I was not comparing pianos from the beginning of 19th century with today's instruments, but pianos - grand and uprights - from early 20th century. I am not convinced that heavier action will give a richer sound. If an old instrument has a thin and weak sound it can be due to other factors as deformed sound board and other defects, worn hammers etc.

There are astonishing differnces even between pianos of our time, and I just happed to prefer the light touch to the heavier hammers.


- - - -


The brittle sound when a key is pressed "harder down" can well be a result of psycho-fysilogical feed back affecting hte perception of hte sound by the player.

There still lacks scentific proof of how the touch of the keys can alter the timbre of the piano sound.

Uh, thence the name "piano-forte"!!, Harpsicohord can't have loud-soft effect. If you play too forcefully on clavichord, e.g., a strong vibrato, the strings risk snapping. So comes the piano-forte. And as it becomes more popular, more and more expressions are demanded from it, and the manufacturers makes the piano stronger to withstand the pianists' onslaught.

That's why the keys are heavier. It's not that arm-weight playing not existing before the advent of piano. It's just not useful. In similar fashion the high-finger or "coin on the back of the hand" methods inherited from the harsichord era, albeit useful, are no longer effective in the age of piano.

O.K. Who have drawn the harpsichord into this thread? Not me! I have only focused on pianos from the 20th century and our days. Why should I compare with harpsichords etc. which represent another branch of key instruments? This is a piano forum, isn't it?

Even to-day you find differences in key weigth, and that ís, so I believe, not always correlated to sound volume and richer sound. One piano dealer told me that key weight are coming down again, i.e. lighter actions are gaining popularity.


That will of course not turn the playing technique back to 100 % arm weight-playing and exclusion of the modern impulse technique.

But I cannot understand the swearing by the "leaning-into-the keys" as the only practicable method of playing when in fact several techniques are at our disposal. The choice depends on what to perform and how loudly you want to play.

Whatever the technique, I personally find a light action generally more pleasant and responsive. Interesting to know the opinion of former great pianists like Liszt, Schumann, Chopin, Brahms which all wrote quite romantic and dynamic pieces.

Another thought crossed my mind after I posted my long diatribe, well more like 3:00 a. m. and I woke up thinking about it again, that the pianist's technique also changed as the action improved in the pianoforte. (Thank you Apple for finding this helpful).

The earliest pianos lacked an escapement mechanism, which is used for repeating notes. In order to play repeated notes, or notes quickly and accurately, the pianist needed to play with a more fingery technique like that found on the harpsichord. Once the escapement mechanism was developed by Erard in the early 19th-century, the pianist was able to employ different, and maybe better technique in their playing.

As I said before the 19th-century pianos sound a lot like our modern pianos. They are only lighter in sound. This is most likely due to the lighter tension scale, and lighter construction, found in these instruments compared to that used today in the modern pianoforte. From what I was told at the piano museum, that the higher-tension scales really didn't come about until the late 1940's or early 1950's as people wanted more and more brighter and louder pianos. Overall, I prefer the lighter sweater pianos from the earlier days.

I use a combination of both techniques depending upon which style of music I'm playing. If I'm playing Baroque or early-Classical period music, my technique is more in the fingers and employs some of the arm-weight too. The finger technique is not as stiff as I was when I was younger, however. If I'm playing, Chopin, and later, I use more arm weight, however, the fingers come into play with the numerous scales, and quick-notated passages. To me this is like having a toolbox with different tools to use.

I found this interesting and is appropriate to the current topic, while reading throught the introduction to one of my books:

William Mason (1829 - 1908), who studied in Europe with Moscheles, and Liszt, wrote a book called "Touch and & Technique." This book describes his theory, which was the result of patiently analyzing and imitating the playing styles of different concert pianists, that the secret of of the touch and technique lies not so much in the muscles of the fingers as in those of the arms.[1]

Jan-Erik - The harsh tone produced by the stiff-finger technique actually pinges my ears so there is a difference between a weight-only, or a weighted-finger technique, and an all finger-only stiff technique.

[1] Nineteenth-Century American Piano Music, Selected & Introduced by John Gillespie; Dover Publications, Inc.,1978; xiii

John

For a split second, I thought you were talking about pianos in history that used to wear light sweaters!

John C. : Thanks for taking the time to have studied so thoroughly about pianos and similar instruments throughout history. I've gained valuable insight reading these posts and other posts you've made similarly on the forums.

For a split second, I thought he was talking about pianos in history that were wet and stinky!

("lighter, sweatier")

You're welcome Apple.

I love musicology, and my teacher-friend keeps saying that I should have gone into it. When I become passionate about something, such as music, I get into a must know as much as I can about it mode. We are lucky we have the Internet today because this has helped me refine some of the things I have learned in the past from many different people. These historical/quasi technical posts are not meant to derail the topic, but to help put into perspective some of the things we are doing today.

When I visited Frederick's last November, a lot of what I learned from my music history books, the introductions to many of my Henle and other urtext editions, and other sources made a lot of sense. This brought together not only why the composers wrote what they did through historical influences, style, etc., but also why they wrote their music a certain way, and why they did certain technical things, etc. Haydn's last piano sonatas, for example, were written to make use of the high registers in the piano, which was not common on many instruments before 1800. This was demonstrated nicely at the museum on a Clementi Grand from 1805. (Yeah the same guy who wrote the sonatinas and sonatas.) [1]

As I said before, the composers made use of the new action improvements, and not mentioned before, the pedals including the una corda, and a few more. Remember the piano was evolving and improving during these years to what we have today. This visit also brought into historical perspective why our technique has changed over the years. We went from the harpsichord-like technique to the more weighted-push technique because our keys got heavier, and the action improved. Our modern instruments really date from around the late 1880's. In all intent and purposes, the action is pretty much the same now as it was back then. Our pianos are only louder, and require more force to play.

In my youth, I considered a career in piano technology, but never went through with it. Since I maybe out of a job soon, I may make a complete career switch, and end up as a piano technician, or in some other music-related career. Why not? Maybe I can get the state to pay for it through the unemployment program!

Anyhow, someday if you ever get a chance to travel up here to New England, you must visit the piano museum. The place is so fascinating, and the music is so beautiful. I plan to make a trip again soon just for the fun of it even though it's more than an hour's drive away.

Thank you for pointing out my lousy typographical error. All the proofing in the world, and they still creep in once in a while. Without editing the post this should be "sweeter" Doh.

John

[1] Using the Helmholtz Scale (which I remember over the American Scale description) to describe a keyboard scale, a 5-octave compass found on many fortepianos at the time would be written as FF-f'''. This is 'low F' to high F three f's above Middle C (c'). The 5-octaves plus two notes, which was also common is written FF-g'''. Clementi's piano goes down to FF and up to c''''. Later on they extended scales to f'''' on the top, which were common for Schubert and Schumann, and later on they extended the scale to what we have today.

I'd like to see someone play the Chopin first etude in Op.10 with quarters in their hands without dropping them. That would be a sight to behold. :-)

Well, I'm for the 'playing should be natural and relaxed' school, I guess.

An alternative way of looking at Gyro's argument:

Gyro states that 95% of people stall. What does that mean? They no longer improve? If that means that they do not become concert pianists, there is a relatively simple explanation for this. People go to see others (athletes, pianists, etc.) who are the best. As pianojerome's post implies, not all can be "the best."

I may not know a lot about piano technique, but I do know a lot about statistics. In many phenomena where gradations are made (like comparing abilities on piano or in athletics), the distribution falls under a normal curve. Thus, most people are average pianists.

People sometimes misunderstand "average." When drivers are surveyed, 90% consider themselves above average-by definition, 40% overestimate their ability, or don't know where the average is. Average is, by definition, where most people will be. In a non-skewed normal distribution, it will be in the middle of the curve-half of the people above and half below.

If every piano player in the world improved her/his ability ten-fold, most will still be average-by definition. And even then, people will only pay to go to concerts to hear the top few percent of those. And some composers will write a few pieces that only the top few can play. So the rest will still remain "stalled."

The only way to "correct" this is to: 1) Make the public pay to hear all good pianists, not just the best ones; and 2) Stop the comparing the abilities of good pianists. 3) Change the laws of statistics and make all pianists be in the top few percent of piano players. Let me know if and how you want to do this.

The comparison to ability in English and to high school dropout rates is invalid because the goal in those is to reach a certain level of competence, not to be in the top few percent. The goal in education should be to make most students finish high school and be competent in language (most, not all-that would be impossible). To have a goal of making most pianists top-level pianists or win competitions would be like trying to make all students be in the top 10% of the graduating class.

to loveschopintoomuch

My whole arm is aching. Now, I don't know if it's because I was lifting heavy loads of laundry yesterday, or if I was not using the correct technique when trying to do a "thumb under" three octave arpeggio (it's in that A minor waltz by Chopin - starts with 3 8th notes, then goes on to 5 16th notes).

I practiced it for about half an hour (for four days in a row). I'm not getting any better at it at all. More practice needed? Or is there a different approach to this? I am starting with my elbow next to my body and then slowly bringing it up and over.
-----------------------------------------------

i guess i will stick my neck out, and i will chime in, here goes...

from time to time, i take out that lovely Chopin Waltz in Am, just to work on the section you have described. i find it to be wonderful.

as i finish the first 3 notes of the run, (E-1 G#-2 B-4, and yes, i have changed the fingering--i find the fingering on my copy unsuitable--call the fingering police!) anyway, i actually push off the B a little, and do a "lift" i even almost touch my thumb to my middle finger during this lift, and bring my thumb down on the E-1 G#-2 B-4--again lift to come down on the thumb...in my mind i make the focal point of this run the E's, and getting my thumb squarely on them.

not at anytime during this run do i attempt to "bring my thumb under" i consider that a waste of motion, full of tension, and not at all beautiful! my hand looks (and feels) much nicer in it's open position, except when the lift occurs, and then it is in it's "natural" position.

when you go to sleep at nite, take note of the position of your hands...when they are relaxed...and in their "restful positon."

if you can picture that, and strive to get those hands in that position at any point in a score, say, especially after doing strenous octaves, or the END OF A PHRASE, for example, it will rest the hand...even that split second of rest will do wonders.

the first thing i do when approaching any piece, is look for those little opportunities to take the restful position, and i do find them! it helps me tremendously. i don't think i have tendonitis YET, but i sew alot, and my fear of it is too real. i have before sustained an injury at the piano, and have done a lot of reading, thinking, and deciding, about my piano technique. i appreciate everyones views here, and i am even thinking about them---but first and foremost---i smell an injury just waiting to happen if you continue on your present mode of practice on this section of the Waltz.

if that injury happens---not a single persons view here will matter much...you will not be able to employ any of the techniques described here or elsewhere.

change your fingering, if you haven't already.

and good luck to you, for the most difficult thing about piano is to play without tension.