Dave, -- On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 08:12:28 David M. Porritt wrote: >Phil: > >The pianos you speak of used to belong to the Steinway, Bechstein, >etc...... companies. When they were finished with them they accepted money >in exchange for the pianos, and now they belong to the current owners. If >the current owners want them "improved" - whatever that may mean to you, me >or them - it is their right to have the "best" piano it can be regardless >of the "heritage." --- Da Vinci gave up title to the Mona Lisa when he sold it to the first buyer. Should that owner have been free to paint on a mustache? After all it's just a painting, not a temple. I don't think so. Apparently, if I get the gist of your argument, you do. There is a difference in our points of view. --- > >I own a 1912 "B" that I am about to finish rebuilding. It is my piano. >Steinway gave up title to that piano 89 years ago. I have put in the >action parts I have chosen (Renner) a sounding board made in Atlanta, GA, >strings made by Mapes etc. It's my piano not Steinway's. When I finish it >I will sell it to someone who appreciates it for what it is now, not what >it used to be. I don't really think I have desecrated it. I think I have >improved it. People who don't think that I've improved it can decline the >opportunity to buy it. It's a piano, not a Temple. --- This all sounds fine. I hope the piano turns out well. I don't object to putting new parts, new soundboards, etc. although some seemed to infer from my post that I did. What I object to is changing the design intent of the original maker. I realize that things deteriorate with time and use. To make them usable instruments, as opposed to museum pieces, they have to be restored. The approach to restoration is what I thought this discussion was about. --- > >If I thought that the right to innovate, experiment, improve (in our >personal view), and modify things in our work was only allowed by early >20th century workers, I'd not be able to get out of bed in the morning. >"What can I improve today" is the only thing that makes the "ding, ding, >ding" of tuning bearable. --- I don't deny anyone's right to innovate or experiment. I encourage it. I just question the propriety of doing it on someone else's design. If you don't think Steinway or whoever did a very good job of building pianos then why don't you build your own piano? Then you can innovate to your heart's content. -- Reading about the things Ron, Del, and others >are doing to further our craft is some of the best reading I do each day. --- I agree. I very much enjoyed reading Ron's response to my original post. I was a little disappointed that I didn't get a scathing reply from Del. That's part of the reason for making the post, so that there can be a discussion. I'm just offering a different opinion. You don't have to agree. I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong. I'm just expressing some things I've been thinking about. --- > > >I hope our craft keeps going ahead! > >dave Me too, although perhaps we have a different definition of what that means. Phil > >*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > >On 7/4/01 at 4:13 AM Phillip L Ford wrote: > >>Bob, >>It's not about brand names it's about makers with integrity. I probably >>should have known better than to use a Steinway as an example. I'm not >>trying to say that Steinway pianos are 'best' or that they should be >>preserved as they are because they are some sort of religious icon. I >>believe that the intent of any piano maker with integrity should be >>respected. The best way I know of to pay that respect is to leave their >>designs alone, whether its Steinway, Bechstein, Boesendorfer, Chickering - >>pick your 'brand'. If I designed and built a piano it would represent my >>idea of what a piano should be. I wouldn't want someone 'improving' that >>after the fact no matter how good a rebuilder he thought himself. >> >>Phil Ford >>-- >> >>On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 15:18:21 >> Robert A. Anderson wrote: >>>About Phil's comments: I personally would like to make the pianos I >>>service sound and play as well as possible. I don't see why I would want >>>to make sure that a piano remained a "Steinway" or any other brand name >>>just for the sake of a supposed authenticity. If I were manufacturing >>>pianos, I can see how I might be inclined in that direction for the sake >>>of marketing. But I'm not, so the notion that changing anything about a >>>piano is bad because it would no longer be what it started out as is not >>>a useful notion to me. >>> >>>Beyond the original design of the piano, which may or may not call for >>>improvement, the actual manufacture of the piano is another thing. It >>>would be a mistake to confuse the plan for a piano with the execution of >>>that plan. I have observed executions (no pun intended) of designs that >>>are pretty grotesque(the executions, I mean). This includes Steinways. >>>This doesn't single out Steinways, but their factory workers are human >>>just like factory workers everywhere. Henry Steinway characterized his >>>factory workers this way (during a strike threat): "Fire them and hire >>>400 other swine." >>> >>>Anyway, as I see it, the bottom line in fine piano restoration shouldn't >>>have anything to do with emotional attachments to "brand names." We all >>>have our institutional prejudices, but they shouldn't interfere with the >>>work we do. >>> >>>Bob Anderson >>>Tucson, AZ >>> >>> >> >> >>Get 250 color business cards for FREE! >>http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/ > > > > >David M. Porritt >dporritt@swbell.net >Meadows School of the Arts >Southern Methodist University >Dallas, TX 75275 > > Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC