[CAUT] 1850's Pleyel Grand

[David Love]

I think the issue is getting somewhat confused.  The reference had to do
with the original style hammers (and leverage) on this particular piano.
Modernizing things with respect to touch and/or tone is not always
appropriate.  With respect to "Steinway boards" it really depends on which
year and which board.  The older boards responded quite well to very light
hammers, on the order of 6 - 6.5 grams at note 40.  With a light soundboard
and light string scale, that was plenty of hammer to produce quite a wide
range of dynamics.  Putting large hammers on those boards is often a
mistake, in my view.  They will be louder, but not necessarily better.
Whump and whine is what I often hear when someone decides to load up an old
soundboard with a heavy but poorly matched hammer.  Soundboards that are
produced in a similar fashion in terms of weighting with matching string
scales seem to benefit from a similar style (relatively light and soft--but
as Fred says, not too much felt over the core in the treble) hammer.  New
Steinway boards are something else again, somewhat heavier.  The variations
with which they are produced, however, makes it difficult to determine from
a design standpoint just which or which weight hammer might sound best.    

One certainly can go too light, just try putting hammer number 88 down
around C1.  But I don't see that kind of extreme and I don't think that's
what anyone was referring too.  

In general, I think there is a certain logic to all of this: light scale,
light board, light hammer; heavy scale, heavy board, heavy hammer.
Sometimes the simplest view is the best one.  Of course, tastes do vary.  

David Love
davidlovepianos at comcast.net 
www.davidlovepianos.com

-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
Douglas Wood
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 10:14 AM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: Re: [CAUT] 1850's Pleyel Grand

Hi, all. I can't leave this one untouched. I, and several other NW  
techs, have plenty of experience "un-educating" pianos for  
dissatisfied clients. It's quite expensive. I don't want at all to  
get into any bashing or disrespect, BUT hammers that are too light  
produce a very monochromatic tone, actually. Penetrating and  
constricted. At least on Steinway boards. And the actions are  
actually quite a lot of work for a good pianist. They don't help the  
hand in the way that more traditional preparations do. Just because a  
little lighter hammer is often appreciated doesn't mean that a much  
lighter one is also good. As in so many things in our profession,  
there is a range around an optimum, and different folks like things a  
bit different.

For my money, the bigger hammers have more tonal potential, but as  
they get bigger, they get to be too much work.

It's easy to forget how subtle and complex the relationship between  
the hand and the ear is--the one that the piano connects so  
satisfyingly.

Doug Wood


On Nov 28, 2007, at 7:16 AM, Fred Sturm wrote:

> Hi Ric,
> 	It was Fred, not Ed. I should clarify that I am not arguing  
> against David Stanwood's methods, which work for whatever ratio you  
> choose. I am arguing against a tendency to get stuck with some  
> default standard that then gets applied to every piano. I think  
> there is a lot to be said for McMorrow's light hammer arguments,  
> for example. A light hammer propelled at a high ratio will have the  
> potential for a greater tonal spectrum because it can reach greater  
> velocity (more felt compression on impact), and the player can  
> shade the velocity more. Obviously this depends on the player and  
> lots of other factors.
> 	But I would like to see more variety of method, and since the  
> manufacturers seem to be pretty much converging, that leaves it to  
> us techs <g>.
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico
> fssturm at unm.edu
>
> On Nov 28, 2007, at 1:06 AM, Richard Brekne wrote:
>
>> Hi Ed.
>>
>> I agree totally with your points about action re-design using  
>> Stanwood principles. I have made similar comment several times. I  
>> find his methods absolutely superb for balancing an existing  
>> system, and highly recommend the full 9 yards when it comes to  
>> that bit.  But I choose to look at any redesign of the actions  
>> ratio from the actions geometric perspective. There is a lot going  
>> on besides just weight.  The speed of parts seems always to be  
>> totally overlooked in ratio discussions. I also agree with your  
>> points about variety in actions... tho I must confess for most  
>> jobs I opt for a set of top medium SW curve hammers if the ratio  
>> is low enough.
>>
>> Still, I'm very interested in the whole variety of belly and  
>> scaling perspectives available from history.  Everyone today seems  
>> to opt for a grain direction that goes very close to parallel to  
>> the bridge, with the basic idea of the ribs being the support for  
>> downbearing in some sense or another...and hence needing to  
>> themselves be alligned more or less perpendicular to the bridge.   
>> There has been almost no discussion of how alignment of these can  
>> affect stiffness to mass ratio and how that can in turn be used to  
>> approach different tonal desires in different parts of the scale.   
>> Taking that a few large steps further.... I want very much to  
>> understand better how much more radical grain directions were  
>> meant to function...what they were after, what reservations and  
>> compromises they were forced to face. Perhaps there is some worth  
>> following some of these early lines of thinking further down their  
>> respective roads.
>>
>> One thing that goes again and again in these earlier instruments.   
>> They were not meant to be hugely loud affairs. Instruments were  
>> often meant to be far more ... well.. portable in a sense.  By  
>> that I mean that you would expect a piano concert to be in a very  
>> intimate setting with a room in which allowed for a much different  
>> kind of instrument then the modern grand for the music being played.
>>
>> Cheers
>> RicB
>>
>>
>>
>>   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
>>
>
>
>
>