---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment David Love wrote: > Forgive me if I see some inherent contradictions in these arguments being > presented by Ric B and John H. Too much wading through the self indulgent > verbosity to get to the point in Robin H.'s post, but I'll presume he had > one. > I really do like Bobs suggestion just posted. "Assign only the noblest of motives to your opponent, keep up the debate, and thank you." > If I may illustrate. Last year I encountered a 1920's Baldwin 9' grand. > The action had been getting some complaints about weight and was in need of > rebuilding due to general wear. An analysis of the action put the SBR at > over 7.0 with accompanying original hammers whose weights made it > impossible to achieve the kind of balance needed to satisfy the various > pianists who played on it. I am confident that were this piano in the > hands of Ric B., that the modifications made and supported by his mentor > Mr. Stanwood, would have been similar to the ones I deemed necessary. In > fact, judging from previous posts, I would guess that the SBR would have > lowered beyond where I put it, an assist spring incorporated, and a hammer > of even higher strike weight zone been utilized. Clearly a change in > design from the original, and judging from the way the action was set up, a > change from the original intent. I don't think Ric B. and other advocates > of status quo positions would argue that a design change was not in order > and would have implemented it without hesitation based on their own > subjective opinion about what feels best. I have no quarrel with that, by > the way. > I think you will find that David and I do not see eye to eye on a number of key issues. I dont like assist springs for one, and I am not willing to go to such high SW levels as he does. And I have issues that I will not discuss here and now, but perhaps will become apparent soon enough. None of that changes my respect for him, nor the fact that I consider him a good freind. Certainly I would allow for a wider range of parameters then I understand you are comfortable with. But in spite of that its very possible we all three might have arrived at very similiar solutions. As for being an advocate of the status quo. For the life of me I fail to see how I can be accused of that. I'm so much the opposite of that, that I get into hot water because I see something that too much resembles a new status quo simply replacing the old. And what good is that then ? Perhaps I am imagining that... but hey... I'm human :) As I have repeatedly said... I am all for positive change... its just I think you should take credit for it in a very visable way. Take the Stanwood modifcations.... each time this is done there is a small Stanwood logo that is supposed to be attached to the fallboard in a discrete but very visable place. > > Similarly, I recently read several posts by John Hartman demonstrating his > method of stiffening the key sticks on Steinway and Mason Hamlin pianos > reducing the flex for purposes of increasing the tonal range. This while > maintaining the original hammer weights. Are we sure that the design > intention wasn't to have a certain amount of flex in the key to accompany > the very light hammers that were on the original and that altering that > balance might not betray in a very real way the overall design and intent > as it relates to tone production and feel? To change the stiffness of the > key sticks while not changing the weight of the hammers might arguably be a > much greater departure from the original than, say, stiffening the key > sticks while increasing the hammer weight. Good point, much the same as I've been trying to make all along. Tho admitedly the difference between design change and design improvement can be a bit grey. > > To make the argument that design changes in the action are fine while > design changes in the belly to achieve similar improvements are an > egregious abrogation of the the designers intent and an assault of the very > nature of the instrument itself (a paraphrase for purposes of illustration > and effect) seems disingenuous and self serving. > > How do you two reconcile such a contradiction? Seeings how I never made such a contradiction I dont feel I need to... in fact I would ask the same question you are. For my part a design change is exactly that. For the most part pretty easy to identify. Of course its easy to find lots of grey area examples... like changing from Renners to Able hammers or the like. And the border is also grey when deciding just how much of a design change is worth takeing credit for as it were. But, all in all... the discussion (the topical part anyways) is an interesting one IMV. > David Love > davidlovepianos@earthlink.net > > Cheers RicB -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/e0/f0/4a/51/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC