Gotcha. Everyone has their own pet peeves. Stickers are one of mine. Before I got into this business the tuner who tuned my brand new 1098 tried to put his service record sticker on the inside lid of my little 1098. I nearly broke his arm. Turned out it wasn't much of a piano, but it sure did look nice. I would often just lift the lid to gander at all the shiny neat looking stuff inside (varnished pinblock top was just so cool) - I definitely did not want to see a sticker. Also those tacky brand-name decals that they put on the side of concert pianos. I know, I know, nothing wrong with it, but I simply think it is tacky. They remind me of the beat up Pontiac Firebirds, et. al., out there that have "FIREBIRD" in huge letters on the top of the front windshield. But of course, to each their own, and I guess when I have my own 9-footer in my own concert hall, I can insist on no tacky stickers. But of course, I do like the decal on the fallboard. Gee whizz, maybe I simply think they had it perfected in 1890 and don't think we should change a thing........ More than enough of this nonsense. Terry Farrell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Brekne" <Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no> To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 3:15 AM Subject: Re: Rear Duplex Bars on Steinways: > Grin... Terry > > I dont think I mentioned anything about a cheap sticker. I used the phrase "small Stanwood logo" and I said "attached", and on other ocassions I have said things like "attractive and appropriate". I've also used the words "visable and obvious" on a number of occasions. All this is certainly possible to achieve. > > Certainly, one wants to avoid tackyness and all the other examples of innapproriate marking one can imagine. > > Cheers > > RicB > > > > Farrell wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > > -- > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC