Steinway pitman

[Horace Greeley]

At 03:49 PM 2/11/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Part of Horace Greeley's post:
>>What concerns me, in this as in other matters, is the nature of the analytic
>>frame of reference.  When looking at a given problem, how do we approach it?
>>Do we (read I), look at a given issue and say - "That's ridiculous!  Anyone
>>can plainly see that this other way is better."  Or, do we see the same
>>issue and say - "The people who designed/built this widget had complete
>>control over doing so and chose this specific method of doing 'blah',
why?" ...
>>...How can we fault a design which we do not
>>properly execute?
>
>This is not to find fault with someone's idea, Horace.
>
>Once upon a time the piano of the day was a square piano, the horse and
>carriage were the means of transportation, and the icebox was the
>refrigerator.  Does the design of the current piano of today find fault
>with the design of the square piano of yesterday?  I think not.  What it
>does do is provide for the current needs of today, and to a greater segment
>of society.
>
>In many instances we work with we have been given until someone comes along
>and says, "There must be a better way."  On the other hand something like a
>* lost motion eliminator * of olden days has not been improved upon, it has
>just been eliminated.
>


Keith,

I couldn't agree more.

Is this truly a superior method of accomplishing the goal?  Or, is a
compromise? If it is a compromise, of what substantive value is it?

As LaRoy noted some years ago when I took one of his great classes, "Horace,
I keep forgetting that you spend most of your time working on antique,
old-fashioned pianos."

Guilty as charged.

I should note that I have no particular problem with the more current fix
for the problem; I simply question its value of application if it is not
necessary on other grounds.

Thanks, Keith!

Best,

Horace