<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Re: Pinning on new flanges:a proposed experiment</title></head><body> <blockquote type="cite" cite>At 12:21 PM -0400 31/8/04, Sarah Fox wrote:</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>. . . A little bit of knowledge is a very dangerous thing.  The less there is, the</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>more dangerous it is.</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>. . . However, I do know a few things in this area and am</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>contributing them where I feel they are relevant.  I'm sorry these thoughts</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>aren't better received.</blockquote> <div> </div> <div>Well Sarah, your thoughts were very well received down here. I thought your post regarding the delayed response time of the human nervous system was right on the button. I have long thought that pianists brain's make executive pre-timed decisions on behalf of their owner. Your post made a lot of sense to me.</div> <div> </div> <div>Keep up the good thinking.</div> <div> </div> <div>Ron O.</div> <div> </div> <div>PS. For those of you who may have missed it, here is a quotation of Sarah's Monday post.</div> <hr> <blockquote>At 6:06 AM -0400 30/8/04, Sarah Fox wrote:</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>Hi Ric,</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>You miss my point.  Perhaps I'm a bit verbose, so the point gets lost.</blockquote> <blockquote>Brevity is certainly not my strong suit!</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>You and others say that the pianist exerts fine control over the depression</blockquote> <blockquote>of each key, except for the very fastest passages, played by the most</blockquote> <blockquote>advanced, exceptional pianists.  Correct?</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>I am asking:  HOW?</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>Let's say a keystroke takes 1/10 of a second.  That's pretty moderate, I</blockquote> <blockquote>think.  Agreed?  That's 100 msec.  Now, let's say that when my finger first</blockquote> <blockquote>lands on the key, something is very wrong with the pressure I am exerting,</blockquote> <blockquote>but of course my finger is moving downwards, depressing the key wrongly</blockquote> <blockquote>until I can do something to correct the error.  Right?</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>OK, let's say that my reaction times are lightning fast -- as lightning fast</blockquote> <blockquote>as they were in my youth.  As I recall (and my memory fails me to some</blockquote> <blockquote>extent), I was logging reaction times on the order of 65 msec on one very</blockquote> <blockquote>simple psychometric test.  The test?  Press a button when a light comes on.</blockquote> <blockquote>Mind you, visual info races to the brain much faster than tactile info, so</blockquote> <blockquote>my reaction time would even be longer to some sort of somatosensory event.</blockquote> <blockquote>But we'll say it's 65 msec on a very good day.  That means that I'm not</blockquote> <blockquote>going to be able to execute any sort of correction until I'm 2/3 through the</blockquote> <blockquote>duration of the stroke.  I don't know how this would translate to key</blockquote> <blockquote>travel, since we can hardly assume constant acceleration.</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>However, once this much movement time is invested in the travel of the</blockquote> <blockquote>hammer, is it realistic to think that there's much I can do to correct the</blockquote> <blockquote>hammer travel?</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>Now consider the average young person, who has a reaction time to visual</blockquote> <blockquote>stimuli on the order of 85 ms on a good day.  They're almost through the</blockquote> <blockquote>entire stroke.</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>And then there are us old folx.  I don't even want to know what my reaction</blockquote> <blockquote>times are now!  ;-)</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>I *will* grant you one thing.  You imply from your previous post that this</blockquote> <blockquote>sort of rationale is too cognitive and that it's more of an innate thing --</blockquote> <blockquote>still involving feedback.  However, an anticipatory spinal reflex takes</blockquote> <blockquote>about 55 msec to begin.  That is, when a young, healthy, quick undergraduate</blockquote> <blockquote>student volunteer is told to maintain a given pressure on some object and is</blockquote> <blockquote>told to be prepared for the object shifting position.  When the object is</blockquote> <blockquote>suddenly shifted, it takes about 55 msec for him to *begin* to compensate.</blockquote> <blockquote>So that's indeed a bit faster.  But still, is it fast enough?  I mean, the</blockquote> <blockquote>hammer is well on its way to the string already!</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>OK, with this scenario, someone MIGHT be able to exert SOME (but very</blockquote> <blockquote>little) control over the depression of a single key, during a 100 msec</blockquote> <blockquote>keystroke -- and down to perhaps a 60 msec keystroke (but not very likely).</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>Now imagine the reflexive control of ten fingers, all doin' their respective</blockquote> <blockquote>stuff.</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>Add to that the fact that irregularities in action response are not going to</blockquote> <blockquote>be apparent until after the action starts moving, which adds to the total</blockquote> <blockquote>response time.</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>Now let's increase key velocity, having the pianist play louder.  Still</blockquote> <blockquote>think reflexes and feedback loops can keep up?</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>---------</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>OK, I know I'm atypical in my tastes, or perhaps merely atypical in</blockquote> <blockquote>admitting to my tastes, which are by most accounts wrong.  However, this is</blockquote> <blockquote>how I think *I* exert control:</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>When I'm going to play a note, I first lite my finger upon the key, often</blockquote> <blockquote>just a teensy fraction of a second before executing the keystroke.  This is</blockquote> <blockquote>usually done with a *very* light muscle contraction.  This process is often</blockquote> <blockquote>difficult during rapid movements over the keyboard, such as during soft,</blockquote> <blockquote>rapid arpeggios (e.g. Dubussy's Claire de Lune).  In this case, I alter my</blockquote> <blockquote>muscle tone, such that my finger does not depress a key when I rapidly land</blockquote> <blockquote>on it.  Once I make contact and am ready to play the note, I execute a</blockquote> <blockquote>muscle contraction of a given product of force and time.  As you should</blockquote> <blockquote>recognize, this product translates directly into hammer velocity.  Following</blockquote> <blockquote>that contraction, I have a weak contraction that follows through with the</blockquote> <blockquote>remainder of the keystroke (or not, depending on how rapidly I'm playing).</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>The strength and duration of a muscle contraction is very easily</blockquote> <blockquote>controllable WITHOUT feedback.  Very simply, the rate of "nerve impulses" to</blockquote> <blockquote>the muscles determines total muscle force.  The duration of the volley of</blockquote> <blockquote>nerve impulses is actually not that important, so long as it trades off</blockquote> <blockquote>appropriately with nerve impulse rate.  It is actually the total number of</blockquote> <blockquote>"nerve impulses" that would be directly proportional to hammer velocity, so</blockquote> <blockquote>if a volley of x number of nerve impulses were to reach the muscles for a</blockquote> <blockquote>given finger, that finger would accelerate the hammer to a velocity directly</blockquote> <blockquote>proportional to that number, more or less.  (And mare-se dotes and doe-se</blockquote> <blockquote>dotes... I doubt anyone is actually reading this email by this point.  I say</blockquote> <blockquote>that because so many people apparently don't realize I make the points I do.</blockquote> <blockquote>I think I'm well "skimmed."  Even so, I'll continue...) This is actually</blockquote> <blockquote>quite easy for the nervous system to do (firing off controlled numbers of</blockquote> <blockquote>nerve impulses).  It doesn't even take much training.  Moreover, it's very</blockquote> <blockquote>much the sort of thing a cerebellar program executes, and it's really the</blockquote> <blockquote>cerebellum that handles most of the "mechanical" end of our complex,</blockquote> <blockquote>programmed movements (e.g. my typing this email without thinking about where</blockquote> <blockquote>all the letters are located on the keyboard).</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>--------</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>Another matter:</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>> >  Ric, you say that fly-away actions have</blockquote> <blockquote>> > been available for a long time, but how long have we had fly-away</blockquote> <blockquote>> > actions with rock-solid rigidity?  Now that's another question</blockquote> <blockquote>entirely...</blockquote> <blockquote>></blockquote> <blockquote>> There still is no such thing as a fly away action with rock solid</blockquote> <blockquote>> rigitidy...grin... where do you get this stuff ??</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>That's my point, Ric.  We haven't really given the good ol' honest college</blockquote> <blockquote>try.  The closest we came was the era of Steinway's Teflon bushings (the</blockquote> <blockquote>solid ones, that is).  Properly constructed, serviced, etc., I imagine they</blockquote> <blockquote>were pretty firm -- more so than the traditional cloth bushings.  Do you</blockquote> <blockquote>disagree?  However, I don't think this technology had a fair chance to</blockquote> <blockquote>succeed before it died a horrible death during a pissing match between</blockquote> <blockquote>Steinway and the technicians of the world.  Given that we don't really know</blockquote> <blockquote>how successful a firm/free action (with hard bearings) would be, how can you</blockquote> <blockquote>say that all of our experience tells us it would be unsuccessful?  Who's</blockquote> <blockquote>being unscientific here?  And no, you're far from being the only guilty</blockquote> <blockquote>party.  The entire industry is equally guilty.  Well, perhaps Steinway</blockquote> <blockquote>isn't.  (I wish them luck in their latest experiment.  They'll certainly</blockquote> <blockquote>need it.)</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>> We cant just make up</blockquote> <blockquote>> things as we go along to fit some desirec outcome of a discusion. Nor is</blockquote> <blockquote>> it particularilly scientific to simply make claims about what percentage</blockquote> <blockquote>> of play fits this or that criteria or description without any more then</blockquote> <blockquote>> an opinion picked out of an already biased cubic meter of air....</blockquote> <blockquote>> especially when said claims actually fly in the face of the vast</blockquote> <blockquote>> majority of the already assembled data on the subject matter.</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>What data, Ric?  Are you referring simply to the fact that pianists prefer</blockquote> <blockquote>frictiony pianos, which not only have friction, but also added stability?</blockquote> <blockquote>So is it the friction or the stability that's important to them?  Hmmmm?  Do</blockquote> <blockquote>we know???  What if friction is a necessary evil with the current</blockquote> <blockquote>technology?</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>And where are the other data that my arguments "fly in the face of?"  Are</blockquote> <blockquote>there data about feedback mechanisms employed by pianists?</blockquote> <blockquote>Electromyographic studies?  Purely mechanical studies examining</blockquote> <blockquote>compensations for action irregularities?  How about the data about students</blockquote> <blockquote>"raised" on hard-bearing, low-friction pianos, vs. students "raised" on</blockquote> <blockquote>traditional pianos?  Geesh!  This stuff would all be pretty easy, basic</blockquote> <blockquote>stuff to do.  Why hasn't any of it been done?</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>>  No matter</blockquote> <blockquote>> how interesting some of these reasonings are... they dont become facts</blockquote> <blockquote>> on the basis of that <<interestingness>> alone.  If they are to become</blockquote> <blockquote>> seen as facts.. you simply are going to have to show them as such.</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>I'm under no illusions that my arguments "prove" anything or establish</blockquote> <blockquote>"fact."  I'm simply trying to make what I believe are logical arguments.</blockquote> <blockquote>And indeed I'm speculating, as are you.</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>> Untill that time, I think you will find most technicians will continue</blockquote> <blockquote>> to view this friction subject as they do now.  Friction is, in the</blockquote> <blockquote>> quantities so very very many have alluded to, a desirable element that</blockquote> <blockquote>> affords the pianist a significant degree of controll.  Thats probably</blockquote> <blockquote>> why pianists by and large prefer an instrument set up this way.</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>On the surface, it appears you are arguing that we have already achieved the</blockquote> <blockquote>perfect piano, and the only task in this industry is to optimize our well</blockquote> <blockquote>established, centuries-old technologies, per what we already know about</blockquote> <blockquote>pianos (which is everything).  Right?</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>Ric, I hope you're not getting me wrong in all this.  I'm not trying to</blockquote> <blockquote>argue you into a corner, and I'm certainly not saying that the low friction</blockquote> <blockquote>route is the only (or even the best) way to go.  I'm merely saying it works</blockquote> <blockquote>for some pianists and that they don't have to be particularly brilliant</blockquote> <blockquote>pianists at that.  They could be pianists like... ME, for instance.</blockquote> <blockquote>Shouldn't we be asking how and why it works for some?  Shouldn't we try to</blockquote> <blockquote>figure out what can be learned about piano technology and piano technique?</blockquote> <blockquote>Isn't this better than simply dismissing this school of thought as wrong?</blockquote> <blockquote>I'm suggesting that this is potentially a fruitful avenue for piano</blockquote> <blockquote>evolution (or not).  We certainly won't know if we don't give it a decent</blockquote> <blockquote>(and honest) try.</blockquote> <blockquote> </blockquote> <x-sigsep><pre>-- </pre></x-sigsep> <div>OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY</div> <div>   Grand Piano Manufacturers _______________________</div> <div> Web http://overspianos.com.au</div> <div>mailto:info@overspianos.com.au _______________________</div> </body> </html>