Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Charles Rosen's ideas on creating a beautiful sound

From his book "Piano Notes", I invite your comments on the following from pages 24-27. Although the passages are excerpted, they all form one connected idea. (Note:I have omitted Rosen's discussion about creating a beautiful "horizontal" sound)

A single note on the piano cannot be played more or less beautifully, only more or less forte or piano and longer or shorter. In spite of the beliefs of generations of piano teachers,
there is no way of pushing down a key more gracefully that will make any difference to the resulting sound....

There are indeed different types of tonal beauty in piano sound...The beauty comes essentially from the balance of sound. This balance can be both horizontal and vertical. The vertical dimension is most easily explained in terms of the pure volume of sound of the individual notes within the chord...

If it is not, in fact, the relaxed arm and the caressing touch considered by so many teachers that produces a good sound, we are obliged to explain why this misconception has been so successful...Only with a relaxed arm can the muscles of the individual fingers come totally into play...It is this variation and balance of sound that is basically responsible for the tone quality: THE RELAXED ARM DOES NOT CAUSE IT BUT ONLY MAKES IT POSSIBLE - OR, RATHER DOES NOT PREVENT THE FINGERS FROM MAKING IT HAPPEN.

I remember reading this exact passage in his book a few years ago and had an epiphany. It it 200% true. Rosen put his finger EXACTLY on what makes a beautiful sound. I think, however, pianoloverus, it is necessary to post the nearby paragarph where he explains how a beautiful sound and tone quality CANNOT EXIST isolated, but only within the context of a musical phrase, because that, I think, is what he's really trying to get at by saying that the way we push down a key makes no difference in the resulting sound. I would paste it, but I don't have a copy handy with me.

Thanks for posting this...it has been actually something I was meaning to bring up on this forum but never got around to.

no mention of the wrist? I always liked Lhevinne's description of the wrist as a "natural shock absorber" and this being of primary importance in creating a beautiful sound. It doesn't make too much sense to me to isolate one component of the playing mechanism and say THIS is what REALLY matters. Rosen's comments about the fingers I accept only in the sense that you don't depress the keys with your arm; the fingers are the final ambassadors , as it were, of a beautiful sound but where does it really begin? Rubenstein's explanation of Rachmaninoff's tone was that it "came from the heart." I don't think that's hyperbole, either. Richter talked about how tone production starts in the stomach! I'm sure each pianist has a different answer to the question. My personal view is that one has to have an ideal sound in mind and unceasingly try to achieve it. Without that, no amount of what part matters most and why and what particular motion is correct or not will help.

Definitely agree with that.

There are no muscles in fingers...

What then are the lumbricals and interosseous?

Then Richter's the one who is 200% true.

If Rosen had left out the phrase "the muscles of" in the sentence would you agree or disagree with him?

Muscles in the "meaty" part of the hand, not the fingers.

I did a lifting exercise of a little clock yesterday at lesson at two different times for 14 year old girls entering freshman year of high school next year.

The palm-sized clock was lifted from the top of the piano and brought to rest in both hands that were cupped to hold it. Then the student lifted it slowly in front of her with both arms moving upward simultaneously as though a child's balloon was pulling them upward.

Doing this you really become aware of interaction of muscles while we are playing - the potential to notice it (NOT create it) helps you be aware of using muscles in your whole body while playing the piano. Particularly in the lifting exercise you feel the torso and stomach muscles begin to do their part. Notice what happens with the arm muscles. Bring the clock back down as slowly as you lifted it.

I think the focus on the fingers is absolutely important, and without training and observation and intention toward the fingers at work. It is relevant also how the palm and wrist participate. Movements can be selected to happen by the use of studied sound and it's cause and effect.

I try to study the body and the spiritual being as much as we study the composer's musical indications.

Piano Notes and Charles Rosen are welcome in my home and studio, as are all the other technical pedagogues of music, muscle, brain, and sound. It's a meaningful treasure of access to making the music of our dreams. Reading makes the door that previously had no door knob to open it with, like a swinging door, or a revolving door that works in our behalf every time.

Keep reading and learning - Keep playing and enjoy results.

Betty

He never said that there are. What's your point?

Don

Rosen is right. It all comes down to "volumemetrics," both horizontal and vertical. Most of the scientists and sound engineers agree on this.

For the most part, I accept this, nor do I have the credentials to seriously challenge it. But it just seems to me that something more is going on. Here are a few possibilities that the scientists may have missed.

First, the character of the felt on the hammers changes--gets harder--the closer it is to the center of the hammer. Therefore, as the hammer strikes the key with more velocity, the harder felt comes into play, and produces a tone that is edgier, or brighter than usual--not merely louder. Scientists ought to be able to measure this, but maybe they just don't know about it. Then again, maybe I'm all wet.

Secondly, there may be some phenomena in our brains that scientists are not yet able to perceive or measure. No one that pianists have some control of the end of the note. We can release slowly or suddenly with either pedal or finger, and achieve quite a different effect. Further, It seems to me, that how we end the note in this way, affects how we heard the beginning of the note. I compare this phenomena to the "finish" of a sip of wine. Many of us may have experienced how the initial taste of a given wine is unsatisfying, and yet the last taste of the wine towards the back of the mouth sometimes creates the illusion that the initial taste of the wine was quite satisfying. If this phenomena is really happening with piano tone, it has nothing to do with acoustics or sound engineering, but is happening within our brains.

I fully acknowledge that all of this is speculation on my part.

Tomasino

quote: "I fully acknowledge that all of this is speculation on my part." Tomasino

I like what you have said above - and agree there is something unaccounted for - but what it is is debatable.

When I'm playing and working through nuances and embellishments or trying to set the essence of a line not falling into place or shape, I start relating to a classic ballet dancer with their remarkable body control, and I try to adapt that moving I'm feeling within and sometimes seeing on my "screen" as being the choreography of my body, coming forth from large muscles being involved in my body, not just small digits.

Part of this is a reaction for tap dancing and ballet for about two years of study (a fun activity - not a professional endeavor at all). I have a great appreciation for any art or sport that requires the whole being belating with physically appropriate movement through self discipline and training. (Actually there probably could be a food management program to go along with this!)

Perhaps what is missing is something like I'm describing. Dalcroze Society and Eurythmics addresses these, and in a related way the Alexander, et al, kinesthology programs.

So is music all about intentions and selected body movements in relation to symbols on a music staff. WHile so much of a music education seems to be mental work, could it be true that equally proportioned is the need for the musician to be using inner physical movement patterns as though they were seeable in the outer world.

Inner world? Outer world? Where is this "thing" we look for?

Betty

You write "in", Rosen wrote "of". There's a difference there, don't you think?

Not much really. But the important point that hasn't been addressed much is in my original post.

Do pianists here agree with that the motion of the arm before hitting a note/chord only *permits* the fingers to do the best voicing of a chord, but it really has no direct effect in making a beautiful sound.

I think that this question is like asking if the movement of the arm has any impact on driving a nail with a hammer. I can use just my wrist to drive a nail, or I can swing my forearm, or I can use my whole arm. No matter what I do, it's the hammer that actually effects the movement of the nail into the wood.

Our fingers are the contact point between the piano and our thoughts. How we move the arm and wrist does affect the way in which the fingers can operate (try playing with you arm so high that the fingers can barely reach the keys and see how that affects you, then do the same with your arm so low that your wrist is bent back to allow your fingers to reach the keys).

Yes, arm and wrist come into play in the art of playing the piano. Yet it is through the agency of the fingers that our thoughts and actions are carried out.

It is my thinking that the arm does help to make "beautiful sound" because it is the tool that carries the fingers. Misuse of the arm can prevent the fingers from doing what they need to do.

But what do I know...

Ed

But what you gave is a purposely highly incorrect way of using the arms which, of course, doesn't work for most people. Just because this doesn't work doesn't logically mean that using the arms in a different way *produces* good tone.

What Rosen is saying is that the long held theory of using your arms in a certain way doesn't *produce* the good tone, it only doesn't interfere with the fingers doing their job to produce good.


What Rosen is talking about is the teaching tradition of using your arms in a very special way and if that effects the tone.

I agree with Rosen. It's only physics. How this argument runs and runs I'll never know.

I find that hard to swallow!

And if you'll look at my avatar, you'll see only white stuff in the fingers, which I presume means "no muscle tissue." Most finger motion comes from the flexor and extensor muscles, on palmar and dorsal aspects of the forearm, respectively.

I just don't understand why we can't put this to bed.

Not much really. But the important point that hasn't been addressed much is in my original post.

Do pianists here agree with that the motion of the arm before hitting a note/chord only *permits* the fingers to do the best voicing of a chord, but it really has no direct effect in making a beautiful sound. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Courtesy of Gray's Anatomy:
http://www.bartleby.com/107/125.html

It seems quite clear to me that there are muscles which operate the fingers. What else would pull on them?

I don't remember anyone ever accusing Charles Rosen of having particularly beautiful tone.

Not much really. But the important point that hasn't been addressed much is in my original post.

Do pianists here agree with that the motion of the arm before hitting a note/chord only *permits* the fingers to do the best voicing of a chord, but it really has no direct effect in making a beautiful sound. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Courtesy of Gray's Anatomy:
http://www.bartleby.com/107/125.html

It seems quite clear to me that there are muscles which operate the fingers. What else would pull on them? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exactly. They are, logically enough, the muscles of the fingers, although where they are situated is not in the fingers. Apparently, basic English can be too subtle even for a native speaker to grasp.

But where and what are the fingers? The discussion starts there.

The three phalanges.

Wasn't there an article published within the last year or so that describes an experiment in which participants are asked to listen to a series of notes played by various different instruments and identify the instrument that created each sound?

The interesting part was that the samples did not include the beginning of the sound wave -- they were truncated so that all one heard was the middle of each sound wave (I am not sure if the end was also truncated, but that would make sense).

The result was that it was difficult if not impossible to tell what the source of the sound was without hearing the very beginning of the sound production. Piano was one that was not readily identified. I need to go find the source of this report so I can post a link.

I guess my point is that if we were hearing only one sound our brains couldn't decipher much about the tone quality, but what we probably react to is the effect produced by a series of notes in a musical passage. This might be what Charles Rosen is saying. Do I make sense? I still need another cup of coffee this morning!

Quoting MsAdrienne:

"The interesting part was that the samples did not include the beginning of the sound wave -- they were truncated so that all one heard was the middle of each sound wave (I am not sure if the end was also truncated, but that would make sense).

The result was that it was difficult if not impossible to tell what the source of the sound was without hearing the very beginning of the sound production."

If MsAdrienne remembers correctly, and there is indeed such a study, it would lend some credence to the speculation I made earlier in this thread:

"there may be some phenomena in our brains that scientists are not yet able to perceive or measure. No one argues that pianists have some control of the end of the note. We can release slowly or suddenly with either pedal or finger, and achieve quite a different effect. Further, It seems to me, that how we end the note in this way, affects how we heard the beginning of the note. I compare this phenomena to the "finish" of a sip of wine. Many of us may have experienced how the initial taste of a given wine is unsatisfying, and yet the last taste of the wine towards the back of the mouth sometimes creates the illusion that the initial taste of the wine was quite satisfying. If this phenomena is really happening with piano tone, it has nothing to do with acoustics or sound engineering, but is happening within our brains.

Tomasino

Aha, I knew it all along. It's all in the mind!

This makes me think of something that Mr. Fleisher has said time and again: "The fingers are just the ends of the arms – split up!" That sparked a revolution in my playing, especially in how I relegated the work from the larger muscle-groups down to the smaller.

That was hilarious!

Steven

yes Klutz, it would have been put to bed but a few months pass and the old (long) discussions and debates are forgotten.

I agree with you and Rosen is right. And Rosen discusses a combination of arm weight, and sometimes finger pulling action all in the interest of tone variation (arm muscles/flexors-Extensors vs. hand/interosseous muscles).

In D. Levitin's book "This is your brain on music", he mentioned the same experiment in chapter one.

Funny, I have just the opposite reaction, which is that how can anyone imagine that the book is closed on this subject, given the somewhat paltry scientific/physics research on it. So it goes...

Sorry, just can't help it: WHAT ABOUT THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!!! (for those who are interested, I am now shouting in my head).

Yes, what about them? Rosen states that a beautiful tone can only be produced in the context of a phrase. Breaking down the physical mechanism is one thing but even the most rabidly stubborn reductionist (as they tend to be) would have to flinch at applying the law of physics to the process of such a fleeting and ambiguous phenomenon as tone production, when viewed as something that can only happen (in Rosen's "beautiful" ideal) in the context of a given musical phrase. The physics are incalculable.

...making their discussion here (to explain one's subjective appreciation of the poorly defined concept of "tone") the veritable moot point it always has been.

Our brains are capable of seeing and hearing and believing all kinds of things --- particularly things that simply are not "there" in the terms of reductionist physicists. That's part of the attraction of music in the first place.

Are the fingers... in the fingers?

*1RC points a finger at fingers*

Amen.

Science is the art of making useful maps. If a map isn't useful, don't blame the art, blame the map, and try to build a better one. Of course, that's unless you don't want to understand.