This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
It seems to me that a lot of what we like is what we are used to. The
=93whump=94 of a Steinway in the mid tenor we learn to identify as depth
when in reality it may be a belly with ribs that can=92t quite support =
the
crown or stiffness necessary for that section and a predictable
transition from bass to treble. The pop in the attack that we learn to
look for in the treble may be more to do with the failure of the killer
octave region. But when you are accustomed to hearing such things on a
piano that you identify as the =93cr=E8me de la cr=E8me=94 then when =
it=92s
missing, it seems like there=92s something wrong. The difficulty is in
wiping the slate clean and approaching the instrument without bias. As
one pianist said to me the other day (to paraphrase): =93most of what
pianists look for is predictability; as long a what comes out of the
piano is what the pianist thinks will comes out before they play a note,
then everything else can be worked out.=94 Well I think that goes for
what pianists expect within an instrument as well as between
instruments. And if they are used to hearing the same things over and
over, it=92s very difficult to break that pattern of predictability even
if the heretofore unpredictable piano has better balance, smoother
transitions and a better combination of sustain and power. Change is
always an uphill battle. =20
=20
David Love
davidlovepianos@comcast.net=20
-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On
Behalf Of Bec and John
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 6:12 PM
To: Pianotech
Subject: Re: Franz Mohr
=20
Hi Greg,
=20
Great post! My response actually was less to do with your postings than
the things I've heard on the list since I joined a year ago.
Intentionally or not, the real impression I get from those interested in
new piano designs/methods are basically, "Old - mainly Steinway - bad,
new good". Like you (and I'm glad to hear!), I have heard some gorgeous
older pianos. Perhaps my explanation for the inconsistencies you
mentioned are just human nature - we are approximate beings. Maybe money
and work ethic play a roll.
=20
But that makes me wonder what the quality of instruments would be like
if Ron Overs (or whomever) were producing a high volume. Business can be
complicated...
=20
I have heard the Rachmaninoff snippets from Ron O.'s web site. In fact,
just the other day I listened to them again and his piano is even
prettier than I remembered. There is no doubt that Ron is a superb
craftsman and technician (and tuner!). I don't take this to mean that
change is necessary however. My favourite piano recording is from the
late 60s on a Steinway (I've mentioned it before on the list), and it
has more depth and complexity to its sound than Ron's.
=20
I have never experienced this in person, which is partially why I have
very little opinion about the changes themselves. The issue of sustain
concerns me a bit (I wrote about that previously), as does the recent
discussion about the different pedalling effect that was started with
the Dale Erwin thread "Steinway O Redesign" - it may sound nice, but
what does it mean for musical interpretation? I already think the
majority of professional pianists have little or non-existent pedal
technique, what would happen to these pianists if there was even more
sound to control?? But I do not really know unless I experience it.
=20
In any case, I hope new ideas continue to be explored. I don't know if
the piano can be improved without a departure from what makes a piano a
piano, and that's why I take the position I do. If all that is being
desired is to make pianos consistently sound as good as the best
Steinways/M&H/etc., how can I complain? But if we're talking about a big
shift that might change the piano as we know it, how can I not complain?
I love the piano!
=20
- John
=20
John,
I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that I have chosen to
dismiss Franz Mohr's position. If by that you mean that he could be
right and we have done the best that we ever can with our treasured
pianos then yeah, I guess you're right. I dismiss that assumption quite
handily. If on the other hand you believe that I have somehow chosen to
belittle Franz Mohr in any way I believe you read something in to my
post that was either not there or certainly that was not intended. He
does indeed have many great stories to share. I simply choose not
believe that we have done the best that can ever be done. That seems to
me a silly position for any industry and a position that certainly would
never have been supported by many of the highly respected forefathers of
this industry. There are a great many pianos already in existence I
dearly love to hear played and therefor treasure. That's not ever to say
that I wouldn't love to hear them improved either. I don't consider them
sacred. =20
I well understand that many are reluctant or not convinced that
many of the changes being talked about are worthy of adaptation into
mainstream usage. That's fine! I'm not sure anyone wishes to force the
issue. Maybe there are those who feel differently as the ongoing
discussions have gone quite heated at times. This forum as pointed out
many times is difficult since people tend to read something in to a post
that was not intended in the absence of tonal inflection from the voice
or body language and the like. I really don't believe any real feelings
of hostility exist and I surely hope that they do not. I just hope that
more people would leave tradition behind only temporarily for long
enough to either try or experience some of these "improvements" for
themselves. It would be great, for me included, to hear 2 or more
identical pianos side by side with traditional implementations and new
designs to compare. I'm sure that the logistics of this would prove
quite difficult indeed.
In principal, John and list, I refer back to my original post on
this subject asking the same questions. Summarized; "if we can do those
things and they are better, is there any reason that we should not use
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 confidence in dismissing (which I never intended to do) other
positions but I wonder have you ever experienced any of these changes
for yourself? I'm not trying to sell you or anyone on the ideas I'm
simply asking if their being rejected out of hand. Have you heard the
"Lilacs" CD of Ron Overs instrument with the artist Scott Davie? Even on
my less than stellar audio equipment I can detect a change from the
"normal" instrument. Not much that I have ever heard has compared to
that. Is there any credibility for Dale Erwin's efforts? I certainly
think so, though I've yet to hear an instrument of his re-design. He's
less attacked than Del or Ron N. or Terry, or David L. If any of these
people have redone instruments I would have some amount of confidence
that the result would be predictably good. This brings me to another
point.
Each of us has at some point in our lives heard that one piano
that just made the hair stand up on the back of our necks. For me it was
an old M&H BB that had such depth and richness that it really was an
emotional experience to hear it. What bothers me a bit is that I've
never heard another like it. Now I have to ask myself, why? I believe
that this question is what drives a lot of this different design
implementation. If you found one piano that just reached a part of you
that couldn't be reached any other way, as a technically minded
individual, wouldn't you want to duplicate it? Would you not also ask
yourself why it is that there are not hundreds or even thousands of
these pianos around that engender the same response? Why is it that when
one model follows another of precisely the same design off of the
factory floor having had the same hands produce it from the same
materials on the same day do they sound different? Haven't you ever
wondered about that? I certainly have! Let's further say that the first
was the one that pulled your heart out of your chest but the second,
while still a good piano, left a little to be desired in comparison.
Let's yet further say that you, the owner of the factory, wanted more
uniformity. I'm guessing that they all do. If you had a way of
construction that gave you more predictable results which it seems would
also last longer in that state would you not seek to incorporate that
into your efforts? I can say, I believe, with confidence that this is
what is driving the design topics you describe as meeting with
resistance. Could all of us interested in design chime in and say that
they have heard older designs which are beautiful and amazingly
satisfying? I just have and I think that such has been amply stated by
most others as well. Perhaps much can be set at ease by a change in
phraseology. Instead of endeavoring to make the piano better, perhaps
for the time being we can agree that we are trying to make them
uniformly good. Will that take away some of the apprehension and invite
at least exploration?
=20
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 happy there are people experimenting with new ideas, and they should
be encouraged. However, I can answer your question of "Why should anyone
of us be satisfied with what was when we have the capability to do so
very much more?":
There are those, such as myself, that are simply not quick to jump on
the bandwagon of change - not because we're inflexible, but because
we're patient and haven't been convinced that the "improvements" being
presented are undeniable improvements. Some or many of the changes I've
read on the list have not be tested enough against the accumulated
knowledge of musicians and technicians to have any kind of confident
stance that the change is musically better. I myself, as a pianist, have
specific concerns for some of these changes.
Experiment away, but with humility and respect for those who love what
presently exists.
I also do not believe you should be dismissing Franz Mohr's position so
*confidently*. Not to suggest he is the wisest of piano people, but
rather, as if you suggest that you know all that he knows and can
therefore judge his error without fear of your own error (what you don't
know can always change your viewpoint!). No one should be arrogantly
assuming that everyone in the piano industry who does not believe in
change is dismiss-able.
In the end, it is undeniable that pianos exist using "old" designs that
are beautiful and amazingly satisfying. If some of the people building
new designs would acknowledge this regularly your cause would probably
meet less resistance.
-- John
Horace,
This is all well and good and you are certainly correct in that
there is much art in what we do. Still, the talking heads as you so
brashly put it, have a great deal to say of some vital importance which
will take the venerable piano well into the future in as much if not
more of a beloved state than it already is with us. Why should any of us
be "satisfied" with what was when we have the capability to do so very
much more. This is where I take exception with the honored Franz Moor
and why I left the meeting when it broke for a gratis dinner given by
the local dealer. There are, perhaps, things that should be kept and not
fussed with from the by gone era (though I can't think of any of them
off hand) but where we can make it better why on earth wouldn't we?
Because of a name plate or decal on the fallboard? Where would Chevy,
Pontiac, Olds, Ford, Chrysler or Dodge be today if there weren't
backyard tinkerers or even large shops who thought they could add
something to the overall product? Wouldn't it be considered a plus if
soundboard, ribset, bridge placement, and stringing scale were enhanced
so as to offer a product that needed no demonstrable heroics in voicing?
Wouldn't it be considered a plus to have a predictable action setup so
as to have a reliable touch and speed of repetition that didn't need a
great deal of tweaking even from the factory delivery? Wouldn't it also
be great to find alternatives and perhaps even better performing
materials that wouldn't unduly deplete old growth forests raping the
land of anything for the future? Well, I think you would all agree that
these are positive things. Franz is of an era to be sure. Much of what
he has to share is entertaining. I have difficulty with the posturing
that his generation has made an instrument we all cherish the best it
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
=20
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/08/12/25/dd/attachment.htm
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC