Ron, it would be a pity if you left this group. You are one of the few innovators out there, and I've enjoyed your input. I've learned a lot from you. If I might leave you with an insight or two about why you really do need this list: I remember back during my graduate studies (="postgraduate" fer' you non-Yanks), I was working on a rather complicated and radical theoretical project. Obviously I was the one who understood it the most, although I admit to being baffled by much of it. A few other folks understood most of what I did about it. Most people regarded it as pretty "out there" stuff. I remember giving a talk to the Dept. of Electrical Engineering about my work, and within the first few minutes, they were all telling me that my entire premise was completely full of manure and that I, a lowly physiologist/biopsychologist, had little to show them, the high and mighty engineers. So I kept talking, and eventually a dumbfounded expression fell over their faces. I was witnessing a mass, "well duh" moment, having shown them a phenomenon that they had never considered might exist -- or that they had previously dismissed on the basis of faulty assumptions. If only I had my camera at that moment! I spent the next hour laying out a complicated theoretical development, and there were a lot of good head scratching and "ah hah" moments going on. I still hadn't scratched the surface by the end of the hour, but I had made an important connect, and by engaging in discussion, I had an "ah hah" or two myself. It was a very good hour in my life. Keep talking, and people eventually *will* understand what you are trying to do/achieve. Beyond getting your ideas out there/here, you might not be as inventive a person without us, even if we don't grasp or agree with what you are telling us. Talking with the EE crowd, and talking with my advisor, and talking with my fellow graduate students -- and with my spouse, and with my young children, and with myself, and even with my cats (!!) -- did help me to crystalize my ideas. Only my cats looked at me knowingly. Everyone else was at least mildly bewildered. But I found that the process of simplifying and refining my arguments was necessary in order to move on with further theoretical development. There were at least two theoretical breakthroughs on the project that would not have been possible if I had not kept simplifying, simplifying, simplifying, and explaining, explaining, explaining. If you can eventually explain it to a child, then you've made some real theoretical progress, and the next breakthrough is just around the corner! THAT is why you need us, Ron. We are your cats. Sometimes we growl and hiss, and sometimes we purr. But without us you are nothing (as every cat knows)! ;-) Take a break from us if you need to, but PLEASE come back, both for our sake and for yours. Keep talking and engaging, because I bet that is how you get your ideas. Peace, Sarah PS The same goes for you too, Del! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Newell" <gnewell@ameritech.net> To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>; <ron@overspianos.com.au> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 11:32 PM Subject: Re: Was Fish, I see no further utility in the list. > Ron, > It greatly distresses me to hear you might be leaving us for a > while. You did once before and now Del has more or less. Seems the > greatest contributors to the forward thinking in this industry have been > pestered out of sharing their ideas and contributions. I have long ago > filtered the individual in question out of any and all posts coming in to > my mail box. The only time I ever read is when it's quoted from someone > else. I never seem to be amazed. Nevertheless, please come back! I, for > one, have learned so very much!! I hope to learn so much more!!! > > best, > Greg > > > > > > At 10:46 PM 2/19/2005, you wrote: >>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 >>________________________ > > Greg Newell > Greg's piano Forté > mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net > > _______________________________________________ > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC