aural skill or analytical skill, and if they learn to play at all, they tend to drop out of learning music. For them, a more engineering approach could bring a lifetime of pleasure. I'm pretty sure they can work out the notes and their rhythms given a simpler, more one-to-one mapping, a more logical system than the traditional, although the research is slim so far.

I wanted to be able to read music from manuscript, but I find it hard, and I find it irritating, and I'm pretty sure it's because the notation requires thousands of hours of relentless practice - of scales and arpeggios - and learning music theory, and still having to remember which cryptic switch has been applied to this or that note due to key signature or accidental, and to essentially sum the hieroglyphic duration icons of notes and rests to know when to start and end notes. It requires more time than I have to accomplish that, and probably more money for lessons.

So I began looking for a better/simpler system, and after much searching and reviewing what's out there, I started writing my own and collaborating with others doing other systems.

I consider it secondary to analyse harmonies, to know scales and such like. I also consider it secondary to develop sensitivity in technique, or aural sensitivity, ear training, all that. If people could read the pieces they want to play, because the notation tells them when to play and release each note in a reasonably straightforward manner, they could open a world of musical pleasure and potentially go on to gain all that future learning if they want to.

[quantum]

It's not troll behaviour. It's an attempt to keep someone real. Quite the opposite.

I will not engage with troll behaviour. 

The questions you have been asking in this thread require a certain amount of technical information in the response to do it justice.  You take issue with explanations that were designed as a big picture overview of the many moving components, as being vague generalizations.  Yet, at the same time you throw a tantrum when presented with concepts that involve a certain amount of technical detail.  Your reactions make it difficult to understand what it is you are seeking. 


Take a break.  Return when you have cooled your head.

[lettersquash]

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.

Yes, I've seen beginners do this. No, I don't teach. A beginner may tend to hit the keys more forcefully seeing staccato, because they think that a short note is produced by a short downstroke, and a short (temporarly short) downstroke over the same distance must mean it has to happen faster. Lifting the fingers rapidly tends, by simple psychology and ergonomics, to create dropping them rapidly, surely? I'm sure I was corrected on this myself by my teacher, or realised that I was playing louder than I should myself (since I'm a good listener). I can't imagine that this phenomenon isn't well known to teachers, but I may be wrong. Do you teach piano?

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.

Yes, I respond sarcastically sometimes.