On Feb 16, 2011, at 8:49 AM, David Love wrote: > Forgive me if I’m repeating myself, but I think for those rebuilding > the issue isn’t so much whether we can by listening to a piano > identify what it is, rather it’s whether the customer/artist/ > musician when they sit down to something we’ve redone feels that it > falls within a range of what they hoped for/wanted/expected. If by > our own devices we deviate too far from the norm, we’ll hear about > it. In fairness, that may be a positive thing for some, but it > won’t be for everyone and for some it will be a negative. I think I might go a little farther than that, particularly with respect to concert instruments. There is really a base line expectation in terms of power, carry and range for most concert situations of any size at all. A colleague of mine sent a 9 foot off for a remanufacture/redesign of this ilk (elements described by David Love and by me in previous posts), and got back what he described as a very nice 6 foot piano in a 9 foot case. Playing it myself, I had to agree with his assessment. This is not a unique case, as I have heard from a few others, privately, of similar instances. So I think there is a real danger, in pursuing improvements to design, with the best will in the world and based on what seem to be incontestable principles, that the results of the whole may not only fall short of expectations, but actually constitute a step backwards. Regards, Fred Sturm fssturm at unm.edu “Art is not a mirror held up to reality, but a hammer with which to shape it.” Brecht -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20110217/63203175/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC