[CAUT] Steinway Style II Grand

[Chris Solliday]

Hi Fred, I do agree with you, and if you and Bill were the customers I would
endorse this approach in a heartbeat. In other words it still comes down to
the marketplace and the particular customer's needs which way we should go
with these things. My only concern is that in our never ending quest for
strange and exotic that we do not miss I-95, or I-80 for that matter. Stay
well friend, sample contracts coming snail mail soon, I haven't forgotten. C
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Sturm" <fssturm@unm.edu>
To: "College and University Technicians" <caut@ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway Style II Grand


> On 2/15/05 10:46 PM, "Chris Solliday" <solliday@ptd.net> wrote:
>
> > I agree with all this rationale except the difference between repros and
> > "original." "Original" is a challenge not looked forward to by the
players
> > of the era that historical performance tries to recreate. I'm sure
players
> > of that time were looking for the best instruments available, not some
old
> > stressed out piece of wood surrounded by crusty buckskin and motheaten
felt,
> > and dare I leave out the metal. My opinion, of course humble, is that
this
> > so called "original instrument" concept just creates a mythical market
for
> > the owners of some horrendous old dogs and unfortunately it obscures and
> > reduces the opportunities to hear the rather charming performance
available
> > on reproductions, and not to mention reduces this important market. My
hat
> > is off to builders of repros, fortepianos, harpsichords and clavichords
and
> > the performers who have the integrity and wisdom to perform/recreate
> > historical music on instruments of the same relative age as when the
music
> > was orginally performed. "the one armed piano tuner" Chris Solliday
> Hi Chris,
>     Good points. I agree a good repro beats a bad original any day. The
> original which is truly unique and important should be conserved (meaning
> keep all original parts), no question, and if it can be made to play as
> well, that's nice. But for music making, one needs fresher
> wood/felt/leather, etc.
>     The only addition I would make is that of an intermediate category:
> restoration. Not remanufacture/redesign, but restoration to like new or
> close to new condition, maintaining all design elements and materials as
> closely as possible. This to apply to mid 18th century to Victorian era
> pianos like Bill Shull has mentioned, pianos of real interest like old
> Erards and Steinways. If the board is immaculate, keep it. If it's toast,
> replace it, but with original dimensions, grain orientation, ribbing
design.
> Keep the original action parts: refelt, releather, re-spring, whatever is
> necessary to make it play like new. But maintain the geometry. New hammers
> made to match original weights and density of felt to the extent possible.
> Restring with appropriate materials (eg, Pure Sound).
>     These are the pianos of several major composers, from Brahms to
Debussy
> to Granados. Significantly different from modern, and of significant
> interest. Well, of interest to oddballs like me and Bill, anyway. And
ain't
> nobody ever going to make repros of these, as Bill pointed out. But
> restoration is quite possible, and can potentially produce the same
result:
> a like new instrument of hysterical accuracy (spelling intentional, in
> deference to that one-armed man).
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>
>