Hi Ric, You miss my point. Perhaps I'm a bit verbose, so the point gets lost. Brevity is certainly not my strong suit! You and others say that the pianist exerts fine control over the depression of each key, except for the very fastest passages, played by the most advanced, exceptional pianists. Correct? I am asking: HOW? Let's say a keystroke takes 1/10 of a second. That's pretty moderate, I think. Agreed? That's 100 msec. Now, let's say that when my finger first lands on the key, something is very wrong with the pressure I am exerting, but of course my finger is moving downwards, depressing the key wrongly until I can do something to correct the error. Right? OK, let's say that my reaction times are lightning fast -- as lightning fast as they were in my youth. As I recall (and my memory fails me to some extent), I was logging reaction times on the order of 65 msec on one very simple psychometric test. The test? Press a button when a light comes on. Mind you, visual info races to the brain much faster than tactile info, so my reaction time would even be longer to some sort of somatosensory event. But we'll say it's 65 msec on a very good day. That means that I'm not going to be able to execute any sort of correction until I'm 2/3 through the duration of the stroke. I don't know how this would translate to key travel, since we can hardly assume constant acceleration. However, once this much movement time is invested in the travel of the hammer, is it realistic to think that there's much I can do to correct the hammer travel? Now consider the average young person, who has a reaction time to visual stimuli on the order of 85 ms on a good day. They're almost through the entire stroke. And then there are us old folx. I don't even want to know what my reaction times are now! ;-) I *will* grant you one thing. You imply from your previous post that this sort of rationale is too cognitive and that it's more of an innate thing -- still involving feedback. However, an anticipatory spinal reflex takes about 55 msec to begin. That is, when a young, healthy, quick undergraduate student volunteer is told to maintain a given pressure on some object and is told to be prepared for the object shifting position. When the object is suddenly shifted, it takes about 55 msec for him to *begin* to compensate. So that's indeed a bit faster. But still, is it fast enough? I mean, the hammer is well on its way to the string already! OK, with this scenario, someone MIGHT be able to exert SOME (but very little) control over the depression of a single key, during a 100 msec keystroke -- and down to perhaps a 60 msec keystroke (but not very likely). Now imagine the reflexive control of ten fingers, all doin' their respective stuff. Add to that the fact that irregularities in action response are not going to be apparent until after the action starts moving, which adds to the total response time. Now let's increase key velocity, having the pianist play louder. Still think reflexes and feedback loops can keep up? --------- OK, I know I'm atypical in my tastes, or perhaps merely atypical in admitting to my tastes, which are by most accounts wrong. However, this is how I think *I* exert control: When I'm going to play a note, I first lite my finger upon the key, often just a teensy fraction of a second before executing the keystroke. This is usually done with a *very* light muscle contraction. This process is often difficult during rapid movements over the keyboard, such as during soft, rapid arpeggios (e.g. Dubussy's Claire de Lune). In this case, I alter my muscle tone, such that my finger does not depress a key when I rapidly land on it. Once I make contact and am ready to play the note, I execute a muscle contraction of a given product of force and time. As you should recognize, this product translates directly into hammer velocity. Following that contraction, I have a weak contraction that follows through with the remainder of the keystroke (or not, depending on how rapidly I'm playing). The strength and duration of a muscle contraction is very easily controllable WITHOUT feedback. Very simply, the rate of "nerve impulses" to the muscles determines total muscle force. The duration of the volley of nerve impulses is actually not that important, so long as it trades off appropriately with nerve impulse rate. It is actually the total number of "nerve impulses" that would be directly proportional to hammer velocity, so if a volley of x number of nerve impulses were to reach the muscles for a given finger, that finger would accelerate the hammer to a velocity directly proportional to that number, more or less. (And mare-se dotes and doe-se dotes... I doubt anyone is actually reading this email by this point. I say that because so many people apparently don't realize I make the points I do. I think I'm well "skimmed." Even so, I'll continue...) This is actually quite easy for the nervous system to do (firing off controlled numbers of nerve impulses). It doesn't even take much training. Moreover, it's very much the sort of thing a cerebellar program executes, and it's really the cerebellum that handles most of the "mechanical" end of our complex, programmed movements (e.g. my typing this email without thinking about where all the letters are located on the keyboard). -------- Another matter: > > Ric, you say that fly-away actions have > > been available for a long time, but how long have we had fly-away > > actions with rock-solid rigidity? Now that's another question entirely... > > There still is no such thing as a fly away action with rock solid > rigitidy...grin... where do you get this stuff ?? That's my point, Ric. We haven't really given the good ol' honest college try. The closest we came was the era of Steinway's Teflon bushings (the solid ones, that is). Properly constructed, serviced, etc., I imagine they were pretty firm -- more so than the traditional cloth bushings. Do you disagree? However, I don't think this technology had a fair chance to succeed before it died a horrible death during a pissing match between Steinway and the technicians of the world. Given that we don't really know how successful a firm/free action (with hard bearings) would be, how can you say that all of our experience tells us it would be unsuccessful? Who's being unscientific here? And no, you're far from being the only guilty party. The entire industry is equally guilty. Well, perhaps Steinway isn't. (I wish them luck in their latest experiment. They'll certainly need it.) > We cant just make up > things as we go along to fit some desirec outcome of a discusion. Nor is > it particularilly scientific to simply make claims about what percentage > of play fits this or that criteria or description without any more then > an opinion picked out of an already biased cubic meter of air.... > especially when said claims actually fly in the face of the vast > majority of the already assembled data on the subject matter. What data, Ric? Are you referring simply to the fact that pianists prefer frictiony pianos, which not only have friction, but also added stability? So is it the friction or the stability that's important to them? Hmmmm? Do we know??? What if friction is a necessary evil with the current technology? And where are the other data that my arguments "fly in the face of?" Are there data about feedback mechanisms employed by pianists? Electromyographic studies? Purely mechanical studies examining compensations for action irregularities? How about the data about students "raised" on hard-bearing, low-friction pianos, vs. students "raised" on traditional pianos? Geesh! This stuff would all be pretty easy, basic stuff to do. Why hasn't any of it been done? > No matter > how interesting some of these reasonings are... they dont become facts > on the basis of that <<interestingness>> alone. If they are to become > seen as facts.. you simply are going to have to show them as such. I'm under no illusions that my arguments "prove" anything or establish "fact." I'm simply trying to make what I believe are logical arguments. And indeed I'm speculating, as are you. > Untill that time, I think you will find most technicians will continue > to view this friction subject as they do now. Friction is, in the > quantities so very very many have alluded to, a desirable element that > affords the pianist a significant degree of controll. Thats probably > why pianists by and large prefer an instrument set up this way. On the surface, it appears you are arguing that we have already achieved the perfect piano, and the only task in this industry is to optimize our well established, centuries-old technologies, per what we already know about pianos (which is everything). Right? Ric, I hope you're not getting me wrong in all this. I'm not trying to argue you into a corner, and I'm certainly not saying that the low friction route is the only (or even the best) way to go. I'm merely saying it works for some pianists and that they don't have to be particularly brilliant pianists at that. They could be pianists like... ME, for instance. Shouldn't we be asking how and why it works for some? Shouldn't we try to figure out what can be learned about piano technology and piano technique? Isn't this better than simply dismissing this school of thought as wrong? I'm suggesting that this is potentially a fruitful avenue for piano evolution (or not). We certainly won't know if we don't give it a decent (and honest) try. Peace, I hope, Sarah
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC