Hey Fred, Yours and David's comments are valid and I would like to add my opinionhere about " unexpected side effects" in the institutional setting. I thinkaccountability for the future of the institution's inventory is important and theprobability is high that a Steinway will be in the main hall that you have caredfor up to your retirement will be the tonal legacy you leave for the next guy or gal. When the the new prof is hired just before you leave and he or she just happensto be a Steinway artist have you left a reputable piano in your wake that isdefendable? We need re-designers pushing the envelope, they're smarterthan I am and I do listen carefully to want they have to say, however I thinkinstitutions need a certain amount of tonal continuity that lines up with thegeneral consensus. I inherited an older re-designed Steinway D that sitsin a corner, never used and I am going to re-finish it in green and put aJohn Deere decal on the side
to encourage our wonderful farm communityto attend more concerts.
Brent--- On Thu, 2/17/11, Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu> wrote:
From: Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu>
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway "sound"
To: caut at ptg.org
Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 5:42 PM
On Feb 17, 2011, at 1:37 PM, David Love wrote:
While I agree with this generally and also have experienced the effects first hand I have to add a caution about throwing the baby out with the bath, so to speak.
Yes, absolutely. But I think that for the most part on this list and on pianotech previously, there has been a purely one-sided presentation of these things and thought I should provide a cautionary counter-story. We, as cauts, are in the position of deciding or helping to decide about our concert instruments, whether replacement or rebuilding/remanufacture. It has been stated often, and correctly IMO, that remanufacture is a perfectly acceptable alternative - with the proviso that whoever is doing that work is competent. (One can argue that in any case it is a bit of a crap shoot, as one can't predict outcomes precisely, but let's leave that to the side). Another opinion often stated is that it is especially beneficial to remanufacture with redesign, and the claim or inference is that one will always end up with better than the manufacturer's output, because these redesign elements are based on sound engineering, etc. And all I am saying is it ain't
necessarily so. Maybe sometimes, maybe if it is done by someone who knows how to balance things, but it is also quite possible that the sum of all those "improvements" ends up being a negative. Sometimes, not always. Bottom line, one should look before leaping, investigate references, look personally at previous work, have your own faculty do the same, etc. I am all for experimentation, for challenging assumptions and common practices. But I am also painfully aware that the most logical and consistent model in the world is no substitute for the real world, and it is in the real world that we live. A lot of things look good on paper, sound good as ideas, but don't actually work, or not nearly as well as expected; or they have unexpected side effects.
Regards,Fred Sturmfssturm at unm.eduhttp://www.youtube.com/fredsturm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20110217/2f74be17/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC