I think we're really getting somewhere here. I'd like to offer an alternative language, or perhaps focus, for our work. I have found it very helpful to accept the inherent sound that the builder, or rebuilder, has "put into the piano". Helpful to me as I do not make or install soundboards, rims, plates, etc. (Well, sometimes the plate comes out...) What I focus on in my work is maximizing the range of the piano and maximizing access to that range. I have found that if I extend the access--the musical range--of the piano as much as I can, then the various players that come to it can usually find what they want and at the very least will accept the instrument. Once in a while they even grin. ! And some are really quite explicit in that they want the largest range possible, even if the piano presents maybe not so well to a less-capable player. The level of control that some professionals have is extraordinary. This is most applicable, obviously, to pianos that are regularly played by more than one person. But even in the single player/owner situation, most (I do mean most, here!) of the players that I have worked with like having a more responsive instrument--one with a bigger palette and better access to it. So I focus on that. And almost always get good responses for the effort. IMHO, this is at least part of what brings the artists back to the Steinway time and again. It tends towards the largest palette. It has "a sound" only in the sense that so much is possible. So perhaps thinking about and discussing the "range" of the piano would lead us in more interesting directions, and be more helpful in actually working on the instruments. I've had surprisingly good experiences with very limited instruments when the player gets a lot more than he or she expected. And it has been my experience that it is nearly impossible to separate "touch" from "voice". They are hopelessly intertwined. The player puts effort into the piano and wants a response from it. The best smiles come when the response is better than what they expected. Doug Wood ********************************* Doug Wood Piano Technician School of Music University of Washington dew2 at uw.edu doug at dougwoodpiano.com (206) 935-5797 ********************************* On Feb 16, 2011, at 6:40 PM, Ed Sutton wrote: > Fred- > Yes! For example, it is very helpful to have the performer play the > piano over the process of voicing, both for the feedback the > performer can give, and for the opportunity to see/hear how the > performer touches the piano. Voicing is about the relationship > between effort and sound. > These experiments were so simple, they could be easily replicated. I > wonder what the effect of Stanwood touch design might be. One could > also try different hammers with actions of identical geometry. > Ed Sutton > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Fred Sturm > To: College & University Technicians > Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 9:04 PM > Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway "sound" > > On Feb 15, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Ed Sutton wrote: > >> For those who have not read this paper by Alex Galembo, it may be a >> bit of a revelation. >> http://www.engineeringandmusic.de/individu/galealex/gaalproc.html >> Ed Sutton > > > It is a very interesting paper, a classic. Most people seem to focus > on the first parts of the experiment, where the pianists evaluate > the pianos by playing and seeing what they are playing, preferring > the "name brands," then are unable to distinguish the pianos > correctly by listening when screened from the same pianos. The > inference many draw is that "the name on the fallboard" is the big > factor, and they can't really hear the difference. > But, in fact, the article actually concludes something quite > different. Certainly the "fallboard prejudice" or suggestibility is > a factor, but as the article states, and the second part of the > experiment shows, the inability to judge in the blind test was only > true when the pianist was listening to isolated excerpts on each > piano, but when they played the pianos themselves, blindfolded, they > could tell not only when they heard what they were doing, but even > if they only felt the action. Very interesting indeed. > Galembo's conclusion is that the interaction between performance and > sound is inextricable for the pianist. Raw sound, "tone," is not so > important and not as distinguishable as expected in isolation. What > matters is what physical activity produces what tone, and, more > importantly, what range of physical activities produces a range of > complex tones. > The tail end of the article, on the physical analysis of how > pianists "bring out the melody," seems unrelated, but in fact ties > in very well. The ability to "voice" one's playing so that different > things played simultaneously can be distinguished from one another, > particularly but certainly not only bringing out the top note of a > chord, is a hard earned ability, and one that is strongly influenced > by the pianos on which one practices, and how they are set up. > Partly it is regulation, but once that foundation is laid, it is a > question of voicing in conjunction with the responsiveness of the > whole belly apparatus, how much and how fast a gradient there is, > for increase in power and change of timbre, versus added effort at > the key. This is a major factor in how a pianist will judge a piano. > For the non-performing listener, what they hear in a performance is > the result of the interaction of the pianist with the piano, so it > affects them, too, though less directly. > Regards, > Fred Sturm > University of New Mexico > fssturm at unm.edu > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20110217/e98244db/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC