WOW! Thars music in them words. AWESOME dude! Toads, Princes - too much! I love it! I figured that post by Mr. Ford would hit a nerve or two! Terry Farrell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Nossaman" <RNossaman@KSCABLE.com> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 12:14 AM Subject: Re: Rescaling > > How can an instrument be described as 'better' or 'worse' when it can play > >sounds well enough to bring tears to the eyes and a lump in your > >throat........oh some pianos do it differently than others but if the result > >is the same....... who gives a big rats about whether it is "state of the > >art'??? :-) > >Just some thoughts. > >Jim Bryant (FL) > > Absolutely right Jim, except for the pianos with the same name on the > fallboard, and the same model designation on the plate which bring tears to > your eyes for an entirely different reason than their musical beauty. This > is all well and good when talking about one singular, individual piano > which by a serendipitous accident of cumulative happenstance is a > demonstrably wonderful instrument. How about it's twin that remains a toad > despite the best efforts of the most princely field technicians of the > realm, or the unfortunately wretched sounding piano that the owner raves > about because of the name on the fallboard? The fact that even an old blind > sow occasionally finds an acorn is probably what kept most of us in > business through the early years, but being able to occasionally luck into > a miracle isn't a real comforting sort of philosophy for the long haul. We > endeavor to accumulate education, update our methods and attitudes, admit > our shortcomings with an eye toward overcoming them to the degree we are > able, and generally improving our understanding and our product. How can we > not morally expect the same attitudes and efforts from piano manufacturers? > Insisting that authenticity be maintained in a piano that sounds lousy > enough to be rebuilt, to the extent that it is nearly as authentically > lousy sounding after the fact just doesn't meet the criteria. If the > original designs and methods were all that sacrosanct, shouldn't rigorous > adherence to these designs and methods produce nearly universally wonderful > instruments? So why doesn't it, even by the original owners of these > designs and methods? How many piano models can you name that every > instrument of that brand and model designation was an extraordinarily good > sounding instrument? If not every one, what's the highest percentage, would > you say? How many manufacturers would make the cut? How many model > designations? Clearly, there is more to be learned than infinitely > repeating what has gone before in the hopes of producing, one time, that > extraordinary result. If hoping to get lucky at the same rate the original > manufacturer did is the best we had to hope for, I could probably make more > money and get more job satisfaction with a Roto-Rooter franchise. > > This elusive quality of beauty these multi toothed instruments are capable > of is the whole point of sweating the blood, doing the R&D, pursuing the > education, and trying to improve upon the deficiencies we encounter. We are > closer collectively to understanding how these wee beasties work than we > have ever been strictly because of the tools at our disposal and our > ability to share information and learn from one another. We can surely > appreciate the extraordinary individual instrument of a particular genre > without the unwarranted deification of the entire class, too many of which > don't exhibit particularly desirable musical performance characteristics. A > wonderful sounding Steinway B in a controlled skid is pretty much > indistinguishable from a terrible sounding one in the same situation, but > the differences become apparent when music is attempted on them. > > Just a few thoughts of my own. > > Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC