David,
Comments interspersed below.
David Love wrote:
> This seems so given over to hyperbole it's hard to know where to begin.
> "Abrogated the very nature of the instrument.. ...completely transcending
> the fundamental nature and design of the instrument, negating its very
> essence"???
This is a nice feat of editorial legerdemain, addressing no point that I
make, falsifying the context, and creating an impression greatly contrary to
that actual context in which these phrases played their parts - those necessary
for them to make the several points which you take no notice of. One little
caution: why demonstrate such infidelity to the facts in public, where others
can see? This works much better if there is no immediate record of that which
you are trying to obfuscate.
You would, no doubt. have done well as a tenditious editor for Pravda,
making black seem white and white seem black, imparting other "objective,
scientific facts", into history, and, possibly, have made a lot of money.
Perhaps you should apply for a job somewhere as a professional propagandist - I
would suggest contacting Castro, he would probably appreciate this skill. To
me, though all this is a waste of time, even though I can admire the effort.
I reproduce below for accuracy the actual sentences and partial context by way
of contrast. In my opinion the term hyperbole does indeed seem appropriate as
you suggest, but I would argue that such a skill in misinformation demonstrated
here is much more worthy of this label than my feeble efforts. To the quote:
" Again,
what is a known quantity is the ability of many unredesigned instruments,
and instruments in need of attention, to deliver, at the least, some level
of reasonably acceptable performance witness the Horowitz piano recently
commented upon here....... Nevertheless, do
these have to be reached by completely transcending the fundamental nature
and design of the instrument, negating its very essence, so to speak, and
tossing the very thing the owner is likely to have acquired it for in the
first place, and which maintains, rightly or wrongly its value in the
marketplace, out the door? I rather doubt it."
Please. Who is making absolutist claims.
The archives are full of them - check out the postings of the four or five
Redesigners. In fact, I am sure you are aware of such absolute claims.
> changes are hardly earth shaking and for the most part exist or have
> existed in whole or in part on various models of the same manufacturer, in
> this case. Nobody's talking about changing the goal, just finding a better
> way to insure that the goal is achieved. I think these are legitimate
> areas of inquiry, many of which have a great deal of research behind them
> and are not simply empty claims of superiority. Who are you quoting when
> you say "These methods produce a superior performance" and, "Because we use
> these methods the performance is superior."
Both are rhetorical quotes, in essence paraphrases which attempt to
succinctly make a point. That point is well demonstrated, as I say above, in
the archives. Again, another point you ignore, and please believe me I am
sincere when I repeat again, that this is with all due respect to you, is, that
by deflection and distraction, you, as best I can tell, attempt to wish away my
criticism that the only results that can be discerned here are reports, as all
that we have are words and ideas showing up on computer screens, not the actual
experience of the sound itself. These reports are from the enthusiastic
efforts of the Redesigners themselves. Surely, in all fairness one can say,
without intending the least bit of recrimination that they may, at the very
least, be held to possibly be a little less than objective, favoring their
outcomes? This would only be characteristic of human nature itself.
Most of the technicians reading this list have experienced the sounds of
thousands of pianos, as you probably have and so have I. Why is it necessary to
claim that all these other sounds are inadequate? They are not, they are
merely different. In general, for high quality American pianos of historical
vintage, I like nearly all of them and consider the differences from one
manufacturer to another virtues which I am grateful to encounter. In my
opinion, any "new, modern" method is not likely, given the very extensive design
history in the US and Europe, to be truly original using, as I have said before,
the ordinary soundboard components that have been around for 150 years, at
least. The results originating from any new approach are just one more of the
palette of sound possibilities we are all lucky, as I said above, to experience,
at least in my opinion, and I am grateful for any worthy addition.
> I don't recall reading that.
>
> Those who do make these types of changes do so with full knowledge of the
> owners, as far as I know. Recall that the piano is in the shop for such
> extensive work in the first place because it is not performing up to the
> level that the owner wants it to. If it were, it wouldn't be there. If
> the piano is owned by the rebuilder, then they are certainly within their
> right to make whatever changes they think are necessary. I'm working on a
> Steinway M at the moment. I'm considering changing the bridge layout by
> adding a transition bridge in the low tenor to smooth out the change from
> between tenor and bass and address the awkward scaling as it currently
> exists. Will it be a Steinway M anymore. Well not exactly, more like a
> small Steinway A, I hope. Have I abrogated the very nature of the
> instrument, transcended its fundamental nature and negated its very
> essence?
The point Ed Foote tried to make, which you now disclaim your reponse to as
nothing but levity, was that at some point there is indeed the risk of this
happening. He was charitable enough to use the term "improved" with regard to
this kind of tinkering - an assumption that may or may not be the case.
Nevertheless, the risk is real that such a point may, one way or another, be
arrived at. Should we be forced only to take the reports of the tinkers
themselves as Gospel? Further, there may well occasionally be repercussions in
such a case, some of which I attempted to point out in the material you so
skillfully rearranged. For me, personally, the changes your intend may well
improve the piano, make it more musical, etc, and, certainly, would be
interesting to me, but will it still be exactly a Steinway? Perhaps, or
perhaps not and should I rely solely on your reports here that it is or isn't?
Would you or anyone else in a similar context do so? I daresay not.
> If I stiffen the belly rail and add a cutoff bar like you see in
> other Steinway models will have done further damage to its poor soul. I
> don't think so.
>
I am not conscious of the soul of a piano, leaving that to you, sound would
be what I would address. If, as you say, Steinway or other companies with their
own characteristics, have done these things from time to time, then by
superseding their design you are claiming your concept of such things should be
paramount and implying thereby that their design decisions are inadequate. Are
they? I think they are merely different and intend a characteristic result,
indeed, as does any proposed "remanufacturing" and that this is true of all
factories and other such efforts. Couple this with the loud trumpeting of
such "improvements" endlessly here by some, not particularly you, compound it
with what appears to be numerous analytical errors, leaven this with a kind of
dogmatic intransigence, sarcasm and loud shouting at any contrary view and all
this become most questionable.
> It is clear that the bar has been raised very high by the instrument
> makers of the past and that there are many, as you stated that Phil Ford
> stated, instruments performing well. There are also many that are not.
> You can put two pianos of certain manufacturers next to each other that
> have come off the line back to back and one can be quite good, while the
> other is not. A design is only as good as it can be executed with some
> consistency. If the design leads to frequent poor execution and
> performance then you either have to look at the manufacturing process, the
> design or both.
The poor execution in the modern period is a subject of some complexity and
does not impugn the adequacy or lack thereof of any design as far as I can
tell.
> If a small change in the design can lead to more
> consistency in the product without changing the nature of the tone (in this
> case) when the execution was successful, then why would you hesitate to
> make the change? Posterity?
>
> I don't think anybody called the designs deficient. It's a bit of an
> overstatement.
The endless repetitions of the phrase "design deficiency, design flaw,
legacy shortcomings, etc. etc." may not signify such to you. Have it as you
wish, but I find it hard to see otherwise. In any case it is certainly an
overstatement as you say.
> As with all things, there is always room for improvement.
> Steinway has a history of implementing changes, letting go of poor designs
> (ringing bridges, teflon bushings) and these changes are often driven by
> the input of technicians who work with the pianos day in and day out.
> Should we always wait until the manufacturer comes round to feel
> comfortable implementing changes that we as technicians become aware of as
> available improvements. I think most rebuilders operate under the
> philosophy of the Hippocratic oath: Do no harm. Changes in design are not
> taken lightly, in my observation, and are not implemented on blind belief
> as you would suggest. There's no reason to believe that any piano has
> reached the apex of design and execution. The boutique manufacturers are
> certainly pushing the envelope with a high percentage or resources being
> spent in these areas. And I'm glad that they are there if only for that
> reason. Success breeds complacency, remember Xerox? It's the arrogance of
> believing that there can be no improvement that often leads to demise.
>
I don't suggest such things and have posted just such recently on this subject.
It is not arrogant to suggest that any design is suitable for its intended use
and represents the efforts, whether sloppily done or not, of those who put
their money in to it, risk their livelihoods for it, hope to profit from it and
accept its present efficacy.
However, it most certainly is the height of arrogance, at a minimum, and I
attempt to remain collegial here, to claim that all who don't subscribe to one
or two tinkerers' singular views are burdened somehow by extensive
rationalizations that originate in supposed frustrating experiences encountered
with the instruments, to the degree that they are not able to appreciate
anything new. Claiming all the while, that this paralyzing frustration flows
from the intractably difficult problems to be encountered in the instruments of
present design, particularly when the extent of such flaws themselves may be
things of very considerable dubiousness and loudly trumpeting up supposed
improvements. Indeed, in my opinion, this is a view worthy of real criticism
and, almost indignation, as there are numerous self-serving implications
residing in this, the emotional utility of which I do not wish to go into but
which are readily obvious on a little reflection. I, for one, do not find
myself assigning character to situations difficult of solution in a supposed
attempt to relive myself of, again, some supposed responsibilty to correct
them. Nor do I find this characteristic of other technicians, although it may
well be characteristic of those who propose this for others.
Regards, Robin Hufford .
> There may be a line that can be crossed where in the remanufacturing of a
> piano so many changes are made that it genuinely is not that piano any
> more. But I'm not an absolutist. I think it's perfectly reasonable to
> make some changes without fear of crossing that line. To be perfectly
> honest, I'm bothered more by the idea of putting hard German hammers on NY
> Steinways than I am by changes in the belly work.
>
> With similarly due respect to your comments on the trivial and tautological
> nature of my statement to Ed, I was actually aiming for irony.
>
> David Love
> davidlovepianos@earthlink.net
>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC