The following letter was published in Piano & Keyboard magazine a few months after it was sent. It was in response to a review of Ed McMorrows book. I'm posting it to pianotech because it may be helpful to the current discussion on hammer weight and ratio. It was the first time I publicly stated my position on things relative to my work: Timothy Pfaff - Editor Piano and Keyboard Magazine Dear Mr. Pfaff, 11/18/93 Your recent publication of a letter by Edward N. Zalta, in the November/December issue of Piano and Keyboard Magazine, regarding Ed McMorrow's "Light Hammer Technique", touches upon several controversial points, which, for the benefit and education of your readers, should be addressed. It is a point of debate whether the newer Steinways "sound as good, or play as well as well preserved older ones". I take the view that if there is a general fault with the modern piano, it lies not in the weight of the modern hammer, but the lack of piano technicians who are skilled in the art of voicing the modern hammer. A piano that is not voiced up to full steam will not play well. Consequently the whole piano is thought to be inferior. For a time, I personally followed the light hammer road, believing in many of the lines of logic that McMorrow exposes. But I have listened to what a large number of professional pianists tell me and they have taught otherwise. I have learned that the stripped down light hammer produces a tone which does not carry adequately, especially in ensemble situations. The tonal requirements of the 20th century demand a more massive hammer. The modern weight hammer such as that used by Steinway today is the result of many decades of trial and error, finding just the right weight of hammer that brings out the maximum potential of the modern instrument. The modern weight hammer simply has a bigger sound than its antique counterpart. McMorrow contrasts his technique with my technique, and clearly implies that I do not take the tone into account when dealing with the touch. This is false and misleading. The philosophy of my techniques are based on the synergistic relationship between tone and touch, with tone taking the dominant role. In contrast to McMorrows technique, whereby the weight of the hammer is sacrificed to "match the period of the string", my technique gets a similar effect, but I do not sacrifice the bigger sound of the modern hammer. Let me explain: The ideal hammer produces a bright and powerful tone when played loudly, and a velvety mellow tone when played softly. The varied tonal mix that is possible in between these two extremes gives the pianist a wide choice of tonal color. I achieve this voicing ideal by using techniques which maintain maximum softness and resiliency at the surface of the hammer, making the sublayers of felt progressively harder. The distance from the surface of the hammer to a point within where maximum hardness is attained, I call the "Gradient Zone". Within the Gradient Zone are contained a wide range of felt densities which help to create a wide range of tonal color. There is significant variation in the resonant qualities of individual pianos. The trick is to match the Gradient Zone with the unique characteristics of the individual instrument. Pianos which are highly resonant achieve maximum tonal quality with a deeper Gradient Zone. Pianos which are less resonant require treatment that creates a shallower zone with the hard sublayers of felt closer to the surface. When the ideal Gradient Zone is attained; the tone immediately opens, becoming "pure and bell-like", with limitless variations of tonal shades available to the pianist. Regarding the action, McMorrow fails to address the central issue of lever ratio in the piano key. This relates to the speed at which the hammer rises when the key is depressed. The lighter hammers common in the 19th century are used in conjunction with actions which have less leverage, and therefore the hammer moves more quickly as the key is depressed. The heavier hammers of today require more leverage to catapult them to the string. The modern style action is made such that the hammers rise more slowly in relation to key depression. The slower moving, heavier hammer of today delivers more energy to the string than the faster moving light hammer of the last century. The combination of lever ratio and hammer weight governs the characteristic feeling of the action. Unfortunately there exists wide variation in lever ratios found in pianos from any period. This creates problems. For instance, using a light, antique weight hammer with the modern style lever ratios is not recommended since the lower velocity combined with less mass will transmit insufficient energy to the string. The action will feel too light, and the pianist will feel frustrated when trying to get a big sound. Conversely, modern weight hammers used with older style lever ratios will make the action feel heavy, difficult to control, and may cause physical harm to the pianist. Today, the concert pianist performs on a nonstandardized instrument. As a friend put it, "performing on tour is like a string of blind dates", referring to the variety of pianos she is required to perform on. Aside from voicing, action is the major problem. It is either too light, too heavy, or too unresponsive,... sometimes it's just right. My vision is standardization of hammer weight and lever ratio, because it strikes at the core of the problem. One final point: I agree that pianists can tolerate the high touchweight that McMorrow accepts in his work. However, pianists repeatedly tell me that they find high touchweight a hindrance when playing pianissimo, and a barrier when playing glissando. - David C. Stanwood
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC