At 09:00 PM 2/24/2011, you wrote:
>I think Doug and Fred both make good points but I think their points are
>somewhat different. I also think that while a piano may lean in the
>direction of a certain voice that we (technicians) *are* responsible for the
>color, or at least fully developing the breadth of the palette. You can
>certainly influence more than soft and loud and balance.
Yes, within limits.
>Much of this has to do with the consistency of the hammer itself, whether
>it's hard or soft, lacquered or unlacquered, heavy or light. But it also
>has to do with how the hammer is voiced especially on the surface but even
>more in what lies just below the surface and what that consistency is (let's
>leave una corda voicing aside for now). One thing is certain, a very soft
>hammer will not deliver that same range of coloration as a firmer one that
>has a velvety texture on the surface but graduates in some fashion (it can
>vary) to something much denser below the surface with special attention to
>what happens just under the strike point. Access to those areas as
>controlled by the pianist will give a much greater range than can be achieve
>with a strictly soft hammer. When the hammer is firm beneath the surface,
>then on a firm blow, hammer string contact is kept to a minimum and upper
>partials remain undamped when compared to a softer hammer.
This is another way of saying what both Fred and Doug have said.
> On a high
>tension scale that produces relatively stronger upper partials (as on a D)
>it is especially important that there isn't too much damping of the upper
>partials or you will leave behind a valuable part of the spectrum.
Right.
> If you
>have a design that calls for a soft hammer (or if you put a soft hammer on a
>design that doesn't call for one) then the firmer blow will have a greater
>tendency to damp the upper partials as the hammer collapses some. The piano
>gets louder with firmer blows but it doesn't get brighter and you can't get
>that cutting attack, for example. That doesn't mean that the piano lacks
>color, but it may mean that the interaction between the chosen hammer and
>the rest of the piano are limiting the potential. If the design is such
>that only a soft hammer produces an acceptable sound when played at normal
>levels then the question is whether that's an appropriate design formula
>given what the performance requirements of the piano are likely to be.
Exactly...no disagreement.
> If
>that's the case, then for the voicer who wishes to develop the full color
>palette normally associated with that instrument it can prove to be
>especially troublesome, and for the pianist the net effect can be that the
>piano feels limited.
Right...again, no disagreement.
>I think that may be what's going on here with the discussion about
>redesigns. The hammer, scale, belly interaction has to be viewed together
>in terms of the requirements of the instrument. You can't just look at the
>belly and say, well this design isn't cutting it, any more than you can just
>look at the scale or just look at the hammer in isolation. The three
>components work together (along with a skilled voicer and skilled pianist)
>to define the full spectrum of sound that's available.
OK.
>Apologies, thinking out loud here and have developed two lines of thought
>which have now converged. First, color is to some degree voicer dependent,
>I believe. Second, the specific interaction between scale, soundboard and
>hammer will determine the potential in the palette. Third, the hammer is
>the only thing that we can change (at this point) and it may or may not be
>the right consistency given our specific goals. Fourth, if we can change it
>by voicing or selecting a different hammer we can salvage things and create
>a better design match. Fifth, if the belly/scale design is not tolerant of
>the hammer consistency needed to achieve the palette we're after we are up a
>creek.
This is all spot on.
The main concern that I continue have in all of these discussions is
that, setting aside for the moment all other considerations, it
simply isn't always possible, let alone reasonable, to swap out
hammers on a given instrument. While I've done so hundreds of times,
there have also been hundreds of times when the only option was to
work with what was there. It's pretty clear from the comments that
have come up on this (and other) lists whenever these topics come up
that a number of other technicians have had and/or are having the
same experience.
Someone, I think it was Brent, noted that as people affiliated with
institutional work (in whatever way that might be), in accepting that
kind of work we take on a fiduciary responsibility to the institution
to, insofar as we reasonably can, leave the inventory in better shape
than we found it. From the standpoint of institutional management
(which is very different from that of the artist/technician), part of
that means that the perceived fungible value of the inventory does
not decrease anymore than is absolutely necessary; and, highly
preferable, that it increases. Obviously, there is (at least) a
potential conflict of interest between these two positions.
FWIW, and acknowledging that opinions will vary wildly on this, I
have direct knowledge of one situation at a major university in which
the specific issue of using non-S&S hammers on S&S pianos not only
cost the incumbent technician their job; but, far more importantly
(due to the impact on the instructional program of the school), the
piano shop was taken away, parts for repair and/or replacement had to
be justified and ordered on a per-instrument basis for several years,
and there was no budget for sub-contracting any of the
work...everything that was done had to be done "in house" and on the
clock...hard to do with over 400 programs to tune for each
semester. Eventually, everyone seems to have recovered, and the
school is now on the road to becoming and "All Steinway" school; but
there were a number of years before that recovery was possible to
begin to implement.
My point in all of this is not that redesign and rebuilding along
differing lines should not be encouraged, supported and
developed...not at all. Of course it should, otherwise piano design
and construction will remain firmly rotting in the 19th
Century. However, if the only answer is to rethink and redesign
every problem piano, then the vast majority of people who engage in
institutional work stand to lose out on the kind of help and support
they need to increase their own skills while providing improved
support for the inventory for which they are responsible.
Most places simply do not have the budget or bandwidth to contemplate
very much in the way of minor repairs, let alone major
reconstruction. Technicians often have to simply make do with
whatever crumbs are left over from a table that is increasingly
ill-supplied. It doesn't matter that this is right or wrong. What
matters is that it is what it is; and the question is how we can all
be of the most help to each other.
>It's late.
Indeed.
Best.
Horace
>David Love
>www.davidlovepianos.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Horace
>Greeley
>Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 5:54 PM
>To: caut at ptg.org
>Subject: [SPAM]Re: [CAUT] tone color
>
>
>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