Doug
This is an excellent post from a fellow I was fortunate enough to
benefit from many keen insights in the early 90's whilst I resided a
time in Seattle. I see you are up to your same standard of reflected
thought and commentary. The points you make as to paying attention to
both great pianists wants, and to the type of location...and the need to
find a usable commonality for each situation I found particularly well put.
I'd also have to agree completely with your assessment of present day NY
Steinways. I was greatly privileged to be invited from Europe to join
this years NY Steinway Oberlin Seminar at Oberlin Conservatory of music
and was able to take a very good look at several of the instruments they
had there from all periods of production through the last 100 years.
One of the most enlightening experiences was a side by side comparison
of an older NY D that had recieved a new Steinway style soundboard by
an independent rebuilder in the area, a brand new Hamburg D, and a NY D
from the 80's I believe. Part of the exercise included a significant
change in the halls acoustic made possible by an automatic system of
movable acoustic panels. The NY D that had roughly 30 years on it was
the weakest by far... but both the Hamburg and the rebuilt simply
sizzled with life and exuberance. Each had their own value tho, and
frankly even tho the D from the 80's was weak... it did quite well
indeed depending on the acoustics of the room. Experience with pianists
revealed a wide split as to which was best with no real determinant
consensus. I also had the opportunity to see some selection of other
size instruments from various ages... and found that many of the
criticisms I've heard about NY S&S were rather overstated to put it
mildly. No doubt there have been ups and downs and short commings
through the years... but nothing on the scale I get the sense some
convey in various forums.
I agree entirely also that lacquered hammers vs hammers a'natural
represent two distinctly variant approaches with correspondingly variant
results. The key word being different. I make no value judgment here
other then to state my own well known stance that my personal preference
is for the natural variant. To each their own by all means. As stated
elsewhere, I've come to realize the real world of acceptable piano
sound amoung pianists is far far wider then many piano technicians seem
able to digest or accept.
Beyond all this, your final paragraph sums it up quite nicely indeed.
Cheers
RicB
I agree completely that one should develop a voicing style down pat.
But I'd recommend listening carefully to what the great pianists want
and then adjusting for the circumstances. One certainly doesn't want
a stage piano in a small practice room, but having a related response
character will serve the students better when they do get on stage.
I'd like to point out that from what I hear, even the european
artists are finding that they are pleasantly surprised at the current
NY products. It is essential to remember that the quality of
preparation makes all the difference in pianists' reactions to the
piano (I know I'm preaching to the choir here!), but given comparable
preparation, the artists are starting to realize that the individual
piano characteristics are more important than whether it was built in
Hamburg or NY. This is, I believe, an objective of the company in
their current product development--less difference between NY and
Hamburg. The quality control in NY is way up, and it shows. The
strong preference for Hamburg pianos developed, IMHO, due to the
unfortunate shortcomings in quality control in NY through the 70's
that have been the subject of much work and investment on the part of
Steinway. In an odd sort of way, I actually feel the beneficiary of
some of those issues in that I've been able to see the results of all
sorts of interesting attempts at overcoming them. Many have not
worked particularly well, but when one is desperate enough, well,
y'all know what I mean.
It would be most interesting to find pairs of pianos that go through
hammers at about the same rate and try competing products. That might
actually give us a handle on useful service life. I've always had the
sense that the NY hammer, properly set up, is a bit more durable than
one with minimal or no lacquer. But I have no real data.
Unfortunately, we don't have time even to identify such instrument
pairs here...
I would like to suggest to all that the lacquering of a softer hammer
is in some ways an essentially different approach: it makes a
composite material. There are many composites in our lives these
days, and they present somewhat different design and implementation
needs and opportunities. This is why the NY hammer doesn't really do
very well with voicing techniques appropriate to non-lacquered
hammers, and vice versa. I'd like to suggest that if we could somehow
measure hardness and resilience, and maybe a few other
characteristics, of hammers, we would find quite a lot of similarity
from end results that are tonally similar.
This takes me back to a notion that has served me well: that the
primary goal in setting up a piano is to maximize the available tonal
range. It seems to me that if I work toward having the color change
as much as possible with volume, and exaggerate the shift, most
artists can easily find what they want, and are therefore happy. The
piano can sound quite different from performance to performance, but
that is the artist at work.
Doug Wood
On Sep 15, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Richard Brekne wrote:
> Sounds to me like the Ronsen Wurzen II's are very comparable
to the
> Renner Wurzen II's we get here in Europe. At least Davids
> description fit to a tee. In response to Doug Woods post I'd
like
> to just say that I for one have no doubt Steinway NY gets the
sound
> they want with the hammers <<as is>> they supply. I adhere to
the
> contention that no matter what you do... lacquered hammers will
> always produce a significantly different character then needled
> unlacquered hammers. My personal preference is for the latter.
> That said... to each his own. The comment about S&S catering
to
> the overwhelming majority of pianists in the world is a
curious one
> tho in this context... since apparently a significant if not
> overwhelming majority of these prefer the Hamburg in most
> instances. What that in the end says about hammer voicing
> preferences I'll leave up to the individual to ponder.
>
> As far as Bacon versus Wurzen II. I have to say that I have
run
> into Wurzens II sets that were very very very soft. I'm not
sure
> as to the claims that this has so much to do with the felt
itself
> as to the degree of pressure is used in the pressing. I've
yet to
> see a side by side comparison of these two no doubt fine raw
hammer
> felts ready for pressing to see which is denser from the get
go.
> I'd wager however that either could be made either too hard
to too
> soft for just about anyones tastes.
>
> All this goes back to my origional post on this matter. Get
your
> own voice and voicing style down pat. And select the hammers
that
> YOU prefer working with to get it. It is not IMHO even
remotely
> neccessary to adhere to someone elses idea of what any given
piano
> should sound like. The window for acceptable voicing is
actually
> quite large... which means for every 10 pianists you wow....
there
> are at the very least another 10 who will be less then impressed.
>
> My take.. :)
>
> Cheers
> RicB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC