André, At 04:22 PM 8/27/2004, you wrote: >On 26-aug-04, at 23:12, Ryan Sowers wrote: > >>I'm not talking about *extremely light* actions. I'm talking about *very >>free* actions with low friction. These are two entirely different things. >>You can have low friction and normal downweight. >> >>Bringing up Horowitz's piano confuses the matter by pointing at extremes. >>What does Horowitz's bizarre piano have to do with any of this?? As I >>understand it he also had super strong rep springs and hammers laquered >>up the kazoo. Its not a fair comparison. > >I do not agree. Nor do I. >An extremely light piano offers almost no friction. I am talking about an >instrument playing under 40 grams. >A very-low-friction instrument is similar. Both are like formula 1 racing >cars. If you blow on the keys you'll hear a whistle. Yes. >Your mentioning the rep springs and the lacquered hammers have nothing to >do with it. Light is light, either in weight or because of low friction. >In both cases, the pianist has to be aware of the fact that a gram may >turn into an ounce, or more. Yes. More below. >>I guess its some peoples opinion that a hammer swinging 9 times is *extreme*. >> >>One of Bob's original posts said: >> >>"Here's more detail on the pinning condition: >>The thinnest treble shanks swing in the 5-6 range. >>That's acceptable. The medium thickness shanks >>swing6-8. The bass/tenor s/f swing mostly 8 - 10, some >>7." >> >>I think it's regretable to go through and repin these parts beyond >>evening up the few that stand out from the rest. If they don't wobble >>what's the problem? > >The light pinning is in my opinion not so much the problem. Pianists do >have a problem though if they have trouble feeling let off and drop. Yes...and, some of them want to feel the engagement of the jack tender and drop screw as two separate events, while others will be made crazy by the same sensation. >I personally have in the past often put McLube on anything moving with as >result that the action turned into a machine without any 'feeling'. >That's a problem, and that's what I am talking about. Agreed. >I once worked for a very famous Russian pianist by the name Shura Cherkaski. >He complained about his (my) piano in avery insulting manner, saying that >it was extremely heavy. He demonstrated this by reaching up to my shoulder >and squeezing my shoulder as hard as he was possible. (I should have shot >him right there and then but was afraid to lose my job). Anyway, I sprayed >the action with everything possible, thereby reducing the down weight for >about 10 grams in 2 minutes, after which he happily played his whatever >concerto and moved on to the next sucker. Cherkaski was an interesting fellow to work for. He had very specific requirements which were not always well communicated. He was, for example, much happier with a quite shallow key dip and very limited touch. This, combined with a preference for a somewhat glassy sound, made it difficult to get the piano exactly as he wanted it without making too much trouble for yourself with the very next pianist. (That being said, I did love his playing...even as highly stylized as it seemed to me to be.) >The next day I had to work for Mrs Alicia de la Rocha. She seriously >complained about the very same piano, saying that she was unable to play a >note, because it was way to light without any feeling at all. I had to >scrape off all the lubrication muck, which took me at least hours after >which she still was not happy. Sounds like an all-too-familiar kind of rotation of people coming through. Ms. de la Rocha was from another school of performance altogether. While she also had an increasing preference for brighter pianos (especially later in her career), she really did prefer something that she could "sink into". That seemed to translate into an action with more "feel" too it, overall. She was, you will recall, a specialist in Spanish music; and was immediately aware of repetition issues that many other pianists would not even notice...therefore, she was acutely sensitive to the depth and consistency of touch, especially after-touch. A few minor variations were tolerable. More than a few were simply not. >I do know what I am talking about and I have been around for some time. Understood. >If you like a light playing and friction free piano, that's more than >fine. It does not mean that all piano's should be as light and friction >free as is possible. Precisely the point. >Most pianists (most pianists) like to control their action. To control a >piano action, you need to have a force you put your energy in, otherwise >it's like an aeolian harp hanging in a tree, played by mere wind. The issue of is one of control, or, more precisely, the perception of control. And, this is where the technique, or lack of technique of the pianist becomes a crucial issue. And, it is also where technician so often miss the mark in becoming so wrapped up in reductive analysis that they lose sight of the equally important intuitive perceptions of how a given action/instrument might be. From a certain point of view, it is rather like tuning an L with bad bass strings. Between the odd shape and size of the board, the placement of the bridges, etc., the bottom 6th of those can be pretty difficult. Add in the bad set of bass strings, and there is so much going on - which is to say - so much reductively analyzable data immediately available, that one can get quite turned around. On the other hand, one can approach the same situation from a more wholistic standpoint, and come up with an at least marginally usable instrument. All of which is to say that these issues are matters of perception; and, subsequently, matters of communication. >André Oorebeek > >_______________________________________________ >pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC