[CAUT] beginning luck

[David Love]

If I may offer something.  Not to start this entire thread all over again
because I think much that came out of it that was a real benefit and I don't
see a need to start from scratch.  But in the beginning of the discussion it
was said quite explicitly that the so called "redesign" people fall into two
groups (at least).  Group one consists of those who are really after
something altogether different and are employing all the features fully
expecting that what comes out of it will be somewhat, maybe quite, unique
(when compared to the original) in its tonal output.  Group two consists of
those who are employing some or all of those features in modified executions
with the intention not of creating something with a completely different
signature from the original but rather with the hope of enhancing the
existing tonal  signature and remedy some of the "warts", so to speak.  The
point at which those features and their implementation crosses some fuzzy
line (and it is a bit fuzzy) and moves things far enough away from the
original that it morphs into something quite different is not always easy to
determine.  For those in group two, in fact, that is the challenge: to
resolve some of the weaknesses of the original designs without making it
into something not recognizable-your "joining of forces".   There is, of
course, also group three,  which I consider myself to be part of, and that
consist of those who do both depending on the type of project, customer,
specific piano, etc.  Some projects may adhere much more closely to the
original and some might deviate considerably.   

 

I won't speak for Dale but I think I know which group he would probably
place himself in.  I think I know where others who have been involved in
this conversation would place themselves as well.  I don't know who is
claiming to reinvent the wheel but I think it's important not to lump all
"redesign" people in the same category.  It's also important to recognize
that those in group one are quite aware of what they are doing, I believe.
While one may not agree with it or what it produces, the piano world is
replete with pianos that produce varied outcomes and I think the commitment
they are making to their ideas is genuine and honest.  So to disparage  them
by "legend in their own mind" comments because their goals are not in line
with what you imagine to be the a more credible approach is probably not
really worthy of the discussion so far in spite of the heated rhetoric
that's taken place at times.  Personally, I agree that a collaboration with
pianists for concert instruments (or any instrument for that matter) is
always important and for any redesigner or even for one who spends the bulk
of their time rebuilding by more conventional methods, there is always a
danger of working in a vacuum.   Similarly, the commitment of some
manufacturers to maintain the status quo even in the face of countless
reports by technicians in the field of weaknesses or failures can also be
driven by something other than "a joining of forces" and can often be
relegated to mere habit or pride.   The "legends in their own mind"
description may just as well apply here.   

 

David Love

www.davidlovepianos.com

 

From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Brent
Fischer
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:35 PM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] beginning luck

 


Dale, so I hit send before finishing, but I think it's time to move

towards a progressive center of these discussions, about where

redesign fits into the institutional setting without compromising

certain Steinway tonal standards. I can't imagine any dialog  between

a tech and rebuilder/re-designer that doesn't include " I will re-design 

this because my science is better than their experience."  In the 

context of support I think the attitude should bend towards 

how can my design work compliment the factory without alienating

the core tonal expectations that will exist on stage for the 

foreseeable future.  That's the model of collaboration I believe is 

a workable venue that will also in the end not jeopardize anyone's 

job, either employed tech or rebuilder trying to promote a quality project.

 

     What working towards the center for mutual gain means to me 

would be for example,  introducing a re-designed Steinway into

a smaller recital setting, perhaps meant for more ensemble work that

would promote clarity and projection with a palette of color not

usually heard in the larger hall needing an edge. That's the 

disconnect I am talking about here that I have yet to read over

the past weeks including the premise that your redesign should

be within some tolerance of the norm without the ego that says "this is 

the best I've ever heard." Ya, I would say there's some bias when 

it sounds like a few are linked into " A Legend in my own Mind.com." 

How about joining forces with tradition to improve clarity, sustain, and 

power without taking credit for re-inventing the wheel, just improving on
it?

 

Brent


--- On Sun, 2/27/11, Dale Erwin <erwinspiano at aol.com> wrote:


From: Dale Erwin <erwinspiano at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [CAUT] beginning luck
To: caut at ptg.org
Date: Sunday, February 27, 2011, 9:02 PM

  Hey Brent
 Disconnect? What disconnect?  
 I guess I missed that one . So, (this designer/re-designer of a variety of
types of board structures),..... was too busy working at the college.
 Am I pickin up some continuous undercurrent of bias.?

 

Dale S. Erwin
www.Erwinspiano.com




-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Fischer <brent.fischer at yahoo.com>
To: caut at ptg.org
Sent: Sun, Feb 27, 2011 7:26 pm
Subject: Re: [CAUT] beginning luck


Hey Fred, 

 

   It's ironic to me that the same disconnect between "re-designers" and

institutions parallels in much the same way as the Steinway lack of

technical follow up after an "All-Steinway" school has paid a million

for the designation

Brent 

 

 

 


--- On Sun, 2/27/11, Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu> wrote:


From: Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu>
Subject: Re: [CAUT] beginning luck
To: caut at ptg.org
Date: Sunday, February 27, 2011, 2:20 PM

On Feb 26, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Brent Fischer wrote:

>  secondly get to Steinway
> factory sessions often and mostly get to their C&A training in the
basement
> and come away with their endorsement of your work, and leave your
> electronic tuning aid at home when you go.


Hi Brent,
    I think the C & A training (if you mean the final of the four regular
one-week sessions) has changed quite a bit since you went. A couple years
ago when I went, there were four of us in the usual room, and the only real
difference between it and the "tone regulation" session was that we had Bs
and Ds instead of smaller pianos. No work in the basement. I was
disappointed, as I had heard there would only be two students, and there
would be some work with the C & A guys, maybe in the basement. Of course,
since then Kent Webb has taken over the "Academy" so it might have changed
again.
    No need to leave the ETD behind, in fact better not to, as tuning was
done by all four simultaneously, with only flimsy doors dividing us. Oh, and
"their endorsement of your work" is at best informal. It is made clear that
you are not certified by Steinway, though I did actually get a certificate
for the last session. But it said something like "attended the concert prep
session," not even weak wording like "completed." Obviously you can let
people know you did the training, but you are not supposed to imply anything
beyond that. The world changes.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu






 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20110227/85cd8135/attachment-0001.htm>