Necessary to consider in this regard that a pianist is frequently called upon to do everything in his or her power to make the piano do things it is not designed to do. It could be compared to creating a typewriter for thumbs.
Take for example, the Pathétique, or Beethoven Sonata #8 op13, one of the most famous moments in Western music. The IMSLP website under this entry contains 9 different transcriptions of the adagio cantabile section of the piece, at least 5 with piano accompaniment, certainly not an exhaustive list. The instruments all chosen with acc. are sustaining instruments, unlike the piano, which is a non-sustaining instrument, much as voicing and manufacturing has been directed toward mollifying this fact. This is, to a great extent, not piano music, much as Beethoven wanted it to be, and it is not surprising in engineering the piano since that research and design has developed an instrument with much greater sustain in large part because of this very movement in the Pathétique. Time may have stopped for a moment when he penned it.
Our work can only go so far to modify the fortepiano that it enables the pianist to make the piano do something it is not supposed to do for the sake of such compositions. As those convinced redesigning the piano by doing things such as shifting the capstan to accomodate a modified shank or not, correct action geometry, or precise calculations of hammer weight based on any number of factors, will significantly improve the assessment made of the piano by the pianist, we must not forget that the touch required for making the piano not do things a piano is supposed to do is largely determined by the pianist, not us.
Assisting the pianist in the effort requires not that we voice or adjust touchweight to help them play vertically, but horizontally. This requires:
1)Tension and release
2)Breathing
3)Phrasing
Bringing out a melody is never to be thought of as a comparison between the sound produced in a chord with the sound of another note or notes in a chord, but in comparison with both the previous and successive notes in the melody, or theme, somewhat independently of the chord, Alberti bass, Thalberg technique, pedaling, comping, stride figure, or whatever else the piano is doing at the time. Perhaps this might be less the case when the primary theme is integrated with a secondary one, but still holds true. This depends on the keyboardist, not us. The theme of the adagio cantabile in the Pathétique is so uncharacteristic of what a piano is supposed to do that it has been transcribed for sustaining instruments at least half a dozen times. The pianist, and to an extent, the piano, ergo, us, manages such passages by understanding them horizontally, and moderating by voicing and touch adjustment not in comparison to the chord, but the notes preceding and following in the theme. This involves tricks like meeting the volume of the previous note on a piano as a non-sustaining instrument with the following, which is softer to a certain degree than when the previous note was initially struck, even during a crescendo, or building tension in a phrase. Such is not the case with accompanying notes to an extent; rubato as well should be expressed in the theme most of all, not the accompanying notes. Voicing and touch is to most of all create balance in this sort of horizontal phrasing not so much in a vertical thought process, a musical type of illiteracy; the letters of the chord must become words, and the words of the chord must become more than prose, but a sentence in a poem, creating a musical phrase. Sonata form is to tell a story, not teach the alphabet.
On the other hand, with present trends and attitudes toward Steinwanization of institutions and stages, something it should be observed, which perhaps the most prestigious conservatory in the country, Julliard, has, albeit timidly, as marked on this social media site, moved away from, not toward, piano technology and pedagogy is to some extent vulnerable to a standardization that is in the end destructive to the future of the piano. Only in the very recent past, i.e., post Franz Mohr, though his son runs the factory and he is far from forgotten, have some associated with Steinway attempted to standardize Steinway itself, that in the end for years to come will nevertheless always pride itself as a multi-dimensional product. Moreover, the PTG will never abandon a legacy as an organization, that far beyond the various characteristics and potential of individual Steinways, appreciates the sundry products of manufacturers throughout the world. As Allan Gilreath, PTG President emeritus aptly observed,
"Fortunately, all pianos don't sound the same. There are numerous ways of achieving the desired sound or touch, and even the concept of the desired sound varies dramatically... Playing on varied brands and models gives a pianist the opportunity to experiment with different ways of musical expression. Even beyond that, individual instruments, thankfully, have different characters..." PTG Journal Nov 2010 p. 6
Yet recently I've come across piano technicians arbitrating over a half a dozen American D's that all sound and feel the same as possible despite different individual characteristics and locations. Hopefully the quest for a perfect touch has not derogated itself to such a homogeneous affair.
Having the good fortune of a pedagogy including 4 keyboardists not featured as Steinway artists, the one, a student of the late Earl Wilde, a Baldwin artist, who had a Baldwin in his home, another, primarily an organist, another, though adept at the piano, primarily a composer and church organist, and the last, one who preferred Baldwin with two in his studio, it is of great concern that tutelage has moved generally, not particularly, in the direction of a standardization that is altogether foolhardy, even when considering isolated manufacturers. I'll never forget when complaining about not being able to get to a grand in the practice rooms the first of these scolded me when I resisted practicing on an upright. "You need to be ready to play anything," he chided, and it is sad that so many studying today are not being prepared to. Studying organ helped me immensely to understand the difference between a sustaining and a non-sustaining instrument.
This requires humility, the humility of knowing you cannot travel with your instrument, of not having the privilege that a Keith Jarret has, of flying to South America and refusing to play because he did not like the piano. To tailor our work to make every piano identical as possible is not what the piano is designed to do-though acknowledged here, not everything we do is centered around making a piano do what it is designed to do, in fact it is otherwise-pedagogy that directs the student to expect every keyboard to do the same thing is career suicide.
Just ask Brian Eno, a man who claims not even to be a keyboardist, with a versatility that has made him one of the most successful of our age. Even Dick Hyman experimented, though not achieving great success, with the Moog synth. The you tube famous like Cory Henry are not even trained in the conservatory, and unfortunately, play more keyboards than many trained there are able to, with great success. Tori Amos is writing some great edgier rock stuff for harpsichord, Nora Jones is traveling with a Spinet. Period instrument specialist David Breitman is the one getting nominated for Grammy awards.
It takes great dedication, commitment, and humility to devote oneself to perfecting the touch of the piano. But it also takes humility to recognize the limitations of this isolated task.
-------------------------------------------
Benjamin Sloane
Cincinnati OH
513-257-8480
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 10-18-2013 12:57
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: Creating a Touch to Die For
Yes, certainly this notion of how an action may work in certain circumstances in real life is a side issue to some extent, but it is intended to move thinking out of the box of pure geometry, and to consider other factors. The speculation about pretty minute "changes in the amount of ratio change during a keystroke" due to factors like the angle of the capstan may be worthwhile, but it may also be a detail that simply disappears in real life playing. We need to realize that we don't have nearly enough data at a high enough level of resolution to come to solid conclusions - which doesn't mean we shouldn't speculate, but with a good pinch of salt when it comes to being doctrinaire, to believing our own conclusions.
No question but consistency is king, in virtually every factor, regardless of choices made.
-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm@unm.edu
http://fredsturm.net
"When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 10-17-2013 23:09
From: David Love
Subject: Creating a Touch to Die For
Very interesting and a bit of a sidebar to this discussion. The teachers I had said the same sort of thing (just bring it out) and I found that thinking of it as a bit more weight bearing on those notes that needed to be brought out from the arm through the fingers helped to accomplish the goal. But I did find that the notes to be brought out could either lead or follow and that the effect of bringing out those notes was similar. That included voicing chords or bringing out inner voices in, say, a fugue or a Brahms intermezzo, for example. I am not nearly the pianist you are but did a fair amount of work at one time. Differential relaxation techniques between the fingers seems to help, much like you describe keeping one finger more rigid. For the fingers in the middle of the hand a rising wrist helps, for the outer fingers a rolling wrist is better. That is in line with more weight bearing. I always found it a fine line between too much differential relaxation and the subordinate notes being "late" and just late enough to be subordinate but not so late as to remove the synchronicity, as it were. But we digress.
As previously stated, uniform touchweight dynamics, friction, inertia, etc, make it much easier. Interestingly, I find that a higher level of inertia sometimes makes this particular task easier as you can feel the weight and resistance of the key for longer. Not that that would trump all other lower inertia considerations but it is an observation I've had.
-------------------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
-------------------------------------------