[CAUT] Brodmann pianos

[Fred Sturm]

	I agree with Ric's attitude, and, in a different way, with Jim's and  
Ron's. First, yes, Jim and Ron are right in that there are a lot of  
narrow-minded people out there who accept something as "true" based  
purely on "authority" (the experts, or major manufacturers, say it is  
so, therefore it is), and aren't willing to go to the trouble to  
verify for themselves whether it really is so. Ron and Jim are much  
more entitled to their opinion because it is based on their own,  
fairly extensive experience.
	But Ric is also right, in telling Jim and Ron that their opinion  
based on experience doesn't make everybody else wrong. It's another  
example of the creation of an "authoritative" opinion. Maybe a longer  
back length changes a lot of things, and in a direction that may be  
thought to be "better." Perhaps it creates more sustain, a bigger bass  
sound (lots of ways of describing what happens). Is this good? Well,  
not if it overpowers the mid treble. Not if it makes the sound of the  
whole instrument have less clarity. It might be better, for any given  
design, to have less sustain in the bass, less power. There isn't  
necessarily an absolute right answer.
	A case in point is the Perzina upright, with its reverse crown and  
"floating" bottom of the soundboard (instead of being attached to the  
rim, there is a maple "rib" across the bottom). The bass is quite  
boomy, very nice sound in and of itself. Does the whole piano sound  
better as a result? Maybe so, maybe no, it's a matter of opinion.  
Maybe the bass overpowers the treble. (I haven't made up my mind, and  
haven't had enough opportunity to play and listen to be entitled to a  
real opinion one way or another).
	And the wide variance in opinion about hammers and voicing styles  
shows that there is no one single right answer in that field, either  
(though that is pretty obvious to most of us). It is great that there  
are so many intelligent people out there having differences of  
opinion, making different kinds of sound. More power to "la difference!"
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu



On Apr 29, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Richard Brekne wrote:

> Hi Ric,
>
> Narrow minded meant I expected them to only see it "my" way. You  
> made a good point that people won't generally accept that from others.
> But, if I was the King of the Universe cantilevered bass bridges  
> would go the way of dinosaurs. <G>
>
> Thanks Ric.
>
>
> Hi Jim
>
> The real point I was trying to make was that not everyone actually  
> likes the same kind of sound.  You may want to see cantilevered bass  
> bridges go the way of dinosaurs.... but I guarantee you that there  
> are many who (after seriously considering various alternatives) do  
> not.  Same thing with soundboard approaches.  Schimmel is a classic  
> example of a company that spent quite a bit of resources looking  
> carefully into basic RC&S design and did not like what resulted. And  
> its hardly because they didnt know what they were doing.
>
> The thing is... these design variations result in a difference in  
> sound performance.  If they didnt then guys like Ron, Del, and those  
> who think along similar lines would not find any reason to enact  
> these variations.  They LIKE the change in sound performance.  Thats  
> where everything falls (potentially) totally into the realm of the  
> subjective.  If someone on the other hand does NOT like the  
> resultant sound of these same changes... then who's right is it to  
> find fault with them ?
>
> Accusing those who disagree in relation to their subjective likes  
> and dislikes without further ado as being narrow minded and  
> prejudiced is unwarranted. In reality.... there is a lot of that,  
> but it is in more or less equal proportion on all sides of just  
> about any fence you can pick out. And likewise in reality... there  
> is a lot more considered opinion that still results in disagreement  
> with regard to subjectives then is given credit for here.
>
> Take for example the Steinway duplex.  There is no escaping the fact  
> that the well maintained S&S duplex is one of the most successful  
> designs in the buying publics eye in the history of piano building.   
> The marketing argumentation so quickly relied on to explain this  
> away just can not account for this degree of success.  You and I may  
> or may not like the thing... but thats rather less then relevant....  
> UNTIL it comes to building your own piano.  Then you do what you  
> want... be proud of it.. let others do their thing as well.
>
> I'm quite sure you agree with this in principle from reading many of  
> your posts.... and thats why I kinda balked at the suggestion of  
> calling you narrow-minded.
>
> Cheers
> RicB
>
>
>