Erard grand

[John Delacour]

At 22:56 04/10/01 -0400, Stephen Birkett wrote:
>John wrote:
> > The ordinary backcheck was impossible in combination with his under-damper
> > mechanism, whether on his earlier (monstrous) designs or on the design 
> most
>
>Yes...the use of under-dampers certainly implies "front-checks" instead
>of back-checks. But why is the earlier 1821 patent form of the Erard
>action "monstrous"? It's actually very delicate and light to play. One of
>the motivations for the 1830s version was probably to make the action more
>robust.

I wasn't referring to its mass or bulk but to the actual design, viewed 
from the perspective of the piano maker, particularly of those days or even 
of today.  To quote Welcker: "It is difficult to understand how such a 
put-up job, combining neither durability nor precision, could possibly have 
been copied by others.  The whole arrangement shows that Mr. Érard did not 
have much of a head for mechanical things, but perhaps a great deal of 
money for people to sing his praise." (Der Clavierbau, 1867).  OK, that's a 
bit rich coming from a German, whose compatriots' contribution to the 
development of the piano action was and still is negligible, but this view 
must have been echoed by piano men all over Europe.

The Sebastien Erard design is anathema to anyone who sees simplicity as an 
essential and central goal of design in general.  You may say it's a matter 
of taste, but even after Herz had brought the contraption into some 
semblance of elegance, we are left with inherent defects in the very 
conception of this action which severely limit the function and scope of 
the modern piano.  The German action died a quick death because it was 
totally misconceived and quite unsuitable in every way for the modern 
piano.  Erard's action was able to move with the times, but at some 
considerable cost.  I don't doubt your word that the a piano with the 1821 
action is a joy to play -- with hammers of that weight the nascent defects 
of the action are not painful.

JD