something about aftertouch........

[David Love]

I guess it all boils down to what the meaning of is is.

David Love
davidlovepianos@comcast.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On
Behalf Of Ric Brekne
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 3:35 PM
To: pianotech
Subject: something about aftertouch........

David

I'm only reading the archives now and dont really see the need to attach

names to ideas for the most part. Nothing personal in the <<someone 
wrote>> bit. Just in case you took it that way.

But as to the point... I hardly missed it. One may indeed argue one way 
or the other until one is blue in the face, but the fact is the window 
of variability in what is actually accepted as a <<properly regulated 
piano>> or what is actually <<normal aftertouch>> is plenty large 
enough  to allow for certain purposeful changes in aftertouch... or 
really just about any other parameter when it comes down to it.  The 
degree any such change is productive or counterproductive is gauged by 
whether or not said changes result in the response the pianist desires 
from the instrument.  In one sense your below agrees with Andres 
comments that an increase in aftertouch is an increase in waste, but on 
the other hand Andre, being the seasoned concert tech he is knows that 
going to a softer punching also has its performance drawbacks. He also 
knows that the sum of either configuration may in either case represent 
what any given pianist desires.  It simply is not as black and white as 
is apparently drawn out below. 

You brought <<normal>> into the discussion... not me. I simply refuted 
its applicability in the context of very high level concert work a guy 
like Andre does every day.   The issue is about taking into 
consideration as many regulation aspects that influence the pianos 
response as one can.  The decision to use the firm yet resilient felt 
punching vs a soft cloth felt punching is more involved then the 
isolated issue of a given desired amount of  the <<soft landing>> 
sensation. Your more forgiving punching has several attributes, not all 
of them equally conducive to improving <<action performance>> (whatever 
one means exactly by that at any given time). The issue is about being 
aware of all the tradeoffs involved... (or at least as many as we can 
figure out) and figure them all into our decisions about what to use, 
what to do, and when.

Point of fact. You can indeed opt for a softer landing of the type an 
increase in aftertouch does whilst at the same time staying well within 
operating tolerances for concert work whilst at the same time providing 
a given (and by no means isolated) pianist a sensation of improved 
response. But then there are a lot of things we can (and need to be able

to) do to meet the demands of a pretty wide variation in pianists ideas 
about what the optimum response is.

Now, I will crawl back into my box of tasks over here and let you all 
get on with this. 

For anyone interested, here is a link to the music festival I've been 
given responsibility for this year.  50 + piano concerts in a two week 
period, nearly all given on Steinway D's.  Lots of fun !

http://www.fib.no/

Cheers
RicB

That someone would be me and you miss the point.  Andre argued that to
change the feel you could change the aftertouch.  I would argue that the
aftertouch is as you say, the function of a properly regulated
action--though you can adjust the amount of aftertouch by altering dip
or blow.  At any rate, the idea of changing the feel at the bottom of
the stroke by artificially changing aftertouch seems counterproductive
as it alters action performance.  Changing to a more forgiving punching,
if that's what it requires, makes more sense.  Making an issue about
what "normal" means misses the whole point.



_______________________________________________
pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives