1 string, 2 strings, 3 strings or more

[Delwin D Fandrich]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment

  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Richard Brekne=20
  To: pianotech@ptg.org=20
  Sent: September 21, 2001 12:13 AM
  Subject: Re: 1 string, 2 strings, 3 strings or more


   =20
  Well... here (in this scaling issue) you seem to think more like the =
technician / engineer... and play up all those incidents of where your =
technical insights coincide with comments you hear from musicians.... =
and you apparently include ..what ... all pianists ?? Re read your lines =
if you will..=20

  I include those musicians with which I have had experience. I can't =
speak for any others.=20



    >>Depends on whether or not those defects of character are audibly=20
    >>offensive to the musician. If they are I see no reason for it to =
carry on >>for another 100 years offending the very folks it's supposed =
to be >>pleasing when a new bridge(s) and some revised scaling can solve =
>>most of the problem.
  This was why I asked for clarification you see.=20

  No, I don't see.=20



  What musicians are we talking about? =20

  As I said above; those with which I had experience.



  And in the Petrof thread you made the point that perhaps we should not =
think like technicians so much.... (read throw away all that technical =
insight) and hear what pianists have to say. Now if I was to do that =
full out.... Petrofs or not... I would have so many conflicting ideas =
swimming around in my head it would ridiculous. (grin.. not that I don't =
already). Seems to me like the situation is reversed now. Seems like =
this time around it is you who are defining what is a "good piano" in =
terms of what is technically sound. That you get some number of =
musicians to agree with any subjective assessment shouldn't suprise =
anyone. Or what ?=20

  Does it come as a surprise to you that technically sound pianos are =
also pianos that sound good? The reason I started looking at the design =
of pianos in the first place was because my clients--musicians--were =
complaining about the tonal performance of their highly regarded S&S =
pianos. And I started thinking about the differences between reputation =
and performance. The two are quite unrelated, you know. Also unrelated =
are selling price and performance. And country of origin and =
performance. And a few other things we've come to accept as gospel in =
the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The things that are =
related are good design and good performance.
   =20

    =20
    > Heck... lots of folks think the Steinway O is a horribly scaled =
piano...=20
    >and by some standards perhaps this is so... but then there are =
folks who >just love this S&S model.=20
    And we are often asked to improve things for the former and we are =
generally not asked to improve things for the latter. It's really the =
owners/musicians choice.=20

  Sorry, you lost me here... what former and latter are we talking =
about... I referred to the Steinway O only in that paragraph...But if =
you meant that you are asked often to improve the Steinway, and not the =
Petrof... well heck... I wouldn't pump a lot of money into a Petrof =
either.=20

  Then you get lost easily. Obviously, if an owner is actually happy =
with his/her Model O they are not going to come to us to have it =
redesigned and remanufactured. And, I wouldn't want them to. I'd send =
them elsewhere, there are lots of really good rebuilders over here who =
do great, traditional rebuilding work. We work with the folks who are =
unhappy with the performance of their Model O's. What is it about this =
that is so hard to understand?=20

  So, you have a well-publicized contempt for Petrof pianos but that =
doesn't mean everyone else in the music world must share that contempt. =
Some people actually like the way they sound, at least they seem to =
prefer it to the hard, linear sound typical of many modern pianos that =
you would probably consider to be superior instruments.=20

  Not everyone can afford a Steinway and sometimes even those poor folks =
would like to have their pianos remanufactured even if--based solely on =
the name glued to the fallboard--they are pathetic excuses for musical =
instruments. And so, while a large part of our work is on S&S pianos, =
quite a lot is also on pianos that many technicians would consider to be =
inferior instruments. It doesn't matter to me. The end performance is =
what is important to me, not the name on the fallboard.



  And as for justification for improving a Steinway.. that seems typical =
enough for high performance products. You see that all the time in any =
branch... and folks what want this kind of customization seem to know =
enough to separate a Porsche from a Polskie Fiat.... tho you do find the =
occasional lotto millionare....:) and everyone knows they are different =
then normal millionares..=20

  I don't consider the Model O--or several other S&S models, for =
that--to be a 'high performance' piano. At least not in its original =
form. I've encountered quite a few off-brand pianos (pianos I rather =
suspect from your expressed attitude you would hold in some contempt) =
with considerably better performance potential than the Model O can =
deliver on its best day. We work on them all and give them the same =
level of effort and work.=20

  So what's your point?

  Del

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/74/5a/9d/cc/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--