---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Hi Terry, Just to give an alternative viewpoint, no hard feelings :) I presume these violinists highly regard these older violins either because of the status of it (which makes it irrelevant to the discussion), or that it contains a sound not found in modern violins despite its changes. When I bought my 1925 Steinway L it was sitting in a showroom with new L's and a couple of B's and one D. Despite that it needs plenty of work, has 2 long (but thin) cracks in the soundboard, had deep groves in the hammers and as such needed voicing, it sounded better than the other L's and had a notably prettier sound than the B and the D (they were prepped). I realise many don't consider Steinway's newer pianos as good as the old, but I've played a handful of older Steinway's and some older Mason and Hamlin's (neither in necessarily exceptional condition) and they all contained a prettiness that is hard to find in a newer piano. I say this because it might be one reason why piano designers/manufactures are hesitant to make changes? That some older pianos are such fine instruments cannot be disregarded * - as a side note, I'm not a Steinway fanatic. It's one thing to say we shouldn't needlessly hold on to the past, but it's another thing to say current piano designers/manufacturers are living with their head in the sand. That to say only a few independent piano designers have the knowledge and/or the courage to do better I find to be riddled with potential foolishness. I've read through many postings on this list from Del and a somewhat lesser amount of postings from Ron O. (and some excellent rebuttals!), and I have no doubt they are both skilled and deserve respect. But I think those at Steinway, Mason and Hamlin, Bosendorfer, etc., deserve at least as much respect. - John > I don't really understand the boundless reverence given to the = > developers of pianos a hundred years ago. No doubt at all that many of > = > them were very intelligent, very creative, very inventive - hey, they = > basically invented the modern piano. But just like the inventions of = > electrical energy, modern medicine, space travel, etc., etc., just = > because these were fabulous inventions made by brilliant people > doesn't = > mean that the basic inventions cannot be improved upon. > > My understanding is that most Stradivari and Guarneri violins in = > professional use today have had significant modifications to them to = > make them more consistent with what is expected of a modern violin = > played in a modern orchestra (I'm really not sure what they do to them > - = > modified neck, bridges???). Only groups that specifically target > making = > music on period instruments might use one of these violins that even = > resembles an original configuration. So if it is OK to modify these = > instruments to produce what is generally considered to be a more = > pleasing sound today, why is there so much resistance to modifying a = > first-generation modern piano? ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3061 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/3e/54/bd/c4/attachment.bin ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC