Piano Size & Shape

[Delwin D Fandrich]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Birkett" <birketts@wright.aps.uoguelph.ca>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: December 01, 2001 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Piano Size & Shape


>
> Another one of the many limitations of the over-strung grand design - it
> totally screwed up any sense of aesthetics and proportion. The current
> grand is simply a box that fits the innards. It is not surprising that
> this coincided with the use of abstract design criteria rather than
> geometric methods. I have two nine-foot 19th century straight strung
> pianos sitting in my living room, and they are not over-powering in the
> slightest, becuase of their elegant proportions. It's the Steinway 'S'
> which sticks out as being the bulky piece of furniture. There is much to
> be said for returning to architectural design principles even in the early
> 21st century. And much to be said for returning to the straight-strung
> grand, too, but that is another story.
>
> Stephen
> ----------------------------------------------------

Well, let's not blame it all on the basic principle of the overstrung grand
design. Let's bame it on the excessive exuberance of those early advocates
of over stringing. The basic idea does have some merit--just as does the
basic idea of flat stringing.

The idea was to get the bass bridge away from the left left side rim. With
the strings running straight back this placed the bridge quite close to the
rim, restricting its motion. One solution--that tried by Chickering--angled
all of the strings from C-88 down--toward the center of the board.
Acoustically this worked quite well, as it also did aesthetically. But the
bridge suffered: With a high tension scale--say much of anything above 150
lbs or so--stress on the terminating bridge pins proved to be a problem.
Every one I've seen has had bridge pins splitting the bridge cap. With a
material such as the Delignit beech laminate this could probably be solved,
but at the time it seemed to be an insurmountable problem that only over
stringing could solve.

The difficulty with over stringing, it seems to me, is simply that it got
carried way too far. The tenor strings are angled well over toward the bass
side of the piano. In some cases--again, ironically, seen in a
Chickering--this went so far as to place the end of the tenor bridge
extension over the left side inner rim. Not much flexibility there. And the
bass strings are typically angled well over toward the right side forcing
the case to become ever wider to give the bridge at least some nominal
amount of room around it.

Couple this with the erronious notion that the soundboard is an amplifier
and bigger amplifiers are, by definition, better and the case grows by leaps
and bounds.

But, tail width is not the only problem when considering piano bulk. Head
width is also an issue. Consider the modern concert grand: at the keyboard
the typical concert grand is approximately 1525 mm (approx. 60") wide. Why?
The keyboard is only 1230 mm (48.4") or so. What is the point of all the
rest? Some is needed for clearance around the action and strings, obviously,
but almost 300 mm (11.6")? I don't think so. The modern piano--whether it be
flatstrung or overstrung--needs to go on a diet.

Del