[CAUT] Fwd: Steinway sound-Hammer weights

[Horace Greeley]

At 07:06 PM 3/2/2011, you wrote:
>   Yeah, hey Fred
>   All good and salient points. I am keenly aware of all of this but 
> on the other side of this coin,...if too much historical broad 
> brush strokes are applied it tends to keep us from looking at the 
> pianos in front of us and clouds how we make choices on how to best 
> analyze its issues and which intelligent choice best serve the 
> pianist and music as a whole.

Right.

>  After a conversion with Joe Biscellie.Sp? and Ray Negron last 
> year,....they confirmed that the hammers were just fine after the 
> war and really good felt was still available into the 50s & it 
> wasn't a hammer designed as a repository requiring massive doses of anything.

Bisceglie.

Yup...I inherited a number of sets from the period 53 - 54 that were 
still really usable, old stuff.

>   It was Standard co. felt. & it WAS good stuff! That's a 
> fact.  When that was lost and the new felt came into use is when 
> the issues began. Many things changed , all of which I'm not privy 
> to....and don't care. I mean, who can know for sure.

This is a very valid point.

The fact is that, even after the factory moved to piece-work, 
individual employees did things very much their own way...just as 
they had for decades.

I've been reflecting on this, particularly in light of the fact that 
Del and I were both at the factory around the same time; and, it's 
clear to me that we heard very different things from the same 
people.  When I combine that with spending a fair amount of time 
trying to figure these things out, I keep coming back to the (very 
general) conclusion that, even though there have been changes in 
current in the stream, there have also been eddies and backwaters, 
which have either surged ahead of held things back.  It's really only 
possible to paint general pictures of how things have unfolded over 
time.  Too much has been lost.  Too many people have passed on. Too 
little was ever documented to begin with.  Besides, we're all 
curators in a museum...so, we might want to consider thinking that way.

>  Though I take what you say as truly valid, things have changed and 
> evolved, maybe not to our liking, but as my Wife often says,
>   "it is what it is". Get over it.

Hmmm...your wife says that, too?....

>  As many good discussions do, and contrary to popular opinion, I do 
> have an open mind, and do ponder on the stuff that the " brain 
> trust" here pontificates,.... often.  laugh....it was funny!

Brain trust?....Oh...right...that was the joke part...right?

..."...If I only had a brain..."...

Cheers!

Horace


>
>
>Dale S. Erwin
>www.Erwinspiano.com
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu>
>To: caut at ptg.org
>Sent: Wed, Mar 2, 2011 6:19 pm
>Subject: Re: [CAUT] Fwd: Steinway sound-Hammer weights
>
>On Mar 2, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Dale Erwin wrote:
>
>>  I guess the limiting factor in every age is how heavy the action 
>> is and will it give you carpal tunnel.
>
>The driving factor is hammer mass.
>There is a historical progression: Larger hammer mass to drive 
>thicker strings and a heavier belly. This requires a lower ratio, to 
>make it playable by humans. This leads to lower velocity of the 
>hammer, less acceleration, less variation in strength of blow. This 
>means that the hammers have to be denser or stiffer, to produce 
>enough of a tone gradient to be a true piano sound.
>The ratio has continually decreased as hammer weight has increased, 
>with quite a bit of that happening in the 2nd half of the 20th 
>century. Both hammer mass and touch weight have increased over the 
>centuries, together with dip (another aspect of the ratio becoming 
>smaller). And, of course, we still work on pianos that are 50-150 
>years old, many of which were built with lighter hammers and the 
>associated higher ratio and lesser density.
>All of this can be confusing, especially when you consider that it 
>didn't all happen smoothly and evenly. Steinway, for example, 
>increased hammer weight and tried to compensate mostly with key 
>leads, with obvious and continuing negative results. They also 
>resisted changing the relatively soft hammer density, so the voicers 
>ended up inventing and developing the lacquering process (that is my 
>interpretation, not official history).
>In any case, I think it is best to try to see the whole picture, and 
>not look at one particular aspect and call it good or bad without 
>giving it a context. I don't think any one factor, be it hammer 
>density, hammer mass, ratio, or touch weight, should be looked at in 
>isolation, with some parameter called "good." We need to balance 
>factors, always. Yes, I know I am being annoying and picky. I am 
>agreeing with Del in much of this, so at least I have good company. <G>
>Regards,
>Fred Sturm
><mailto:fssturm at unm.edu>fssturm at unm.edu
>"A mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled." Plutarch
>
>
>
>=