Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
There are only two musicians I'ver heard who can do a crescendo on a rest, and they are Horowitz and Furtwangler. I invite you to listen, and let me know if you hear what I mean:
Checked out the Horowitz, and I don't hear it that way at all. What I hear is a very nice echo/reverb in the hall (or room or whatever it may have been).
Even assuming I'm right that there's no actual increase in volume (and that it actually decreases), I can see how it might sound like a crescendo to some, in the same sense that a pitched baseball might seem to rise when it isn't really. "Rising fastball" is a common phrase, although actually I think that most of the time in those instances, it's just that at some point in the ball's flight, the gravity-induced downward movement is lessened, and the fact that it arrives higher than extrapolated gets interpreted by the brain as a rise. I can see this Horowitz thing as sounding like a crescendo because the sound decays slower than expected, although I hear it only as I just said: "decaying slower than expected," and really the main way I hear it is just a nice echo/reverb, with some pulsation but not at all crescendo.
Whichever way we hear it, I think this thing is very largely a function of the piano and the space, plus of course the player knowing how to take advantage of it -- and I don't think it's extremely rare although for sure Horowitz was among the very best in taking the utmost advantage of it. Taking the principle broadly to apply not just to rests but also to 'crescendos' on a single note or chord, I think Brailowsky's recording of Chopin's Polonaises does it very nicely. I spent a lifetime trying to emulate it and never could -- until one time at a competition (the amateur Chopin), there it was.
(edit) Answer to Nikolas (below): I'm assuming he means just specifically the rest at 0:58.
I think that what Parks means is that the chord AFTER the break is slightly delayed, because of the rest, but in addition to that, it appears to be louder (since the line of the crescento continuous in silence)...
Yeah, I'm not sure what Parks meant, but I certainly know it is physically impossible to get louder while literally not doing anything.
Actually I think it could be possible! Although we'd have to stretch the meaning of "not doing anything," which I think we can while still retaining the "rest."
Like, how about hitting the chord without pedal then immediately putting the pedal down and holding it? I've never put a decibel meter on anything like that, but I can imagine that the volume could increase -- and that the sense of a rest would still be present, especially if after hitting the chord you throw your hands dramatically into the air.
Yeah, I'm not sure what Parks meant, but I certainly know it is physically impossible to get louder while literally not doing anything.
Actually I think it could be possible! Although we'd have to stretch the meaning of "not doing anything," which I think we can while still retaining the "rest."
Like, how about hitting the chord without pedal then immediately putting the pedal down and holding it? I've never put a decibel meter on anything like that, but I can imagine that the volume could increase -- and that the sense of a rest would still be present, especially if after hitting the chord you throw your hands dramatically into the air.
An interesting idea, but I'm not sure the math supports it (conservation of energy). The moment of greatest energy is when the hammers strike the strings. Everything after that is decay. Reason is -- the energy of the vibrating strings is used to vibrate other strings, but that extra vibration cannot make up for the loss of vibration in the originally-struck strings (otherwise, you would have a case of ever-increasing volume until you put the hammers back down).
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.
When the sustain pedal is pressed, the vibration due to the harmonic frequencies will cause the other strings to vibrate right? Now when the pedal is released, the dampers cause the other strings to stop vibrating. Now pressing the pedal again, would again cause a small amount of vibration in other strings due to harmonics right? I notice this on the guitar when I mute and release a string while another string is vibrating. I'm not sure it would work on a piano.
....The moment of greatest energy is when the hammers strike the strings. Everything after that is decay. Reason is -- the energy of the vibrating strings is used to vibrate other strings, but that extra vibration cannot make up for the loss of vibration in the originally-struck strings (otherwise, you would have a case of ever-increasing volume until you put the hammers back down).
Not at all necessarily so. I'm talking only about a possible brief increase in volume, which would require only that the momentary immediate swell in volume due to putting down the pedal be greater than the momentary decay of the original chord. I'm not saying I'm sure that this would be so, but I'd guess that it is.
....The moment of greatest energy is when the hammers strike the strings. Everything after that is decay. Reason is -- the energy of the vibrating strings is used to vibrate other strings, but that extra vibration cannot make up for the loss of vibration in the originally-struck strings (otherwise, you would have a case of ever-increasing volume until you put the hammers back down).
Not at all necessarily so. I'm talking only about a possible brief increase in volume, which would require only that the momentary immediate swell in volume due to putting down the pedal be greater than the momentary decay of the original chord. I'm not saying I'm sure that this would be so, but I'd guess that it is.
When I've tried this experiment, I've been rather disappointed. Maybe someone else can a usable sound from that sort of thing, better than I can.
....The moment of greatest energy is when the hammers strike the strings. Everything after that is decay. Reason is -- the energy of the vibrating strings is used to vibrate other strings, but that extra vibration cannot make up for the loss of vibration in the originally-struck strings (otherwise, you would have a case of ever-increasing volume until you put the hammers back down).
Not at all necessarily so. I'm talking only about a possible brief increase in volume, which would require only that the momentary immediate swell in volume due to putting down the pedal be greater than the momentary decay of the original chord. I'm not saying I'm sure that this would be so, but I'd guess that it is.
The fact of the matter is that you're right; the dampers exert pressure on the strings (however miniscule it may be) which, when relieved, will cause the strings to move, thereby resonating the air; what we call sounds. Um...dependent on the efficiency of the dampers this effect *could* easily be audible, though usually it wouldn't be (in a well maintained and balanced piano). There are *always* vestiges and inefficiencies to consider. Sure, it's not fun, but it's accurate Xxx
Sometimes, we all just need to be shown a little kindness <3
Put a brick on the sustain pedal, play a chord, run around to the side of the piano and gradually lift the lid - but lift in a musically appropriate way...
Wrote this recently in the sustain pedal in Scarlatti thread:
"Re the point on cresc, (or dim) on a single note, it is, very subtly, possible in limited circumstances. Cresc or dim is sometimes indicated on the last held chord of a piece. Theoretically impossible. For cresc, introduce the sustain pedal soon after striking the notes - there will be a slight increase in sound. For dim, start with the sustain pedal down and slowly release soon afterwards. I suspect, never having tried it, that a similar effect, probably even more subtle, could be obtained by silently playing other notes, assuming you have enough fingers left, in the same way as the sustain pedal can be used."
Try it.
ando: that approach was used on the late English harpsichords, as you probably know. You raised with a foot pedal a very heavy (wooden) horizontal venetian blind which was over the strings, from fully closed to fully open and from just above the strings to just underneath the lid, to create a cresc/dim effect. It's hard work, I can tell you, to not much effect. I love the harpsichord, but this feat of (over) engineering demonstrates how attempts to combat new technology, in this case the fortepiano, are doomed to failure.
....The moment of greatest energy is when the hammers strike the strings. Everything after that is decay. Reason is -- the energy of the vibrating strings is used to vibrate other strings, but that extra vibration cannot make up for the loss of vibration in the originally-struck strings (otherwise, you would have a case of ever-increasing volume until you put the hammers back down).
Not at all necessarily so. I'm talking only about a possible brief increase in volume, which would require only that the momentary immediate swell in volume due to putting down the pedal be greater than the momentary decay of the original chord. I'm not saying I'm sure that this would be so, but I'd guess that it is.
It will certainly change the sound, but the change won't be an increase in volume. Think of it like the steel balls suspended from strings.. when you take one and hit it into the group, they all vibrate, and the ball on the end jumps out. But that resultant force is never greater than the initial impact. It physically can't be.
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.
....Think of it like the steel balls suspended from strings.. when you take one and hit it into the group, they all vibrate, and the ball on the end jumps out. But that resultant force is never greater than the initial impact. It physically can't be.
You're missing a key difference (no pun intended).
With the piano, you're suddenly getting the sounds of MANY MANY strings. Sure, the sound of any given one of those many strings won't equal the decay of the original chord, or of any single one of the original notes. But you aren't at all refuting the possibility that the entire amount of new sound will temporarily be greater than the decay -- and I think that if a skillful player (one of us, for example) does it, it is -- and I don't just mean in terms of subjective perception (by which I find it absolutely to be so), but measurably. Maybe one of our members is equipped to do the experiment -- but remember, it takes a skillful player (like one of us) who is trying for it to occur.
....Think of it like the steel balls suspended from strings.. when you take one and hit it into the group, they all vibrate, and the ball on the end jumps out. But that resultant force is never greater than the initial impact. It physically can't be.
You're missing a key difference (no pun intended).
With the piano, you're suddenly getting the sounds of MANY MANY strings. Sure, the sound of any given one of those many strings won't equal the decay of the original chord, or of any single one of the original notes. But you aren't at all refuting the possibility that the entire amount of new sound will temporarily be greater than the decay -- and I think that if a skillful player (one of us, for example) does it, it is -- and I don't just mean in terms of subjective perception (by which I find it absolutely to be so), but measurably. Maybe one of our members if equipped to do the experiment -- but remember, it takes a skillful player (like one of us) who is trying for it to occur.
Remember, half my major in college was mechanical engineering, and this is a mechanical engineering question.
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.
There is no such thing as a real crescendo on a rest, as I'm sure you all know.
Doesn't anybody know what the illusion is? You just play a little louder on the note after the rest. What else could it be?
I know that Barenboim, when talking about crescendoing on one note, talks about imagining the crescendo through the note so that when you get to the very next note, it is accordingly that much louder, as to give the illusion that you just crescendoed on that single note.
With the piano, you're suddenly getting the sounds of MANY MANY strings. Sure, the sound of any given one of those many strings won't equal the decay of the original chord, or of any single one of the original notes. But you aren't at all refuting the possibility that the entire amount of new sound will temporarily be greater than the decay -- and I think that if a skillful player (one of us, for example) does it, it is -- and I don't just mean in terms of subjective perception (by which I find it absolutely to be so), but measurably. Maybe one of our members if equipped to do the experiment -- but remember, it takes a skillful player (like one of us) who is trying for it to occur.
You're implying there are some magical things at work here that defy natural laws. It really isn't possible; only the perception by the listener of such a thing is possible. No "pianist" can suspend the laws of nature...
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind." R. W. Emerson
Playing the piano is all about creating illusions - the illusion of legato, of cantabile, of lightness and weight, etc. A skillful artist will be able to convince the audience that in the space between two notes that there was growth, when in fact there was decay.
Working on: Chopin - Nocturne op. 48 no.1 Debussy - Images Book II
Playing the piano is all about creating illusions - the illusion of legato, of cantabile, of lightness and weight, etc. A skillful artist will be able to convince the audience that in the space between two notes that there was growth, when in fact there was decay.
Playing the piano is all about creating illusions - the illusion of legato, of cantabile, of lightness and weight, etc. A skillful artist will be able to convince the audience that in the space between two notes that there was growth, when in fact there was decay.
Playing the piano is all about creating illusions - the illusion of legato, of cantabile, of lightness and weight, etc. A skillful artist will be able to convince the audience that in the space between two notes that there was growth, when in fact there was decay.
A skillful artist will be able to convince the audience that in the space between two notes that there was growth, when in fact there was decay.
I've been going to concerts for over a half a century, and strangely enough, I've never heard this particular effect.
It is true that I have had the perception that the intent of a musical line in the imagination is supposed to grow during a rest, but I don't remember ever having had the experience of hallucinating the actual physical reality of it.
This reminds me of the time a guy giving a masterclass tried to convince us he could play the same note several times and make it sound like it was travelling away from the piano in a different direction each time.
Nope...music is a function of sound. You cannot have music without sound.
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind." R. W. Emerson
The reverse is more true: sound is a function of music.
That isn't true in the slightest. Sound occurs independently of music, but music cannot occur independently of sound.
Do you really believe the statement you just said? How can you possibly believe that (serious question)?
Last edited by Atrys; 05/20/1401:12 PM.
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind." R. W. Emerson
If you had to choose, would you say music originates in sound, or in the brain?
What does this have anything to do with anything?
The "origin" of music is in the sound waves, which are interpreted by the brain to be music.
Again, music is a function of sound. This is factually true and it's amazing that you don't see this.
"A good intention but fixed and resolute - bent on high and holy ends, we shall find means to them on every side and at every moment; and even obstacles and opposition will but make us 'like the fabled specter-ships,' which sail the fastest in the very teeth of the wind." R. W. Emerson
Ok. It seemed that you relate to things scientifically. Did you say you were an engineer?
Originally Posted by Atrys
The "origin" of music is in the sound waves, which are interpreted by the brain to be music.
Music originates in our senses, and the brain is certainly involved in that process. It is transmitted through our functions into the sound paradigm. Then, back into the brain for interpretation.
It seems like you are describing listening to music; I mean to describe making music.
Michael
"Genius is nothing more than an extraordinary capacity for patience." Leonardo da Vinci
....The moment of greatest energy is when the hammers strike the strings. Everything after that is decay. Reason is -- the energy of the vibrating strings is used to vibrate other strings, but that extra vibration cannot make up for the loss of vibration in the originally-struck strings (otherwise, you would have a case of ever-increasing volume until you put the hammers back down).
Not at all necessarily so. I'm talking only about a possible brief increase in volume, which would require only that the momentary immediate swell in volume due to putting down the pedal be greater than the momentary decay of the original chord. I'm not saying I'm sure that this would be so, but I'd guess that it is.
It will certainly change the sound, but the change won't be an increase in volume. Think of it like the steel balls suspended from strings.. when you take one and hit it into the group, they all vibrate, and the ball on the end jumps out. But that resultant force is never greater than the initial impact. It physically can't be.
While it is true that the total vibrational energy in the strings cannot increase after the hammer strike this is not what you are hearing. The vibrations of the strings are coupled through the bridges to the sound board, which provides an impedence match to the air. If this system functions more efficiently at frequencies not covered by the initial string but covered by the strings induced into vibration when the dampers are lifted then it may be possible to increase the total sound output energy by lifting the dampers. I doubt this ever really happens but it is possible.
If so I suppose (as said above) it means that the first note after the rest is to be louder than the last before it.
Regarging those suggestions using pedal for cresc: of course that does not work on a rest, only if you are playing a sustained chord. I occasionally use the pedal for a cresc on a sustained note. Yes it works but the effect is very small. I think what happens is that the overtones of the notes you hold swell because other strings are starting symphatically vibration. The tone gets a bit 'broader' or 'deeper'. This can be perceived as a slight increase in volume (but also in tone). The timing of the pedal is critical for this.
"If music be food of love, play on!" P.S. I am in love with Beethoven, infatuated with Liszt, and crazy about Chopin! And when he behaves, Rachmaninoff is my darling! ;p
does it, it is -- and I don't just mean in terms of subjective perception (by which I find it absolutely to be so), but measurably. Maybe one of our members is equipped to do the experiment -- but remember, it takes a skillful player (like one of us) 
![[Linked Image]](https://www.pianoworld.com/Uploads/files/RedDotMedalSmall.jpg)