Collard & Collard Patent Repeater Action, London

[Ric Brekne]

Hi Stéphane

I'm not sure you really need to apologize to anyone on this post... 
aside perhaps from maybe coming on a tad strong.  But you raise some 
very valid points. AND, you take a non absolutist road.  Besides.... I 
know you are a great fellow whom means well to one and all ! :)

The thing is, this whole old piano bit is so full of passion on at least 
6 sides of the fence its ofte times impossible to get onto a 
constructive dialouge about it.  There are lots of concerns, and 
preferences.  And each has a perfect right to their own to be sure.   My 
own take on old instruments is as follows.

To begin with... an instrument per definition is something that is used 
to make music on.  When an instrument stops being serviceable thus and 
can no longer be used to make music.... well its no longer really an 
instrument.  It becomes more of a model, an illustration... a picture.  
It represents in some fashion what was once a musical instrument... but 
it no longer is one itself.

With that thought in mind, I understand completely and agree 
wholeheartedly with anyone who wishes to maintain the playability of an 
old instrument.  As long as the material is structurally sound enough to 
work.... there is no real good reason beyond personal preference to not 
use the old material. 

Now let me also say I agree with those who state that a 200 year old 
instrument with all (or nearly so) origional parts does not represent 
how the instrument performed when it was new.  Most folks that I know 
what wish to have old instruments are not so naive to think that it 
does... nor do they want it too.  They want that sound of age.... for 
all its character.  And who the heck am I to tell them they should not 
like that sound ?.

That said... I have choosen to replace a soundboard on what many would 
consider a museum piece.  My reasoning for doing so was because the 
soundboard itself was simply crumbling apart...yet the basic structure 
very sound indeed.  I wanted to maintain it as a musical instrument and 
not relegate it to museum status because there is simply no need for 
another Bluthner of that period hanging around in some museum under the 
pretenses of being useful as some historical record of piano construction. 

And that seems to be the real crux of the matter.  An old instrument can 
suffer three (positive) fates.  It can get put back into musical shape 
by changing as little as possible.  It can be significantly 
re-manufactured... or it can be shelved for historical/museum use.  
There are plenty of good reasons for doing any of the three... but for 
my part... the last one should be done only if the instrument truly does 
represent a valuable unique historical record and/or it is no longer 
feasable to do one of the former two.

Those that without further ado dismiss the desire by many to hold onto 
as much of the old as is possible miss the point I think.  And I for one 
am glad that there are folks like you to defend that position.

Cheers
RicB


    Stéphane writes:

    Hi Ron.

    Of course, I agree 100 % with all what you said.

    I must apologize once again because I didn't get right the post or
    Terry.
    This appears to happen often to poor me (ask RicB, he is used to it).

    Certainly, an untouched antique and a perfectly playing piano
    reflecting the
    original design are two different things, and indeed there is a
    strange,
    irrational behaviour amongst the antique pianos customers, wanting an
    untouched original instrument in perfect playing condition.  On this
    topic,
    I also would like to hear Anne's opinion.  I know Pierre Gevaert is
    constantly struggling with his heads in the Brussels museum, who
    constantly
    say : make it work, but don't change anything (in an attempt to
    please and
    the pianist and the historian).  But this is the land of the most
    curious
    things, as I often hear that no copy nor severely restored antique
    sounds
    like some happy few glorious untouched antiques.  What is the part of
    predisposed mind in this ?

    Now, regarding strings, what is better : the original stuff (known
    to be at
    that time very carefully selected) or modern stuff at best only
    approaching
    only some of the physical features of the original ?  In my opinion,
    the
    original stuff, if not breaking, will speak more for the original
    design.
    Modern stuff anyway needs rescaling to function properly, and will
    alter
    much the tonal characteristics of the instrument (maybe in the good
    direction, but not in the original one).

    About the hammers, my opinion will differ : the original hammers are
    most of
    the time worn to the molding, or at least, they don't have the
    resilience
    characteristics anymore that they once had.  So even if modern felt
    is not
    what ancient was, it will better speak for the original design than
    original
    worn hammers do, methink.  Yet, some old hammers still do well, and
    create
    strong emotions, even if they certainly are not the original emotions.

    About soundboard, yet another story.  In princip, I would agree that
    a new
    board made to copy the original would be closer to the original
    design in
    sound and performance, again nonobstant the fact that we don't have
    the same
    wood anymore, nor cared for in the same extreme ways they did once. 
    But
    then, my opinion is that aging is a positive parameter in some happy
    soundboards, who truly gain personnality with time, and good
    vibrations.  So
    for me, a new soundboar would get the clock back to 0 h 0 minute,
    that is :
    not the best advocate of the instrument.  But that was probably the
    same
    situation back then.  Nothing is simple.

    Curiously enough, once again, all other parts in the piano are less
    subject
    to religious extremisms, at least among customers.  Maybe the french
    polish,
    which a new one hardly can compare to the original if well preserved.

    Best regards.

    Stéphane Collin.