Hi Horace,
Thanks for the post. Did you incorporate the induction method whileflame hardening? If so can you post the details. Some quench with oil,your method? Tig is really hot, was it trickier for you than the flame method?Flame suit, don't worry about it. For example, European instruments canbe just as versatile in the context of their dynamic range, it's just thatrange for most breaks up quickly at anything above mezzo-forte.About agraffes, I'm inclined to fit a Steinway with the Bosendorferstyle that has the horizontal pin embedded in it.
Brent--- On Fri, 11/12/10, Horace Greeley <hgreeley at sonic.net> wrote:
From: Horace Greeley <hgreeley at sonic.net>
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Toughest piece for piano stability?
To: caut at ptg.org
Date: Friday, November 12, 2010, 1:44 AM
Hi,
There's been so much good stuff on this thread it's hard to know where to start! Some random thoughts and responses:
At 05:39 PM 11/10/2010, you wrote:
> On 11/10/2010 12:46 PM, Fred Sturm wrote:
>> Hi Susan,
>> I checked the D#6 in our two Ds in the recital hall and one in a studio this morning. The newest D (2001) had a sound that could be described as you did - though I wouldn't say it was all that much different from C6, C#6 and D6 - at the very top of its dynamic range (above fff). The others, 1981 and 1963, had no sign of anything of the sort. The newest one is voiced the brightest of the three, but none of them is
dull. FWIW.
>
> Thanks, Fred. If you ever wander up to our part of the world (Willamette Valley) I'll show it to you and see what you think. Lovely piano otherwise, IMO.
>
> Susan
- This is a good place from which to start. Obviously, there's a great deal going on with capo stuff. The areas noted (C6, C#6, etc) have, I think related problems. In addition to the more obvious issues with the scale design, S&S has gone through a number of periods of change in manufacturing technique (that are not necessarily reflective of design changes, per se, but have amounted to the same thing). Most importantly for this discussion is that they have gone through a number of periods of either hardening or not hardening the capo; and, coequally important, they have used different methods for doing so...and, of course, there isn't necessarily a good record of what was done when, to which models, etc. So,
it makes perfect sense to me, and it is very much my own experience, that some instruments will have capos that are (relatively) trouble-free and others that will simply always be seriously problematic. Virtually all of the pianos that I have seen that fall into this latter group are ones on which the capo has not been hardened. Without taking the instrument apart, I'm not sure that there really is a good way in which to determine this other than by noting how often "repair" work has to be done...shaping, dressing, polishing, etc...are all of very limited utility...the only real "fix" is to harden the capo (and the front duplexes, if you leave them in place at all) when the piano is disassembled for whatever. There are several methods for this hardening, of which the two I've used are TIG or Gas/Acetylene flame hardening. Both are highly successful; and, I think, have been discussed either here or on pianotech previously.
While open to other points of view, I'm not convinced that the bell/nosebolt are an issue here.
- Hand in glove with the above are the issues an octave below. I think I've only seen one or two new Ds in the last thirty years that are "clean" at this point in the scale (C5, C#5, etc). While there are obvious things to do with the scale itself, bridge pinning, and bridge material, I would also look at replacing the agraffes. After playing with this a bit, I'm pretty sure that I would go with the electroless nickel plated agraffes (and, probably bridge pins). I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, especially if dealing with an instrument that is going to be tuned and played very frequently. While in this area, I think I would also find some way in which to reduce friction across the stringing felt.
- Thinking of less invasive ways to try to work around some of these problems, I think Fred's
suggestion to leave the last movement headed sharp (sorry, Fred, paraphrasing) is spot on; and for the same reasons he suggests. Should it be necessary to do that? Probably not. But, without the time and budget to make all things perfect in this obviously best of all possible worlds...we have to compromise.
- Ditto for Ed's thoughts about "listening" pianists. A competent performer will do just that. They want to determine what the reasonable limits are for any given instrument. If they specialize in Haydn and Mozart, they're probably not interested in breaking glass in the 10th row. If, however, they're fond of Lizst transcriptions or, or, or, and no one has ever told them that destroying the piano went out with the dinosaurs...welllll...that's a whole different problem. Without completely subverting the current thread, I'll suggest that one of the major undiscussed problems which we face as
technicians is that many, perhaps even most, pianists get whatever limited training as to developing tone from listening to recordings of pianos, not from going to live concerts. Thus, while the simple fact is that they don't know what they don't know; and, since they don't know it that, knowing it wouldn't help.
- Susan Graham was quoting Freddie Drasche, who was quite cavalier about addressing production issues in the field. For those who may not have known Freddie, it's important to note that he was the last public face of S&S who had actually "done it all" in terms of working his way up through the factory...starting before WWII. When "regular" production resumed after the war, things started to change fairly quickly, and training was no longer either as long or as in depth; and, also very important, the people coming into the factory as new employees were (by and large) no longer third or fourth generation cabinet
makers, but were learning new trades and skills. (N.B., While it doesn't cover this period, Craig Roell's: The Piano in America:1890 - 1940 is highly recommended reading.)
- Someone mentioned "pointillistic" technique. While I've known a few pianists who could play this way, I've never heard any of their students do anything but bang...not sure what's up with that.
- George Winston...really is a pussycat. Yes, he plays hard. Yes, he has a complicated rider. I think there's a fair amount of discussion about George in the archives. The mutes are placed as much for voicing as for tuning; and are not necessarily intended derogatorily. If he's not happy, you'll know it quite directly. I'd say that if you got smiles and a CD or two, everything's roses. (...tip of the hat...)
- Someone (Ed?) said something about comparing different pianos, I think...I probably have that wrong, but it
reminds me of a conversation that I had some time ago with Peter Goodrich, who was still in the service department at S&S. He and I happened to be wandering around a NAMM show and listening to a number of pianos...some of which were really quite outstanding. Later that day, we were talking about how the different instruments compared, and he said something along the lines of while there were obviously times and places for which a given piano might be better than a Steinway, the advantage that a Steinway (particularly the NY) has is that it is/can be the most tonally versatile, and so, has the best chance of sound the best it can in a variety of environments. On the one hand, that's clearly painting with a fairly wide brush. On the other, all things being equal (which, of course, they never really are...but, just go with it for a moment), I think that the case can be made...if we're realistic about what we're asking. I'm
not suggesting that a piano set up for the Chandler Pavilion at the LA Music Center (3500 seats and designed as a television/radio studio) should be immediately dropped into a 250 seat hard-surfaced Jr. High auditorium and be expected to sound fabulous. However, double-checking the closures on my Hoffsommer Mark V Flame Suit, I am suggesting that S&S still has a wider edge of musically acceptable versatility than most when it comes to using the same instrument in a fairly wide diversity of acoustic and musical environments.
- Susan noted comparing her tuning to others, and basically doesn't. For me, this really quickly gets into the area of walking a mile in someone else's moccasins. There are simply too many variables for these comparisons to mean much to begin with, let alone anything faintly resembling a concert setting. On the one hand, while I go to lots of concerts and don't very often hear pianos that I like
very much, I try (with greater or lesser success) to keep in mind that I'm not the person who's trying to deal with whatever. We discuss these kinds of things ad nauseam on the lists, but I'm not sure that we always maintain an awareness that whoever the other technician might be, whatever their gifts, or lack thereof, they are human, too... So, being at least more comfortable when dealing with those neuroses with which I am most familiar, I try to cut other folks some slack.
- Oh...yes...stability...a real can of worms. So, let's heat things up a bit by suggesting that if manufacturers were truly interested in things like evenness of scales, tuning stability, projection, etc, etc, etc...they'd all be building laminated soundboards...they really don't have to sound like Storey-Tones....Some of you have even heard that for yourselves.
Cheers.
Horace
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20101112/d78e243f/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC