[CAUT] Toughest piece

[Horace Greeley]

Hi, Brent,

Really great to see you back in action!  WooHoo!

At 06:39 AM 11/12/2010, you wrote:
>Hi Horace,
>
>    Thanks for the post.

Most welcome...It seemed a reasonable way to work out the mental 
kinks after a day of entirely too much "match" tuning on unmatchable 
pianos...feh.

>  Did you incorporate the induction method while
>flame hardening? If so can you post the details.

I didn't; but suspect that some have.  I've recently been shown a 
method of preparing for the hardening that looks like it would not 
only substantially improve the end result, but would also cut the 
learning/experience curve by a large margin.  Keeping the flame at a 
fairly acute angle to the work is the key.

>Some quench with oil,
>your method?

No quenching, but would play with that some if I had more time.

>Tig is really hot, was it trickier for you than the flame method?

Yup.  At the end of the day, before I switched to old-fashioned gas, 
I wound up taking plates to someone who worked pretty exclusively 
with various kinds of cast metals.

There's also a really, really cool method that I learned a long time 
ago from an old railroad boiler maker...but, it involves having a 
gas-fired hotbed large enough to heat the whole plate...not enough 
for welding, but just enough to allow hardening through brute-force peening.

>Flame suit, don't worry about it.

Thanks!

>For example, European instruments can
>be just as versatile in the context of their dynamic range, it's just that
>range for most breaks up quickly at anything above mezzo-forte.

Precisely my point.  I do love 'em; and, FWIW, in researching other 
things, have discovered that a fair number of very well-known artists 
(albeit it many of them from previous generations) recorded mostly on 
instruments whose names started with "B", even if they were (largely) 
fanatical about playing "S" pianos when in public.  There's a 
doctoral thesis in there somewhere for someone...truly fascinating stuff.

That said, I'm also keenly aware that, for a very long time now, 
many/most of the "B"-word pianos that make it into the states have 
been "pre-voiced for the American market".  On the one hand, that's a 
direct quote from a long-time importer of "B"-word instruments from a 
conversation we had at a NAMM show a long time ago.  On the other, 
the larger context of that conversation was precisely on point for 
this discussion.  My own experience with instruments purchased in 
Europe and brought over by private parties was that, very 
consistently, they sounded very different from what I was hearing 
(and, continue to hear) coming out of new stock on showroom floors.

>About agraffes, I'm inclined to fit a Steinway with the Bosendorfer
>style that has the horizontal pin embedded in it.

Yes, I've done that, too; and liked the results very much.  From a 
standpoint of traditional visual aesthetics, it's definitely an 
easier "sell", so far; and, certainly acoustically, it's by and large 
superior to stock.  On the other hand, so far, I think that tonally, 
I prefer the termination and ease of tuning of the plated 
agraffe.  I'm also wondering about if/how the plating electroless 
process might/might not affect the hardness of the agraffe, itself; 
but am leaving following that adventure for folks with more 
engineering training.

Best.

Horace




>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
>