Arm weight debate on my website

I hope no one minds if I resuscitate this thread from the misty past. It was a very interesting discussion that left some questions hanging: The editor of Clavier Magazine does not even accept articles that deal with 'piano tone' because he thinks along the line of those 'scientists!' Imagine! But a good scientist is pragmatic, and derives his science from experience. I cannot believe that this editor, or the authors of the article you quote, cannot hear the difference between good and bad tone. What ) haven't said anything about "good tone." The passage you (Alan) quote from Arnold Schultz is most interesting. Let me highlight a few sentences: In other words: when we hear an unsatisfactory attempt at legato, we miss the sensual beauty of a true legato, and then we mistakenly attribute this want of beauty to the supposed ugly tone of the individual notes taken separately. I think he's right about this: the beauty or ugliness of piano tone, in many instances, does not inhere in the individual notes but in the relationships among multiple notes. One of the things I love about piano playing in general is this totally mystical fact: it SEEMS that those 'scientists' are right, but ACTUALLY, piano tone CAN be altered by touch, mood, pedal and a hundred other variants. Exploring this world is a never-ending, intriguing process of fascination and constant discovery of new possibilities... What the scientists say, so far as I know, is that the timbre of an isolated piano tone cannot be varied independently of its loudness, except for the use of the pedals and except for the noise of the finger against the key and the noise of the key against the keybed -- and neither of these noises are subject to a large degree of control by the pianist, nor do the variations of these noises contribute very significantly to the perception of the sounds by the audience. In other words, you cannot play, say, middle C, and make it alternately beautiful, harsh, singing, crisp, bell-like, juicy, dull, rich, velvety, etc., so long as you play it at exactly the same dynamic and for the same duration; you just keep getting the same sound, except for minute variances due to the above-mentioned noise factors. Now, if anyone disagrees, it seems to me that the burden is on you to demonstrate that the scientists (and the great majority of piano technicians, if I'm not mistaken) are wrong. I have never heard such a demonstration, but this could be done, for example, by making and posting a video as follows: The mike should be situated ideally at least 10 meters from the piano on the audience side, since we are primarily interested in what the audience hears, but in any case at least 5 meters away. First play a series of tones on one key with a standard touch (perhaps using an eraser to press the key), gradually increasing the dynamic from ppp to fff, the more levels the better, to give an idea of the range of sounds available from that one key. Then play the same key with different touches (without pedal of course), but at the same loudness as far as possible, striving to obtain different timbres at the same loudness, timbres that did not occur in the initial series with the "standard touch." If this could be done, it would show that the scientists are wrong, but frankly I am skeptical that it could be done. Any takers? To assume that the piano can produce different timbres with the same notes at the same dynamic just because it "sounds that way to me" when I listen to a passage with many notes, would be as naive as to assume that because the moon "looks bigger" when it is low on the horizon it actually has a greater angular diameter when it is low (it doesn't). In both cases one overlooks the fact that humans are subject to perceptual and cognitive illusions, including aural illusions. To a great extent the art of playing the piano is an illusionist art, but when we analyze how to play and teach the instrument we do not want to be like the magician who believes that he actually creates a rabbit inside the hat. Schultz points out one way in which our perception of the timbre of individual tones is error-prone. In addition, auditory perception is influenced by visual perception as well as by the kinesthetic feedback we receive from our fingers when we play. Well, I've gone on long enough, so I'll stop here. Richard

Hello Richard, Thanks for your comments which create a chance for an important clarification, namely: Show me even one human being who the rising full moon as being the same size as the moon overhead. Not one of us can because of the way our brains are wired. Similarly, we "misconstrue" Schultz's absence of beauty as ugly piano tone, because that's how our ears, or rather our brains, are built. Everything you say about how piano tone cannot be altered is true - but what about the listener's perceptions? AFF

Everything you say about how piano tone cannot be altered is true - but what about the listener's perceptions? AFF Perhaps it would be more productive to address how to "manipulate the listener's perception" than to imply that one can actually control timbre independently from loudness. The latter might hurt the writer's credibility. ocd

I wouldn't even agree with that. The category 'listener' includes myself. When I play one way and the tone is clearly far more beautiful than if I play another way, I don't feel like I'm manipulating my perception. I feel like I am manipulating the to behave in a certain way and give me a certain sonic-aural result. Nobody manipulates my perceptions to make the moon appear larger at the horizon - my brain does that for me. I suppose you could define that neurological process as an automatic internal perception manipulator, but by now it's getting ridiculous. I like to deal with what I perceive and experience rather than wandering off into nether worlds of semantic definition of processes that are outside of my awareness. Whether or not tone can be changed in an absolute sense is completely beside the point. I I can make the piano sound more or less beautiful depending on how I treat it, and that's enough for me. In any case, if you want to disqualify this phenomenon because of its subjectivity, you're basically going to have to throw out most of what we understand as the art & science of musical interpretation... AFF

What the scientists say, so far as I know, is that the timbre of an isolated piano tone cannot be varied independently of its loudness, except for the use of the pedals and except for the noise of the finger against the key and the noise of the key against the keybed -- and neither of these noises are subject to a large degree of control by the pianist, nor do the variations of these noises contribute very significantly to the perception of the sounds by the audience. That's where I am certain that scientists have been deeply naive in the experiments that have been carried out, thus far. They ignore such factors, without valid evidence that there is justifiable reason to ignore them. Such casual dismissal of these factors is appallingly unscientific. You seem quick to judge anyone who take an unscientific approach to tone? So why do you dismiss any potential relevance of these factors so casually- and without recourse to any scientific evidence that might prove them to be irrelevant? That's not scientific thinking by any means. I saw an interesting experiment in which it was demonstrated that listeners COULD hear differences between different tones. Yes, your experiment has already been carried out. However, interestingly, when the noises that occured before the hammer touched the strings were shaved off, they could hear no difference at all. Interestingly, the additional noises were shown to be quite easily distinguishable, a good distance from the keys. These were responsible for what the listeners heard in tone qualities and they definitely could tell the difference. However, they went on to conclude that tone is hence impossible, regardless of the strike. What bullshit! Having already demonstrated how notable and audible these noises were, they completely failed to investigate them properly. As usual, the pedal was omitted entirely from the experiment entirely. This is absolutely unforgivable for a 'scientific' experiment. These 'thudding' sounds are all the more notable when amplified on an open pedal, I am certain of it. No adequate experiment has ever been carried out, to my knowledge, to disprove the reality of inherently sonorous and lumpier tones, when playing into an open pedal. Scientifically, this is absolutely beyond reproach- especially after this experiment illustrated just how much difference the noise effects can make to a listeners perceptions. If scientists ever care to do a sensible experiment, there are various very credible factors that could explain quite rationally what all good pianists know to be possible. What a pity that in the one experiment that pointed so strongly to these (even without involving the pedal), the scientists were quite so foolhardy as to take an about turn and overlook what was staring them in the face, rather than investigate further. To prove that people can hear these sounds on single notes and then claim that tone doesn't exist is comically inept.

I saw an interesting experiment in which it was demonstrated that listeners COULD hear differences between different tones. Do you have a pointer to this study? ocd

I saw an interesting experiment in which it was demonstrated that listeners COULD hear differences between different tones. Do you have a pointer to this study? ocd This isn't the one I looked at it before, but it says the same thing.

Dear All Still reading the various posts and trying to get my head around this debate. Basically, if your a pianst who doesn't subscribe to the principles of the 'arm weight' school, then what exactly are you using when at the keyboard? Isn't there an aspect of using some arm weight to play and coordinate movement in any approach? From the online discussion about 'arm weight' I'm still unclear about how it differs from any other approach. Andrew

This is great - we've been fleshing out this issue for ages now, but it still boils down to the basic question which is particularly well-couched here. The answer is, "You are using your bones, muscles and nerves." "But," you may rejoin, "the bones, muscles and nerves have weight." Yes they do, but to couch it in yet another metaphor, when you walk down the street do you consciously use your body weight to locomote you from A to B? It is there but you are not conscious of it. And a baby when learning to walk certainly has no consciousness that we can understand of its body weight. The baby learns . Actions are performed by bones, muscles and nerves based on a pre-formed image of the action that exists in the brain. When the arm weight school teaches us to become aware of our arm's weight, we become per se. This helps our bones, muscles and nerves to do their job better. Any clearer?? AFF

Alan Clearer? Mmmm. I get what your saying I think although all the schools of thought you've critiqued would argue they use bones and muscles I'd imagine. I think its that I still haven't got a clear understanding of how the 'weight' school is different. Perhaps I'm just not getting it. Anyway, another question that may help to clarify where I'm coming from. As you know I'm studing with a teacher to retrain aspects of my technique plus correct a shoulder problem. We are working through a text called 'Tone, Touch and Technique' series by the Australian pianist Max Cooke. Do you know it? Anyway I'm starting at the beginning concentrating upon a series of exercises. Some of the early exercises focus on classic hand position and finger action including changing the angle of the wrist during playing, esp so the arm is in line behind the finger it plays, esp during 4 or 5 finger passages. This makes a lot of sense to me and it is helping although as an aside, I've noticed when viewing clips on youtube that not all pianists do this, then again, I'd imagine it would depend upon the piece being played. Anyway, even this simple precept means that the wrist has to move alot to accomodate this finger/arm alignment. Another principle discussed is using the wrist to make circling adjusting movements to play notes as follows: RH Ascending - Down, around and under RH Decending - Up, around and over LH Ascending - Up, around and over LH Decending - Down, around and under Whilst these movements make sense and they do help, there are times in practicing even simple exercises that I find it hard to feel the balance between using my fingers to play the notes and the weight of my arm coupled with these arm/wrist movements to 'guide the fingers' to play the notes so to speak. When I play like my teacher wants me too I feel like my fingers are doing very little work. They are certainly not active in the sense of them going up and down, yet there is a lightness I experience which is very easy and I can understand how this can be used to control tone better. In general given I come from the 'pressing' school, my teacher is advocating light 'lazy' fingers. The problem is that when I play a piece where they need to be more active everything goes out the window. I find it hard to feel the weight needed to do the job plus it feels like the fingers are sitting on the keys rather than in them. When I play with a lighter touch using more weight from the arm I feel more connected but have little control. Is this an aspect of the 'arm weight' school debate I'm trying to get my head around? Do you address any of this in your DVD or does Fink do you know? I think I'll have to get it. Any price specials on at the moment? hint hint Andrew