Since there's no comprehensive, systematic museum of piano artifacts, private collections like Abel's are extremely important. Maybe the PTG could at least assemble a list of such private holdings. Laurence ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Sutton" <ed440 at mindspring.com> To: <caut at ptg.org> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway sound > Richard- > > I understand that Helmut Abel (father & founder of Abel Co.) has a > reference collection of hammers that go back to the late 18th century. He > offers a well-established hammer recovering service. He recovered a set of > 1870's Boesendorfer hammers for me, and also a set of 1880's Mathushek > hammers. I was pleased with the results, but of course never heard those > pianos when they were new. Neither of these pianos are expected to do > heavy-duty stage work, they are parlor instruments. > You might consider a set of light Abel Natural hammers for your > experiment. I have been happy with them in S & S M's. > > Ed S. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <rwest1 at unl.edu> > To: <caut at ptg.org> > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 8:11 AM > Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway sound > > >> Since this thread has bled over into beginning luck, I thought I'd bring >> it back. Now I have some questions. Does it make sense to go back to >> pre-1984 Steinway geometry, find a non-Steinway hammer maker that makes >> hammers like the good ole days (1900-1920) with lighter hammers and no >> juice. Then install these parts in an M or L and recreate the original >> Steinway sound without being worried about over the top requirements of >> a D? (Aside: I haven't like M's or L's very well, and now I'm wondering >> if they've suffered from Steinway D designs that don't apply to the >> smaller instruments. The S model seems to still sound great. I won't >> start on the reintroduced models. That's another thread.) >> >> Several issues arise. Are there original Steinway hammers being made >> out there? What effect does the older geometry have? It certainly >> should require lighter hammers. What role does shank flexibility have >> (I understand that Steinway tapered shanks are more flexible; how >> flexible should a shank be). How light a hammer are we talking about, >> surely not the ultra light hammers that enjoyed popularity a couple >> decades ago. >> >> Richard West >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 28, 2011, at 2:29 AM, Horace Greeley wrote: >> >>> >>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC