[pianotech] Gen-u-whine Steinway parts:OT RANT

[Encore Pianos]

"The more pianos I rebuild (bellies and actions) and the more I have been
involved with design changes, the more I gravitate back to the original
concept (with tweaks of course)."  Would you care to elaborate on this a bit
more?

 

Will Truitt

 

From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of David Love
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 12:11 AM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Gen-u-whine Steinway parts:OT RANT

 

Wine is good for nit picking, though I prefer  two pints of Guinness.

 

I'm not saying that the 1920's might not have been more consistent (I don't
really know, honestly), but at this point they are mostly just old and so
are being redone anyway and it doesn't matter that much.   Sure, I have some
1920s pianos whose bellies have survived well (and many that haven't or
weren't that good to begin with).  I'm just saying that whatever they were
then they mostly aren't that now-in the words of BB King, "the thrill is
gone, it's gone for good.  I was thinking more about the bellies than the
actions but the actions also have their problems.  I've seen 1920ish actions
vary quite a bit and seen 30's and 40's actions with ratios approaching 7.0
(and let's not forget the wonderful verdigris years).   The early iterations
of the accelerated actions were not that well executed and the later ones
might have been worse.  Mixing high key ratios with 16 mm knuckles and
monster hammers was a recipe for 8 leads in the keys.  That being said, I've
modified several of these (without new keys) with 17 mm knuckles (no
choice), modest capstan moves, fixing the spread, appropriate weight hammer
and they play beautifully.   Vintage can be a factor but when rebuilding
with a new belly, block bridge caps, action then what was there to start
with is of little consequence.   That was really my point.  

 

Personally, I love the 1920's pianos because people buy them often without
inspection expecting them to be great.  When they aren't, I get a new
project.  I love the Steinway piano. 

 

Seriously, what I do like about Steinways of that period is the general
concept that came together: low tension scale, lightweight soundboard, soft
,very light hammer with highish action ratio to achieve adequate force by
increased velocity.  It worked well and I personally like that tonal
concept-at least in smaller pianos.  The executions in various periods had
some problems and these problems often appeared in times of transition or
with changes in materials (hammers in particular).  The 1920's seems like a
time in which the overall package was more unified and in sync.
Surprisingly, when rebuilding these pianos people rarely adhere to that
original concept.  Actions are changed to modern ratios with heavier and
harder hammers (artificially or otherwise) and bellies are modified with
heavier rib scales and other changes while using the same basic scale
design.  Since Steinway itself has been inconsistent in unifying these three
elements over the decades (string scale, belly, hammer), and made changes in
the soundboard design (think full diaphragmizing), rib scales, actions
ratios, hammers and hammer weights, etc., it's hard to argue what is or is
not Steinway like when a change is made.  In that respect, I will say that
my favorite period is, in fact, the 1920's, not because the pianos are now
still great pianos, but because the concept and execution at that time
seemed to be more faithful to the qualities that established them in the
first place and more unified.  I'm not sure what they are doing now.  

 

The more pianos I rebuild (bellies and actions) and the more I have been
involved with design changes, the more I gravitate back to the original
concept (with tweaks of course).   All this discussions about whether it's a
Steinway or not is, of course, silly.  They've done it as many different
ways as there are pianos practically.  The real questions is what made the
great Steinways great.  In my view, it wasn't a period necessarily but the
specifics of a particular design and execution.  Trying to narrow that down
and then using modern technology to repeat that consistently is the goal, at
least mine.  A few minor modifications is ok, as long as it produces
something conceptually consistent and that makes tonal sense (for the
player, btw).  Arguments about whether or not it's a Steinway if you put a
Renner action in it are a waste of time, something we all have less and less
of.  

 

Well I've digressed but Guinness will do that to you.

 

David Love

www.davidlovepianos.com

 

From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Ed Foote
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 6:46 PM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Gen-u-whine Steinway parts:OT RANT

 

Hi David, I might be disagreeing somewhat, ( or just picking at nits the
wine frees up...) 

 

   The 1890-1942  vintage Steinways seem to have been held to a closer
tolerance with the scale stick.  The action alignment from the key to the
string is, in my experience, much more consistent on these pianos.  It is
possible to have all 88 hammershanks laying near the center of the whippens
while traveling straight to the string.  And all the capstan pads are
centered over the capstans, to boot!  Does an action like this play better
or last longer?  I don't know, but it that kind of precision is not a
liability. 

       The foundation ratios, (the relationship of the capstan, balance rail
pin, and whippen rail) are also more closely found near the 5.6-6.2 range,
with few, that I have seen, falling in the extremes.  Contrast this to the
1960-1990 vintages where we find a surreal range of everything.  How modern
machinery can produce less consistent results is beyond me, but they have
found a way. 

      I don't have hard, fast data, but it seems that about one out of every
seven Steinways older than 50 years has a good board. I own several, and
have seen others.  On these pianos, a close examination of the bridge
notching reveals craftsmanship at the highest level. Not so much on the new
pianos.  The older pianos have straighter agraffes, which is disappointing
in the highest degree.  Few procedures on a grand piano doom it to
mediocrity faster than a string plane that is impossible to mate hammers
too.  I have seen a number of them, but none from the '20's.   

   I don't think many of these things cause the older pianos to feel or
sound different.  They just indicate more care in construction than the
modern version.  You can see this on the chamfers put on the various blocks
in the action, and the evenness of the damper wire bends.  Even the saws and
bits used back then were sharper, as indicated on the fuzzy edges so often
seen in todays actions. 

   The big deal is the sound. For some reason, fresh boards in 1920's pianos
usually have more response than new boards in new pianos.  That may be the
hide-glue case making a difference, or the additional care the boutique
rebuilder applies.  I don't know. What I do know is that I am far more
confident of success when rebuilding a 1920 action than I am trying to make
sense of something put together in the late 1960's.  

    I think the vintage is a factor, but not as much as the general public
seems to believe. 

Regards, 

 

Ed Foote RPT
http://www.piano-tuners.org/edfoote/index.html

 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Love <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>
  Gen-u-whine Steinway parts:OT RANT

This thing about 20's Steinways I don't really get.  Even if they had better
belly people back then the pianos are 100 years old now.  Who cares what
they were like in 1920.  They certainly don't resemble that now.  Every era
has produced good and bad bellies and actions with and without problems.
The attraction to that era at this point is purely a psychological one,
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20120502/e95f57bd/attachment.htm>