[CAUT] 1850's Pleyel Grand

[Fred Sturm]

Hi Ric,
    I'll just reiterate a bit of the point I was trying to make: it isn't
just the difference in sound produced by the belly and scaling (though that
is very important). It is also the difference in response felt by the
pianist. I find certain tendencies of many who do "action re-design"
following "Stanwood principles" rather disturbing. There is often a
knee-jerk decision to go for, say, a "5.5 action ratio," with a
corresponding decision to go for fairly heavy hammers. The heavy hammers are
chosen because of a prejudice towards "wanting more fundamental" or
something of that sort, and then the ratio tags along since otherwise you
will have too much mass and corresponding inertia. Result: an even vanilla
spectrum of pianos, rather than the variety that used to be so inspiring.
    I am very much in favor of having an array of hammer weight and action
ratio to choose from. I suppose some will say that has to be matched to the
belly and scaling, and probably they are at least somewhat correct. Though I
understand that early (late 19th century) Steinway had heavy board and
scaling with much lighter hammers than today. I don't think there is
anywhere near a complete understanding of the interactions of all these
things.
    At any rate, I am just speaking up for retaining, or at least
considering retaining, high action ratio where it is found. Which does, of
course, mean matching hammer mass to make it work.
    And you say the customer pretty much wants it the way it is, so this
"advice" isn't going to make any difference. But I thought I'd air the ideas
a bit anyway.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico


On 11/27/07 12:58 AM, "Richard Brekne" <ricb at pianostemmer.no> wrote:

> Hi Fred.
> 
> hehe... I'd be delighted to be able to oblige, but in this case its
> already spoken for. But you open for a general discussion on just what
> the sound of these things was and how it came about.  I am, as I have
> stated in a couple other posts completely convinced that we are missing
> very very much in our discussions about rebuilding / soundboard designs
> etc.  Looking into the sound potential of these very low tension
> instruments with actions like the Bluthner Patent and the Viennese
> strikes me as an area with tremendous potential.  Essentially...
> development along these piano building philosophies started to die out
> about the time Steinway started to dominate in the late 1800's... and
> for all practical purposes has died completely out since perhaps about
> 1920 or so. Only a handful of builders are experimenting with any kind
> of sound picture that significantly deviates from the classic Steinway
> sound of today.  Stuart probably the most visible of these.
> 
> There is something about the straight strung idea, with grain going more
> or less in the direction of the modern piano ribbing along with low
> tension that appeals to me... perhaps intuitively.  There seems much
> that could be pursued along these lines that has been either dropped or
> forgotten long ago.
> 
> Soundboard grain perpendicular to the long bridge provides a reasonable
> degree of stiffness and support to any downwards force (ie bending
> stress) from the strings. Ribs across the grain in this configuration
> could be designed pretty much from acoustic needs and not from load
> bearing needs.  If one wanted to provide more strength for higher
> downbearing levels then this configuration allows for there are most
> certainly a few avenues to research.
> 
> This instrument however... will just get what it needs to be tunable and
> playable and nothing more... at least for the present.
> 
> Cheers and thanks for the encouragements
> 
> RicB
> 
> 
>   Hi Ric,
>       If you have second thoughts, send it over here. I'd love to have
>   it. Not
>   sure I could afford the shipping, though <G>.
>       I'll put in a word for retaining the existing action and its various
>   specs, as in ratio and weight (rebuild parts as needed, and
>   replicate hammer
>   weight/denstity). And string it with Pure Sound.
>       I had a wonderful experience with a Pleyel from, I think, the
>   early 20th
>   century, 190-200 cm or so, this past May. Playing on it was a
>   revelation,
>   and I have played on thousands of instruments. I found I was able to
>   simply
>   "sing with my fingers," it was so easy to create subtle expressive
>   shadings.
>   Foreground/background, little crescendos and diminuendos, accents
>   wherever I
>   wanted them. I tried to analyze why (unfortunately I was a tourist, and
>   lacked anything to take any measurements, besides being in the
>   situation of
>   a guest of a family, with very limited time and oppportunity), and
>   came to
>   the tentative conclusion that it was a combination of low hammer weight
>   (strike weight, if you will) and high ratio. Whatever I would
>   normally do on
>   a modern American piano was magnified.
>       At any rate, best of luck in restoring it to glory.
>   Regards,
>   Fred Sturm
>   University of New Mexico
> 
>