[CAUT] 1850's Pleyel Grand

[Fred Sturm]

On Nov 28, 2007, at 8:25 AM, David Love wrote:

> On such a piano I think an argument can be made for very light  
> hammers (and
> soft too) to go with the very low tension scale, which is, I think,  
> mostly
> responsible for the broad color pallete that you have alluded to.  A  
> high
> ratio with a very light hammer will allow you to not only keep the  
> action
> very light but will keep the key dip very shallow which is more in  
> keeping
> with how that piano was designed.
>
> David Love

Just to carry this a wee bit further, the light and soft hammer can  
have quite a bright sound when played hard, because of felt  
compression. I think it is quite possible this may partly explain the  
whole Steinway hammer controversy: those early 20th century hammers  
were (and still are, those that are still around) very soft and pliant  
compared to most modern hammers. Even soft compared to unlacquered  
modern Steinway hammers of recent vintage (before they started dipping  
before shipping). And yet, those hammers are certainly capable of  
brilliance. I had a good bit of experience with an A from the 20's,  
that had sat in an apartment in good climate control for decades. Got  
the verdigris problem under control, and the hammers were quite  
suitable, plenty of color range, plenty of brilliance, even a bit too  
much. (The felt still had enough resiliency, though it was obviously  
not new).
	Those somewhat lighter and quite a bit "softer" hammers were on 15.5  
mm knuckle distance shanks. The modern, heavier ones are on shanks  
with a good bit lower in ratio (with the obvious side effect of the  
inflation in key dip and deflation in hammer blow distance). My theory  
is that the heavier hammers at lower ratios can't be accelerated to  
the same high velocity, hence they dwell on the string longer and  
don't compress as much. Hence they need to be lacquered to obtain that  
brilliance.
	THis whole progression happened over decades, so nobody really  
remembers all the steps. But some of the steps can be deduced, for  
instance from the added lead in keys in mid 20th century. At that  
point, I suspect, heavier hammers had been tried with "favorable  
tonal" results, and the techs just added lead to counterbalance. And  
then it turned out they had a problem with the feel/response/speed of  
the action, so they did a complex fix which is called the accelerated  
action. And then that wasn't enough, so they moved the knuckle and did  
other small geometry changes. Lots and lots of little steps, all  
adding up to where we are today. Which is not a bad place, but  
certainly a different place.
	I am really appreciating the difference this week, as I have a Stein  
copy in the shop for some work. Talk about high ratio, low hammer  
weight! An extreme compared to modern, as was the Cristofori copy in  
KC. All are instruments capable of a great deal of expression.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu