This seems so given over to hyperbole it's hard to know where to begin. "Abrogated the very nature of the instrument.. ...completely transcending the fundamental nature and design of the instrument, negating its very essence"??? Please. Who is making absolutist claims? The suggested changes are hardly earth shaking and for the most part exist or have existed in whole or in part on various models of the same manufacturer, in this case. Nobody's talking about changing the goal, just finding a better way to insure that the goal is achieved. I think these are legitimate areas of inquiry, many of which have a great deal of research behind them and are not simply empty claims of superiority. Who are you quoting when you say "These methods produce a superior performance" and, "Because we use these methods the performance is superior." I don't recall reading that. Those who do make these types of changes do so with full knowledge of the owners, as far as I know. Recall that the piano is in the shop for such extensive work in the first place because it is not performing up to the level that the owner wants it to. If it were, it wouldn't be there. If the piano is owned by the rebuilder, then they are certainly within their right to make whatever changes they think are necessary. I'm working on a Steinway M at the moment. I'm considering changing the bridge layout by adding a transition bridge in the low tenor to smooth out the change from between tenor and bass and address the awkward scaling as it currently exists. Will it be a Steinway M anymore. Well not exactly, more like a small Steinway A, I hope. Have I abrogated the very nature of the instrument, transcended its fundamental nature and negated its very essence? If I stiffen the belly rail and add a cutoff bar like you see in other Steinway models will have done further damage to its poor soul. I don't think so. It is clear that the bar has been raised very high by the instrument makers of the past and that there are many, as you stated that Phil Ford stated, instruments performing well. There are also many that are not. You can put two pianos of certain manufacturers next to each other that have come off the line back to back and one can be quite good, while the other is not. A design is only as good as it can be executed with some consistency. If the design leads to frequent poor execution and performance then you either have to look at the manufacturing process, the design or both. If a small change in the design can lead to more consistency in the product without changing the nature of the tone (in this case) when the execution was successful, then why would you hesitate to make the change? Posterity? I don't think anybody called the designs deficient. It's a bit of an overstatement. As with all things, there is always room for improvement. Steinway has a history of implementing changes, letting go of poor designs (ringing bridges, teflon bushings) and these changes are often driven by the input of technicians who work with the pianos day in and day out. Should we always wait until the manufacturer comes round to feel comfortable implementing changes that we as technicians become aware of as available improvements. I think most rebuilders operate under the philosophy of the Hippocratic oath: Do no harm. Changes in design are not taken lightly, in my observation, and are not implemented on blind belief as you would suggest. There's no reason to believe that any piano has reached the apex of design and execution. The boutique manufacturers are certainly pushing the envelope with a high percentage or resources being spent in these areas. And I'm glad that they are there if only for that reason. Success breeds complacency, remember Xerox? It's the arrogance of believing that there can be no improvement that often leads to demise. There may be a line that can be crossed where in the remanufacturing of a piano so many changes are made that it genuinely is not that piano any more. But I'm not an absolutist. I think it's perfectly reasonable to make some changes without fear of crossing that line. To be perfectly honest, I'm bothered more by the idea of putting hard German hammers on NY Steinways than I am by changes in the belly work. With similarly due respect to your comments on the trivial and tautological nature of my statement to Ed, I was actually aiming for irony. David Love davidlovepianos@earthlink.net > [Original Message] > From: Robin Hufford <hufford1@airmail.net> > To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>; <davidlovepianos@earthlink.net> > Date: 5/10/2003 10:57:33 PM > Subject: Re: Rear Duplex Bars on Steinways: > > The underlying assumption of the various techniques of the > "redesigners" is what, as far as I can tell, seems to be a completely > unsupported claim to a superior result, something which, if real, all would > applaud. But the only reality that I can see here in this context are words > and ideas only, both of which may well be questioned. What does it mean > when one hears over and over: " These methods and techniques will achieve a > superior result, " and in the next breath, "The results are superior > because we have used these methods." Surely few would concede anything to > such an argument, except, perhaps laughter. > The claimed result may well be superior, I don't know. What I do know > is that there is a very high bar to be overcome in extant, "deficient" > designs. That bar is represented by a known quantity in my experience and, > as near as I can tell, in that of many, many others. This is the very high > quality sound of the many "amazing" pianos to repeat Phil F.'s description > that exist out there inspite of the many "deficiencies" the redesigners > purport to correct. > Similarly, and, again, I ask what does it mean when one hears : > "These methods produce a superior performance" and, again in the same > breath, "Because we use these methods the performance is superior." Again, > what is a known quantity is the ability of many unredesigned instruments, > and instruments in need of attention, to deliver, at the least, some level > of reasonably acceptable performance witness the Horowitz piano recently > commented upon here. I ardently hope I don't have to suffer the outraged > commentary of those whose only contribution will be to loudly state the > obvious: the many possible improvements that can be made in all kinds of > touch and sound by techniques conventional and otherwise. Nevertheless, do > these have to be reached by completely transcending the fundamental nature > and design of the instrument, negating its very essence, so to speak, and > tossing the very thing the owner is likely to have acquired it for in the > first place, and which maintains, rightly or wrongly its value in the > marketplace, out the door? I rather doubt it. > Furthermore, with regard to "performance" it is not likely that the > actual uses of these "deficient designs", etc. etc. over the last 130 years > or so by those who have in reality used them in all kinds public venues and > purposes, actually sweating out the results of real performances, and not > mere design expectations, along with other uses elsewhere, represents an > incomparably stricter, more severe test? Both in number and degree, the > extent of the so-called performance which the Gentlemen of Redesign aim at > by way of comparison to the more conventional designs they so vehemently > assert to have transcended in all respects, can be but an insignificant > fraction of the incidents of succesful usuage of the past in whatever > setting despite the many purported, limiting, "deficiencies" constantly > announced with loud fanfare. > Were I a juror answering a question in the judge's charge to the jury > asking whether numerous redesign aspects had abrogated the very nature of > the instrument itself, by way of Ed's point, and, further, possibly > lessened its value, I in good conscience would have to answer in the > affirmative. Also, with all due respect, the statement below indicating a > preference on the part of Steinway for a lesser sound, seems trivial in > every respect and well demonstrates the circular, tautalogical approach > touched on above. > Now having said all of this I still say - please redesign away -as I > see nothing sacrosanct about the instrument providing the owner agrees, > but leave the absolutist claims to your customers as they may have some > basis upon which to form a belief on them. > Regards, Robin Hufford > David Love wrote: > > > That's an interesting statement. I wonder how Steinway would interpret > > that. In other words, this piano can sound better, but let's leave it > > sounding less good so that it's more like a Steinway. > > > > David Love > > davidlovepianos@earthlink.net > > > > > How far can a Steinway get its sound > > > improved without sounding like something other than a Steinway? > > > Ed Foote RPT > > > www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/ > > > www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC