Fw: Improving Projection..

[BobDavis88@AOL.COM]

Paul Revenko-Jones writes:

> Dale:
>  I recall how you and Bob put together an octave of different hammers with 
a 
>  pretty even voicing for your classes. 

Hi, Paul, Bob here.

For those who didn't see the class, Dale and I buried one octave of 
miscellaneous hammers in a Steinway grand. Each hammer was from a different 
make of piano, and included Renner, Steinway, Abel, Baldwin, Ronsen, Isaac, 
M&H, Yamaha, Kawai, and I don't remember what else. Some were smaller with 
lead added for mass. Some were doped and some weren't. Some were shaped 
pretty and some were shaped ugly. They were then voiced so that most people 
couldn't find them, or it at least took pretty careful listening. There were 
three points to the demo:

1) The tone of a hammer is not necessarily inherent, but is attributable to 
the mass and elasticity, which are in significant measure adjustable.

2) One parameter can to some degree be substituted for another, i.e., a small 
difference in mass can be countered by an adjustment in the elasticity 
somewhere in the hammer

3) A good voicer can get amazingly similar results out of any hammer. One 
particular make is chosen because it produces the desired tone with the least 
manipulation, which also results in the most stable voicing (easiest to 
maintain). We were not suggesting that "any old hammer will do," but were 
trying to demonstrate the amount of control we can have if we analyze what 
makes the elements of the tone. 

We were trying to get people to think not in terms of "hardness and 
softness," but mass and springiness; to re-distribute the energy of the 
partials and maintain power and slow decay by managing elasticity, instead of 
introducing losses by over-softening to reduce harshness. I was amazed the 
first time I saw someone stick needles in a hammer and make it LOUDER!

Bob Davis