Straight-strung vs. Over-strung

[Anne Beetem]

At 06:39 PM 12/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Anne (after a hard day at the harpsichords) wrote: 
>> First, as is still the case, it gives the advantage of longer strings in
>> less two-dimensional space.   ...
>> 
>Not so, if, by that, you mean the longest bass strings (which maybe you 
>don't mean). If you measure the lengths of cross-strung bass strings vs 
>the lengths they would be if they were parallel to the spine you see the 
>difference is negligible.  It is the equalization of the lowest tenor 
>bridge string and the highest bass bridge string length that is 
>achieved...Henry put that in his patent. 
>

Ah, I was speaking of the little early squares and uprights.  Sorry, I
should have been clearer.  We are talking about the size of the rectangle,
and maximizing the string length within the rectangle.  On those little
squares, proportionately it did make a difference.  

>>  Secondly, an issue before the adoption of the iron frame,
>> cross-stringing helped equalize the tension on the case. 
>>
>Ok. But not an issue for any cross-strung grand, since even the first had 
>an iron frame. See the patent diagram. It was the technical means to make 
>that cross-strung frame that really won him the rights.
>

Again, I was speaking of squares and uprights, for you are right about the
grands.   I was speaking of the history of cross stringing in general.


>>  The
>> first cross-stringings were on small uprights and squares of the 1820's and
>> 1830's.  Henri Pape writes very clearly of this in his 1828 patent regarding
>> one of his pianinos.
>>
>Yup. And even before that there are cross-strung clavichords as early as 
>16th Century (but that's from memory so treat with caution).
>
>>    Cross stringing on grands was not introduced until the 1850's, as Stephen
>> filled in while I was out working today (Somebody's got to get out and fix
>> those harpsichords).   The first overstrung Steinway grand was introduced in
>> 1859.  Again, partly the issue is to allow longer string length in less
space. 
>> ....
>>   Then, as was pointed out, the color of the sound changes because of the
>> changed location of the bass and tenor bridges....
>>
>I think that's actually causally reversed. The original intention was the 
>inversion of the bridges, equalizing the longest tenor and shortest bass 
>strings, and increasing the centrality of the bridges. The stuff on bass 
>strings being longer sneaked in somehow into piano folklore...it isn't 
>even true, as any tape measure will confirm.
>

   Very likely, the causal reversal that is.  Yes, the equalization was
Henry's intent.  For grands. 


>> ... make us a straight strung modern grand and invite us out to play it!
>> 
>That is one much in the forefront of the background of my mind.

I knew it had to be.  We can see it there.

 That 1856 
>s-s piano I mentioned earlier (details of which are one of my owed responses 
>still)...it points the way to a whole genus of modern pianos, the 
>straight-strung modern grand. As with anything else it comes down to 
>money...know any pianistic philanthropists who want a straight strung 
>modern grand? I'll make it.
>


Ah, Stephen, I often tell God that if he would see fit to bringing me
wealth, I will be sure the money goes to good works and supporting artists
in the field.  You're on the list.  

I suppose the odds are against a major piano company sponsoring the experiment. 

Anne


Anne Beetem
Harpsichords & Historic Pianos
2070 Bingham Ct.
Reston, VA  20191
abeetem@wizard.net