Hello David,
You do an admirable job in organizing and following the soundboard
related theme as it has proceeded over time. My responses along these
lines were not a function of temper then, nor or they now, although, at
times I did experience real frustration at the dogmatic shouting and,
apparent, unwillingess or incapacity of the pressurists to rationally
advocate the very views they claim to be supersedent of all others - in
general there was little in the way of argument and much in the way of
mere assertion - a kind of dogmatic claim that it is this way because It
Is. This may have been a matter of temper for others, as it frequently
appears to be when anything approaching soundboard behavior is
encountered on this list - witness the recent prosecutorial,
antagonistic, responses of one of them to John Hartman's post regarding
crowning of the underside of bridges.
Actually, my own view here, which I must insist on the right to
have free of the kind of emotional badgering seen on this list on the
subject of soundboards and, - I would urge all on this list to make
similar insistance for the validity of their own experience, - is that
the argument by Ron N that it is, basically not worth the effort is
likely the case. But this agreement is a matter of insignificance -
nevertheless, whether I, or any other, no matter how informed they may
be, or at least consider themselves to be, agree or disagree with any
proposition or observation put forth here, which should be for
discussion, one should restrain the emotional instrusion which the
antagonistic responses larded with sarcasm, represents and which are
very common here on this particular subject.
The lack of substantive response to the recent Killer Octave
thread and the petty, tribal celebrations of five or six respondents
under its byline masquerading as posts worthy of public dissemination,
which demonstrates just this kind of emotional response and is a real
waste of bandwidth - and this particularly at a time of increasing OT
behavior lamented by many on this very list makes plain the
exaggerated emotional attachment to particular points of view on just
this subject by some and demonstrates what should be avoided. I am sure
censure should come equally my way also as may regard other postings.
Sure, we can all secretly believe we have reinvented the wheel with
"modern" methods and publicly claim so with loud protestations of
originality and superiority, but the end product is still likely to be
essentially circular, after all and most other wheels are going to
demonstrate a substantial similarity. I must say, that all efforts to
the contrary, when I see a wheel I am compelled for some strange set of
reasons to call it a wheel and when I am informed of a "new, modern"
wheel - well - it still looks like a wheel to me. Similarly, I think
such is likely the case regarding soundboards using traditional methods
of construction, that is a bridge, ribs and solid flitches to lay up the
panel, and, particularly, those that are only claimed to be superior
but are not presented for actual evaluation. If one has a better
mousetrap one should take it to the market, there to be rewarded not by
the feeble aplause of sycophancy but by the much more pleasant
experience of commercial success.
The measure of success in such a case will be the persistence and
profitablity of the product in the market not merely sarcastic,
derogatory commentary on the deficiencies of other, similar, products,
although, as we all know, this may facilitate sales to those who will
only later become aware of technical considerations.
No piano or other product, is, or has ever been perfect in either
design or execution and I am sure the traditional system is greatly
susceptible of improvement in every detail. Like it or not, the level
of quality in an instrument is determined, ultimately, by marketability
and not technical considerations or the manifold possibilites for
improvement. The survival in this country and elsewhere of certain
companies through the long decline of the industry brought on
fundamentally by changes in the market itself, indicates the delivery
of a successful product, however flawed, to the market, and chronic
bellyaching about the "design deficiencies" , "legacy shortcomings",
other maladies, real or not, and the loud representation of "new,
modern, superior" fixes represents only emotional baggage or
self-serving promotion when taken past a certain point. This point has
long since been past here, in my opinion.
I don't wish to be put in the position of defending the prominent
maker so much maligned here as there is much worthy of relentless
criticism some of which I have pointed out before, as those who have
read my previous post on this subject may remember, but, nevertheless,
the success of their method is demonstrated in their survival and wide
spread use of new product, and enduring utility of old product,
something that is, given some of their deficiencies of assembly, almost
a source of astonishment for me, at least for present production. But,
it is as it is.
Needless to say, I am not greatly in agreement with the views
along these lines of the pressurists, although I publicly acknowledge a
debt of gratitude for myself and urge the same for other technicians to
Del Fandrich for his series of articles in the Journal even though, in
general, I can't agree with much of the analysis or conclusions obtained
thereby. Nevertheless there is an insistence, at least, on a refreshing
level of rationality on these kinds of subjects which had been rather
sorely lacking previously. It is the method and extent of analysis, and
conclusions drawn from them with which I disagree and this,
unfortunately, appears to give offense to some and renders problematical
the utility of further discussion.
As I am sure you are aware, given your research of the subject
threads, these and other kinds of efforts for analytical purposes take
time. as has this one, and we all have to make a living, a point made
by Ron O. a year or so ago, a fact which tends to constrict the amount
of time that can be given over to argumentation here. Arguments,
whether rational or emotional and antagonistic, represent investments of
considerable uncompensated time and are a sacrifice. Yet I see no
relevant posting from you, other than your organization of the relevant
threads, which would indicate a willingness to make the same sacrifice
you urge on others. Surely, you have an opinion and why don't you
express it? Public argument and counterargument is as available to you
as it is to anyone else, one of the very real virtues of this list.
Regards, Robin Hufford
David Skolnik wrote:
> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> Encoding: 7BIT
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC