[CAUT] Hu's on first?

[Ed Sutton]

Look at several years of Clavier Companion (magazine for piano teachers). 
Tell me how many articles you find that discuss piano touch and tone, and so 
on as discussed on this list.

Sad to say, but most piano teachers I tune for are in dream world about 
these issues, seen from the view of a piano technician. It is not my 
perogative to educate a nervously arrogant piano professor who has not heard 
of  Malcolm Bilson's DVD "Knowing the Score," for example.

Meanwhile, we are trying to educate ourselves, I hope.

Ed S.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Laurence Libin" <lelibin at optonline.net>
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 9:32 AM
Subject: [CAUT] Hu's on first?


> Who primarily shapes tonal taste: composers, concert performers, 
> instrument builders, the mass market? Fuzzy morning thoughts:
>
> Clearly not composers. Seems to me that instrument builders are the main 
> driving force as they innovate in order to differentiate their products so 
> as to gain market share or just express personal creativity. The market is 
> mostly among amateurs and that's the target most builders aim to please; 
> not many can afford to cater only to the elite.
>
> Pianos are unusual in having quite different models for amateur and 
> professional use (not so for most orchestral instruments, where quality 
> differs more than design), so I guess manufacturers of concert grands pay 
> more attention to artists' desires than do, say, fine violin makers--who 
> regard themselves as artists--or manufacturers of baby grands and 
> uprights. But concert artists also have to balance personal expressive 
> goals with what audiences want to hear. In so-called classical music most 
> people tend to want to hear what they're used to; in youth-oriented 
> popular music tonal novelty is more stressed. This might be one of many 
> reasons why pianos, which have a limited, predictable palette of tonal 
> possibilities (compared to, say, electric guitars and 'keyboards'), aren't 
> featured so much anymore in pop music.
>
> Anyway, pianos and violins are both unusual in having techs who regularly 
> intervene between instrument and player to shape tone after an instrument 
> is put in use. Concert violinists pay serious attention to what their 
> fiddle doctors (who are often also fiddle dealers) say about tone and 
> projection because violinists know they can only guess how their 
> instruments sound from a distance. Concert pianists as a rule are less 
> humble in this regard, and of course they don't generally perform on their 
> own instrument and very few have the luxury of traveling with their own 
> trusted tech. Touring pianists, too, generally prefer what they're used 
> to, and most are used to S&S. (Keep in mind that touch strongly affects 
> perception of tone.)
>
> Especially in academic situations, piano techs should have the opportunity 
> to shape tonal taste by explaining and demonstrating why certain sounds 
> are more or less effective in certain situations and for different 
> repertoires. The more autonomous and authoritative techs are seen to be, 
> and the more collaborative (in the manner of fiddle doctors), the less 
> they'll be disregarded as mere fixers, like the stagehands. Creating that 
> aura isn't easy when you interact with an artist for only a few minutes, 
> but in schools ideally you've got time to build relationships with faculty 
> and students.
>
> Laurence
>
>
>
>
> .......> Should performers rule in how our concert hall pianos sound? 
> Well, as long as they have a choice between more perceived power, control, 
> and timbre change, as you said, then like it or not, they do. (perceived 
> at the bench. Pianists don't seem to care what it might sound like in the 
> hall even if told that it's better out there). After years at the bench 
> this IS their reality) This (performer selection) seems to be what has 
> caused the "homogenized" piano sound Laurence mentioned.
> .........>
>>
>> Respectfully,
>> Jim Busby
>>
>>
>