I've seen, and been troubled by, this article before. It's quite a mixed bag, with some good points, as well as quite a few howlers and a rather naive attitude to both piano design and the capabilities of modern engineering methods. The author gets the point that design stagnation needs addressing. The basic premise is sound up to a point: >New materials and new analytical tools available >to designers to improve piano quality remain >largely unused. He misses the main point, though, with his judgemental use of the word "improve". Stagnation and conservatism again: >May the day soon come when British audiences >more vociferously demand greater variety and >better piano sound from the far too >conservative, entrenched and introspective >'clan' of venue managers, and artists' agents Definitely worth saying. But, instead, a less provocative appeal for more variety in concert grand piano concepts would be far better. The author's view of the historical development of piano design is jejune, for example: >The massive nine foot six inch Bösendorfer >Imperial dates from the early years of the last >century and has its origins in pianos designed >to withstand the stresses of being played by >Liszt This, of course, is nonsense. On his technical analysis I would take issue with quite a few of the views expressed. Notwithstanding the shortness of the article, it *is intended as a engineering analysis and I find it pretty shallow. Quite a few threads could be started here (or continued, even some of our record-holding threads) around piano attributes and design features that the author inarguably considers to be "improvements". After getting right the need for variety he shoots himself in the foot by overtly pushing some specific ideas while denigrating other more traditional ones. One thing that particularly bothered me about this article is the flavour of holier-than-thou which seems to permeate the prose. I couldn't get away from an impression of "engineer knows best" and "the stupid piano manufacturers should pay attention". Many of the so-called engineering "facts" are arguable, or still open questions. To mention one that rankles, the physicist/engineer vs artist view of hammer/string interaction: >There are only three variables that the >pianist's hands can influence to change piano >sound. These are:- > * the velocity at which the hammer >strikes the string - the loudness: > * the time when the hammer strikes the string: and > * the duration of sound, >determined by when he releases the key allowing >the damper to fall and stop the string vibrating. In other words, the author states one side of the famous three-variable question that has raged periodically from time to time for well over a century, as if it was proven fact. Now I wouldn't presume to answer one way or the other, at least not yet, but there are enough genuine physical factors involved with the dynamics of a mechanical piano action and the interaction between it and the string, that the answer is definitely unclear from simple physical reasoning. To state otherwise is just misleading, or indicates a lack of awareness of the sophistication of action dynamics. It isn't clear which of these applies to the author. He goes on.... >Once the escapement mechanism has operated, the >hammer is in free flight, after which nothing >the artist can then do with his hands has the >slightest influence on the resulting sound ...which obviously overlooks the critically important contributions of action "impacts" to the overall sound of the piano, not to mention the potential for "after-escapement" behaviour by the pianist to influence factors that can affect the sound-scape, or as part of the overall mechanical interaction between the pianist and the instrument (think golf or tennis). The pianist is a lot more than just a finger on the key. The author seems not able to think outside the box, both in his engineering analyses, and reflected in the contradiction between his call for applying modern engineering and materials but limited suggestions that really amount only to tinkering with the existing design. There's also scant consideration given to practical manufacturing and the economics of production, which, in my view, are the *most significant factors that apply to the modern concert piano, and where the greatest potential for "improvement" can be achieved, in tandem with a new design that goes well outside the old box. Despite his "call to arms" to "fix" or "optimize" the moden concert grand, he says things like: >It is difficult to see how mechanical actions may be significantly improved. Go figure. Stephen -- Dr Stephen Birkett Associate Professor Department of Systems Design Engineering University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2L 3G1 E3 Room 3158 tel: 519-888-4567 Ext. 3792 fax: 519-746-4791 PianoTech Lab Room E3-3160 Ext. 7115 mailto: sbirkett[at]real.uwaterloo.ca http://real.uwaterloo.ca/~sbirkett
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC