Hi, Fred, Spot on. Best. Horace At 02:49 PM 2/11/2011, you wrote: >On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:06 PM, David Love wrote: > >>Agreed that he needs to have things square and mated enough to get >>a good sense of the tonal potential. But I wasn't under the >>impression that was a question mark in this case. > >One person's certainty that things have been done well may not >correspond to another's. I harp on these things because I am >convinced (from checking many, many instruments, often rebuilt and >prepped by quality shops from both coasts and in between, or new >from dealers) that most people don't pay enough attention to them, >and don't have an adequate technique to attend to them in the >precise way they require. So they go about blaming other factors for >the shortcomings of the instrument. And more often than not, if it >is a customer's instrument and I have the opportunity to correct >them, I find that most of those shortcomings go away, not just in my >eyes and ears, but in those of the customer. (Often there is voicing >as well, but it is after these things have been refined). > >Travel/square/mating may or may not be factors in this case. I >wouldn't know without pulling the action and checking myself. So as >a member of a long distance list, I point out things that nobody >else is talking about. Of course, it _could_ be "defective hammers" >(I doubt it), could be something to do with the structure of the >instrument (quite possible), could be expectations that the >particular instrument won't meet. All we can do at a distance is >give our best guess. My point is that until you are absolutely >positive you have laid this foundation well, all other speculation >is premature. >Regards, >Fred Sturm ><mailto:fssturm at unm.edu>fssturm at unm.edu >"I am only interested in music that is better than it can be played." Schnabel
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC