[CAUT] beginning luck

[Horace Greeley]

Hi,

I think Brent has really hit at least one of the proverbial nails on 
the head here when he writes:

"...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."

While I think that it is probably inevitable that musical tastes 
(and, particularly those of pianists) will probably eventually decide 
for something (or, more likely some things, at least for a while) 
different, the simple fact of the matter is that, even after all 
these decades, all the problems, and all the flirtations with other 
manufacturers, the "Steinway sound" (however one chooses to 
understand that) is still the sound of choice for the vast majority 
of active performers.  Are there other manufacturers making competent 
performance instruments?  Of course there are; and there have been 
for a very long time.  Do artists choose to play other 
instruments?  C'mon...verifiable history is replete with custom built 
pianos, concert tours, jazz festivals, etc, etc, etc, in which 
artists do choose to play the pianos of other makers.  However, even 
after all the fights/disagreements/etc that pianists ranging from 
Schnabel to Katchen to Bolet (the list does go on...I've only noted 
people whose interest has passed, as it were) have had with the 
company, the fact remains that most of them...even those 
noted...played most of their concerts and made most of their 
recordings on Steinway pianos.  The change, as it comes, will, I 
suspect, be driven at least as much by people's conception of tone as 
they hear it reproduced through their ear-buds while they listen to 
mp3/mp4/etc recordings from their iPods/Pads as by any other change 
that might occur.

The point here is that, however one chooses to describe it (and, it 
is, after all, a chimera...unique to each hearer), the Steinway sound 
is the sound which is expected by pianists when they sit down at a 
Steinway.  Something which varies too dramatically from this...and 
understandings of that will vary, too...should probably have the 
Steinway name and logos removed before delivery.

In any event, I very much like Brent's concept of complimenting 
whatever design might exist "without alienating the core tonal 
expectations..."; and working in smaller venues while new designs are 
tested more thoroughly to see what does and does not stand up to 
performance needs and expectations.  That is a very wide field of 
tone and response to explore, with tremendous room for variation; 
and, as Brent notes, no one's career or reputation winds up on the line.

Developing things along these kinds of lines sounds to me like 
everyone wins...and that qualifies as a Very Good Thing.

Best.

Horace





At 09:35 PM 2/27/2011, Brent Fischer wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>