puzzler (bellyrail angle)

[Delwin D Fandrich]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Birkett" <birketts@wright.aps.uoguelph.ca>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: December 13, 2001 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: puzzler (bellyrail angle)


> Newton pondered:
> > Well then, the question arises, how would you design a "modern" piano?
>
> And now for something completely different...I do have a design for what
> I call a post-modern piano. In keeping with Del and John I reserve the
> right to not reveal myself in public (it seems to be contagious - and I
> hate secrets too). Sometime I'll take it on a dog-and-pony show.
>


It raises some interesting thoughts, doesn't it? As I was developing the
design of the piano we're now slowly building I pondered the notion of where
the piano might have gone had it not been for the powerful marketing and
manufacturing influence of Steinway from about 1870 on. What might have
happened if Chickering had remained the dominate influence in 'modern' piano
design and sound? Would there still be flat strung pianos available?
Perhaps. Would there be more than just one action design available? Would we
still see the Brown action? Would there be more variation in the tone color
and performance among the many different 'modern' pianos? Indeed, would we
even have a single basic design we could call the 'modern' piano?

Where would the German/European builders have gone if they had not deemed it
necessary to attempt matching the power of the Steinway D?

Like the debates over whether Beethoven would have played on a modern piano
(actually, he did--it was modern to him at any rate) there is no way to
answer these, or any of my other similar questions.

The design we're now building in many ways is a blend of both old and new.
It is one possible expression of an alternate path over which the piano
might have developed. And still might, in time.

Del