Piano Size & Shape

[Farrell]

Interesting. And thanks for the very clear perspective. And I trust all this
was a large influence for the Charles Walter grand case dimensions. I must
admit, it does look "smaller - petite" for its size. I'm a big ZERO when it
comes to interior decorating - but I also realize that the furniture aspect
of a piano GREATLY influences purchases of new pianos.

Terry Farrell

----- Original Message -----
From: "Delwin D Fandrich" <pianobuilders@olynet.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 1:14 PM
Subject: Piano Size & Shape


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Farrell" <mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com>
> To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: December 01, 2001 7:19 AM
> Subject: Re: Grand Regulation Compromises
>
>
> > Just curious Del, what do you mean by "they are big pianos"? The sound
is
> so
> > big that you need a large home? Or they are physically big - like they
> look
> > big - like the Walter grand "fits" into homes nicely because it "looks"
> > smaller? Surely you are not referring to the physical dimensions of the
> > piano - the extra inch or two for the thick rim, et. al.? How much
bigger
> > would the home need to be (how much bigger is a M&H?)? Not trying to
pick
> on
> > you, but I have never quite understood the piano shoppers that say they
> can
> > easily fit the 5' 1" piano in their parlour, but the HUGE 5' 11" will
> never
> > fit, so they go and buy the 5' 1" toy piano. I'm really not trying be be
> as
> > snotty as my wording might make it sound - but rather trying to
understand
> > some of this kind of thinking. Thanks.
> >
> > Terry Farrell
> > ---------------------------------------
>
> Yes, Terry, I'm referring to the physical dimensions of the piano. And its
> shape. That extra inch or two may not seem like much to you, but it does
to
> others. Most specifically, it often seems overwhelming to the non-pianist
of
> the family. Especially if that non-pianist member of the family is also
the
> one primarily involved in establishing and maintaining the decor of the
> home.
>
> Another lifetime ago, when I was doing primarily new piano prep and
service
> work and most of that on Steinways, I would encounter many folks who had
> just purchased new Steinway B's or L's. I generally made it a point to
talk
> to them a bit about their new purchase, primarily to be sure they were
happy
> with its performance and with the service the dealer (including me) was
> giving them. One of the questions I started asking was, "Why did you buy
> this piano instead of something else." What I hoped to hear, of course,
was
> that the dealer I worked for gave better service or some such. Very often
> what I heard was something like, "Well, it's my husband who plays and he
> really like playing the Baldwin better but I just couldn't see putting a
> piano that big in my living room."
>
> Now, go measure the physical size of the Baldwin SF-10 and compare it to
> that of the Steinway B. Not a lot of difference, is there. Yet if you put
> the two of them side-by-side you'll see what these folks meant.
>
> While I was working on the small grand project at Baldwin I brought many
> people in to look at pianos of various size and shape and had them write
out
> their opinions and impressions. People do have decided and strong opinions
> about what will and will not fit into their homes. Some 5' 2" (157 cm)
> pianos look less bulky than some 4' 7" (140 cm) pianos. Opinions These
> opinions are strong and there are some current manufacturers that would do
> well to heed them. Since we are not going to change those opinions, our
> industry would do well to look for ways to capitalize on them rather than
> simply criticize them.
>
> It's not just the physical size of a piano, it's also how its relative
shape
> and bulk affect one's perception of that size. The M&H BB is a very wide
and
> bulky looking piano. That's fine in some settings, not so fine in others.
> Until someone does a really scientific study of this I will remain
convinced
> that one of the main reasons the S&S B is a more popular piano than the
M&H
> BB is its shape and style. In its heyday the BB was built at least as well
> as the B, in many ways better. It's performance also was at least the
equal
> of the B, again, if not better. But, and there is always that But, it is a
> large and bulky looking piano. Yes, one can say that by the time Aeolian
> went out of business the BB's were built rather poorly. But the same can
be
> said of the B during that time.
>
> Terry, you are approaching this strictly from a (pardon the expression)
> 'male' perspective. Find of couple of friends, male or female, who are
> interested in interior decorating and take them piano shopping. You'll see
> what I mean. Beauty is not only in the ear of the beholder, it is often in
> the eye.
>
> Del
>
>
>