This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment A few comments are interspersed below: Terry Farrell =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Robin Hufford" <hufford1@airmail.net> To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 6:27 AM Subject: Re: Post Responses/Killer Octave > 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. I would have to agree with this, as this is a public forum - although I = would have to say that I don't feel as strongly about it as you - but = that's OK. I just love the back and forth of ideas. I think sometimes a = little aggression can pull out an idea that might not otherwise be = expressed. But yes, in a public forum I do think a measure of civility = is appropriate. > 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 believe there is a valid point to consider here. It sounds to me as = though you consider success in the market as having a major piano = company use a particular idea. "...the level of quality in an instrument = is determined, ultimately, by marketability and not technical = considerations..." Consider that there are two ways to view a piano - = utilitarian or performance (or maybe commercial or custom).=20 A good analogy can be made with automobiles here. Most people view the = piano from a utilitarian standpoint. Believe me, I realize it is a = continuum among a beginning student and an accomplished professional = concert pianist. Just as most people view cars as utilitarian (perhaps a = expression to be used here is a car for the masses, or one that has = commercial appeal). Mass-produced cars are available that range from = Yugos to Cadillacs to Corvettes - all within the utilitarian class. If a = driver wants a really high performance auto, where do they go? TO THE = SMALL CUSTOM SHOP. There, they can get what they want. They will get = something that greatly exceeds the performance of the commercially = available autos. The commercial car builder MUST compromise to produce = what the masses desire - not what the few high performance oriented = discriminating buyers want. That is the role of the small custom shop. Same thing with pianos. No one will ever convince me that any commercial = piano manufacturer has one goal - to make the best possible piano. = Especially a publicly owned company. Get real! The focus of these = companies is to make the largest profit. Period. Now they may decide = that the way to biggest profit is to try and make a very good piano - = but plenty of compromises will also be made. Here again is where the = small shop can provide a level of product unavailable from the = commercial builder. Unfortunately the analogy between cars and pianos = falls apart here. The car can be timed in the quarter mile to determine = which is faster. One can count the number of races it wins on road = tracks. Not so easy with the piano - very much a matter or personal = opinion. But one can use some of your marketability criteria here - if = the small shop has a backlog of work, maybe they have something there. I = think the car/piano analogy also is strained by the fact that most = performance-oriented car drivers also have a pretty good knowledge of = the mechanics of their cars (they have a good idea of the technical = reasons of why a particular car is fast) - not nearly as true for = pianists. Just a point I think is worthy of consideration. Just because a = commercial piano manufacturer does not pick up a particular design, = idea, or innovation, does not mean it is without merit - it just means = it may not be for the masses. > 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. See the green blob of words above. > 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: >=20 > > Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > > Encoding: 7BIT >=20 > _______________________________________________ > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/5d/4a/d9/b1/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC