---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment John, I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that I have chosen to=20 dismiss Franz Mohr's position. If by that you mean that he could be right=20 and we have done the best that we ever can with our treasured pianos then=20 yeah, I guess you're right. I dismiss that assumption quite handily. If on= =20 the other hand you believe that I have somehow chosen to belittle Franz=20 Mohr in any way I believe you read something in to my post that was either= =20 not there or certainly that was not intended. He does indeed have many=20 great stories to share. I simply choose not believe that we have done the=20 best that can ever be done. That seems to me a silly position for any=20 industry and a position that certainly would never have been supported by=20 many of the highly respected forefathers of this industry. There are a=20 great many pianos already in existence I dearly love to hear played and=20 therefor treasure. That's not ever to say that I wouldn't love to hear them= =20 improved either. I don't consider them sacred. I well understand that many are reluctant or not convinced that=20 many of the changes being talked about are worthy of adaptation into=20 mainstream usage. That's fine! I'm not sure anyone wishes to force the=20 issue. Maybe there are those who feel differently as the ongoing=20 discussions have gone quite heated at times. This forum as pointed out many= =20 times is difficult since people tend to read something in to a post that=20 was not intended in the absence of tonal inflection from the voice or body= =20 language and the like. I really don't believe any real feelings of=20 hostility exist and I surely hope that they do not. I just hope that more=20 people would leave tradition behind only temporarily for long enough to=20 either try or experience some of these "improvements" for themselves. It=20 would be great, for me included, to hear 2 or more identical pianos side by= =20 side with traditional implementations and new designs to compare. I'm sure= =20 that the logistics of this would prove quite difficult indeed. In principal, John and list, I refer back to my original post on=20 this subject asking the same questions. Summarized; "if we can do those=20 things and they are better, is there any reason that we should not use=20 them?" I can think of only one and that would be to preserve a museum piece. John, you wrote about your concerns as a pianist and also about my= =20 confidence in dismissing (which I never intended to do) other positions but= =20 I wonder have you ever experienced any of these changes for yourself? I'm=20 not trying to sell you or anyone on the ideas I'm simply asking if their=20 being rejected out of hand. Have you heard the "Lilacs" CD of Ron Overs=20 instrument with the artist Scott Davie? Even on my less than stellar audio= =20 equipment I can detect a change from the "normal" instrument. Not much=20 that I have ever heard has compared to that. Is there any credibility for=20 Dale Erwin's efforts? I certainly think so, though I've yet to hear an=20 instrument of his re-design. He's less attacked than Del or Ron N. or=20 Terry, or David L. If any of these people have redone instruments I would=20 have some amount of confidence that the result would be predictably good.=20 This brings me to another point. Each of us has at some point in our lives heard that one piano=20 that just made the hair stand up on the back of our necks. For me it was an= =20 old M&H BB that had such depth and richness that it really was an emotional= =20 experience to hear it. What bothers me a bit is that I've never heard=20 another like it. Now I have to ask myself, why? I believe that this=20 question is what drives a lot of this different design implementation. If=20 you found one piano that just reached a part of you that couldn't be=20 reached any other way, as a technically minded individual, wouldn't you=20 want to duplicate it? Would you not also ask yourself why it is that there= =20 are not hundreds or even thousands of these pianos around that engender the= =20 same response? Why is it that when one model follows another of precisely=20 the same design off of the factory floor having had the same hands produce= =20 it from the same materials on the same day do they sound different? Haven't= =20 you ever wondered about that? I certainly have! Let's further say that the= =20 first was the one that pulled your heart out of your chest but the second,= =20 while still a good piano, left a little to be desired in comparison. Let's= =20 yet further say that you, the owner of the factory, wanted more uniformity.= =20 I'm guessing that they all do. If you had a way of construction that gave=20 you more predictable results which it seems would also last longer in that= =20 state would you not seek to incorporate that into your efforts? I can say,= =20 I believe, with confidence that this is what is driving the design topics=20 you describe as meeting with resistance. Could all of us interested in=20 design chime in and say that they have heard older designs which are=20 beautiful and amazingly satisfying? I just have and I think that such has=20 been amply stated by most others as well. Perhaps much can be set at ease=20 by a change in phraseology. Instead of endeavoring to make the piano=20 better, perhaps for the time being we can agree that we are trying to make= =20 them uniformly good. Will that take away some of the apprehension and=20 invite at least exploration? my best to all, Greg Newell At 12:53 AM 6/24/2005, you wrote: >Hi Greg, > >As I've always said, if the piano can be made better, then so be it. I am= =20 >happy there are people experimenting with new ideas, and they should be=20 >encouraged. However, I can answer your question of "Why should anyone of=20 >us be satisfied with what was when we have the capability to do so very=20 >much more?": > >There are those, such as myself, that are simply not quick to jump on the= =20 >bandwagon of change - not because we're inflexible, but because we're=20 >patient and haven't been convinced that the "improvements" being presented= =20 >are undeniable improvements. Some or many of the changes I've read on the= =20 >list have not be tested enough against the accumulated knowledge of=20 >musicians and technicians to have any kind of confident stance that the=20 >change is musically better. I myself, as a pianist, have specific concerns= =20 >for some of these changes. > >Experiment away, but with humility and respect for those who love what=20 >presently exists. > >I also do not believe you should be dismissing Franz Mohr's position so=20 >*confidently*. Not to suggest he is the wisest of piano people, but=20 >rather, as if you suggest that you know all that he knows and can=20 >therefore judge his error without fear of your own error (what you don't=20 >know can always change your viewpoint!). No one should be arrogantly=20 >assuming that everyone in the piano industry who does not believe in=20 >change is dismiss-able. > >In the end, it is undeniable that pianos exist using "old" designs that=20 >are beautiful and amazingly satisfying. If some of the people building new= =20 >designs would acknowledge this regularly your cause would probably meet=20 >less resistance. > >-- John > > >>Horace, >> This is all well and good and you are certainly correct in that= =20 >> there is much art in what we do. Still, the talking heads as you so=20 >> brashly put it, have a great deal to say of some vital importance which= =20 >> will take the venerable piano well into the future in as much if not=20 >> more of a beloved state than it already is with us. Why should any of us= =20 >> be "satisfied" with what was when we have the capability to do so very=20 >> much more. This is where I take exception with the honored Franz Moor=20 >> and why I left the meeting when it broke for a gratis dinner given by=20 >> the local dealer. There are, perhaps, things that should be kept and not= =20 >> fussed with from the by gone era (though I can't think of any of them=20 >> off hand) but where we can make it better why on earth wouldn't we?=20 >> Because of a name plate or decal on the fallboard? Where would Chevy,=20 >> Pontiac, Olds, Ford, Chrysler or Dodge be today if there weren't=20 >> backyard tinkerers or even large shops who thought they could add=20 >> something to the overall product? Wouldn't it be considered a plus if=20 >> soundboard, ribset, bridge placement, and stringing scale were enhanced= =20 >> so as to offer a product that needed no demonstrable heroics in voicing?= =20 >> Wouldn't it be considered a plus to have a predictable action setup so=20 >> as to have a reliable touch and speed of repetition that didn't need a=20 >> great deal of tweaking even from the factory delivery? Wouldn't it also= =20 >> be great to find alternatives and perhaps even better performing=20 >> materials that wouldn't unduly deplete old growth forests raping the=20 >> land of anything for the future? Well, I think you would all agree that= =20 >> these are positive things. Franz is of an era to be sure. Much of what=20 >> he has to share is entertaining. I have difficulty with the posturing=20 >> that his generation has made an instrument we all cherish the best it=20 >> can ever be. In my mind improvement is ALWAYS possible and desired. >> >>best, >>Greg >> >>P.S. and not once did I denigrate or call anyone any names ... > >Greg Newell >Greg's piano Fort=E9 >mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net=20 ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/6b/cb/61/60/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC