Rear Duplex Bars on Steinways:

[Farrell]

Richard wrote:

"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."

Oh, no. I've given some of your past comments about a decal change or some such thing. Now think about the above and use the car analogy: "Hurst Shifter", "Edelbrock Manifold", "Holley Carburator", "Crane Cams", "Dana Gears". I never liked those stickers on muscle cars, and I certainly wouldn't have one (or more) on my piano. I always liked the idea of a "sleeper" muscle car - looks totally normal, but goes like a bat out of he.....

I think the general thought is OK, maybe good. But actually putting stickers on a nice piano........ tacky come to mind. Something stamped on the action - OK. Something stamped on the soundboard (underneath) - OK.

Just  some rambling thoughts.

Terry Farrell
  
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Brekne" <Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no>
To: <davidlovepianos@earthlink.net>; "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: Rear Duplex Bars on Steinways:


> 
> 
> 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
> 
>