Melody lead in piano performance: Expressive device
or artifact?
Werner Goebla)
Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Schottengasse 3, A-1010 Vienna, Austria

共Received 3 July 2000; revised 2 March 2001; accepted 6 April 2001兲
As reported in the recent literature on piano performance, an emphasized voice 共the melody兲 tends
to be played not only louder than the other voices, but also about 30 ms earlier 共melody lead兲. It
remains unclear whether pianists deliberately apply melody lead to separate different voices, orwhether it occurs because the melody is played louder 共velocity artifact兲. The velocity artifact
explanation implies that pianists initially strike the keys simultaneously; it is only different
velocities that make the hammers arrive at different points in time. The measured note onsets inthese studies, mostly derived from computer-monitored pianos, represent the hammer-string impact
times. In the present study, the finger-key contact times are calculated and analyzed as well. If thevelocity artifact hypothesis is correct, the melody lead phenomenon should disappear at thefinger-key level. Chopin’s Ballade op. 38 共45 measures兲 and Etude op. 10/3 共21 measures兲 were
performed on a Bösendorfer computer-monitored grand piano by 22 skilled pianists. The
hammer-string asynchronies among voices closely resemble the results reported in the literature.
However, the melody lead decreases almost to zero at the finger-key level, which supports thevelocity artifact hypothesis. In addition to this, expected onset asynchronies are predicted fromdifferences in hammer velocity, if finger-key asynchronies are assumed to be zero. They correlate
highly with the observed melody lead. © 2001 Acoustical Society of America.
关DOI: 10.1121/1.1376133兴
PACS numbers: 43.75.St, 43.75.Mn 关RDA兴
I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background

Simultaneous noted in the printed score 共chords兲 are notplayed strictly simultaneously by pianists. An emphasizedvoice is not only played louder, but additionally precedes theother voices typically by around 30 ms; this phenomenon isreferred to as melody lead 共Hartmann, 1932; Vernon, 1937;
Palmer, 1989, 1996; Repp, 1996b兲. It is still unclear whether
this phenomenon is part of the pianists’ deliberate expressive
strategies and used independently from other expressive parameters 共Palmer, 1996兲, or whether it is mostly due to thetiming characteristics of the piano action 共velocity artifact,
Repp, 1996b兲, a result of the dynamic differentiation of different voices. Especially in chords played by the right hand,high correlations between hammer velocity differences andmelody lead times 共between melody notes and accompaniment兲 seem to confirm this velocity artifact explanation
共Repp, 1996b兲.
The data used in previous studies, derived mostly fromcomputer-monitored pianos, represent asynchronies at thehammer-string contact points. The present study examinedasynchrony patterns at the finger-key contact points as well.
Finger-key asynchronies represent what pianists initially dowhen striking chords. If the velocity artifact explanation iscorrect, the melody lead phenomenon should disappear at thefinger-key level. This means that pianists tend to strike thekeys almost simultaneously, and it is only the different dynamics 共velocities兲 that result in the typical hammer-string
asynchronies 共melody lead兲.

In considering note onset asynchronies, one has to differentiate between asynchronies that are indicated in thescore 共arpeggios, apoggiaturas兲 and asynchronies that are
performed but not especially marked in the score. The latter
come in two kinds: 共1兲 The melody precedes other voices by
about 30 ms on average 共melody lead兲, or 共2兲 the melody
lags behind the other voices. Asynchronies of the second
type occur mainly between the two hands and usually showmuch larger timing differences 共over 50 ms兲. A typical example would be when a bass note is played clearly before themelody 共melody lag or bass lead兲, which is well known fromold recordings of piano performances, but has been observedin contemporary performances too 共Palmer, 1989; Repp,
1996b兲. Asynchronies of the first type are common within
one hand 共especially within the right hand, as the melody
often is the highest voice兲, but may also occur between thehands.
Note asynchronies have been studied since the 1930s,
when Hartmann 共1932兲 and the Seashore group 共Vernon,
1937兲 conducted the first objective investigations of piano
performances. Hartmann used piano rolls as a data source
and found mostly asynchronies of the second type. Vernon
共1937兲 differentiated between asynchronies within one handand asynchronies between different hands. For the former heobserved melody lead 共type 1兲, whereas the latter mostly
showed bass note anticipation 共type 2兲.
In the recent literature, Palmer 共1989, 1996兲 and Repp
共1996b兲 have studied the melody lead phenomenon. Palmer
共1989兲 used electronic keyboard recordings to analyze chord
asynchronies, among other issues. Six pianists played the
beginning of the Mozart Sonata K. 331 and of Brahms’ In-a兲Electronic mail: werner.goebl@ai.univie.ac.at

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110 (1), July 2001

0001-4966/2001/110(1)/563/10/$18.00© 2001 Acoustical Society of America

563

termezzo op. 117/1 共‘‘Schlaf sanft, mein Kind...’’兲. The
melody led by about 20 to 30 ms on average; this effectdecreased for deliberately ‘‘unmusical’’ performances andfor melody voices in the middle of a chord 共Brahms op.
117/1兲. In a second study, melody lead was investigated exclusively 共Palmer, 1996兲. Six pianists played the first sectionof Chopin’s Prelude op. 28/15 and the initial 16 bars of
Beethoven’s Bagatelle op. 126/1 on a Bösendorfer computermonitored grand piano 共SE290, as in the current study兲.
Again, melody lead was found to increase with intended expressiveness, also with familiarity with a piece 共the Bagatelle
was sight-read and repeated several times兲, and with skill
level 共expert pianists showed a larger melody lead than student pianists兲.
In another study published at the same time, in part withthe same music, Repp 共1996b兲 analyzed 30 performances by
10 pianists of the whole Chopin Prelude op. 28/15, a Prelude
by Debussy, and ‘‘Träumerei’’ by Schumann on a Yamaha
upright Disklavier. To reduce random variation, Repp averaged over the three performances produced by each pianist.
He then calculated timing deviations between the 共righthand兲 melody and each other voice, so that asynchronies
within the right hand and between hands could be treatedseparately. He argued that melody lead could be explained
mostly as a consequence of dynamic differences between
melody and accompaniment. Dynamic differences 共differences in MIDI velocity兲 were positively correlated with timing differences between the melody and each of the othervoices, and these correlations were generally higher for asynchronies within the right hand than for those between hands.
Palmer 共1996兲 also computed correlations between
melody lead and the average hammer velocity difference between melody and accompaniment, but her correlations were
mostly nonsignificant. In her view, the anticipation of the
melody voice is primarily an expressive strategy that is used
independently from other performance parameters such as
intensity, articulation, and pedal use. In a perception test,
listeners had to identify the intended melody in a multivoiced
piece by rating different artificial versions: one with intensity
differences and melody lead, one with melody lead only, andone without any such differences. Melody identification was
best for the original condition 共melody lead and intensity
difference兲, but the results in the melody lead condition did
not differ much from the results in the neutral condition,
especially for nonpianist listeners. Only pianist listeners
showed some success in identifying the intended melody
from melody leads alone. A condition with intensity differences only was not included 共Palmer, 1996, p. 47兲.
B. Piano action timing properties

To fully explain the melody lead phenomenon, it is necessary first to clarify its physical underpinnings. The temporal parameters of the piano action have been described by
Askenfelt 共1990兲 and Askenfelt and Jansson 共1990, 1991,
1992兲. When a key is depressed, the time from its initial
position to the bottom contact ranges from 25 ms 共forte or
5-m/s final hammer velocity, FHV兲 to 160 ms 共piano or
1-m/s FHV; Askenfelt and Jansson, 1991, p. 2385兲.1 In a
grand piano the hammer impact times 共when the hammer
564

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 110, No. 1, July 2001

excites the strings兲 are shifted in comparison to key bottom
contact times. According to measurements by Askenfelt
共1990, p. 43兲, the hammer impact time is 12 ms before thekey bottom contact at a piano touch 共hammer velocity 1m/s兲, but 3 ms after the key bottom contact at a forte attack
共5 m/s兲. The timing properties of a grand piano action are
outlined by these data, but more detailed data were not available 共Askenfelt, 1999, personal communication兲.
The timing properties of the piano action can be modified by changing the regulation of the action. Modifications,e.g., in the hammer-string distance or in the let-off distance
共the distance of free flight of the hammer, after the jack isreleased by the escapement dolly兲 affect the timing relation
between hammer-string contact and key-bottom contact
共Askenfelt and Jansson, 1990兲. Greater hammer mass in thebass 共Conklin, 1996, p. 3287兲 influences the hammer-string
contact durations 共Askenfelt and Jansson, 1990兲, but not thetiming properties of the action.
Another measurement was made by Repp 共1996b兲 on a
Yamaha Disklavier on which the ‘‘prelay’’ function was notworking.2 This gave him the opportunity to measure roughly
a grand piano’s timing characteristics in the middle range ofthe keyboard. He measured onset asynchronies at different
MIDI velocities in comparison to a note with a fixed MIDI
velocity. The time deviations extended over a range of about
110 ms for MIDI velocities between 30 and 100 and were fit
well by a quadratic function 共Repp, 1996b, p. 3920兲.
The timing characteristics of electronic keyboards varyacross manufacturers and are rarely well documented. Eachkey has a spring with two electric contacts that define the off
and on states. When a key is depressed, the spring contact is
moved from the off position to the on position 共see Van deBerghe et al., 1995, p. 16兲. The time difference between the
breaking of the off contact and the on contact determines the
MIDI velocity values; the note onset is registered near the
key bottom contact.
We now have to distinguish between asynchronies at the
beginning of the attack movement 共finger-key contact兲 andasynchronies at its end 共hammer-string impact or key-bottom
contact兲. Computer-monitored grand pianos, like those of
Yamaha or Bösendorfer, store time points of hammer-string
impact, which are essentially equivalent to the beginnings ofthe sound events 共see Fig. 1兲.3
II. AIMS

Almost nothing is known about asynchronies at thefinger-key level, because none of the instruments used for
acquiring performance data measure this parameter. However, to clarify the origin of melody lead, it is important toconsider exactly those finger-key asynchronies. When pianists stress one voice in a chord, do they hit the keys asynchronously or do their fingers push the keys down at thesame time but with different velocities, so that the hammers
arrive at the strings at different points in time?
To examine this question, it is necessary to determine
the finger-key contact times. One possibility might be to observe finger key contacts by using a video camera or by
special electronic measurements at the keyboard. In thisstudy, the finger-key contacts were inferred from the time theWerner Goebl: Melody lead in piano performanceFIG. 1. Grand piano action, with the measurement
points of the Bösendorfer SE system sketched. The infrared sensor mounted on the hammer flange rail captures two trip points of the shutter on the hammer
shank: one 5 mm below the strings, the second immediately at the strings. The sensor at the key reacts when
the key is depressed more than about 2 mm. 共Figure
prepared with computer software by the author.兲

hammer travels from its resting position to the strings at
different final hammer velocities 共timing correction curve兲.
With the help of this function, the finger-key contacts could
be accurately estimated; also the size of the expected melody
lead effect in milliseconds could be predicted from the velocity differences between the voices, assuming simultaneous finger-key contacts.
III. METHOD
A. Materials and participants

The Etude op. 10/3 共first 21 measures, Fig. 2兲 and theBallade op. 38 共initial section, bars 1 to 45, Fig. 3兲 by Frédéric Chopin were recorded on a Bösendorfer SE290
computer-monitored concert grand piano by 22 skilled pianists 共9 female and 13 male兲. They were professional pianists, graduate students or professors at the Universität für
Musik und darstellende Kunst 共University of Music and Performing Arts兲 in Vienna. They received the scores several

days before the recording session, but were nevertheless allowed to use the music scores during recording. Their average age was 27 years 共the youngest was 19, the oldest 51兲.
They had received their first piano lesson at 6 and a halfyears of age on average. They had received piano instruction
for a mean of 22 years 共s.d.⫽7兲; 8 of them had already finished their studies; about half of them played more than 10
public concerts per year.
After the recording, the pianists were asked to play the
initial 9 bars of the Ballade in two additional versions: firstwith a particularly emphasized highest voice 共voice 1, seeFig. 3兲 and second with an emphasized third voice 共the lowest voice in the upper stave, played also by the right hand,
see Fig. 3兲. The purpose of these special versions was toinvestigate how pianists change melody lead and dynamic
shaping of the voices when they were explicitly advised toemphasize one particular voice.
All performance sessions were recorded onto digital audio tape 共DAT兲, and the performance data from the Bösen-

FIG. 2. Frédéric Chopin. Beginning of the Etude in E major, op. 10/3. The numbers against the note heads are voice numbers 共soprano⫽1,...,bass⫽7兲. 共Score
prepared with computer software following Paderewski Edition.兲
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 110, No. 1, July 2001

Werner Goebl: Melody lead in piano performance565

FIG. 3. Frédéric Chopin. The beginning of the second Ballade op. 38 in F major 共the first 23 bars兲. The voices are numbered as in Fig. 2, but the highest
number is now 5 for the bass. 共Score prepared with computer software following Henle Urtext Edition.兲

dorfer grand piano were stored on a PC’s hard disk. The
performances were consistently of a very high pianistic andmusical level.4 At the end of the session, the participants had
to fill in a questionnaire
B. Apparatus

To provide accurate performance data, a Bösendorfer
SE290 Imperial computer-monitored concert grand piano5
was used. The exact recording and playback functionality of
the Bösendorfer SE system is insufficiently described in the
manual and literature 共Moog and Rhea, 1990; Palmer and
Brown, 1991; Alcedo and Schäfer, 1992; Repp, 1993;
Palmer, 1996兲. Additional information was obtained from W.
Stahnke 共private communication, see Note 3兲 and from theBösendorfer technician F. Lachnit.
The SE system 共see Fig. 1兲 is equipped with two sets ofshutters, one at the hammers, another one under the keys.
The hammer shutters provide two trip points, one as thehammer crown just starts to contact the string and the other 5mm lower. These two trip points capture two instants in timeas the hammer travels upward, and the time difference between these instants yields an estimate of the final hammer
velocity 共FHV, in meters per second兲.6
The instant at which the trip point at the strings is passed
is taken as the note onset time. The note onset times aretaken 800 times per second, thus they have a timing resolution of 1.25 ms. The SE system has another set of shuttersabout 2–3 mm under the keys, which provides the note offset
times and—only in the case of silent notes 共if the hammer
does not touch the strings兲—notes onsets.
To avoid timing distortions in reproduction, the Bösendorfer SE290 uses a timing correction similar to the Yamaha
Disklavier’s ‘‘prelay’’ function 共cf. Repp, 1996b兲. The Bössendorfer SE system recalculates the precise timing characteristics for each key individually by running a calibration
566

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 110, No. 1, July 2001

program on demand. Among other parameters, the calibration function records the travel time interval from the keyshutter response 共2–3 mm below key zero position兲 to thehammer string impact for seven final hammer velocities andall 97 keys 共the Bösendorfer SE290 has 9 additional keys inthe bass兲. This data matrix is stored in a hardware chip
共EEPROM X2816AP兲. The memory of this hardware chip of
the particular grand piano in Vienna used in the experiments
was transferred into a file. The timing correction matrix
共TCM兲 derived from these data is shown in Fig. 4. The data
include both irregularities of the piano action and the electronic playback system. What can be seen from this matrix isthat travel time does not depend on hammer mass whichbecomes greater in the bass. It seems moreover that the properties of the individual keys do not vary much in the middle
range of the keyboard, except at low velocities.
After eliminating outliers that may be due to irregularities in the electronic equipment, the TCM was averaged
across the keyboard. The 共inverse power兲 curve interpolated
to these seven averaged data points gave a stable representation of the travel times as a function of final hammer velocity
共Fig. 5兲.7

C. Procedure

Note onsets and the hammer velocity information wereextracted from the performance data. These data werematched to a symbolic score in which each voice was individually indexed, beginning with 1 as the highest voice8 共seeFigs. 2 and 3兲. Wrong notes 共substitutions兲 or missing notes
共deletions兲 were marked as such. The rate of not-played orwrongly played notes was very low: for all pianists 0.43%
for the Etude 共of n total⫽9988), 0.69% for the Ballade 共ofn total⫽16 082), and 1.75% for the two repeated versions of
the Ballade 共of n total⫽5764). 9
Werner Goebl: Melody lead in piano performanceFIG. 4. The travel time correction matrix 共TCM兲 of the Bösendorfer SE290
in Vienna used for the experiments.
The seven functions display the measured travel time for seven final hammer velocities. This matrix is derived
from a hardware chip 共EEPROM兲 included in the Bösendorfer SE system.

Timing differences and hammer velocity differences between the first voice 共⫽melody兲 and each other voice were
calculated separately for all nominally simultaneous eventsin the score. All missing or wrong notes, as well as chords
marked in the score as arpeggio 共Ballade兲 or as appoggiatura
共Etude兲 were excluded.10 The finger-key contact times were
calculated for each note by subtracting from the hammerstring impact time the corresponding travel time, which was
determined by the TCC 共see Fig. 5兲. From this, finger-key
asynchronies were calculated, again between voice 1 and allother voices separately for all nominally simultaneous eventsin the score.

IV. RESULTS

Figure 6 shows the mean velocity profiles 共top graphs兲
as well as the mean asynchrony profiles 共bottom graphs兲 ofthe 22 performances of the Ballade and the Etude and theiroverall averages. All pianists played the first voice consistently louder than the other voices. None of the pianists
chose another voice to be played as the loudest voice. The
velocity levels of the individual voices were fairly constantin the performances of the Ballade, so averaging over allnotes in a voice made sense. For the performances of theEtude the dynamic climax of bar 17 caused a strong increasein the velocity values. Therefore, in Fig. 6 the section frombar 14 to 18 was averaged separately and was not included in
the overall average. Again, the first voice clearly showed thehighest velocity values.
The two bottom graphs in Fig. 6 show the hammerstring and the finger-key asynchrony profiles for the twopieces. The thicker lines with the standard deviation bars
represent the average of the mean asynchrony profiles of the
22 performances 共thin lines without symbols兲.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 110, No. 1, July 2001

In the hammer-string domain, the melody preceded
other voices, as expected, by about 20–30 ms. In the Ballade
the asynchrony profiles of the individual performances werevery similar to each other, and the melody lead was slightly
greater relative to the left hand voices than to the right handvoices. The individual chord profiles for the Etude showed
more variability among pianists, especially in the left hand,where the bass voice 共7兲 tended to lead for some pianists 共foran example, see the following兲.
The asynchronies at the finger-key level 共Fig. 6, brokenlines, average with circles兲 were consistently smaller thanthose at hammer-string level. In particular, the melody lead
within the right hand is reduced to about zero, whereas theleft hand tends to lead the right hand. Two repeated-measure
analyses of variance 共ANOVA兲 on the average melody leads
for each voice in each performance with type of asynchronies 共hammer-string and finger-key兲 and voice 共2 to 5 in the
Ballade and 2 to 7 in the Etude兲 as within-subject factors
separately for the two pieces 共Etude, Ballade兲 showed significant main effects of type of melody lead and significant
interactions between type and voice.11
A real outlier was pianist 3, who played the melody
40–70 ms before the accompaniment, as shown in Fig. 7.
This was a deliberate strategy that pianist 3 habitually uses toemphasize melody. In a private communication with pianist
3, he confirmed this habit and called it a ‘‘spleen.’’ His
finger-key profiles still showed a melody lead of about 20 ms
and more. A similar but smaller tendency was shown by twoother pianists. This finding suggests that melody lead can beapplied deliberately and used as an expressive device—inaddition to a dynamic differentiation—to highlight the
melody. We argue here that, when melody lead is used as aconscious expressive device, it should be observable at thefinger-key level. This strategy seems to be fairly rare.
Werner Goebl: Melody lead in piano performance567

FIG. 7. The asynchrony profiles of pianist 3 共with standard deviation bars兲
at hammer-string contact 共closed lines with triangles兲 and finger-key contact
共broken lines with circles兲.
FIG. 5. The timing characteristics of a grand piano action: the hammer
travel times as a function of final hammer velocity. This timing correction
curve 共TCC兲 was fitted to average data derived from a Bösendorfer SE
EPROM chip 共see Fig. 4兲. The y axis represents the time interval between
finger-key contact times 共measured 2–3 mm below the key surface兲 and thehammer-string contact times.

FIG. 6. The individual and mean final hammer velocity 共FHV兲 and asynchrony profiles 共with standard deviation bars兲 of 22 performances for theEtude 共left-hand panel兲 and the Ballade 共right兲. In the top panel, the mean
intensity values by pianists and voice are plotted. The thicker lines withsquares indicate the average across pianists. In the Etude, bars 14–18 areaveraged separately. The profiles at the bottom show the averaged timing
delays of voices relative to voice 1. Solid lines represent hammer-string 共hs兲
asynchronies, broken lines inferred finger-key 共fk兲 asynchronies. The horizontal bars are standard deviations, computed across individual performers.
568

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 110, No. 1, July 2001

The results of the two emphasized versions of the firstnine bars of the Ballade are shown in Fig. 8. In the top
graphs, the mean intensity values are plotted by voices. In
the first voice version 共top left graph兲, the emphasized voice
was played louder than in the normal version 共mean FHV
1.28 m/s vs 1.01 m/s兲, while the accompaniment maintained
its dynamic range. The melody lead increased up to 40–50
ms 共Fig. 8, bottom left graph兲.
When the third voice was emphasized, that voice wasplayed loudest 共at about FHV 1.12 m/s on average兲, with the
melody somewhat attenuated 共0.84 m/s兲 and the other voices
as usual 共top right graph兲. The third voice led by about 20 ms
compared to the first voice, while the left hand lagged byabout 40 ms 共Fig. 8兲. Thus, when pianists are asked to emphasize one voice, they play this voice louder, and the timing
difference changes correspondingly.
The first nine bars of the 共normal version of the兲 Ballade
were compared with these two special versions 共Ballade first
voice, Ballade third voice兲 with regard to hammer velocity
and melody lead. A repeated-measure ANOVA on the average hammer velocities of each voice in each performancewith instruction 共normal, first, third兲 and voice 共1–5兲 aswithin-subject factors was conducted. Significant effects on
instruction 关 F(2,21)⫽4.98, p⬍0.05兴 , voice 关 F(4,84)⫽466.2, p⬍0.001兴 , and a significant interaction between instruction and voice 关 F(8,168)⫽88.58, p⬍0.001兴 indicatethat pianists changed the dynamic shaping of the individual
voices significantly. Another repeated-measure ANOVA was
conducted on the melody leads averaged for each voice ineach performance, again with instruction 共normal, first, andthird兲 and voice 共2–5兲 as within-subjects factors. It showedsignificant effects of instruction 关 F(2,42)⫽114.41, p⬍0.001兴 and voice 关 F(3,63)⫽24.12, p⬍0.001兴 , and an interaction between instruction and voice 关 F(6,126)⫽31.29, p⬍0.001兴 .
Relationship between velocity and timing. Generally, it
was the case that the larger the dynamic differences, thegreater the extent of melody lead. The velocity differences
Werner Goebl: Melody lead in piano performanceFIG. 8. Average velocity and asynchrony profiles of the 22 individual performances in the Ballade’s emphasized melody conditions. On the left-handside, the first voice was emphasized, on the right, the third voice. The solidlines indicate hammer-string 共hs兲 contacts, broken lines finger-key 共fk兲 contacts.

between the first voice and the other notes were negatively
correlated with the timing differences. The mean correlation
coefficients across the 22 pianists are shown in Table I共a兲,
separately for each piece and for right-hand 共within-hand兲and left-hand 共between-hand兲 comparisons.12
The within-hand coefficients were substantially higher
than the between-hand coefficients. This suggests a larger
independence between the hands than between the fingers ofa single hand. Especially for the Etude, almost all of the
between-hand coefficients were nonsignificant 共with the exception of two pianists兲. The coefficients for the special ver-sions were slightly higher than those for the ‘‘normal’’ versions.
These correlation coefficients assume a linear relationship between melody leads and the velocity differences.
However, the expected effect resulting from the piano action
timing properties 共velocity artifact兲 does not represent a linear, but rather an inverse power relation 共see Fig. 5兲. To test
the presence of this effect in the data, the observed timing
differences were correlated with the timing differences predicted by the TCC 关Table I共b兲兴. These correlations were generally higher than the correlations between timing differences and final hammer velocity differences. Eighty-sevenout of 88 individual coefficients were highly significant for
the right hand. This result shows that the connection of
melody lead and intensity variation is even better explainedby the velocity artifact than by a linear correlation, as done
in literature 共Repp, 1996b; Palmer, 1996兲.
Some of the individual left-hand correlation coefficients
between observed and predicted melody lead were nonsignificant in the Etude, but not in the Ballade or in the special
versions 关Table I共b兲兴. This suggests not only the generaltrend of larger between-hand asynchrony variability, but isalso due to large bass anticipations—the type 2 asynchronies
mentioned previously—played by some pianists, who clearlystruck some bass notes earlier. To illustrate these bass anticipations, the beginning of the Etude performed by pianist 5 isshown in Fig. 9. In the bottom graph of Fig. 9, we canobserve five bass leads. Two are quite small 共bars 6 and 7
about 35–40 ms兲, two are somewhat larger 共bars 2 and 8
about 75 ms兲 and one is huge 共bar 9, 185 ms兲. All bass leads
are even larger in the finger-key domain 共see Fig. 9, open
symbols兲. In this example, most of the large bass leads occur
at metrically important events. These bass leads are well perceivable and often exceed the range of the melody leads.
V. DISCUSSION

In this study, a large and high quality set of performancedata was analyzed. In addition to the measuring of asynchronies at the hammer-string impact level, we estimated theasynchronies at the start of the key acceleration 共finger-key

TABLE I. 共a兲 Mean correlation coefficients, with standard deviations 共s.d.兲, between melody lead and final
hammer velocity differences across 22 pianists. n max indicates the maximum number of note pairs that went into
the computation of each correlation 共missing notes reduced this number at some individual performances兲.
** ⫽22). 共b兲 The mean#r ** indicates the number of highly significant (p⬍0.01) individual correlations (#r max
correlation coefficients, with standard deviations 共s.d.兲, between observed and predicted melody lead across 22
pianists, and the number of highly significant (p⬍0.01) correlations of the pianists (#r ** ).
Etude

BalladeBallade first voice

Ballade third voiceright handleft handright handleft handright handleft handright handleft hand

共a兲
n max
Mean
s.d.
#r **

126
⫺0.45
0.12
21

103
⫺0.15
0.20
2

181
⫺0.42
0.13
22

269
⫺0.31
0.12
20

29
⫺0.55
0.17
16

58
⫺0.29
0.22
12

29
⫺0.73
0.14
22

58
⫺0.53
0.17
18

共b兲
n max
Mean
s.d.
#r **

126
0.66
0.10
22

103
0.34
0.23
14

181
0.58
0.13
22

269
0.50
0.13
22

29
0.72
0.17
21

58
0.55
0.22
21

29
0.79
0.11
22

58
0.63
0.13
22

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 110, No. 1, July 2001

Werner Goebl: Melody lead in piano performance569

FIG. 9. The dynamic profiles 共top兲 and the note asynchronies 共bottom兲 for the first bars of the Etude op. 10/3 for pianist 5. Top graph: The final hammer
velocity 共FHV兲 is plotted against nominal time according to the score. Each voice is plotted separately. The melody is played clearly more loudly than theother voices. The bottom graph shows the time delay of each note relative to onset time of the corresponding melody note 共voice 1兲. The closed symbols
represent hammer-string asynchronies, the open symbols the estimated finger-key contact times.

level兲 through calculation. The hypothesis that melody leadoccurs as a consequence of dynamic differentiation was supported in three ways.
共1兲 The consistently high correlations between hammerstring asynchronies and dynamic differences show theoverall connection of melody and velocity difference.
The more the melody is separated dynamically from theaccompaniment, the more it precedes it. These findings
replicate Repp’s 共1996b兲 results.
570

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 110, No. 1, July 2001

共2兲 In addition to these findings, the estimated finger-key
asynchronies show that, with few exceptions, the melody
lead phenomenon disappears at finger-key level. Pianists
start to strike the keys almost synchronously, but different velocities cause the hammers to arrive at the stringsat different points in time.
共3兲 With the help of the timing correction curve 共TCC兲,
melody lead was predicted in ms. The correlations between this predicted and the observed melody lead wereWerner Goebl: Melody lead in piano performanceeven higher than the correlations between velocity differences and melody lead. Differences in hammer velocity account for about half of the variance in asynchronies
in the data. The other variance could be due to deliberate
expression, or motor noise.
The findings of this study are consistent with interpretations of Repp 共1996b, velocity artifact explanation兲 rather
than those of Palmer 共1989, 1996兲, who regarded melody
lead to be produced independently of other expressive parameters 共e.g., dynamics, articulation兲. Of course it remains
true that melody lead can help a listener identify the melody
in a multivoiced music environment. Temporally offset elements tend to be perceived as belonging to separate streams
共stream segregation, Bregman, 1990兲, and spectral masking
effects are diminished by asynchronous onsets 共Rasch, 1978,1979兲. But in light of the present data, perceptual segregation
is not the main reason for melody lead. Primarily, the temporal shift of the melody is a result of the dynamic differentiation of the voices, but both phenomena have similar perceptual results, that is, separating melody fromaccompaniment.
Nevertheless, pianists clearly played asynchronously insome cases. Some bass notes are played before the melody.
Bass lead time deviations are usually around 50 ms and extend up to 180 ms in some cases. These distinct anticipations
seem to be produced intentionally, although probably without immediate awareness. This bass lead is well documented
in the literature, not only as a habit of an older pianists’s
generation, but also in some of today’s young pianists’ performances 共Repp, 1996b; Palmer, 1989兲.
The case of pianist 3 suggests that pianists can enlarge
the melody lead deliberately if they wish to do so. In thiscase, even in the finger-key domain melody lead is observable. However, it does not seem possible for pianists to dynamically differentiate voices in a chord without producing
melody lead in the hammer-string domain. At least there is
no example in the present data that would prove this.
In the examples of deliberately produced asynchronies
共bass lead and enlarged melody lead兲, the extent of the asynchrony usually exceeded 30 ms. Such asynchronies may be
regarded as a deliberate expressive device under direct control of the pianists. According to the pianists in this study,
they are produced in a somewhat subconscious way 共private
communication with the pianists兲, but pianists report a general awareness of the use of these asynchronies and that they
could suppress them if they wanted to. However, the use ofthe ‘‘normal’’ melody lead that was produced by all pianists
was unconscious. Pianists reported that they emphasize one
voice by playing it dynamically louder, but not earlier 共thesame was reported by Palmer, 1989, p. 335兲.
The asynchronies in the finger-key domain were computed by using a timing correction curve which provides thetime interval from key-press to hammer-string impact as afunction of final hammer velocity. The key shutter reacts
when the key is depressed about 2 to 3 mm 共the ‘‘touch
depth’’ of the key is usually about 9.5 mm, Askenfelt andJansson, 1991, p. 2383, varying slightly across pianos兲.
Thus, to be precise, the finger-key domain represents points
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 110, No. 1, July 2001

in time when keys are depressed by 2 to 3 mm. However,almost nothing is known about how keys are accelerated andreleased in reality. In very precise acceleration measurements
by Van den Berghe 共Van den Berghe et al., 1995, p. 17兲 it
can be seen that sometimes keys are not released entirely,
especially in repetitions. The modern piano action has the
double repetition feature that allows a second strike without
necessarily releasing the key entirely. If the system measured
onsets close to the zero position, some onsets would not be
detected as such. Nevertheless, the 2 to 3 mm below zerolevel still gives a good impression about the asynchronies atthe start of a key acceleration. For more accurate statements
about played and perceived onset asynchronies in piano performance, evaluation of acceleration measurements at different points in the piano action would be necessary.
This paper was concerned with the particular propertiesof the piano. Other keyboard actions 共harpsichord, organ兲
may have similar timing properties as far as the key itself isconcerned 共a key that is depressed faster reaches the keybed
earlier than a slower one兲, but their actions respond differently due to their different way of producing sound: the harpsichord plucks the strings, and on the organ a pipe valve is
opened or closed. Additionally, they do not allow continuous
dynamic differentiation like a piano does, and therefore performers may choose timing as a means to separate voices.
However, we note a difference in the played repertoire: homophonic textures, like the Chopin excerpts used in thisstudy, are seldom seen in the harpsichord or organ repertoires.
According to Vladimir Horowitz, when accenting a tone
within a chord one should ‘‘raise the whole arm with as little
muscular effort as possible, until the fingers are between
three and five inches above the key. During the up and down
movements of the arm, prepare the fingers by placing themin position for the depression of the next group of notes andby holding the finger which is to play the melody-note a trifle
lower and firmer than the other fingers which are to depress
the remaining keys of the chord’’ 共Eisenberg, 1928兲.13 This
would suggest that an asynchrony at the key is intended, but
Horowitz goes on: ‘‘The reason for holding the finger a trifle
lower is only psychological in effect; in actual practice, it
isn’t altogether necessary. Experience shows that in the beginning it is almost impossible to get a student to hold one
finger more firmly than the others unless he is also permitted
to hold it in a somewhat different position from the others.
Holding it a little lower does not change the quality or quantity of tone produced and does not affect the playing in any
way but it does put the student’s mind at greater ease’’
共Eisenberg, 1928兲. As the pianists in the present study,
Horowitz is aiming at intensity differences here, but not at
differences in timing: ‘‘The finger which is held a trifle
lower and much firmer naturally strikes the key a much
firmer blow than do the more relaxed fingers which do not
overcome the resistance of the key as easily as does the more
firmly held finger. The tone produced by the key so depressed is therefore stronger than the others’’ 共Eisenberg,
1928兲. The quote suggests that Horowitz was unaware of theconsequences of his recommendation for onset synchrony orthat he considered onset asynchrony unimportant.
Werner Goebl: Melody lead in piano performance571

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by the START program of
the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture 共Grant No. Y99-INF to Gerhard Widmer兲. I thankWayne Stahnke, who generously shared his insight into thefunctionality of the Bösendorfer SE system. Thanks are dueto the Bösendorfer Company in Vienna, which provided theSE290 Imperial grand piano for experimental use, and especially to Fritz Lachnit, who carefully maintained the grandpiano; to the Department for Microelectronics at the Vienna
University of Technology, and to Simon Dixon for reading
and converting the data of the EEPROM hardware chip. Special thanks to Nigel Nettheim for posting the Horowitz interview on the web. Emilios Cambouropoulos, Simon Dixon,
Caroline Palmer, Richard Parncutt, Bruno Repp, Oliver Vitouch, and Gerhard Widmer provided helpful comments on
earlier drafts of this paper. Finally, I am indebted to all theparticipating pianists who provided the data for this study.
Askenfelt and Jansson 共1990兲 used a Hamburg Steinway & Sons grandpiano, model B 共7 ft, 211 cm兲 for their measurements.
2
The ‘‘prelay’’ function compensates for the different travel times of theaction at different hammer velocities. In order to prevent timing distortions
in reproduction, the MIDI input is delayed by 500 ms. The solenoids 共thelinear motors moving the keys兲 are then activated earlier for softer notes
than for louder notes, according to a pre-programmed function.
3
Palmer’s 共1996, pp. 27 and 29兲 assumption that the Bösendorfer SE290
grand piano records key-bed impact times as note onsets is contradicted byinformation given by W. Stahnke 共private communication兲, who developed
the SE system in the 1980s 共Moog and Rhea, 1990, p. 53兲,4
All recordings can be downloaded in MP3 format at http://
www.ai.univie.ac.at/⬃wernerg
5‘‘SE’’ stands for Stahnke Electronics, 290 indicates the length of the pianoin cm.
6
This time difference is by definition called the inverse hammer velocity
共IHV兲, and is measured by a counter operating at 25.6 kHz. Therefore, therelationship between the IHV and the final hammer velocity, expressed inmeters per second, is determined via the function IHV⫽128/FHV. The IHVvalues can range from 0 共128 m/s兲 to 1023 共0.125 m/s兲. The performing
pianists typically produce IHV values between 30 共4.26 m/s兲 and about 600
共0.21 m/s兲, where at 600 the hammers will not reach the strings anymore
共silent note兲.
7
In an earlier analysis 共Goebl, 2000兲, the author made use of average TCM
data provided by Stahnke 共private communication兲, derived from his
Bösendorfer SE290. It was preferred in the present study to use the mean
TCM from the Vienna SE grand. However, the differences between these
two inverse power curves were very small and did not affect the resultsmuch.
8
The lowest voice played by the right hand was called 3. If there were threesimultaneous notes in the right hand, the middle one was labeled 2. The
highest voice played by the left hand was indexed 4, the base line 5 in the
Ballade, and 7 in the Etude. Voices 5 and 6 in the Etude occurred only inmeasures 16 and 17. In the Ballade, there was only one chord 共bar 19兲 withthree simultaneous notes in the left hand. Here, the two higher notes werelabeled 4, the bass 5.
9Additional notes 共insertions兲 that were so soft 共or silent兲 that they did not
disturb the performance and were apparently not perceived as mistakes,
were not counted as errors. In the Etude we observed 181 such notes overthe 22 performances 共⫹1.8%兲, in the Ballade 189 共⫹1.17%兲. Similar observations were made also by Repp 共1996a兲.
10
The excluded events for the Etude were 共关bar number兴•关relative position in
the bar兴兲: 7.75, 8.25, and 21.0, for the Ballade: 18.5, 20.5, 40.0, and 45.0.
11
The repeated-measure ANOVA for the Ballade: significant effect of type
关 F(1,21)⫽718.2, p⬍0.001兴 , no significant effect of voice 关 F(3,63)
1

572

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 110, No. 1, July 2001

⫽1.2, p⬎0.05兴 , and a significant interaction between type and voice关 F(3,63)⫽112.3, p⬍0.001兴 ; for the Etude: significant effects of type
关 F(1,21)⫽603.9, p⬍0.001兴 , and voice 关 F(5,105)⫽5.59, p⬍0.002兴 , andan interaction between type and voice 关 F(5,105)⫽34.83, p⬍0.001兴 .
12
The negative sign of the correlation coefficients stems from the way of
calculating timing and velocity differences and has no relevance for datainterpretation: from the onset time of each accompanying note (t n ) the
onset time of the corresponding melody note (t 1 ) is subtracted (t n ⫺t 1 ), so
the melody lead is positive. Similarly, the velocity differences are calculated as: v n ⫺ v 1 , which results in negative values. Therefore, the correlation coefficients between melody leads and velocity differences are negative, whereas the coefficients between observed and predicted melody
leads are positive.
13
This article may be found at http://users.bigpond.net.au/nettheim/
horo28.htm
Alcedo, C., and Schäfer, S. 共1992兲. ‘‘Computer-controlled player pianos,’’
Comput. Music J. 16, 104–111.
Askenfeld, A. 共Ed兲. 共1990兲. Five lectures on the acoustics of the piano.
Stockholm: Publications issued by the Royal Swedish Academy of Music,
Vol. 64.
Askenfeld, A. 共1999兲. Private communication.
Askenfeld, A., and Jansson, E. V. 共1990兲. ‘‘From touch to string vibrations.
I. Timing in grand piano action,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 88, 52–63.
Askenfelt, A., and Jansson, E. V. 共1991兲. ‘‘From touch to string vibrations.
II. The motion of the key and hammer,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 90, 2383–
2393.
Askenfelt, A., and Jansson, E. V. 共1992兲. ‘‘From touch to string vibrations.
III. String motion and spectra,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93, 2181–2196.
Bregman, A. S. 共1990兲. Auditory Scene Analysis. The Perceptual Organization of Sound 共MIT, Cambridge兲.
Conklin, H. A. 共1996兲. ‘‘Design and tone in the mechanoacoustic piano. I.
Piano hammers and tonal effects,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99, 3286–3296.
Eisenberg, J. 共1928兲. ‘‘Horowitz explains accenting a melody while playing
chords,’’ The Musician June 1928, 11.
Goebl, W. 共2000兲. ‘‘Skilled piano performance: Melody lead caused bydynamic differentiation,’’ in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition,’’ edited by C. Woods, G.
Luck, R. Brochard, F. Seddon, and J. A. Sloboda, Keele, Keele University
Department of Psychology, pp. 1165–1176.
Hartmann, A. 共1932兲. ‘‘Untersuchungen über das metrische Verhalten inmusikalischen Interpretationsvarianten,’’ Arch. Gesamte Psychologie 84,
103–192.
Moog, R. A., and Rhea, T. L. 共1990兲. ‘‘Evolution of the keyboard interface:
The Bösendorfer 290 SE recording piano and the Moog multiply-touchsensitive keyboards,’’ Comput. Music J. 14, 52–60.
Palmer, C. 共1989兲. ‘‘Mapping musical thought to musical performance,’’ J.
Exp. Psychol. 15, 331–346.
Palmer, C. 共1996兲. ‘‘On the assignment of structure in music performance,’’Music Perception 14, 23–56.
Palmer, C., and Brown, J. C. 共1991兲. ‘‘Investigations in the amplitude ofsounded piano tones,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 90, 60–66.
Rasch, R. A. 共1978兲. ‘‘The perception of simultaneous notes such as inpolyphonic music,’’ Acustica 40, 21–33.
Rasch, R. A. 共1979兲. ‘‘Synchronization in performed ensemble music,’’
Acustica 43, 121–131.
Repp, B. H. 共1993兲. ‘‘Some empirical observations on sound level properties of recorded piano tones,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93, 1136–1144.
Repp, B. H. 共1996a兲. ‘‘The art of inaccuracy: Why pianists’ errors are
difficult to hear,’’ Music Perception 14, 161–184.
Repp, B. H. 共1996b兲. ‘‘Patterns of note onset asynchronies in expressive
piano performance,’’ J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 100, 3917–3932.
Stahnke, W. Private communication.
Van den Berghe, G., De Moor, B., and Minten, W. 共1995兲. ‘‘Modeling a
grand piano key action,’’ Comput. Music J. 19, 15–22.
Vernon, L. N. 共1937兲. ‘‘Synchronization of chords in artistic piano music,’’
in Objective Analysis of Musical Performance, edited by C. E. Seashore
共University Press兲, Vol. IV, pp. 306–345.

Werner Goebl: Melody lead in piano performance