The quality of "attack"

[greenilex]

I know that my listening pleasure where the keyboard is concerned has a great deal to do with "attack" - associated loosely with energy, precision, gaiety and the eighteenth century - but as a non-player I don't really understand how it works.

The other thing I know is that "soupy" Mozart rather revolts me...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

This looks to be the germ of an interesting thread, greenilex, but I'm not certain about exactly where you are leading. Are you talking about the transient attack of all stringed keyboard instruments, or by the qualities of the performers in question?

[greenilex]

Well, because I don't really have a handle on the concept, I don't really have a proper question to ask.

What do you mean by "attack"? Does it signify more than one musical quality?

And am I right about the nineteenth century losing sight (or should I say sound) of it? Whatever it is?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Briefly, when a note begins, there is generally a transient - the opening "attack". It is strongest on a piano and harpsichord, because the sound fades immediately after the string has been struck/plucked. But on more modern pianos, the strings sustain the notes for much longer. On a woodwind or brass instrument, tonguing produces a transient, as does a change of bowing direction on a stringed instrument.
The difference between the sustaining power of older and new keyboard instruments is one of the many issues affecting the choice of period and modern instrument performances.

[johnb]

My understanding is that, as well as what EA says, and as well as the pianists touch, it also depends on the voicing of the hammers (i.e. how soft or hard the felt is, which a piano technician can adjust by 'needling', etc) and even the type of hammers.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Very true. You could fill several books on it. Ask any percussionist.

[Mark Sealey]

Timpani Tone and the Interpretation of Baroque and Classical Music by Steven Schweizer covers this ground.

…Ask any percussionist.

[greenilex]

The definition in my paperback dictionary of music is "the manner in which a sound is begun"... so perhaps I'm asking about player quality, EA.s second alternative?

How much do we know about technique before the earliest keyboard recordings? Or can people guess?

[johnb]

I don't think that technique can be divorced from the instruments of the particular time. The piano developed greatly between, say, Mozart's time and the early C20 when the design was more or less stabilised. Even such things as the depth to which the keys are depressed, the pressure needed to depress a key, the tonal quality, the sustaining power, etc all have a marked effect on how a pianist plays the instrument. And then there is the style of the music - what would be appropriate for Rachmaninov is not necessarily the best touch for Haydn!

It really is an enormous subject.

(Quickly returning to read more of the Bluffer's Guide.)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

(Quickly returning to read more of the Bluffer's Guide.)

I didn't think that subject was covered in Peter Gammond's great little book.

[Eudaimonia]

Standing on the front row left, I had a wonderful view of Maria João Pires' hands as she played Chopin's Nocturnes at the Proms this summer...mesmerising! You're right: what set her performance apart was very much in her attack--delicate and light, yet incredibly crisp, precise and full of strong feeling. I think I read somewhere they'll be repeating this concert on R3 soon-- if you have a chance, you can hear for yourself what a difference a delicate yet intense touch makes in creating a memorable performance.

[Chris Newman]

greenilex,
I think I know what you are getting at. There are some pieces of music and even phrases of works where a silky sound does not sound right. Years ago I had an LP of Mozart's String Divertimenti with the Berin Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Herbert von Karajan. Here was a man who sounded fabulous in Jean Sibelius, Richard Strauss and Arnold Schonberg. I played the LP once and thought what boring music: it sounded like Mantovani or the One Hundred and One Strings (it might have been a Thousand on Ace of Clubs). It gave me a false impression of Mozart's light music. Then I went to a Prom where Jerzy Maksymiuk conducted a small orchestra in one of the Divertimenti. Bang! the music leapt at us with strength, it sang and yet it had a sense of fun. It was what I had been unconsciously expecting but missed and I am sure was what Mozart meant to hear. The same can be expected of dramatic string music like Elgar, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak. If everything is silky and glossy it is boring. At the right moments if the player(s) hit hard and in tune it can make all the difference. Of course I do not just mean string players: brass, woodwind and percussion can achieve the same results.
bws
Chris

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

But Beecham had a way with Mozart that was both silky and yet exciting. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[Cellini]

The best form of defence is attack, especially when confronted by a conductor ... it's amazing what you can do with a baton ...

[greenilex]

Yes, Chris has got my point and expressed it better than I could. Thanks.