Sarah Fox wrote: > > So the point becomes one of where the switch-over occurs between > "curling" and "baseball" modes of piano play. That's really a matter > of how fast one's reflexes are, and how fast the person can *think* > about every nuance of key movement, in order to control it. I submit > that there are very few situations that are fine-controllable in the > way you have described. I must respectfully dissagree... entirely. Some significant degree of these kind of control functions is at the very heart of how fine pianists learn to play. You seem to be mixing up modes of <<thinking>> again. Pianists learn to do these things without <<thinking>> but they go through a process of learning techniques where they in the interim do a lot of thinking about what they are doing. This is the same in any skill or disciplin. You rationally learn to approach the intuitive... if I may put it that way. None of this means these control mechanisms are any less valid. Indeed... the lack of such << fine controlling>> on the part of the pianist reduces the whole exercise of playing to simple note reading. no no no... wayyyyy to much of what pianists tell piano technicians goes in the opposite direction you are going here Sarah. > So I don't disagree with you in principle, only in practice. I submit > that the "phenomenal control" to which you refer is actually quite > garden-variety and, further, that the low friction actions that you > say may benefit those with "phenomenal control" would benefit most > pianists. Finally, I repeat that we've never given these piano > characteristics a fair try. Ric, you say that fly-away actions have > been available for a long time, but how long have we had fly-away > actions with rock-solid rigidity? Now that's another question entirely... There still is no such thing as a fly away action with rock solid rigitidy...grin... where do you get this stuff ?? We cant just make up things as we go along to fit some desirec outcome of a discusion. Nor is it particularilly scientific to simply make claims about what percentage of play fits this or that criteria or description without any more then an opinion picked out of an already biased cubic meter of air.... especially when said claims actually fly in the face of the vast majority of the already assembled data on the subject matter. No matter how interesting some of these reasonings are... they dont become facts on the basis of that <<interestingness>> alone. If they are to become seen as facts.. you simply are going to have to show them as such. Untill that time, I think you will find most technicians will continue to view this friction subject as they do now. Friction is, in the quantities so very very many have alluded to, a desirable element that affords the pianist a significant degree of controll. Thats probably why pianists by and large prefer an instrument set up this way. We circling and circling here however, and it seems like we are not really getting further on in this discussion. The discussion has shown about the same percentages of opinions lining up on both sides of this question as it has for the last hundred or so years.... and I think that really in the end is the real determinant, as it reflects the preferences of a huge statistical majority. Cheers RicB > > Peace, > Sarah >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC