Hi,
I think Doug and Fred are spot on.
You're welcome for the "Blastissimo"...it's not copyrighted...please
feel free to use it whenver.
And, importantly, that really is what sets things up for everything
else we do with "voicing". If determined properly from the get-go
when voicing, it can save a great deal of trouble later on because
carefully establishing that "top" line (as above the line
established for most "normal" playing as described by Doug) at the
outset means that you can work your way down in the dynamic range,
all the way to "virtually inaudible" without messing up what you've
done in between. This is, again as Doug notes, particularly
important voicing the mid- to lower tenor and across in the upper
portions of the bass. Because of the way most composers have written
for the "left" hand for so long, it tends to have much more in the
way of information-robbing repeated notes and/or noodling going on
which can easily mask anything going on farther up the
scale. Further, all of these problems are made more complex by what
appears to be the fact that many/most pianists do not have very good
left-hand technique, and often wind up blurring things like scales or
alberti bass lines with the damper pedal.
Doug says something else here that is very important: "...we are not
responsible for the color...". Absolutely correct. We can make
things louder or softer. We can change the attack and decay envelope
within limits. But, we cannot, without (at the very least) change
the color of the tone of the instrument. That it is the player who
makes the difference is demonstrated with exceptional clarity on the
CD released after the 1988 Steinway celebration of the 500,000th piano.
The final piece on that concert was Schumann's Carnaval. It was
performed on two Ds, toe-ed to each other, with different artists
walking out from either side of the stage to pick up whatever
movement they were to play. While the recording itself isn't of the
highest quality, it is good enough to clearly discern not only that
there are two pianos in use, but that multiple artists are
performing. As it happens, I was in the audience that night at
Carnegie Hall; and can relate that, even though the differences are
clearly audible on the CD, they were positively astounding in situ
during the performance.
The recording has been out of print for a while, but still seems to
be available from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Steinway-Celebration-Sergei-Rachmaninoff/dp/B000EWX90C
OK...back to work.
Best.
Horace
At 03:16 PM 2/24/2011, you wrote:
>Back to a different vocabulary. I'd like to suggest that we are not
>responsible for the color. That's between the player and the piano.
>Musician's responsibility. I take the position that what I do only
>makes the player's job easier (or harder, hopefully not--this is where
>limiting the piano can be so dismaying to some of them). It is NOT my
>job to "make the tone". I'm maximizing access to the tone. Then the
>player can find what he/she wants.
>
>So to address the question as it relates to what I do when actually
>working on the piano technically (as opposed to what happens when the
>piano is played): I'm thinking, really, about 3 things in the final
>voicing stages. That is, fitting ("open strings"), lacquer, and needles.
>
>1. Evenness--it's an illusion. But one can generate a pretty fair
>illusion. One part of the joy of actually working with an artist in
>final voicing is getting a handle on which part of the sound they want
>to have be "even". I find it helpful to both listen closely, and watch
>the pianist. Picking out what he/she is finding even or not even is
>often not the same thing I'd had in mind when I was there by myself. !
>The illusion of evenness is different with different touches.
>
>2. Balance, section to section. E.g. "I need more" usually refers to
>the first capo section, and is often technically resolved in the
>tenor. The tenor comes up faster with playing and with increased power
>input, resulting in an imbalance. The pianist's sensation is that the
>5th octave is too weak. Needle the tenor down, and, voila, the 5th
>octave is so much better. Sometimes, at least.
>
>At most force levels, I try to have the "strength of tone" high at #1
>and #88, and lowest near the tenor break. It's really easy to bring
>out a melody in the tenor, even if it's pretty soft. Right, Fred?
>(Note: I'm NOT a performer, though I'll admit to a technical
>competence at "advanced intermediate".) Here's where I wish I could
>draw a graph in an email...
>
>3. "The Line", or "strength of tone at average playing level. This is
>where the setting is most important. In a small setting, or for a very
>STRONG player, "The Line" should be pretty low. For the concert stage,
>particularly a large one, it should be almost unbearably high. The
>piano fairly pops, even at mf. Not necessarily noisily. Just strongly.
>But the shape of the voicing curve from #2 remains more or less the
>same. If the tenor readily overpowers the melody section (first capo
>section), the piano is harder to handle.
>
>"Blastissimo" (thanks, Horace!) playing has a nearly straight line in
>"strength of tone" graphed against note number. Right up across the
>scale distorting the sound at maximum power. Pianissimo playing brings
>the whole curve down. How far can you get it, in careful needle work,
>without reducing the brass band available at the high end?? That's the
>trick! But the curve remains. The middle of the piano is always
>somehow "softer" than the ends. The high treble (more or less top capo
>section) rarely does anything but sparkle in the music. Of course, it
>is nice if the amount of sparkle can change a bit with volume, but it
>must sparkle. Even in a very small, very live room, having NO sparkle
>in the last octave is nearly always a problem.
>
>So I think of evenness, balance, and "strength of tone at average
>playing level". Then the player can evoke what tone the instrument has
>in it, if he/she is listening and sufficiently technically competent.
>I don't have to think too much on what the "color" is. Or more
>correctly, what the many colors are.
>
>FWIW. Definitely not the only way to approach this, but it seems to
>work for me.
>
>Doug
>
>*********************************
>Doug Wood
>Piano Technician
>School of Music
>University of Washington
>dew2 at uw.edu
>
>doug at dougwoodpiano.com
>(206) 935-5797
>*********************************
>
>On Feb 23, 2011, at 1:43 PM, Fred Sturm wrote:
>
>>On Feb 23, 2011, at 1:53 PM, rwest1 at unl.edu wrote:
>>
>>>Can anyone define "color" in piano tone? I've always been a bit
>>>baffled by the term because I'm not a good enough player to
>>>appreciate differences in "color." Is there any way of describing
>>>it in voicing terms that a piano technician is familiar with and
>>>could use to guide his work?
>>
>>For music in general it is essentially the proportional strengths of
>>the partials within the tone. For instance, a clarinet sounds as it
>>does because even numbered partials are suppressed. For the piano,
>>the mix of relative strengths is largely influenced by the hammer/
>>string interaction (in the 1 - 3 millisecond range), where the
>>prolonged contact of the hammer with the string on a softer blow, or
>>when the felt is "softer" will damp a percentage of upper partials
>>and favor the lower ones. SImilarly, a hard blow or harder surface
>>will accentuate the higher partials, as the hammer will get away
>>from the string faster and won't damp them as much. There are other
>>components, particularly attack sounds, and they are also very
>>important. And various other factors come into play, including the
>>scale (how the note played will resound/create sympathetic partials
>>in the other strings, for instance), how resonant the board is and
>>what pitches and pitch ranges it may accentuate or damp, etc.
>> In terms of the technician's work, classic needling technique on
>>"hard-pressed" hammers attempts to create a tension/compression
>>profile in the hammer that will lead to the result that harder and
>>harder blows will create more and more higher partials, the voicing
>>gradient will always rise as the blow becomes harder. An unvoiced
>>hammer will often (always?) produce a much more limited range of
>>color.
>>
>>>
>>>In cases where I've heard comments that a particular piano doesn't
>>>have color, it usually means the action is too light and the tone
>>>much to bright. Is this what others have experienced? Darker
>>>pianos seem to have lots of color, as long as they aren't too
>>>dull/ dead sounding.
>>
>>I'm not sure that particular use of the word is helpful. Better to
>>ask what color the piano is. The light, bright piano may have a
>>shrill, thin color. The darker piano may have a full, deep color.
>>And from that initial judgment, you might be able to think of things
>>to do to change it. But I think it is more important that any piano
>>have a range of color, from the perspective of a technician. That
>>range of color should be centered on the part of the spectrum the
>>customer prefers.
>>>
>>>Richard West
>>
>>Regards,
>>Fred Sturm
>>fssturm at unm.edu
>>"Since everything is in our heads, we had better not lose them."
>>Coco Chanel
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC