Horrible example(s) (flame, offtopic)

Horace Greeley hgreeley@leland.Stanford.EDU
Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:09:25 -0800



Bill,

At 03:03 PM 11/20/97 -0500, you wrote:
>    I simply don't find any useful purpose in revealing every gory detail
>about someon'e inept and/or fraudulent attempt at rebuilding a piano.  A few
>weeks ago, someone was trashing Dr. Floyd Stevens book of some 25 years ago.
>    To uphold the right and privilege to read and savor this kind of
>"information" makes about as much sense and is about as worthwhile as our
>right would be to go digging in a landfill  to find out what someone threw
>out in the garbage. 
>     What can be gained by "analysing the scale"  of a poorly made instrument
>that was so poorly "rebuilt" that it cannot be tuned?  Why does anyone need
>to read about that?

In writing things like tha above, you say significantly more about who you
are and
how you do what you do than you may be aware.

There is always something to be learned from each, and every, source.  This
is particularly
true when dealing with a profession which is not only as young as piano
tuning, but has,
additionally, had so little opportunity for its practitioners to learn how
to separate the
wheat from the inevitable chaff of "instruction" available.  Those of us
who have been involved
in piano work for multiple decades can assure you that what is happening
today is positively
a renaissance in comparison with what could be had even twenty years ago.

We each learn what we can where and how we can learn it.  This means that
Floyd Stevens'
book is on my shelf right along with Braide White, Pfeiffer, Brinsmead,
Wolfenden, and a 
gaggle of others.  It also means that some of us subscribe to lists like
this not only in order
to stay abreast of things we might otherwise miss, but also to try to help
newer technicians
avoid some of the pitfalls which we may have run across.  I may, and do,
disagree with some
of the procedures and techniques presented here.  On the other hand,
learning of them, or
refreshing them in my memory, serve to increase my own knowledge and,
hopefully, 
understanding.

As a case in point of misguided use of knowledge, I was once called into a
fairly rural
setting to do hammer shaping, regulation and voicing on a D.  The local
technician was
to install and travel new parts prior to my arrival so that that time would
not be lost.
Imagine my surprise when, on beginning work and having a great deal of trouble
doing some fine traveling work (the basic work had been very well done), it
was
explained to me that this technician had decided that, as this particular
instrument
had a history of certain kinds of problems, they would (and did) super-glue
in the
flange screws.  Now, I didn't (and don't) mind that a well-intentioned
attempt was 
made to correct a demonstrable problem.  I do mind that this work severely
limited
what it was subsequently possible to do with that instrument.

Now, had this list been available at the time, there is no question but
what the technician
involved would have posed some appropriate question as to the use of a certain
technique, much as some folks have turned to Stevens' book. 

This kind of question seems to have a life of its own.  They keep coming
back, and,
I suppose, serve the valuable purpose of reminding each of us of the first
1000
pianos we tuned, or hammer sets we ruined, or whatever.  None of us were
very good at some certain point.  In trying to get better we've turned to
whatever
resource seemed appropriate at the time.  In terms of quality of content,
Stevens' book is nowhere nearly as egregiously inaccurate, or as poorly
written, as much of the Journal in the pre-Krefting days.  From that
context alone,
it is a work from which one can learn.  To my knowledge, the definitve work on
piano technology has yet to be written; thus, one has not only to move between
sources, but bewilling to take on certain kinds of work for one's self, rather
than just take another's word for thus and so.  How else will you know what
constitutes a poor rebuild on a "poorly made instrument"?  Anything else is
hearsay, and has the same value.

End, for the nonce, of lecture.

Best to all.

Horace


Horace Greeley

Systems Analyst/Engineer
Controller's Office
Stanford University

email: hgreeley@leland.stanford.edu
voice mail: 650.725.9062
fax: 650.725.8014


This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC