[CAUT] Hu's on first?

[mario at pianosinsideout.com]

That's an excellent point. But we have to be aware that pianists don't
necessarily want to be more aware of the technical aspects of touch and
tone. All they know is "this works for me" and "this doesn't". It is our job
to correlate that with technical details and engineer a recipe. 

Part of the problem is that a pianist is conditioned from the early age to
be passive about the piano, to adapt to the instrument and acoustical
environment, never the other way around. As a piano student I could never
understand my violin-playing friends who would fuss about the bridge having
slipped that morning (which they fixed), or try to tweak where they stand or
sit on the stage. This is just not the level of control that even enters a
pianist's mind.

Re what shapes tonal taste, is this like taste in cars, for example? Do car
makers react to the demands of the market by making boxier, less wind-drag
efficient cars with ever smaller windows, or does the market simply have no
choice?

Mario Igrec


-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence Libin [mailto:lelibin at optonline.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 9:11 AM
To: Ed Sutton; caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Hu's on first?

How many thoughtful, well-written articles about tone and touch have been
submitted for consideration?
Laurence


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Sutton" <ed440 at mindspring.com>
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Hu's on first?


> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>