On Feb 22, 2011, at 9:20 AM, David Love wrote: > One thing I try and think about with concert instruments is that > they are > really mini orchestras. snip > When you think about > the piano that way (and many pianists do) it becomes clear that the > kind of > dynamic range required, especially in a performance, has to have broad > timbre changes and must include that brilliant upper end, full > spectrum, > feel it in your chest explosion. I think that puts it very well. One thing I might emphasize is that the need for the brilliant upper end is only partly for an explosive effect from the whole piano. It is also a necessary element in the impossibly complex acrobatics of managing to have a number of threads happening at once, each at its own level, each independent of the other. Levels of sound, all capable of being heard, each with its own nuances. This simultaneity can only happen when there is a range of color, and when one voice needs to emerge very clearly, it needs that brilliance. This does not mean the whole piano sounds that way at that time. A lot of it is smoke and mirrors, giving the impression that something loud is actually soft and similar effects, rendered by balance, pedal work, etc. (it is equally important that the low end of the spectrum be easily available and controllable so as to provide a setting for the high end). A problem I have had in my experiences with cold pressed hammers is that their tonal range sounds fine up to about forte, with maybe a little more gradual a gradient up to that point than I would prefer but acceptable, but then it levels off and doesn't go anywhere - no more change in color. That fits the comment that Ron N made about customers saying the piano made them sound better than they were: They are protected from making harsh and strident sounds at the top of the spectrum, and because they don't have a lot of control and generally use too much force, they sound better. But from my perspective as a demanding pianist, I can't accept that limitation. I absolutely need the ability to get a sharp accent, for instance, with a minimum amount of extra exertion. If I have to make it a mammoth amount of extra exertion, it makes my job impossible (I do play pretty demanding literature). I would point out to you all that serious pianists are far more dedicated to their art than most people can imagine (I don't mean to exclude other performing artists in that statement): they say that 10,000 hours makes someone pretty proficient at something. For a pianist it is more like 40,000, and those aren't mindless repetition hours, they are focused, filled with constant self-criticism, mental and physical efforts to make the entire mechanism do impossible things, and do them easily, consistently and with emotional content. Hundreds of hours may go into preparation for a given concert (even more), with all sorts of pianistic possibilities explored during practice. When an instrument is incapable of producing many of those possibilities (due to any number of factors, from belly to action set up to voicing), essentially all that work has gone for nought. Yes, the notes can be played, and maybe the audience will applaud, even give a standing ovation, but the feeling of disappointment is pretty strong. On the other hand, a piano set up with a wide range of colors easily available under the fingers opens up all sorts of new possibilities, and is a real joy to perform on. But maybe that is just moonshine and nonsense <G>. Regards, Fred Sturm fssturm at unm.edu http://www.youtube.com/fredsturm
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC