Richard wrote: "Take the Stanwood modifcations.... each time this is done there is a small Stanwood logo that is supposed to be attached to the fallboard in a discrete but very visable place." Oh, no. I've given some of your past comments about a decal change or some such thing. Now think about the above and use the car analogy: "Hurst Shifter", "Edelbrock Manifold", "Holley Carburator", "Crane Cams", "Dana Gears". I never liked those stickers on muscle cars, and I certainly wouldn't have one (or more) on my piano. I always liked the idea of a "sleeper" muscle car - looks totally normal, but goes like a bat out of he..... I think the general thought is OK, maybe good. But actually putting stickers on a nice piano........ tacky come to mind. Something stamped on the action - OK. Something stamped on the soundboard (underneath) - OK. Just some rambling thoughts. Terry Farrell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Brekne" <Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no> To: <davidlovepianos@earthlink.net>; "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 2:00 PM Subject: Re: Rear Duplex Bars on Steinways: > > > David Love wrote: > > > Forgive me if I see some inherent contradictions in these arguments being > > presented by Ric B and John H. Too much wading through the self indulgent > > verbosity to get to the point in Robin H.'s post, but I'll presume he had > > one. > > > > I really do like Bobs suggestion just posted. > > "Assign only the noblest of motives to your opponent, keep up the debate, and > thank you." > > > > If I may illustrate. Last year I encountered a 1920's Baldwin 9' grand. > > The action had been getting some complaints about weight and was in need of > > rebuilding due to general wear. An analysis of the action put the SBR at > > over 7.0 with accompanying original hammers whose weights made it > > impossible to achieve the kind of balance needed to satisfy the various > > pianists who played on it. I am confident that were this piano in the > > hands of Ric B., that the modifications made and supported by his mentor > > Mr. Stanwood, would have been similar to the ones I deemed necessary. In > > fact, judging from previous posts, I would guess that the SBR would have > > lowered beyond where I put it, an assist spring incorporated, and a hammer > > of even higher strike weight zone been utilized. Clearly a change in > > design from the original, and judging from the way the action was set up, a > > change from the original intent. I don't think Ric B. and other advocates > > of status quo positions would argue that a design change was not in order > > and would have implemented it without hesitation based on their own > > subjective opinion about what feels best. I have no quarrel with that, by > > the way. > > > > I think you will find that David and I do not see eye to eye on a number of key > issues. I dont like assist springs for one, and I am not willing to go to such > high SW levels as he does. And I have issues that I will not discuss here and > now, but perhaps will become apparent soon enough. None of that changes my > respect for him, nor the fact that I consider him a good freind. Certainly I > would allow for a wider range of parameters then I understand you are > comfortable with. But in spite of that its very possible we all three might > have arrived at very similiar solutions. > > As for being an advocate of the status quo. For the life of me I fail to see > how I can be accused of that. I'm so much the opposite of that, that I get into > hot water because I see something that too much resembles a new status quo > simply replacing the old. And what good is that then ? Perhaps I am imagining > that... but hey... I'm human :) > > As I have repeatedly said... I am all for positive change... its just I think > you should take credit for it in a very visable way. Take the Stanwood > modifcations.... each time this is done there is a small Stanwood logo that is > supposed to be attached to the fallboard in a discrete but very visable place. > > > > > Similarly, I recently read several posts by John Hartman demonstrating his > > method of stiffening the key sticks on Steinway and Mason Hamlin pianos > > reducing the flex for purposes of increasing the tonal range. This while > > maintaining the original hammer weights. Are we sure that the design > > intention wasn't to have a certain amount of flex in the key to accompany > > the very light hammers that were on the original and that altering that > > balance might not betray in a very real way the overall design and intent > > as it relates to tone production and feel? To change the stiffness of the > > key sticks while not changing the weight of the hammers might arguably be a > > much greater departure from the original than, say, stiffening the key > > sticks while increasing the hammer weight. > > Good point, much the same as I've been trying to make all along. Tho admitedly > the difference between design change and design improvement can be a bit grey. > > > > > To make the argument that design changes in the action are fine while > > design changes in the belly to achieve similar improvements are an > > egregious abrogation of the the designers intent and an assault of the very > > nature of the instrument itself (a paraphrase for purposes of illustration > > and effect) seems disingenuous and self serving. > > > > How do you two reconcile such a contradiction? > > Seeings how I never made such a contradiction I dont feel I need to... in fact > I would ask the same question you are. For my part a design change is exactly > that. For the most part pretty easy to identify. Of course its easy to find > lots of grey area examples... like changing from Renners to Able hammers or the > like. And the border is also grey when deciding just how much of a design > change is worth takeing credit for as it were. > > But, all in all... the discussion (the topical part anyways) is an interesting > one IMV. > > > David Love > > davidlovepianos@earthlink.net > > > > > > Cheers > RicB > > -- > Richard Brekne > RPT, N.P.T.F. > UiB, Bergen, Norway > mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no > http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html > http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC