http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtuqjFf7-N4 Let me know if this helps. NE On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Sloane, Benjamin (sloaneba) < sloaneba at ucmail.uc.edu> wrote: > But the greatest thing by far is to be a master of metaphor. It is the one > thing that cannot be learnt by others.1 > - Aristotle > > > Specialism > I am not an expert. If one coerced me to categorize my responsibilities > in the rather arcane occupation of piano technician, however contrary to > previous assertions, I would be reluctant to rigidly designate it to the > activity of a scientist, ad hoc, an acoustician, or engineer, however much > these play a role in the field. This has less to do with what piano > technicians do than with who I am. With all the distractedness of the > dilettante, I always fancied myself much more the Renaissance man, however > pretentious that is, and my profession the field for it. The image of > specialists in lab coats colluding in a basement amidst test tubes respiring > ostentatious expressions privy to their expertise with degree as imprimatur > I would rather abdicate. > “A philosopher,” observes John Ziman, when discussing specialization, “is > a person who knows more and more about less and less, until he knows nothing > about everything… A scientist is a person who knows more and more about less > and less, until he knows everything about nothing.”2 Maybe I am practicing > the wrong career. I don’t know. I am more the intrepid aesthete and the > philosopher than the trepid specialist and critic who impugns the creator, > performer, and musician in light of his own perceived inferiority, > determined to find beauty in everything, particularly, language. > The desecration of language found in specialism subverts the aesthete > from finding beauty in language, however guilty of using it when I write, > and as a piano technician my goal is not to impede beauty in anything. > Language is for the poets, not the specialists. I learn more about piano > technology from Shakespeare than books on piano technology, because I am > here to make the piano sound beautiful, and learn that aesthetic from > artists, not experts in acoustics. > Other translators of Aristotle claim “Aristotle was primarily a > scientist. Almost all of his extant works are scientific treatises,” and go > on to deny that Francis Bacon instead is the foundation for coeval empirical > science.3 I think a distinction must be made, and find that Del’s > contribution for all its merits did not follow Bacon’s model in that it for > the most part did not give the impression that the piano is undergoing a > controlled series of experiments, but has reached a stage of development > where it now has been completed, though I could have got the wrong > impression. I say this because Del seems to think that we need not consider > that the vibrating string on the modern piano of C88 has a larger diameter > than the F1 of a Mozart fortepiano, and it is here that we cannot come to > terms. I cannot categorize sound apart from vibrating strings for this > reason alone. > It is not just the piano industry. This stagnancy in it reflects a trend > Ziman characterized throughout industry in scientific research since WW2. In > his survey of “Specialism and change in scientific careers,” John Ziman > observed in his book Knowing Everything about Nothing a trend since WWII > toward “The collectivization of science.”4 Meeting the expectations for > external forces of all sorts increasingly affects the direction of inquiry > in Research and Development. It is unbelievable that Baldwin actually pulled > off adding the accujust. Ziman concluded: > > Until, say, the Second World War, the majority of scientific research was > carried out in the traditional ‘academic’ style, where each researcher was > free—at least in principle—to undertake any investigation that he or she > thought worth while. In practice, many social considerations might have to > be taken into account in a decision on what research problem to tackle next, > but such decisions were seldom determined by external agencies… One has only > to look into any modern research laboratory, and listen to scientists > talking amongst themselves, to realize that there has been a profound > transformation in the way that scientific work is now organized. Internal > and external forces have combined to ‘collectivize’ the research process… > This very expensive activity is supported by governments and commercial > firms… Whether for good or ill, the fact is that, in Britain as in most > other advanced industrial countries, scientists now work mainly in large > ‘R&D organizations’ or ‘technical systems’ whose goals are set either by > non-scientific bodies such as government departments and boards or directors > of companies, or by high-level scientific bodies such as research councils.5 > > Securing funding for research changes the direction of scientific inquiry. > The institution providing funding might assess a research project and refuse > to support it because of private interest, political motives, or erroneous > conclusions; the scientist then must abandon this approach and go in a > direction soliciting compensation. Spin off guilds create standards that > never would have existed without them. Business majors, now schoolmen as > well, mobilize to manage the experts and create a huge industry.6 Or take > down Baldwin. For the piano industry, this means that the CaUT list consists > of pleas for pianoforte parts, and that every piano constructed by big > business needs 20 tons of string tension to be accepted as a piano. It is no > coincidence that with Steinway the accelerated action and the diaphragmatic > soundboard developed before WW2, and that innovation at the factory ever > since is scorned. Innovation in the piano industry is now reserved for > toolmakers, notwithstanding a few modest changes. > > > Soundboard as Amplifier > Anyhow, the metaphor of soundboard as amplifier works for me, as layman’s > terms or otherwise, for all its weaknesses. This is how Dr. White qualified > it, indicating “The layman will better understand this amplifying function > of the soundboard…” 7 I do not find it unscientific. Take for example the > scientific assertion and metaphor, H2O is water. We could engage in a debate > about whether this is tap water or bottled water for weeks on end. H2O will > not be any less or more water weeks later. Likewise, we could go on and on > about the literal application of amplifier vs. the metaphorical application. > There are things that trouble me about it, one, that a volume knob sometimes > will appear on an amplifier, but it still works because I do not see > metaphors as unscientific, or that what the piano technician says needs to > be. It sounds good. Why do we wish to make it so complicated to interact > with the general public by demanding a rigorous specialized language when > bouncing ideas off one another? > Recently I purchased a cord to connect my MP3 player to my stereo. I > found it to be a weaker device than my phonograph and CD player. However, > the MP3 player has a volume switch. When I turned it up, the music gets > louder, and vice versa. I find that if we seriously entertain the metaphor > of soundboard as amplifier, that this phenomenon of volume adjustment in the > MP3 further interferes with our capacity to make so great a distinction > between the action, as I mentioned before, and sound. > The plate, string diameter, the string tension of the modern piano is all > too much of a transformation in pianoforte construction in the history of > the keyboard for me to discard these as a part of sound. I grant that the > speaker produces the sound, not the MP3 player. However, the measure of > sound the speaker produces is intimately tied to the vibrating string, as > much if not more, than the soundboard. I take the metaphor to indicate > 1. Speaker is String > 2. MP3 player is action > 3. Amplifier is soundboard > Even if we insist on science, how do these metaphors deviate from it? > Because we must interpret amplifier literally? > > 1 Aristotle in McKeon, R., ed., “Poetics,” in The Basic Works of Aristotle. > New York: Random House 1941 1459a > 2 Ziman, John Knowing Everything about Nothing; Specialization and Change > in Scientific Careers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1987 p. v > 3 Apostle, H. G. Aristotle, Selected Works, Third Edition. Grinnell, Iowa: > The Peripatetic Press 1991 pp. 5-21 > 4 Ziman, John Knowing Everything about Nothing; Specialization and Change > in Scientific Careers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1987 Ibid. p. > 23 > 5 Ziman, John Knowing Everything about Nothing; Specialization and Change > in Scientific Careers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1987 Ibid. pp. > 23, 24 > 6 Burell, G. The Management of Expertise. Ed., Harry Scarbrough Great > Britain: Antony Rowe Ltd. 1996 > 7 http://www.steinway.com/technical/soundboard.shtml > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20090516/9ab9a0ce/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC