Del, David, Ric, list,
It is probable that the 7'2" built in the late 1860s and 1870s was tuned
upwards of A457. That's 2/3 of a half step sharp by our A440 standards.
Wire of the time was less stiff, more ductile, and had a significantly lower
breaking strength. It was going through a period of change, as breaking
strengths and stiffness increased, pitch was increasing too, probably to ensure
brightness with increasingly stiffer wire. For 15 years the 7'2" stringing scale
remained the same while the wire itself went through a metamorphosis.
Typically in this model A85 is 46mm long. Too short for modern wire. The
Steinway inventory journal shows both Poehlmann and Webster wire in stock during
this time; it's possible Webster was being used for the top, as Poehlmann's
wire was becoming stiffer and might not have worked as well....although at the
higher tensions it may have worked fine clear to the top.
Modern wire (Roslau, and especially Mapes) is far too stiff for the top two
octaves of this scale, even when tuned to A457 (though it sounds better than
at 440). I'd love to find some cast steel wire annealed to fit the original
scale of the Steinway; this might come closer to the wire originally used.
I had an 1877 Style II in my shop on consignment this last year. This piano
had been rebuilt 20 years before, a straightforward rebuilding of the time.
It had a very substantial, powerful sound except on top where the lengths were
shorter. I restrung the top 1.5 octaves with Pure Sound stainless wire (Juan
Mas Cabre did the scale work), which brightened up the top some. That's a good
start.
I believe it's worth the effort to try to get at what the original designer
had in mind too. We will learn far more from these pianos if we make a
sustained effort to document these pianos, conserve some for study, restore others to
functional originality, and make replicas or remanufacture in a replica
manner..
I understand that by increasing the speaking lengths and using modern wire
we're also trying to do this, but we're fundamentally changing the physical
dimensions of the instrument; we're altering the physical document forever.
It was one thing for Steinway to retrofit an action in 1872 on a ten year old
piano, as the company was inclined to do; it's quite another for you and I
to do these things today.
The time has come for our trade to begin to take seriously the need to
conserve these older instruments. Even the somewhat plentiful 7'2" Steinway through
1878 is not yet well documented, and relatively little is known about it.
Most have already had modifications (at least restringing, often action
replacement) and so these things are already partly lost as original documents for
serious study.
As piano technicians we need to be aware that our role as consultants and
experts places us in a position of real influence with these historical
instruments...people look to us for guidance, when it might be more responsible if we
referred them to conservators of keyboard instruments. However, one of the
reasons we feel free to permanently alter pianos of the period through 1880 is
that music historians and even keyboard curators don't seem to think this
period is very important (or that everything that came before was more important,
and this period really is just the less-important modern period). So we
haven't been made to feel the pianos of this period are any more than transitional
PSOs (one prominent researcher called early Steinways pretty boxes with
strings), and what was important was what was before...and after...this period. But
these instruments are very important....and we won't truly understand them
until we actually make them the object of continued, disciplined study in their
own right.
Another reason we aren't so impressed with pianos from this period is that we
make assumptions about how they once sounded based on how they sound
today...or we make judgments based on how today's stringing materials sound in these
old pianos which were designed for string material that doesn't exist today..
Even if the soundboard structures were healthy, the more ductile cast steel
wire of the 1860s and 70s was still capable of fatiguing and work hardening, and
doesn't stand much chance to retain its brightness and ductility, especially
the wire in the high treble. And in the high treble the original wire might
be the only wire capable of really sounding good on the piano, since modern
wire is too stiff for the short high treble scale. So we increase speaking
lengths to accommodate modern wire, while a study of the original wire might
result in a conservation or restoration which would be the best way to get at what
the piano truly sounded like. There are enough 7'2" and 8'5"/8'6" instruments
out there still (these two lengths shared a similar design and history); it
would be worth the trouble to get cast steel wire with the physical
characteristics of the period, because we'd likely be astonished at the result with
these instruments.
I inspected an 1860 8'3" flatstrung Steinway which was truly an amazing
instrument. "Truly amazing" doesn't seem to fit most of our experiences with the
typical 7'2" Steinway of 1878 and earlier, but I believe this model was just
that in its original form, and we should try to get at it, try to get at the
real truth of it, before it's lost to history.
I'm not saying Del shouldn't design new soundboards for a few of these, but I
think we've neglected the study of these pianos, and we're running a great
risk of missing out on the unique greatness of these instruments. The original
greatness, as the builder intended. Complete with their design
idiosyncrasies. The convention in Kansas City will have a half-day seminar on piano
conservation (the first two CAUT periods) where I hope we can begin to understand the
work of the conservator as it could impact our trade, and I hope that
continued discussion will result in guidelines which piano technicians may refer to
when dealing with pianos from this earlier period. The best way for the PTG to
do this is to begin to network with professionals in keyboard conservation
(and the American Institute of Conservation, AIS) and the folks with the
American Musical Instrument Society (AMIS), who value historical instruments in their
own right. So the first period will be a lecture by Laurence Libin, who was
keyboard curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art for 33 years and very
active in AMIS. He now has a desk at Steinway and Sons by virtue of his
extraordinary lecturing abilities on the history of the piano; I heard him lecture at
Steinway last May for three hours, and suggest you don't want to miss his 1.5
hour class on conservation at Kansas City.
In the meantime I continue to roam the country for pianos to document and
study (as budget allows), and I welcome the opportunities which come my way to
combine site visits to document early Steinways with chapter programs or all-day
seminars on the early Steinway grand....see www.periodpiano.org Piano
technicians know better than anyone else where the pianos are...and are in the best
position to influence owners, when armed with good information. In February
I will be in Fresno CA to document the same Centennial grand which was used
in Cynthia Adams Hoover's influential monograph, "The Steinways and their
Pianos" (it had been on loan to the Smithsonian when she studied it). Later in
the spring I will inspect the 1857 8' instrument at the Smithsonian which she
also includes in her study. It's time for a second, more extensive look at
these key examples of the scholarship of early Steinways. Hopefully as the
protocols for documentation become more sophisticated we'll have an extensive
database of reliable data which will help us to understand far better what these
pianos are all about.
Bill Shull
Bill Shull
In a message dated 1/17/2007 2:36:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ricb at pianostemmer.no writes:
Hi Del
It would seem to me that raising tension or not on an older instrument
has a natural structual limit of safety. As long as you hold yourself
safely within these boundries I would think one should feel free to do
what one wants.
I am in the middle of an old instrument rebuilding at this time also.
The instrument shows absolutely no sign of pinblock stress from
overloading. No roll, or flexing of the area we'd usually call the
stretcher. Nor do I find any real sign of structural strain in the rim
and bracing. This thing had a total of just over 13000 kilos tension if
modern string specs are used to figure tension. Roughly 29000 lbs. I'm
probably going to increase that slightly to about 14000 kilos and most
of the increase will be coming at the top of the scale. The present top
note #85 is at 48 mm long and it will probably end up around 50.5-51.
Most of the top octave will increase slightly, and a few scattered notes
to even out some humps here and there.
This is also getting a new soundboard and design. The basic design is
the same, but I've introduced some crown into the system using a 3 ply
laminate setup in which crown was establised as part of the lamination
process. Otherwise.... the thing remains very close to the origional.
I'm doing a bit of experimenting with ideas here to be sure... but
essentially I'm hoping to give it a slightly more modern treble that
gradually moves towards the original bass sound (which I have always
liked). The middle ply is thinned so as to take care of the original
thinning of the soundboard as a whole. This also very gradually lessens
the crown and crown strength I've introduced into the treble. With this
I hope to be able to also introduce a bit of downbearing in the upper
regions of the scale. More then likely the thing was pretty much strung
without any downbearing at all. The original rib orientation would offer
little support thus. So a tad more tension... a bit more downbearing
coupled with a bit more stiffness and strength from a panel that shows a
non-linear spring rate...
Well... we'll see how it turns out.
Cheers
RicB
I'm remanufacturing one of the early Type I (85-note, 8' 5") grands
right now.
There was no sign of stretcher/pinblock structural failure. In this
case the
customer and I opted to install a pair of pinblock inserts rather
than remove
the whole assembly and build up a complete new pinblock assembly.
I'm still
debating whether or not to install some type of gap-spacer to help
carry the
load. Once I get the major action parts installed and back in the
case I'll see
how much room is available and decide at that time.
This instrument is getting a complete redesign--new soundboard & rib
design, new
bridges, new scale, new action, etc.--and, based on previous work on
these
instruments, I'm confident the results will be worthwhile. A caution
is in order
here: These pianos originally had relatively low-tensioned string
scales and
they should stay that way. I'm actually removing some tension from
the scale of
the piano I'm currently doing. The piano now has a new tenor/treble
bridge and a
log scale. As a result a significant hump in the middle of the tenor
section has
been smoothed out.
No attempt should be made to make these pianos into modern powerhouse
instruments. Properly redesigned and rebuild they are wonderful
pianofortes.
They cannot be made into fortes.
Del
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070118/d1eeb8c3/attachment.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC