Daniel Paul Horn wrote:

>Chris Bonds weighs in:
>
>>Allow me as a non-pianist (but one who can play the piano some) to offer
>>a skeptical view.  It should be obvious that the only effect a pianist
>>can have on a key is control of velocity, the speed with which the key is
>>pushed down . . . (usw.)
>
>...Chris's explanation sounds rational to me, but I think that there is
>a definite difference between "how" we do it (understood analytically)
>and "how" we do it (understood experientially).

Oh, absolutely!  I didn't mean to imply to the contrary.  Physics and
experience are two totally different things.

>While quasi-scientific understanding of instrumental and anatomical
>mechanics can't hurt, given that there are so many certifiably wrong ways
>to approach the instrument,

They are wrong because they don't work, don't produce the desired results,
or are harmful to the body, right?

>I grew up preferring Rubinstein's sound to Horowitz's, the Guarneri
>Quartet to the Juilliard,

Awww....  I like 'em both (the quartets).  Different, to be sure, but
equally musicianly.  That's the key for me--is it musicianly.  Granted,
of course, some touch my soul more than others.  Perhaps that's something
a bit different.

>and kept trying to find those sounds when I sat down to play.

The mark of a musician.

>One also becomes keenly aware of the limitations of the piano. We try to
>hide from everybody the fact that it's a percussion instrument, ...

A "box with hammers," as a professor of mine used to say.

>... whose individual sounds immediately and irrevocably start to
>decay almost as soon as they are made.  If we come into contact with the
>principles of good singing (which we should but often don't) we understand
>how notes connect one to another, and what happens between them; we then
>try to create the illusion of making these things happen at the piano.

Yes, it is an art of illusion, to create the impression of legato.  As
an aside of interest, the guitar (and other plectrum instruments, not
to mention mallet percussion) share this property.  (The harpsichord
has an even harder go of it due to lack of continuous dynamic shadings.)
Conversely, it is perhaps this "limitation" that not only creates the
unique character of the instrument, when the performer is able to surmount
this "disadvantage." Here's an embryonic theory to ponder: First comes
the conception of the music in the mind of the performer/interpreter.
The realization of that conception in various media is analogous to an
artist's rendering of his or her subject in charcoal, oils, clay, etc.
In that sense it becomes possible to speak of a conception that exists
"independently" of its medium of expression.  And yet the medium IS (as
Marshall McLuhan loved to point out) the message (or massage); I just
wouldn't call it the entire message.  There is of course such a thing
as idiomatic writing--some pieces are pianistic by design (the composer
exploits the unique capabilities of the instrument) and either cannot
be adequately transcribed at all, or lose much in the translation to
orchestra, guitar, or whatever.  Some pieces actually become ludicrous
when imagined in any but their original idiom.  As an example, imagine
the piano part to Winterreise in transcriptions for (a) orchestra, (b)
organ, (c) guitar.  To me at least it boggles the mind.  I can't imagine
those sounds on anything but a piano (granted the piano of today sounds
different from Schubert's--I don't really care about that.) Maybe a
better word than "conception" would be "approach." Whether one is playing
a violin, trombone, piano, guitar, etc., we can assume that "legato" is
an appropriate means of delivery for certain kinds of music.  So the
mental concept is one of legato, and we have to find the best way to do
it or simulate it.  (I chose trombone for a reason in this context--here
as well true legato is an illusion.) I could go further and say that idiom
itself is a tool for expression of a musical thought.  Mastery of the idiom
implies that there is no barrier to the expression of the musical
conception.

>I've been rambling terribly, but at least to me, this is a topic which
>doesn't exactly lend itself to precision and brevity.

Now it's I who is doing the rambling!

>If a composer writes a good piece of music, as Steve certainly did in
>his little miniature for Chuck Long, the quality of the thing sparks a
>performer's imagination just as much as does a fine instrument, or a
>remembered or sought-for sound-world.

With Dave's permission I would like to add that that is a beautiful way to
put it.

Chris Bonds