Rear Duplex Bars on Steinways:

[David Love]

I rest my case.

David Love
davidlovepianos@earthlink.net


> [Original Message]
> From: Robin Hufford <hufford1@airmail.net>
> To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>; <davidlovepianos@earthlink.net>
> Date: 5/11/2003 11:32:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Rear Duplex Bars on Steinways:
>
> 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
> >