>Thanks to Kent Swafford for noticing that article in the G&M. I had >talked to the reporter last week but wasn't aware that anything had >appeared in the paper. > >A little clarification might be helpful. For the most part it was a >reasonably accurate, if understandably (given the target audience) >superficial description, but some details were a little misleading, >and a few points were obviously mixed up. The article was obviously intended for laymen (nothing wrong with that), so my pointing out a few bloopers was really just for fun. But it did seem like a good jumping off point for a discussion. >I coined the research group here as the "Waterloo Piano Systems >Group", and will focus on the piano in the broadest sense. The main >objectives are to explore the relationship between piano design, its >technical implementation (materials, configuration etc) and >manufacturing methods, i.e. look at the piano from an engineering >rather than physics-based perspective, as has typically been done >previously. An engineering study is more interesting to me since it may yield results that are applicable to the real world. I think you had said before that you were going to share the findings with the world. Is that still the plan? >... >>> and a lesser brand may suck $130,000 out of a musician's wallet, >>Would a Fazioli be considered a 'lesser' brand? > >I think the typical cost of a Steinway D - in Canada $ remember - is >about $130,000. This is my ballpark as representative of the high >end concert instrument, although it's probably the bottom end of the >scale if you include German pianos, and others such as Fazioli. I had forgotten that we were talking Canadian $. > >>The buggy industry didn't collapse because of the lack of cheap >>high quality buggies. > >The analogy I made is quite representative of the real driver in the >project, but it got lost in the translation. My point is: the modern >piano is the end result of 300+ years of meandering and tinkering >without any fundamental change in principle. Bits got thicker and >heavier and stronger and wider and longer and more braced and more >rigid. But the basic design solution for a modern piano is not >really any different from Cristofori's original invention, which, of >course, can trace its principles considerably further via the >haprsichord. Imagine the modern car had been developed this way from >the horse and buggy and we continued to manufacture it as a modified >horse and buggy. That's basically what's being done currently with >the modern piano. Applying modern manufacturing techniques, as far >as this can be done effectively, may be able to improve efficiency, >but it's really nothing more than a technical and economic bandaid. >I'm proposing something more radical. I think I understood the point. But, with my limited imagination, I'm having trouble imagining the sort of radical things that you have in mind. I can imagine all sorts of materials and manufacturing processes that have never been used before, but I don't think they would result in a piano that's more economical to build. I can also imagine several building or manufacturing methods that would make the piano more economical to produce, which would probably be fine for a low end piano and might drive the price down a bit. But it's not clear to me that they would result in an artist quality piano. Perhaps you and your grad students have better imaginations than I do. Care to share an example? >... >I was pressed to give a "value" (which I believe is actually >conservative) although have no basis for choosing one yet, other >than back-of-the-beer-mat scratchings. The objective is simply to >develop something that can be manufactured as efficiently as >possible, without compromising the acoustic and musical aesthetics >we understand about the modern concert grand piano. It will cost >what is costs at the end of the day. But it will be fun to try, and >there are no economic constraints or business partners telling us >what we can or cannot do, only the engineering constraints. I agree that it will be fun to try. I wish somebody had been doing this stuff when I was thinking of going to graduate school. > >>But, this raises an interesting question. Why do pianists think >>that good pianos ought to be cheap? If you talk to other >>musicians, many of them accept the fact that their instruments are >>expensive. A violinist looking for a serious violin would consider >>a $20,000 instrument cheap. A $100,000 instrument would be sort of >>middle of road, with the most sought after instruments in the >>millions. It's not unusual for an orchestral musician to purchase >>an instrument that costs 2 or 3 times his annual income. They seem >>to look on it as a necessary investment in the tool of their trade. >>Pianists, in general, don't seem to hold the same view of things. > >That's true but pianos and violins are very different beasts. That's been mentioned on this list several times, so it must be true. > There's a certain snob factor involved with the violin Agreed. > (the old masters are not necessarily better than anything made now), Not from my perspective (I don't play the violin). I don't know how many violinists would agree. This sounds like the discussions (arguments) on this list about old Steinways vs other pianos (including new Steinways). Some people claim there's a difference, others claim it's snobbishness, wishful thinking, marketing, etc. There's not much way to settle such an argument. > and a high end violin needn't cost two arms and a leg. The ultra >expensive antique instruments also have a rarity aspect that raises >their value beyond their musical worth. Granted. But my point was that most violinists are convinced that they need to pay a lot of money to get a good instrument, are resigned to that circumstance, and factor that into their financial plans. Pianists, in general, are not. Perhaps this stems partly from the fact that violins are perceived to be works of art or craft, and pianos are perceived to be factory made commodities. Figuring out how to re-engineer a piano to make it more efficient to manufacture isn't going to change that perception. > >The desires and perception of pianists really get to the nub of what >I want to do. A $130K concert grand is undeniably expensive to make, >and not over-priced for what goes into it. This is precisely the >problem. We've all seen what you end up with when you try to make a >standard concert grand more cheaply and cutting corners leads to >cutting results. We need to start thinking ouside the box and forget >about the souped-up horse and buggy and come up with something more >akin to the modern car. When I said "re-engineer" I meant exactly >that. No tinkering. Start from scratch. Imagine the modern piano >didn't exist. What are the chances that we would come up with the >modern piano in its current form as a 21st century engineering >solution? Not much. Probably not. On the other hand, if you started from scratch, and had to tweak your 21st century design based on everything you found didn't work out as planned, I wonder how different the design would end up looking from what we have now. I remember the Kaman (sp?) engineers (who were used to designing helicopters) who were going to 'fix' the archaic design of pianos after their corporation acquired a piano company. That didn't work out quite as well as they expected. > >>If cheaper high end pianos are the goal, I wonder if high tech is >>the path to that goal. You can buy a hand made harpsichord or >>fortepiano for $15,000 - $25,000. These are made in the old >>fashioned low-tech way, by hand, one at a time. Why does something >>cranked out in a factory cost 10 times as much? > >A handmade c.1790 fortepiano it's more like $30K US for a good one. >A handmade 1820 fortepiano is likely to set you back $50-60K US, >more for a famous builder such as Chris Clarke. Extrapolate to the >scale of a modern concert piano and you get well up there in the >echelons of the current prices for Steinway Ds etc. This is no doubt >reflective of the fact that much of work in making *any piano with >the current type of design is hand work, and not efficiently >automated. Hence the benefits of the factory are not translated to >cheaper prices. > >I'm glad this discussion has come up. To re-iterate for emphasis and >summary....when I said "re-engineer" I meant exactly that. No >tinkering. Start from scratch. Imagine the modern piano didn't >exist. What are the chances that we would come up with the modern >piano in its current form as a 21st century engineering solution? >How much of the current design of a modern piano is needed merely to >accomodate the limitations of the materials and methods being used >to make it? What are the critical design aspects that define the >modern piano aesthetic? > >Stephen I had thought at first that the aim of your research was to find out more about how the piano works, in order to provide information to builders with the goal of building improved pianos. Now, I'm not sure that I understand the goal. Is it to build a 'better' piano than currently exists? Is it to build a piano that's as good as a current high end instrument more cheaply? Is it to rejuvenate the Canadian piano industry? Other? If the goal is to redesign the piano so that it can be manufactured more efficiently in a factory environment so that the end product is cheaper, I don't see how the craft is going to be much better off than it is now. We'll just have a different design that everyone is building in some place where labor is cheap. They'll all be building the same design like they are now, but the prices might be a bit lower. I believe what our craft, and the pianistic world, needs is diversity of choice. In other words, the availability of instruments with real individuality. I'm beginning to think that this will only be possible by moving the building of high end instruments out of a factory setting. I believe that any efficient factory setting is going to result in instruments that are uniform. Even if they are of uniformly high quality, this very uniformity makes them less desirable to the artist. I think what the craft needs is something more along the lines of the guitar building model. Low end to moderately high end instruments are made in factories. But the very finest instruments are made by hand in small quantities by individual makers. I think it would be more beneficial to the long term welfare of the piano craft to work on the problems of making pianos on a small scale in a small shop, rather than finding ways to make them more cheaply in a factory setting. I think that Del Fandrich, at least to some extent, is attempting this with the piano that he is building in his shop. I look forward to the results of his work and yours. Regards, Phil Ford
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC