Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum What the heck is "Orchestral Voicing"?

M.. that's a mystery

Maybe they care about quality of piano more than a logo?

That's where the less-discussed (in this thread) part of the design comes into play, i.e. design that emphasizes discernable tonal differences at different volume levels. Since the melody and accompaniment are going to exist at different volume levels, volume-based tonal differences enable the pianist to better differentiate the parts, regardless of where in the spectrum they are located.

Larry.

I'll just sit here and watch as the pianist is being replaced by the piano.

A piano is a tool. A piano doesn't voice a musical phrase, a pianist does.

At the risk of irritating Marty, I have to agree with him. These posts demonstrate vividly that sophistication is alive and well in PianoLand. However, sophistication is not always bad. Often, sophistication is presented via beautiful and elegant prose (or cloaked in it); and there is some real beauty and elegance in this thread.
A less elegant and beautiful discussion might try to quantify “orchestral voicing” by using metrics like the cumulative line spectrum map, the spectral centroid map, the cumulative difference of spectral centroids and, finally, the cumulative difference of two cumulative line spectrum maps; but there is no elegance or beauty there - just a lot of work.

Dave, I don’t think anyone here on PW is quite as sophisticated and analytical as you when it comes to the science and physics of analyzing piano tone. Your line-spectrum analysis of sound waves in regards to piano tone never ceases to amaze me.

Rick

Pianists that have a lot to say musically, prefer pianos that provide them with the easiest tools to accomplish that. The ability to play a melody, or simultaneous melodies in any register and have them well phrased dynamically, makes for the richest musical experience.

The piano does not make the artist! It is only a musical tool. The best tools give maximum freedom to the pianist for musical expression.

I make those tools. That is what I do for a living. It is my science and artistry that serves the artistry of the pianist. If no one wants to play pianos-I am out of work. Therefore I seek to make the most attractive pianos for pianists and people who like to listen to pianists.

Some pianos tone blends across the compass in a way that all the notes of a chord sound the same. They are "mono-chromatic" as regards tone color. They can be very even, but compared to a piano that allows each note played to be shaped by tone shades that change with dynamics-they don't project complex melodic/contrapuntal phrases as well.

I prefer to listen to the latter.

The orchestral voicing concept is an historical reference to instruments that were originally orchestral substitutes. The organ is a prime example. The tones are meant to replicate the sound of instruments in an orchestra.

The harpsichord is another keyboard instrument with different stops creating different timbres from strings intstead of pipes and utilizing mechanical devices like the venetian swell to give the impression of gradually increasing or decreasing the volume. Both of these instruments used terraced dynamics ( more notes more volume, less notes less volume) so the number of stops multiplies the level of sound. Both the organ and harpsichord lacked the ability to control the volume by increasing or decreasing the pressure of the key.

Early pianos were limited in volume although the very invention of the piano meant that there was control from the pressure of the key. Early pianos also utilized a variety of devices to change the sound including an array of pedals that could assist in program music and give the performer more dynamic control.

As pianos got larger and the compass grew wider, the volume increased but the makers were still clinging to the concept that piano was just another orchestral substitute not a solo instrument per se.
Early pianos were voiced so that there were pretty distinct differences in each register and it was only when the compass was extended that there became a need to even out the voicing. Historically the european style of voicing still clings to this concept although the differences are very gradual from note to note.

Homogeneous voicing (with the expectation of every note on the piano matching in timbre) only really became the norm after WWII with the epitome of homogeneous voicing being achieved by the high quality Japanese pianos from the 70's through the 90's.

Terms like a singing tone refer to longevity of the sustain creating a wider canvas in which the voicer can work.

@Sally Philips. Great post!

Sally...

You da woman!

Great explanation.

Well, I have to disagree.

I can find no historical reference that piano builders, from Cristofori on, had any intention of emulating the sounds or tonalities of orchestral instruments. This is a concept which is being applied to the development of the piano in hindsight. During the mid 19th century, the period when the 'modern' piano was developing, the sole aim was to develop the concept of the piano as an instrument, and not to make it sound like something else.

The piano is not derivative of the pipe organ. It is the descendent of both the harpsichord and clavichord. To equate, or even imply, that the tonal structure of the piano has the variation of an orchestra is merely wishful thinking. It can, indeed, have great variation of tonal structure within the physical constraints of a hammer striking a string. It has no reeds, no buzzing lips, no plucked or bowed strings, nor any of the accessories to alter the tonalities of instruments which employ those methods of sound production. The piano is a tuned percussion instrument. It is merely a member of a family of instruments which can be added to an ensemble, only one of which is called an orchestra.

It is unfortunate that a very simple question posed by Almaviva has been over analyzed. I still maintain that using the term "orchestral" in reference to the tonal structure of a piano is wishful marketing hype. Hyperbole abounds in the hands of the marketing departments.

Have you ever heard a piano performance of Petroushka to come anywhere close to the tonal variety of the original? Though it is now popular, is any justice done to The Rite of Spring in a piano transcription?

This concept is a widely known element of voicing and establishing a tonal goal for an instrument. Because voicing is primarily an aural learning process and an oral tradition very little has been written about how voicers think about what they do. There is plenty of evidence in extant instruments, and in the US, Asian and Europe voicers copy voicing done by their predecessor.

The remnants of this tradition is still evident in the una corda pedal and the regulation. Many manufacturers and technicians have their own opinions about how that should be regulated. Should the shift go so far as to eliminate the striking of one string actually giving simply less volume? Or should it go over enough to have the hammer strike a different part of the hammer on three strings creating a color/timbre change. I can tell you that from working with pianists that most of them expect a color change in addition to a slight volume change. Almost every manufacturer has a tonal aesthetic that applies to that question and therefore the protocol varies with manufacturer.

Evidence for this tradition can easily be found on many American pianos from the early 19th century where pianos had many pedals to create different tonal qualities. The piano was actually developed originally from the hammer dulcimer, (neither the organ or harpsichord) with the common element being the keyboard. Even the hammer dulcimer was played with varying types of hammers/mallets to change the tone.

An orchestrally voiced piano as opposed to a homogeneously voiced instrument can have a clear clean bass or aggressively voiced bass. The tenor can have a variety of sounds ranging from a sweet lute like quality or one that matches an aggressively voiced bass area. The top of the bass section can round out and be more like the lower tenor. The treble can be a bell like quality or more aggressive brightness. All of this is of course dependent on the scale design and hammer type and the tonal goals of the manufacturer or customer.

The difference in the tenor area and the treble, which should gradually glide seamlessly up the scale, helps the pianist bring out middle voices in complex repertoire.

An additional quality of this type of voicing is that the timbre should change gradually as the key is struck a little bit harder in addition to the change in volume. This is usually described as tone color.

So I can assure you that this is not marketing hype but an attempt from the manufacturer to describe the tonal quality that they are striving to achieve.

Thanks for this most excellent dissertation, Sally!

Have you written your book yet?

Rick

The first sizable body of piano music was written by Domenico Scarlatti. Most of Christofori's pianos went to the courts of Spain and Portugal where Scarlatti spent some time. Mozart and his contemporaries brought the piano into public concert. Performing on piano became a "business" then. Salable to the new growing middle classes.

The most popular pianists played in an "Operatic" style. Opera being the Ne Plus Ultra of the music performing business. Transcriptions of Opera were played in concert by pianists.

Thus producing a "singing" tone was demanded by audiences and pianists alike.

Piano makers responded by a huge variety of means to try to meet this market demand.

Piano tone is really all about giving the pianists the tools to shape all the phrases in a way that makes them compelling to listen to.

I suspect early humans sang before they talked. Because the singing voice will project over distance better than the shouted voice. Having members of a tribe that could project their voices would have helped in any number of conditions early humans faced.

Orchestral instrumentalist often speak of wanting to sing with their instrument also.

I think the term "Orchestral" voicing is meaningless. Bechstein could chime in and explain.

And this is what I have maintained throughout this thread!

The orchestral voicing description, as I said above, is simply a description of a type of voicing done to achieve a specific tonal goal. It's a common term used primarily in Europe among manufacturers and technicians that is not often referred to in those terms here in the US. It may be unfamiliar but I assure that it has meaning to those who use it.

Thank you all for your posts. It's been very informative and very entertaining.

One follow-up question, please. If what Bechstein means by "orchestral voicing" is that each register of the piano has a distinct tonal quality that can change subtly again with different dynamic levels, how can Bechstein maintain that "customers who do not explore this feature of tonal design often prematurely assume that the piano is voiced too bright for the American musical taste."

Inter-register tonal variety does not necessarily equate to brightness. The registers can be voiced to either dark or bright timbres. So what is Bechstein talking about?


P.S. - It doesn't just apply to pianos, either. Enrico Caruso and Placido Domingo were both tenors, but there was a dark timbre to both of their voices. Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau was a baritone, but his voice had a tenorish coloring to it, a quality that became more apparent in his fifties.

Just a quick comment here. Hitting 2 strings rather than 3, even with magically identical hammer felt density, changes the color, even at the same volume. So, if you strike the key slightly harder with the una corda engaged to match the volume of the note struck without the una corda engaged, assuming you are now only hitting 2 rather than 3 strings, you get a different color at the same volume. Depending on the piano, there should be more of a color change when the una corda is engaged, hitting 2 strings rather than 3, at a lower volume.
Whether the Una Corda is set up to completely clear a string or not, you also get a color change from the different part of the hammer felt hitting. That different part of the hammer felt will have been played in ( probably less ) differently and also voiced differently ( this is a big should since it is often not addressed ) and will produce a different color.
If the Una Corda is set up to completely clear a string, the pianist still has the option to not fully engage the pedal and move the keyboard over to the point they prefer. Granted, most pianists use pedals as on or off, but that is their choice ( or lack of awareness ) to not explore what sounds are available.

Most newer era pianos that are regulated so the shift pedal does not clear the hammers from one of the unison strings will sound ugly in the treble if you increase the shift motion to clear the third string. This is because the hammer felt is so dense that the end grain felt on the side of the hammer is brighter than the face of the felt.

If you have a softer, lighter hammer such as older Steinways and other makers used you can clear the third string and not get uglies.

Having one unison string un-struck allows the un-struck string to function as a passive coupler. It will be moving 180 degrees out of phase with the struck strings. (This means that when the struck strings are moving in the up direction, the un-struck string will be moving in the down direction and the un-struck string doesn't begin to move until the struck strings are already in motion).

This changes the impedance of the soundboard/bridge structure.

The effect is that some of the impact of the hammer is imparted to the un-struck string and this lessens the striking volume but since the unison contains a 180 degree anti-phase motion the sustain, (duration, I know BDB), is about the same as if you struck all three in phase with the same force blow.

I love piano music performed on a piano with properly tone-regulated, third-string clearing shift pedal by a pianist who understands how to use it.

I do find that fascinating though......a different way of looking at the same thing. The more ways you have to look at something, the better understanding you have of the topic.

Like the blind men and the elephant.