Circle of Sound

[Sarah Fox]

Hi Ric,

I hope the comments of a scientist, turned artist, are welcome here.  Now on 
a daily basis, I deal with issues of trying to quantify factors that relate 
to aesthetics.  Whether it's photographic art or piano building, that's the 
same issue, is it not?  When I like a photograph, I always ask myself *why* 
I like it.  Often it's because of the subject matter, but often it's because 
certain technicals in the photo, and I always find it important to decide 
what those technicals are -- and to quantify them, if possible.  Why get all 
analytical?  Simple.  If I can figure out what makes an image tick, I can 
refine it to make it better, and I can repeat it.  But often I'm left 
hanging.  I like a photograph for reasons I don't understand.  I like it 
cropped this way or that -- or the tones clipped this way or that -- or 
whatever -- for reasons that don't make sense to me.  I feel frustrated when 
this happens, wanting for some justifying rationale -- some uniting "theory" 
of the image.    Sometimes I have to accept what I can't explain, but I 
still keep asking the questions.  I've found complete answers to a few of my 
questions, partial answers to many more, and am still drawing blanks on many 
more than that.

Is that not like piano building?  Here we have an acoustically complex 
device that generates sounds that we (hopefully) find pleasing.  Why are 
these sounds pleasing?  We know much of what makes music pleasing to us, but 
I don't think we have any good sense of *why* those properties are pleasing. 
I would say it would have to relate ultimately to some aspect of evolution, 
being an evolution-centered auditory neurophysiologist, but I really 
couldn't get any more specific than that.  None of us can.  Perhaps someday 
my neurophysiologist colleagues will uncover something about the response 
properties of auditory systems that will shed light on this issue.  (I have 
a few general suspicions that would be hard to test.)

Until we have the reductionist footing to understand why the auditory system 
prefers some sounds over others (and equally important, why the pianist's 
somatosensory system prefers certain action sensations to others -- and why 
his/her associative areas prefer certain touch/sound relationships), we are 
left at Ron Overs' level of analysis, which is I believe is an appropriate 
one.  We look at different pianos, including those we "like" and those we do 
not "like."  We ask ourselves what makes them different.  We quantify these 
differences wherever we can.  We incorporate the likely suspects into theory 
and theory into new designs, and we see if a better instrument comes of it, 
confirming our theories.  (This is where Ron shines, IMO.)  At the same 
time, we try to quantify the factors underlying "like" and "dislike," but 
until we understand these phenomena from a reductionist standpoint, this 
approach can only go so far.  We repeat and repeat and repeat, furthering 
the process of increasing how much we "like" the instrument.  Understanding 
a musical instrument from a reductionist point of view probably won't get us 
any farther in evolving that instrument to our tastes; it will merely speed 
the evolution.  Every piece of the puzzle allows us to target our designs 
more effectively, and we must keep asking all the "why" questions.  But 
ultimately, we may have to settle for some "because" sorts of answers --  
"because it sounds 'better' that way."  (For those interested in learning 
more about this process, I would suggest an excellent primer called "The 
Origin of the Species," by Charles Darwin.  ;-)

Peace,
Sarah

PS Ron O, I listened to the recordings of your I-beam piano.  Mmmmmmmm! 
Smoooooooth!  :-)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Brekne" <Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no>
To: "Newtonburg" <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 8:04 PM
Subject: re: Circle of Sound


> Hi Thumpy and others.
>
>
> It always amazes me how seemingly difficult it is for people to avoid 
> mixing the purely subjective with the objective in these disscussions. 
> Time and time again we hear how this or that idea or design is <<better>>, 
> or some simliar term.  Take Ron O's last post where he compares some very 
> basic design issues between Yamaha/Steinway -- 
> Bøsendorfer -- Baldwin -- and his own.  In an otherwise outstanding 
> posting...as usual (bow and nod sincerely) he includes the two following 
> comments..
>
> "I remain highly suspicious of the tonal negatives, which I believe light 
> plates bring to the mix."
>
> "Another heavy plated and heavily rimmed piano which has quite outstanding 
> tonal characteristics once the duplex noise and other stringing and strike 
> ratio issues are sorted."
>
>
> Both of these are primarily statements that are clearly matters of 
> personal taste, yet they are presented as fact backed up by some very 
> light analysis of some basic physical functionings relating to the 
> plate/rim/soundboard.  What tonal negatives ?? according to whom ??  What 
> outstanding tonal characteristics... ?? according to whom ??
>
> Furthermore... none of these really offer us anything of value, if that is 
> to be defined as gaining an understanding as to what kind of specific and 
> objective tonal characteristics are achieved with this or that particular 
> change in any given parameter.  Why cant we just leave out the judgemental 
> bit.... and tell what we think something actually does.  Ok.. I understand 
> any descriptive comment is bound to be a bit coloured... but we could at 
> least avoid such obvious declarations of pure taste.
>
> Dont get me wrong.... I have so much admiration for Ron N its absurd. 
> Seems lately I get into lots of trouble for mixing admiration for people 
> with personal observations about them that are of a more critical 
> nature... but I'll risk hitting the send button anyways. :)
> Cheers
> RicB
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>
>