David Love wrote: > 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. David, It all comes down to solving problems. Problems are perceived through one own experience and expectations. For example, there has been a great deal of talk about the change of tone that happens between the bass strings and plane wire. This problem is most obvious on small uprights but on the Steinway grands that I work on the problem is small and can be taken care of with simple and fast shop procedures. I know that there are lots of things that can go wrong with even the best pianos and this problem becomes more of an issue when the piano is poorly rebuilt or when service is lacking. So you see for me it is just not a problem. It would be a waist of my time and the clients money if I followed the advice I have read here and re-engineered the soundboard and string scale so I could save myself a few minuets of voicing. About six months ago I finished an early Steinway A with the three bridges and the breaks between the various sections were virtually transparent. Of coarse I used bass strings with fine windings (.005) on the first tri-cords and I am pretty careful with my soundboard work. > 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. The keys you are talking about are from an earlier S&S B. They had already been altered when someone converted it to an accelerated action. Obviously they wanted to try out the latest action improvement. I see a lot of old keyboards converted this way. The additional holes made the keys too flexible and some sort of solution was called for. I installed the top plates rather than replacing the whole keyboard. It was a cost effective solution to a problem. If I had replaced the keyboard I would not have needed the top plates. > 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? It's not a contradiction for me. When I evaluate any technique for solving piano problems I ask these questions: Have I evaluated were the problem is coning from? Am I solving a real or imagined problem? Is this the easiest and fasted solution? Will what I do be effective and durable? Can I do it well enough? What are the side affects of what I plan to do? Could someone later be able to undo what I did? Do I really know what I am doing both technically and aesthetically? John Hartman RPT John Hartman Pianos [link redacted at request of site owner - Jul 25, 2015] Rebuilding Steinway and Mason & Hamlin Grand Pianos Since 1979 Piano Technicians Journal Journal Illustrator/Contributing Editor [link redacted at request of site owner - Jul 25, 2015]
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC