Inertia

[Dennis Johnson]

        Welcome back all who went to Albuquerque!  I wouldn't normally jump
right back into the old geometry discussion, as those returning from the
Convention probably need a break from this, but I do want to make a few
brief qualifying remarks concerning the quick posting I sent on Inertia
late last week.
        I think I understand the "double-edged" nature of this thing called
inertia. When I raised the question whether or not any perceived
improvement in tone with heavy hammers is worth its cost in inertia to the
player, at the same time it is precisely the inertia of that hammer that is
to credit for any greater displacement of the string. That is straight
forward. We were just getting into an interesting discussion debating the
different effects (i.e. tone) of a heavier, slower hammer vs. a faster,
lighter hammer. However, this question brings to mind yet another related
and critical variable of this equation. When you work with Hamburg parts,
how do you treat the key dip? Some time ago we were discussing dip and many
of us, myself included, have usually *cheated* a little on the blow with
Hamburg parts to keep the dip as shallow as possible. I find that if you
don't do that the absolute minimum key dip possible is about .415".  Now,
suppose hypothetically that we go along with the idea that a slower,
heavier hammer does indeed project farther than a faster, lighter hammer.
Would you also maintain that the slower heavier hammer still out-performs
the lighter one even when handicapped with a shorter travel? It could be
that you do not mind the deeper dip of a Hamburg action, in which case this
is a moot point.  I believe however that Bill Ballard specifically
mentioned that he reduces hammer travel with these parts. It might help to
qualify that generally I am referring to about 1 gram less hammer weight on
average, depending on the hammers of course. I find this is usually about
the amount needed to nicely balance the reduced leverage of original
dimension parts.

        I think that perhaps there may also be a significant difference in
tonal results depending on how that weight is removed. I have not yet seen
one of Ed's pianos, but I have the impression that he cuts away much felt
from the shoulders and keeps the sides tapered straight. Is this correct? I
tend to sand a slight concave shaped taper to the sides, with the thinnest
part at about the base of the felt. I have found this technique seems to
work especially well for hammers that are a little too hard to begin with.
Even now I can see some eyebrows distorting, but I am not the only one who
reduces weight in this way. For extreme cases, it is possible IMO to safely
remove as much as 1.5 grams of hammer weight in the tenor from a normal
new, bored and moulding shaped hammer. I mention these details so that
others may do the same. Sometimes we presume to be talking about the same
things, when we aren't.

        We all have learned from experience which variables seem to be most
important to our pianists in the event of -- compromises (I really dislike
that word). Anyway, it has been my experience from the pianists I work
with, and even my own judgement as a player, that if I must choose between
a more responsive action with good pianissimo control or one with greater
projection, they and I would take the former without hesitation.  But
having said that, it is true that I don't work in Carnegie Hall. D.
Stanwood has suggested that these very different actions really do *feel*
the same after all, as long as the strike ratios are equal. To me, this is
a fundamental issue and I think that point is going to be a hard sell.



        That's all for now. We who weren't in Albuquerque are looking
forward to reading the reviews. No rush to reply to this, but I wanted to
follow up my previous post as soon as possible.

Dennis Johnson
St. Olaf College