Sustain was Re: 1974 M & H B

[Barbara J. Fandrich]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment

  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Richard Brekne=20
  To: College and University Technicians=20
  Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 7:39 AM
  Subject: Sustain was Re: 1974 M & H B


   =20
  Ron Nossaman wrote:=20

    =20
    And techs' ideas of what constitutes a viable or dead soundboard are =

    similarly diverse everywhere you go.=20
    =20
  A little off the subject line here, this quote reminded me of =
something I heard a few weeks back from an eminent harpsichord builder =
in Northern Europe. Bear in mind the fellow is a piano forte' lover, =
dislikes the Steinway sound intensly, and in general dislikes the modern =
piano.=20
  His point was that this whole sustain issue is misunderstood from the =
get go. That is to say that there is no need for nearly the sustain =
levels modern pianos offer, ... that there is virtually no music written =
from any time period that requires more then half of this sustain level. =
 Never heard that argumentation  before.=20

  His position was that older instruments of the modern variant sounded =
better (read mellow) as they lost some of their power and sustain =
through the years.=20



Your friend must not encounter the same jazz pianists that come our =
way.... Music evolves.

This is the first time I've heard of anyone complaining about excessive =
sustain time. The increasingly hard and harsh sound quality of the =
modern piano, yes, even the excessively high overall power levels =
expected from them. But not sustain time. Interesting.

Del


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/09/c8/af/32/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--