This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Richard Brekne=20 To: pianotech@ptg.org=20 Sent: September 21, 2001 12:13 AM Subject: Re: 1 string, 2 strings, 3 strings or more =20 Well... here (in this scaling issue) you seem to think more like the = technician / engineer... and play up all those incidents of where your = technical insights coincide with comments you hear from musicians.... = and you apparently include ..what ... all pianists ?? Re read your lines = if you will..=20 I include those musicians with which I have had experience. I can't = speak for any others.=20 >>Depends on whether or not those defects of character are audibly=20 >>offensive to the musician. If they are I see no reason for it to = carry on >>for another 100 years offending the very folks it's supposed = to be >>pleasing when a new bridge(s) and some revised scaling can solve = >>most of the problem. This was why I asked for clarification you see.=20 No, I don't see.=20 What musicians are we talking about? =20 As I said above; those with which I had experience. And in the Petrof thread you made the point that perhaps we should not = think like technicians so much.... (read throw away all that technical = insight) and hear what pianists have to say. Now if I was to do that = full out.... Petrofs or not... I would have so many conflicting ideas = swimming around in my head it would ridiculous. (grin.. not that I don't = already). Seems to me like the situation is reversed now. Seems like = this time around it is you who are defining what is a "good piano" in = terms of what is technically sound. That you get some number of = musicians to agree with any subjective assessment shouldn't suprise = anyone. Or what ?=20 Does it come as a surprise to you that technically sound pianos are = also pianos that sound good? The reason I started looking at the design = of pianos in the first place was because my clients--musicians--were = complaining about the tonal performance of their highly regarded S&S = pianos. And I started thinking about the differences between reputation = and performance. The two are quite unrelated, you know. Also unrelated = are selling price and performance. And country of origin and = performance. And a few other things we've come to accept as gospel in = the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The things that are = related are good design and good performance. =20 =20 > Heck... lots of folks think the Steinway O is a horribly scaled = piano...=20 >and by some standards perhaps this is so... but then there are = folks who >just love this S&S model.=20 And we are often asked to improve things for the former and we are = generally not asked to improve things for the latter. It's really the = owners/musicians choice.=20 Sorry, you lost me here... what former and latter are we talking = about... I referred to the Steinway O only in that paragraph...But if = you meant that you are asked often to improve the Steinway, and not the = Petrof... well heck... I wouldn't pump a lot of money into a Petrof = either.=20 Then you get lost easily. Obviously, if an owner is actually happy = with his/her Model O they are not going to come to us to have it = redesigned and remanufactured. And, I wouldn't want them to. I'd send = them elsewhere, there are lots of really good rebuilders over here who = do great, traditional rebuilding work. We work with the folks who are = unhappy with the performance of their Model O's. What is it about this = that is so hard to understand?=20 So, you have a well-publicized contempt for Petrof pianos but that = doesn't mean everyone else in the music world must share that contempt. = Some people actually like the way they sound, at least they seem to = prefer it to the hard, linear sound typical of many modern pianos that = you would probably consider to be superior instruments.=20 Not everyone can afford a Steinway and sometimes even those poor folks = would like to have their pianos remanufactured even if--based solely on = the name glued to the fallboard--they are pathetic excuses for musical = instruments. And so, while a large part of our work is on S&S pianos, = quite a lot is also on pianos that many technicians would consider to be = inferior instruments. It doesn't matter to me. The end performance is = what is important to me, not the name on the fallboard. And as for justification for improving a Steinway.. that seems typical = enough for high performance products. You see that all the time in any = branch... and folks what want this kind of customization seem to know = enough to separate a Porsche from a Polskie Fiat.... tho you do find the = occasional lotto millionare....:) and everyone knows they are different = then normal millionares..=20 I don't consider the Model O--or several other S&S models, for = that--to be a 'high performance' piano. At least not in its original = form. I've encountered quite a few off-brand pianos (pianos I rather = suspect from your expressed attitude you would hold in some contempt) = with considerably better performance potential than the Model O can = deliver on its best day. We work on them all and give them the same = level of effort and work.=20 So what's your point? Del ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/74/5a/9d/cc/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC