Was Fish, I see no further utility in the list.

[Overs Pianos]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Its Ron Overs here,

Mr Brekne wrote:

>Yes Ron, actually my words do encourage one and all  (misguided or 
>not) to explore the world of piano sound to the fullest.

The above remark was in reply to me, Ron Overs, not Ron Nossaman.

I don't accept your spin!  Your words certainly don't encourage me to 
do anything, apart from getting my 'blood up'. But I have no doubt 
that this will give you some degree of satisfaction.

Yesterday, I concluded a post with the following.

>Knowledge in our discipline is expanding all the time. We are living 
>at a time when 300 years of combined thinking has resulted in what 
>we have come to know as the modern piano. It is essential that this 
>thinking and evolution should be allowed to continue. Further 
>progress remains possible as long as we don't let the politics of 
>the currently-successful ones get in the way. We must always 
>endeavour to work out what is a worthwhile design feature, and what 
>might be a dead end idea. The black art of piano design is 
>fascinating, and there remains an ocean of improvements waiting to 
>be found. As with the evolution of species, many subspecies will 
>come and go like the Dodo. Not all will be bad ideas, and some may 
>be worthy of resurrection. But new Dodos will come along as well. We 
>must use our judgement to establish what we believe to be the best 
>combination of established practice, past practice and future 
>possibilities. Getting the three together in the best proportion, 
>when building a new instrument, can be somewhat akin to jumping off 
>a cliff in the hope that there is a soft landing at the bottom, and 
>not just rocks.
>
>You also have to contend with a multitude of 'technical' opinion, 
>which sometimes hasn't even been down the 'thinking road' you have 
>taken. So often this chorus will discount the new idea just because 
>it is different and 'not the way' their favourite manufacturer does 
>it. It doesn't necessarily mean that the new idea hasn't got merit, 
>but you have to somehow carry on through the 'thunderstorm' of 
>disbelief which surrounds you.

In the last paragraph, from yesterday's post (above), my reference to 
'technical opinion' referred in particular to that of Richard Brekne, 
who likes to put out his 'Mr nice guy' spin on the surface, while he 
calls into question the work of any who might dare to work towards a 
'better mouse-trap'. Maybe Terry Farrell or Dale Erwin will be his 
next target (although I think he's already done Dale once before - 
and I know that Ron N's had a little taste and Del's gone).

Unfortunately, I believe that the pianotech list has become for me a 
waste of time and effort. In this instance, I am failing to carry on 
through the 'thunderstorm' of disbelief.

Some of us have foregone so much income opportunity to the further 
study of the instrument, and I sometimes wonder why, since it doesn't 
seem to be appreciated? As we all know, certain people were much 
smarter back in 1900.

I am beginning to understand why Del has given this list a wide berth 
in recent times. A worthy contributor has gone missing thanks in part 
to the background noise that keeps coming from Brekne, who's banter 
never lets up.

A large number of Pianotech subscribers have made worthy 
contributions over the few years that I have taken part. Thank you 
for your generosity.

I'm getting out of here for a while.
Feb 20, 2005
Ron Overs.
-- 

OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY
   Grand piano manufacturers
________________________

Web:    http://www.overspianos.com.au
Email: mailto:ron@overspianos.com.au
________________________
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/7f/87/91/85/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--