Finding somewhat different information, even from (secondary)sources that are, on the whole, probably not produced to a good standard of reliability or consistency -- and the Hubbard volume here is probably not -- can still be interesting from one angle or another of music history, and can add to the "storehouse of small clues or direction-pointers" that a dedicated researcher can make use of. (Personally I am not such a researcher, but I come across a fair number of old books; periodical issues aren't as easy to find.) Pierce/Michel is that kind of practical guide that is indispensable and frustrating at the same time. The problems facing any such compilation become more understandable, the more one gets into the field. I was glad to find in web searches last year that there have come to be archives for "original-source" documents of piano making such as that at the University of Maryland. The improvements to search capabilities in Pianotech, CAUT, and so forth, meanwhile, are a wonderful resource, and they help make it easier to learn the interests of different people. Thanks for your response. --On Friday, August 22, 2003 9:40 PM -0700 Thomas Cole <tcole@cruzio.com> wrote: > Interesting how the information is different in several instances from > Pierce/Michel. > > Tom Cole > > ranjacob@umich.edu wrote: > > > Every so often I come across more than two or three pages devoted > > to a survey of U.S. piano makers and manufacturing history in an old > > book of a more general nature, such as a reference book or > > encyclopedia volume on music. > > > _______________________________________________ > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC