Hammershank Dimensions

[Dennis Johnson]

---------------------------
        After David Stanwood's compelling and objective analysis there is
probably not much left to say about these different leveraged shank
dimensions.  Thank you David for sharing the fruits of this exhaustive
research with us, you give us a lot to think about.
        Ken Sloane has cut right to a point that I'm sure most of us have
given a good deal of thought.  He says,  "I can't think of any European or
Japanese piano that uses a shank (or has used a shank) significantly
different than the post '84. ????? "   The obvious question now is: What
does this observation mean?   Appearently David has found some Japanese
pianos of the low-leverage type, but certainly these are the exception.
Not only do the European and (most) Japanese pianos use the full-leverge
shank, but many other American pianos do as well, including the Baldwin I
am working on this week, and even the current N.Y. Steinway.  Could this
partially explain that careful attention to the details of geometry that
those pre-WWI Steinways are famous for?  Correct geometry is always
important, but I will presume that they understood how profoundly critical
action geometry is when using a lesser-leveraged shank. How did these two
contrasting philosophies of design evolve, and what specifically was
Steinway's objective in producing a radically different shank design than
their competitors.  It is at least clear that the early N.Y. Steinway shank
leverage is closer in design to the light weight, shallower dip actions of
even earlier pianos.  How did Steinway at N.Y. win world-wide recognition
for their powerful grands in spite of these light, "low-projection
hammers"?   Were the heavier European hammers an effort to compete with the
bigger Steinway sound, to compete with Steinway's patented overstrung
scale?  I hope that at least we all can agree it really is not fair to
conclude that the minority design here was simply wrong.  Could it be that
maybe the greater leverage shank evolved not only out of a desire for
heavier, "full-projection" hammers, but also out of a need to compensate
for ever increasing errors in geometry?  If the Hamburg Steinway is a
special case, then what does that mean?  Were they the first?  Why?  Does
any of this matter?    And what the heck is so special about 1984 anyway?
        I think that as long as we cannot come to a definitive agreement on
what, after all, is the ideal hammer weight for optimum tone, then it is
good to have these options.  I applaud the recent efforts by Renner and A.
Isaac to produce a quality lighter weight hammer, but why can't we get a
light molding with less dense felt?
        The other issue here is key dip.  I frankly do not care for such a
deep dip and sense a little loss of control with the .415"-.425" key dip
action.  To me it feels a little like walking in deep snow.   But then, my
instrument of choice at home is a five-octave clavichord.  I even like to
play uprights with the left pedal down to reduce the dip.  I may well be
odd, but I also know that I am not alone in this preference.   Remember
Glen Gould?

        Just think how much less interesting our work would be if it was
all straightforward.


Dennis Johnson
St.Olaf College
johnsond@stolaf.edu