List,
I've followed this thread with interest. David's thoughtful essays,
Brent's bombs pregnant with discussion material (I've hit "send" too soon, too
many times, myself), Fred's always excellent ideas.
For those who haven't seen it, I suggest a look at the most recent (Fall
2010) Acoustic and Digital Piano Buyers Guide, beginning on p. 67,
"Rebuilders' Spotlight: Three Approaches to Piano Restoration"
_http://www.pianobuyer.com/fall10/67.html_ (http://www.pianobuyer.com/fall10/67.html)
As the writer and shameless promoter of the first piece, on Restorative
Conservation, I am frustrated with the ease with which re-designers modify
vintage and antique instruments. I disdain the resulting culture of
near-ritual modification which obscures a manufacturer's signature, and which has
occasionally resulted in immeasurable losses to history. However, I have
great respect for, and truly appreciate the significant contributions of
many of these same people, just as I have those who have helped me to
understand the necessity of preservation.
I appreciate David's "fuzzy line," in the real world many lines are fuzzy,
often the consequence of our best efforts to obtain clarity.
I look forward to catching up with a good number of friends - heretics,
conservators, fuzzy line and not-so-fuzzy line folks at WESTPAC, where I hope
to have an original condition 1866 Erard vertical on display at the Period
Piano Center exhibit. That piano will provide ammunition for every point
of view.
Bill
Bill Shull, RPT, M.Mus.
President, Shull Piano Inc
Director, Period Piano Center
25041 Redlands Blvd
Loma Linda, CA 92354
909 796-4226 bus cell
bdshull at aol.com
_www.shullpiano.com_ (http://www.shullpiano.com/)
_www.periodpianos.org_ (http://www.periodpianos.org/)
In a message dated 2/27/2011 10:33:01 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
davidlovepianos at comcast.net writes:
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_
(mip://09e4ef60/mc/compose?to=fssturm@unm.edu) > wrote:
From: Fred Sturm <_fssturm at unm.edu_
(mip://09e4ef60/mc/compose?to=fssturm@unm.edu) >
Subject: Re: [CAUT] beginning luck
To: _caut at ptg.org_ (mip://09e4ef60/mc/compose?to=caut@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/20110228/eb55a04d/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC