Has it begun again? (long)

[Delwin D Fandrich]

Stephen Birkett wrote:

> . . . .
>
> Must be something in the air...
>
> You guys are quick to jump here, but you both missed my point by 180
> degrees. First, Ron, I heartily agree and was not advocating returning to
> earlier designs. Del and I appear to be in complete agreement on this (for
> once)...the need for continuing *development* or the piano will stagnate.

See?  All ready we disagree.  What do you mean, "will stagnate?"  I'd suggest
that it has pretty much been stagnated for nigh on seven or eight decades now.
As John Steinway once explained to me over lunch, the Steinway company had
perfected the design of the piano by the early thirties and all that remained
for the industry to do was to build them to that design.


> This is after all why we have the modern piano, a response to market
> pressures last century. I am suggesting we need new designs, and should
> use new materials, and new manufacturing techniques, for acoustic pianos,
> in response to new market pressures, to meet the needs of the next
> century. An industry cannot dictate to the market or it will lose it, if
> and when something "more favourable" comes along. The "modern" acoustic
> piano has had an easy ride till now. And there's the problem in a
> nutshell...there should not be a "the" modern piano. We need to make new
> modern pianos never seen before.

Agreed.


> Rob G. wrote:
> > A piano is a piano. A harpsichord is a harpsichord. An organ is an
> > organ. A digital piano is not an accoustic piano. These are different
> > instruments and not interchageable. Are we to encourage kids to learn on
> > a digital because "It's Easier". What did kids do before digitals were
> > invented?
> >
> > If someone wants to learn how to play a piano they had better
> > darn well learn what a piano is. If they want to play a harpsichord,
> > (which uses a completely different technique with no velosity
> > expression, might I add), then they need a harpsichord, not a piano. If
> > they want to learn organ, they need an organ, not a digital piano, etc.
> >
> Rob, I agree on all the differences you note. I would extend it further to
> include early pianos, which require totally different technique also. We
> are talking about the generic "modern" piano in this thread. Why is it to
> be put in a special category, as if its design parameters are etched in
> stone? Even some professional pianists don't like, and some suffer
> injuries from, the physical requirements necessary for playing it.

Again, we agree.  Over the years I've had many pianists -- not all of them with
small hands -- complain to me about the so-called "modern" piano keyboard.  For
one thing, the spread is slightly to wide for many to perform on comfortably.
And, no.  I don't think we should all convert to the 7/8th size keyboard that is
now available.  But I would like to see the overall spread -- i.e., the distance
between the centerlines of A-1 C-88 -- reduced to a standard width of about 1200
mm.

And then there is the amount of key travel required.  A key dip specification of
nearly 11 mm is at the extreme edge of usability.  In thirty plus years of this
work I've never had a pianist complain to me about an action having to little
key dip.  (Assuming that the action is properly regulated and that it has
adequate aftertouch, of course.)  I have had more than a few complain about to
much keydip, however.  Their fingers have to move too far and work too hard --
regardless of the dynamic touchweight -- while playing long and difficult
passages.  Over the years I've come to the conclusion that a keydip of 9 to 9.5
mm is pretty much all the average human hand/finger can tolerate over a
prolonged period of time.  Yes, yes.  I know.  This is less than even the old
"industry standard" of approximately 10 mm.  But that doesn't change the reality
of the design parameters of the human hand.  The industry has not spent a lot of
time asking the actual performers about this issue.  It just cranks out the
pianos and forces the buyer to select the one that is least bad.



> This
> isn't just whining. I've taught enuf young children, to know that they can
> have genuine physical difficulties with the modern piano action...this has
> nothing to do with "easiness" in the laziness sense characterized by you
> and Ron.  Over time it has simply become an ergonomic nightmare. How much
> more action weight can we tolerate?  How much more key dip? Are we not at
> the limit to exceed average human performance, or perhaps beyond the
> reasonable limits for the "amateur" and "learner" markets (the bulk of the
> market share). Should we not listen to what these consumers are saying
> before they go and buy something else?

Few children could afford my rates.  The pianists expressing their concerns to
me were adults, most of whom were quite advanced performers.  More than a few
were professional -- teachers and/or professors, aspiring or performing
"classical" artists, etc.  Playing the "modern" piano for extended periods of
time can be -- is -- quite hard on the human fingers and hands.  It doesn't have
to be that way.  Assuming that the piano is up to the challenge acoustically --
and if it's not, the pianist should be looking for another piano -- the solution
is fairly simple.  It's not a major job to re-balance the action for a lighter,
shorter touch.  (The details of which I've already gone into on this list.  I
also discuss the basic process in my "Action Power" classes.)  It's not rocket
science.  It's not even advanced piano science.


> It would be a fun to design something new.

Yes.  It is.

Regards,

Del