What Bob writes is true enough. All the nice looking math measurements in the world can yield a completely wrong picture of a system they attempt to describe and quite easily so... even if the math and physics used are totally correct. The problem lies in the fact that oft times one attempts to describe too complicated a picture for the math and physics employed. We run into this time and time again in our work. Another problem is that one simply applies physics and math incorrectly to a given problem. Also a not uncommon phenomena in ours and for that matter nearly every field. That said. Galembo and Askenfelt are two highly refined scientists. By that I mean they know pretty well just what they can and can not claim with any particular study they execute before they even get started... In good science thats part of the planning stage for a research project... to be very clear on just what one is trying to show and to what degree of precision one is attempting to show it. They have shown clearly that in laboratory conditions their can be shown a (at least one) possible explanation for something a very large proportion of pianists down through time have insisted they are capable of.. namely to control tone by touch in a way most of us, with our at best rudimentary understanding of some basics of the physics involved can not fathom. The results should open the way to asking (and finding answers for) more questions that can/might shed more light on the subject. Not being a physicist I tend to rely on statistics when it comes to making up my mind on such issues... and I usually dont end up with any thing like a firm position... outside of being firm about knowing what we dont know :) Statistically tho... seems like a far too significant number of highly qualified pianists who claim they CAN control tone by touch to ignore or dismiss. If I HAD to guess... I'd guess they were right and that our lack of ability to explain why is .... well its just another sign of how much we dont know :) Cheers RicB Bob Hohf writes: As a point of clarification, the bulk of the article is by Alexander Galembo, the Russian physicist, and is based on his work at the Red October Piano Factory in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg). Several sections (including the one on shank vibrations)are drawn from Askenfelt's work and contain clarification and edits by Askenfelt. Galembo wanted Askenflet's name in the byline because of their long term collaboration in many areas of piano research. I wouldn't read too much into the results of the shank vibration study because the vibrations were generated in an experimental setup. As far as I know the different modes have not been isolated in real piano playing. I also don't believe modes have been related to tone production. The systems we're dealing with are incredibly complex, and generating meaningful data is unbelievably difficult. Stay tuned--there is more coming in future articles. Bob Hohf > -----Original Message----- > From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org]On Behalf Of Cy > Shuster > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 7:49 AM > To: College and University Technicians > Subject: Re: [CAUT] touch & tone & tuning (was why does it feel better?) > > > The current Journal has an interesting article by Anders > Askenfelt (of "Five > Lectures" fame) dealing with the question of whether a pianist can affect > tone with different playing techniques. > > He discovered that a hammershank assembly can have several different > vibration modes: one involving primarily the shank itself, and > another with > more movement in the hammer head. He posits that a skilled pianist can > alter the force and timing of a keystroke in a way to emphasize > one or the > other vibration nodes. > > Certainly changing the weight distribution on the hammershank > assembly would > affect vibration modes, similar to putting weights on the bridge. > > --Cy-- > www.shusterpiano.com > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC