My original comment: Here I am not referring to "snitch(ing) a taste of the piano's qualities" but putting the piano through its paces; working the piano directly for the purpose of discovering what it is and is not capable of. This involves mixing a certain amount of playing skill with technical understanding in order to relate cause and effect to what you hear and feel from the instrument. David, your system is very complex. By the time you take your measurements, plug them into your computer, and analyze the output, you have created a >secondary< source on the instrument. I can see the value of this if you must analyze a piano to which you do not have personal access. But why use a secondary source if the primary source is right in front of you? Dennis Johnson wrote: I suggest that "complex" is loaded adjective, which can have unintended implications. This *is* a complex problem, who would suggest a simple diagnosis? Bill Ballard wrote: I don't doubt that you're mixing a certain amount of playing skill with technical understanding. But most skilled pianists find these two hard to combine in the same consciousness, if they even have the latter. Does this technical understanding itself constitute a step away from the primary source, ie. not the piano itself but your experience of it solely as a pianist. Sounds like you had piano lessons as a kid. My comment: Dennis, "simple" was your word, not mine. Evaluating an action "hands-on" is not simple. I contend that the piano action is >extremely< complex, far more complex than can be accounted for by the new metrology (at least as it has been presented here). Bill, while I have been studying the piano for 42 years, I have no desire to determine who plays better than whom. Most of my customers play better than I do, and I am sure there are list members who do also. But just as exceptional hearing is not necessary in order to do good tuning, unusual playing ability is not necessary to evaluate a piano by touch. And, just as special ear training is necessary for tuning, special training is necessary to learn diagnosis by touch. If pianists have trouble combining playing skill with technical knowledge "in the same consciousness", it is because they have not learned how. Consciousness helps. For example: take a question like, "How does weighting the fronts of keys work?" To those who are interested, let me suggest an exercise which will help unravel this mystery. Start with a fine piano. Play it. Use a variety of dynamics and tempo. Once you have a good "fix" on the instrument, remove a weight from every key. Play it again. Change the weighting. Play it again. Change the weighting. Play it again. Again. Again. Change the hammer weight. Play it. Change the key weights. Play it. Now do the same thing to another piano. Another. Another. Pianists will recognize right away that this is not normal practicing, but we're not investigating Beethoven, we're investigating action mass. This exercise will gradually give the pianist a sense of feeling action mass. It can also reveal something about key weighting which is of critical importance in adjusting the touch of a piano. This "secret" is something which I have never seen documented in the writings on actions nor heard mentioned in class. (Not to say that others don't know about it.) It is also beyond the compass of the "new metrology". The exercise I am suggesting is a simple application of the scientific method: test a system, vary one parameter, test again. There are undoubtably those who will criticize the "subjective" nature of the testing. To this I reply that there is no equipment less sophisticated than a hand connected to a brain which is capable of doing the testing. There is nothing wrong with taking your favorite measurements during the exercise, I do. But the measurements will not reveal what is happening. Bob Hohf "This is a test. This is only a test." - Jim Fleming, Wis. Public Radio, 10am Tuesdays
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC