Those are all very valid considerations. I wasn't really trying to address the practical side of this. Swapping out hammers is not always reasonable in an institutional setting for a variety of reasons, as you mentioned, and there can be some resistance to working outside the box. In this particular case we've already stepped well outside the box so understanding just exactly what's happening here is important. It may well be the case that changing the hammer in this situation will not do the job and could, in fact, make things worse. If the redesign project was conceived of well in terms of figuring out a good hammer/belly/scale match then that may be the best palette for that instrument. But it may fall short of what you were after and you still might be able to alter it some to get more what you want by a different hammer or different voicing technique. Working with aftermarket parts is tricky in these situations depending on the attitude of the institution. But then I think of those god awful hammers that Steinway was producing in the 1990's, those big fat fluffy cotton balls, and then sometimes as the technician you just have to trust your knowledge and instincts and take a risk to put on what you think will produce the best outcome. Odds are, in many situations, the reason you're there in the first place is because you developed enough of a reputation by virtue of exercising your own judgment so why stop now. To suddenly back away from that out of fear of offending some who might operate under the false belief that, say, manufacturers parts are the only way to get the best outcome, will probably diminish your work and, who knows, you might find yourself out the door anyway. As my old friend from Texas used to always say when we were out and about, "may as well get shot a sheep as a lamb". Of course, he was referring to something else altogether but I won't go there. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com >Apologies, thinking out loud here and have developed two lines of thought >which have now converged. First, color is to some degree voicer dependent, >I believe. Second, the specific interaction between scale, soundboard and >hammer will determine the potential in the palette. Third, the hammer is >the only thing that we can change (at this point) and it may or may not be >the right consistency given our specific goals. Fourth, if we can change it >by voicing or selecting a different hammer we can salvage things and create >a better design match. Fifth, if the belly/scale design is not tolerant of >the hammer consistency needed to achieve the palette we're after we are up a >creek. This is all spot on. The main concern that I continue have in all of these discussions is that, setting aside for the moment all other considerations, it simply isn't always possible, let alone reasonable, to swap out hammers on a given instrument. While I've done so hundreds of times, there have also been hundreds of times when the only option was to work with what was there. It's pretty clear from the comments that have come up on this (and other) lists whenever these topics come up that a number of other technicians have had and/or are having the same experience. Someone, I think it was Brent, noted that as people affiliated with institutional work (in whatever way that might be), in accepting that kind of work we take on a fiduciary responsibility to the institution to, insofar as we reasonably can, leave the inventory in better shape than we found it. From the standpoint of institutional management (which is very different from that of the artist/technician), part of that means that the perceived fungible value of the inventory does not decrease anymore than is absolutely necessary; and, highly preferable, that it increases. Obviously, there is (at least) a potential conflict of interest between these two positions. FWIW, and acknowledging that opinions will vary wildly on this, I have direct knowledge of one situation at a major university in which the specific issue of using non-S&S hammers on S&S pianos not only cost the incumbent technician their job; but, far more importantly (due to the impact on the instructional program of the school), the piano shop was taken away, parts for repair and/or replacement had to be justified and ordered on a per-instrument basis for several years, and there was no budget for sub-contracting any of the work...everything that was done had to be done "in house" and on the clock...hard to do with over 400 programs to tune for each semester. Eventually, everyone seems to have recovered, and the school is now on the road to becoming and "All Steinway" school; but there were a number of years before that recovery was possible to begin to implement. My point in all of this is not that redesign and rebuilding along differing lines should not be encouraged, supported and developed...not at all. Of course it should, otherwise piano design and construction will remain firmly rotting in the 19th Century. However, if the only answer is to rethink and redesign every problem piano, then the vast majority of people who engage in institutional work stand to lose out on the kind of help and support they need to increase their own skills while providing improved support for the inventory for which they are responsible. Most places simply do not have the budget or bandwidth to contemplate very much in the way of minor repairs, let alone major reconstruction. Technicians often have to simply make do with whatever crumbs are left over from a table that is increasingly ill-supplied. It doesn't matter that this is right or wrong. What matters is that it is what it is; and the question is how we can all be of the most help to each other. >It's late. Indeed. Best. Horace
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC