This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Allen
First, I don't understand the need for what appears to be a mildy =
sarcastic tone in discussing this sort of thing. I don't claim to have =
developed a "very precse language". I used the phrase in the sense of =
"not very precise", which simply suggests that there is room and the =
possibility of more, though not absolute, precision, even if used only =
between technicians. Its amazing to me, for instance that most pianists =
aren't aware that color changes depending on power.
Yes, I have found that if I demonstrate to pianists the various things =
they can observe by a few simple tests (which take just a few minutes), =
they are appreciative, and even if they don't retain the information =
very long, they are more likely to feel comfortable in relying on my =
judgement. This is very conducive to the Ellis scenario, which, by the =
way, I think is very sensible.
No pianist gets from me the more detailed voicing technique info that my =
message contained. I was just passing on a few things to a technician =
who had asked for help. But if you work with a pianist very long, as =
happens in a university setting in particular, and pass on a few =
techical tidbits when the opportunity arises, eventually they become a =
little more savvy and understanding of the limitations we have to face, =
as well as the possibilities.
I agree that some pianists are tough nuts to crack, believing that they =
can teach others to perfom and interpret music, which they also believe =
is the most mystical thing going, at the same time being skeptical that =
a techician could "teach" an instrument to sound better, let alone teach =
them anything. I think we live in the same universe.
Bill Schneider
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Allen Wright=20
To: College and University Technicians=20
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] voicing a D
William,
So can we assume that you have in fact developed a "very precise =
language" describing tonal or voicing problems, and that you're able to =
"teach pianists how to listen objectively"? My hat's off to you then, =
and I'd like to see the dictionary for it.
We must live in parallel universes. In mine, more often than not, =
(with exceptions, of course), serious pianists are far too focused on =
their own (yes, very subjective) worlds of music to have much energy or =
interest to expend in the direction of a piano technician discussing =
anything with any technical subtlety. Their eyes glaze, and attention =
wanders, long before much real understanding has occurred.=20
My experience has been that the most that can be hoped for is =
something in between Jim Ellis's recommendation (make the piano the best =
you can and tell them that it's fixed) and your best-case scenario of =
mutual and satisfying edification and technical problem-solving, with =
the reality more often than not leaning towards Jim's scenario.
Your approach to voicing seems very solid, though. I'm sure you get =
the job done nicely.
Respectfully,
Allen Wright
On Tuesday, October 5, 2004, at 02:24 PM, William Schneider wrote:
Hello Wim
I am always surprised that piano technicians haven't developed a =
very precise language for describing tonal, or voicing problems. In fact =
usually the most basic observations don't seem to have been made, or at =
least are not mentioned. This is not a criticism of you in particular, =
but I do see lots of room for improvement in the profession. I also see =
it as our responsibility to help pianists describe what they're hearing, =
which means teaching them how to listen objectively. It is perhaps the =
notion that timbre is subjective that has prevented us from examining =
the many tonal attributes can be objectively observed. There will still =
be plenty of room for individual preferences when that has been done.
=20
Looking at individual notes in the various ranges of the piano (when =
in tune) one would do something like the following:
=20
Check Hammer spacing, string level (phase problems), then
=20
Check the strike point (ie. seeing that the hammer strikes the =
string at the correct antinode). This is best done right after the =
hammers are shaped. This is done by sliding the action in and out a =
fraction of an inch while repeating a loud blow. The right spot =
emphasizes the fundamental lower consonant partials, so you have to =
listen "low' in the sound. When you get some skill doing this, you'll =
hear tonal changes in the bass with movement of as little as 1/64th =
inch. The factory strike point isn't always right. No amount of needling =
or lacquer will get rid of dissonant partials or loss of power due to =
incorrect strike point.
=20
Check the tone at ppp, and sugarcoat untill it's clean and even.
=20
Next, compare power curve to color curve. Does the tone get brighter =
the louder you play. (One of the areas for individual preference is =
here; how much brighter do you want it?) If the color curve ever =
reverses direction as you crescendo, you'll have two problems. First a =
lack of sustain at that power and above, second the tone will appear =
dull and sometimes coarse. What you are hearing is that the hammer is =
softer underneath than above, which suggests the solution. The =
coarseness can be caused by either of two things, sometimes both: 1. a =
hard spot high in the hammer, which can be fixed either by hardening =
below, if you want a brighter piano, or softening the hard spot and =
doing nothing below, or both. The choice you make will give you a =
different piano from the others, but still a musical one. 2. The =
coarsness could also be the result of a new phase problem. Even though =
the hammer is level with the strings, the boundaries between the softer =
and harder parts of the hammer underneath may not be level with the =
strings. When you play at the relevant power level, this sounds just =
exactly like the hammers and strings were never mated to each other. =
Play at that power and check the tone of the left string only against =
that of the right string only, then needle at the appropriate depth on =
the brigter side, until both sides sound the same. This softening will =
gain you power because the strings will sound in phase.
=20
In general, it's a correct relationship of hardness between the =
upper part of the hammer and the lower that's the issue, not the =
absolute hardness levels. The hammer should get harder as you go deeper =
into it; that's what makes the power and color curves move in the same =
direction. If you want a piano with a lot of punch, the levels will be =
harder overall. If you want a lush piano, make them softer. You can be =
very creative in deciding how lush at ppp and how snorty at fff.
=20
It sounds from your description like you may have a color curve =
reversal going on. A reasonable person could call the resulting sound =
unfocused. Good luck.
=20
Bill
At 07:29 AM 10/1/2004, you wrote:
I need some help from some of you who have lots of voicing =
experience.
=20
The D in our concert hall has a problem, at least as perceived by =
one of our piano faculty and a musicologist. They differ on where they =
hear the problem, but it seems to be the same sound they hear. They =
describe it as a wave length that is very wide, as opposed to a more =
focused wave. It is not so much a twangy sound and it lack a certain =
amount of depth. They are even leaning towards a soundboard problem. The =
piano is only 2 years old.
=20
I have lacquered and voiced the hammers last year, and this summer =
spent quite a bit of time leveling strings, making the sure the hammer =
strike point is level, etc. All the usual fine point. But I want to see =
what I can do to get more "focus" out of the hammer.
=20
Thanks
=20
Wim
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/25/46/cb/07/attachment.htm
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC