This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Hi Rich,
I loved you post! I do agree that we can grow accustomed, more or less, =
to many different action characteristics, but I do pity the poor concert =
pianist who has to move from piano to piano (and the poor techs who have =
to figure out how to make all the pianos as uniform to the pianists =
expectations as possible)! I can appreciate why Horowitz traveled =
everywhere with his Steinway D. I also agree that a system of standards =
would greatly assist the concert pianist. Having said that, I don't =
think that uniformity is a good thing, as it would arrest evolution of =
the piano in the same way that evolution of the violin has been =
arrested.
I was fascinated recently by an exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum in =
NYC (I think that's where it was). An acoustic engineer whose name I =
forget took it upon herself to redesign string instruments in the 1940's =
(?). She did this by analyzing the vibrational patterns of the various =
elements, the acoustics of the air cavities, etc. She came up with a =
system of probably 6 or 8 new instruments to replace the violin, viola, =
cello, and bass. These instruments were purportedly superior to the =
existing ones and were received with considerable curiosity. However, =
most of us have not heard these instruments. The string community is so =
conservative that it could never break away from its uniform standards =
and embrace these superior instruments. So sad. We may have "the =
standard" violin forever, with no hope of ever tasting a sweeter =
instrument.
The piano is still evolving, and I mean "evolving" in a technical sense. =
Students of evolution will recognize that evolution cannot occur =
without phenotypic variation. How can any mechanism of selection work =
if there is nothing to be differentially selected? The modern piano is =
not as good as it will one day be. Perhaps more accurately, the modern =
piano is not in the form that will eventually be more preferred. As =
needs and preferences change, the piano will continue to evolve to meet =
those needs, and hopefully (IMHO) that process will never stop.
This begs the question of whether tomorrow's piano will still be =
completely recognizable as a piano. Would Cristofori or any of the =
early composers recognize the modern piano? Would it have been better =
if we had the Cristofori piano even today?
I was fascinated to listen to a piano with a steel soundboard (posted on =
the web somewhere). While the bass and tenor sounded more or less =
piano-like, the treble rang slightly like a steel drum. It was a =
fascinating sound, not all that bad. The tonal qualities in the treble =
were probably partially attributable to higher efficiency from a better =
impedance match. (Del???) However, it didn't sound completely like "a =
piano." A piece written for "a piano" might not sound right if played =
on it. Of course a piece from Cristofori's time played on a modern =
piano probably wouldn't sound right to the composer either! Is a steel =
piano still a piano? (Is the modern piano really a piano?) Should the =
steel piano be a "speciation" point, in the same sense as an acoustic =
and an electric guitar? Should it take its own parallel course of =
evolution and have pieces written specifically for it, instead of the =
wooden soundboard piano?
Our tastes in "the piano" change from generation to generation, and =
that's probably a good thing. The steel piano, or whatever innovation =
we may concoct, may seem pretty weird to us right now, but I have no =
doubt future generations could ease into it (or into whatever better =
suits their tastes). The same could be said of actions. You yourself =
pointed out that you can adapt to new action characteristics. So can we =
all. With time, and with lots of trial and error, perhaps we will =
arrive at something even more efficient, dynamic, and intuitive. Here's =
hoping.
For the time being, I understand your desire for piano uniformity. =
Perhaps as an alternative, we could have a system of uniformity in =
*characterizing* piano actions, much like we have a system of uniformity =
in labeling the nutritional attributes of the foods we eat. An =
experienced dieter can read the labels very quickly and understand =
exactly how fat the food item will make her. As someone with acoustical =
experience, I can read acoustical specifications and view charts and =
know exactly how a device will sound. It would not surprise me if a =
system of numerical specifications could be used to characterize a =
piano. I think the experienced pianist could ascertain from those =
specifications much of how a piano would perform, and furthermore he/she =
could request that a piano meet certain specifications. This would =
leave the pianist more certain of the piano he/she will be asked to =
play, while still allowing for individual variation in taste and =
continued evolution of the instrument.
What form might the specs take? Perhaps spectra at different notes, =
reflecting brightness/darkness. Perhaps a curve of the acoustic power, =
as a function of the mechanical input to the soundboard. Obviously =
action ratio. Key mass (range). Hammer mass (range). Total action =
inertia (range). Regulation settings. Average bushing tolerances. =
Average departure from key-to-key uniformity on the above.
Yes, most would argue that one must listen to and play a piano to know =
what it will do. We used to say that about stereo amps, but most people =
today are able to form reasonable expectations of an amp's performance =
based on the specifications. Walk into many audio shops, and they won't =
even be set up to let you listen to and compare amps. Few people do. =
We still say one has to listen to speakers, but I assure you that an =
experienced acousticians doesn't really need to do this. Just give me a =
valid response curve (i.e. no smoke and mirrors stuff), info on the =
crossover, and power and efficiency specs on the various speaker =
elements (again, no smoke and mirrors, please), and that's pretty much =
enough enough. Very predictable stuff. Professional pianists would be =
capable of the same, with experience.
Peace,
Sarah
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Classic Touch Ent=20
To: davidlovepianos@earthlink.net ; Pianotech=20
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: even balance weight or something
Hi David,
Sounds like a very reasonable starting place (the muting experience =
should produce interesting results and 'feedback?'. As a pianist I can =
say for sure that given enough time I get used to whatever I've been =
playing (whether I think its normal or not is another story.) To date my =
personal experience has been: My first piano =3D (new) late 60's Baldwin =
'acrosonic' spinet. 2nd piano=3D(bought in early 80's) 1905 Mason Hamlin =
AA USED complete with mismatched Aeolian hammers,shanks,flanges THEN =
restored 2002 with correct Renner action parts, repaired board, custom =
cold drawn (european) bass, remainder Roslau strings, and a 'second to =
none regulation' (talk about your Also Sprach Zarathustra experience). =
3rd piano 1964 and a half Mason Hamlin CC (just broken in really) first =
2 years of its life the
as necessary concert rental out of the Manhattan Mason dealer showroom =
(some very particular artist(s) must have played this in concert because =
the regulation even now is such a pleasurably responsive experience), =
then having regular but minimal use until I purchased in July 2003 and =
immediately restrung (same stringing as Mason AA).
Yes there is a point to all this. 1.) I got used to and could perform =
musically on each of these instruments. 2.) the Baldwin and the =
unrestored AA could not get me where I wanted to go (not responsive =
enough/dynamic range extremely limited) no matter how much =
practice/energy expended. I learned to STRUGGLE. Restored AA and the CC =
gave me the experience of what it is to play 'without constant =
struggling', then 'with relaxation' , then 'with total childlike =
abandon' WHEE-E-E-E-E!!!!!! Fortunately for me I never bought in to the =
'heavier all the time is better just in case/ for when I run across it' =
mindset. My practice routine has evolved to include the softest =
pianissimo (for at least an hour at a clip each day) and the biggest =
(fat &/ thundering but not machine-gun percussive) fortissimo (also for =
an hour at a clip each day). That keeps me competent for reasonably =
heavy and reasonably light actions.
It is still TOUGH to go from the delight of either Mason to MANY other =
pianos I have the opportunity to perform on (setting aside regulation =
differences) just because of my tonal quality/color/sustain preferences. =
I just love the synergy of so many elements coming together in a =
personal preference kind of way. This is where I believe David's idea of =
'mute regulation analysis' has maximum potential value. It precludes me =
(the pianist) from dragging other personal preferences (having little or =
nothing to do with action response/feel)
into the feedback. Playing without sound. My initial reaction is =
'fingernails on the chalkboard', but I'd volunteer in a heartbeat if =
asked.
I believe (okay I hope, better make that PRAY) we could arrive at a =
standard or a 'standard range' BUT EVEN FAILING THAT perhaps a =
'certification' of balance weight/front weight ratio or whatever system =
is used to label/quantify the 'feel' pianists want or claim they want.
I believe that venues that have their own instruments, or concert =
instrument rental businesses have conflicting economic interest in what =
they deliver to the performer/audience & what their fee scales will be =
based upon (lower fees don't always/not even usually produce better =
value). Once again what is the perception of true value? With a =
certification system for concert instrument providers, standards have =
the potential to increase competition to provide better musically =
responsive product to the performer, and ultimately better performances =
for the audience. COWABUNGA DUDE !!
Best, Rich Olmsted
On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 09:41 PM, David Love wrote:
I'll stick my neck out and say that you could easily establish a =
standard.
If you could poll all pianists about their likes and dislikes, have =
them
sit down to a row of mute pianos and just feel the actions, my bet =
is that
there would be a fairly normal bell shaped curve with a standard =
deviation
that would bring 95%of the players within a fairly narrow range of =
balance
weight and regulation specs. Some of the outliers might actually be
personal preference, some might be misperception. Tastes may also =
have
something to do with what people are used to. Once you've learned to =
get
what you need out of that 1970's B with more lead than wood in the =
keys, it
feels normal to you. Over the past couple of years, I have defaulted
almost everything to a narrow range of 34 - 42 balance weight with =
front
weight maximums in the 85 - 90% range depending on requests of =
lighter
versus heavier and the particular set of hammers. Regulation specs =
have
always taken priority and I have not deviated far from 10 mm dip =
delivered
by a SBR of 5.6 - 5.8. If I had to choose a standard it would be =
smack in
the middle: 38 balance weight, 5.7 SBR which produces a regulation =
of 10
mm dip, front weights below maximums by 10 -15%, and whatever the SW =
zone
that both fits into all that and is realistically acheivable with =
the set
of hammers you have. Setting the action up with an adjustable rep =
spring
to get you that entire range quickly (if you wanted to) would mean =
that the
rep spring would need to displace an average of 8 grams of BW (lower =
is
better in my opinion). With a midrange default of 38 BW, to get to =
34 BW
you would then have to go up to 12 grams for the rep spring, and for =
42
down to 4 grams leaving you a comfortable margin of error. My guess =
is
that you would have very few complaints
David Love
davidlovepianos@earthlink.net
[Original Message]
From: Phillip Ford <fordpiano@earthlink.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Date: 4/28/2003 1:47:43 PM
Subject: Re: even balance weight or something
I received this e-mail privately from Rich Olmsted and am =
responding to
the list with his permission as I thought this was interesting and I =
think
contributions to the list from pianists are valuable.
At 08:22 AM 4/24/03 , you wrote:
Dear Phil,
I appreciated your (below) remarks, and think you are right on =
about
the=20
nature of the (real world) issue(s). From my own experience and =
in my=20
discussions with colleagues (pianists all). Some observations &=20
suppositions include:
1.) Pianists may prefer more inertia/ heavier actions because, =
even if=20
less inertia/lighter might be personal preference, most pianos
performed=20
on in the field (concert hall or other) would not match the =
pianists=20
personal preference so... better to be able to perform on the=20
stiffest/heaviest of actions (because an audience has no idea =
how good
or=20
bad (responsive) the action is). They often assume the =
performance is=20
entirely about the pianist (with the possible exception of an =
out of
tune=20
piano) in much the same way that they often assume an out of =
tune piano
is=20
entirely about the tuner.
2.) Well practiced pianists tend to develop chops & can cope =
with
greater=20
inertia (they can do the heavy lifting)
I was aware that many pianists take this approach of working on
a heavy action so that they can build up trength and stamina to deal =
with
heavy actions when they encounter them. One of the unfortunate
consequences of thisfor some pianists is physical damage. Another
unfortunate consequence is that some teachers take this as some sort =
of
mantra and tell their students to buy a piano with a heavy action so =
that
they can 'develop their strength', even if these students have no =
desire or
ability to be professional pianists, and the result is a piano =
that's a
chore to play. Also, the upper limit of what defines a heavy action =
may be=20
determined by a piano action that is poorly set up, so that the =
pianist
is building himself up more than he would need to if he got to play =
on
actions that were well designed or set up. I'm reminded of a pianist =
(a
young woman) I saw recently on TV playing the Rachmaninoff 3rd piano
concerto, which she had presumably been practicing a lot. She had =
arms
like a blacksmith's.
Also, my experience as an amateur pianist is that the best
situation for me when playing on different pianos is for the piano =
to be
similar to my personal piano. I have trouble if the action is a lot
heavier because my muscles are not built up to deal with it. But, I =
also
have problems controlling the action if it's a lot lighter. If a
professional constantly practices on a heavy action doesn't he have =
some
control problems when he encounters a very light or fleet action?
These things aside, I like choices and I don't mind change IF it
produces=20
a great enough return. So there is a difference between the =
market for=20
'performing' pianists (performers at multiple venues), and the =
market
for=20
pianists who almost exclusively perform on their own instrument.
What is difficult to manage is having the action change=20
significantly/unpredictibly with every piano/venue.
Maybe we (pianists) don't have much choice. I'm wondering if =
having
more=20
choices would just create another whole set of issues, but I =
think more=20
choices has the potential to educate, AND EDUCATION IS KEY !!!!
Best, Rich Olmsted
Good points. The sort of range of choices that I was talking about
really only make sense for pianists' personal nstruments or for =
those very
few artists that get to travel with an instrument. It would be =
interesting
to see what pianists would end up choosing for themselves if they =
were
given some options. Performing pianists of necessity desire =
uniformity
from instrument to instrument, since they are required to play on so =
many
different instruments. I suppose their ideal would be a sort of =
'standard'=20
action that would be the same from piano to piano. But what =
should
this standard action be like? The technical community is gaining the
knowledge to set actions up to give desired results rather than take
whatever results from putting a bunch of action parts together. =
Perhaps
it's time to start talking about a standard action setup, just as we =
have a
standard pitch. Performing artists would then not have surprises =
when they
showed=20
up to play on yet another instrument unknown to them.
Regards,
Phil Ford
Phil Ford wrote:
I think this shows that different pianists have different =
ideas about
how=20
pianos ought to feel. I think we have been lead to believe =
that there
is=20
an ideal setup and we just have to find it. I wonder if we =
shouldn't
be=20
working towards having the ability to vary the feel of the =
actions more
in=20
a quantifiable way to give pianists more choice. Some might =
like
heavier,=20
some lighter. Some more inertia, some less. Some evenness from =
one end
to the other, others a graduation from one end to the other, =
etc. Now,
to=20
the extent that we give them any choice at all, it seems to be =
- you
can=20
have this balance weight or that one. Sort of like saying, =
what
flavor=20
would you like, vanilla or french vanilla. I also wonder if =
having
some=20
of these options might change their tastes somewhat. I =
sometimes hear=20
technicians say that pianists like 10 mm keydip, heavy =
actions, lots
of=20
inertia,
etc. Not surprising, since that's what most of them play on =
all the=20
time. They don't have much choice. And most of them don't like =
change. But if they were given a chance to live with some =
other
setups I=20
wonder if they wouldn't end up preferring them. (I suppose =
this is a
bit=20
like the temperament discussions).
_______________________________________________
pianotech list info: =
https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
_______________________________________________
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/2b/7c/78/15/attachment.htm
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC