The Good kind of Heavy

[Richard Brekne]

Barbara Richmond wrote:
> 
> Ric,
> 
> I find this curious, not because I can't believe a piano's touch could be
> heavy and good, but because even during my tenure as a university
> technician, I can't recall actually hearing an out and out compliment about
> the touch of a piano when the voicing wasn't considered "desirable".  (OK,
> that could just be a result of my ability as a technician.)   Dang, I wish I
> could've been there to see it, hear it, play it--especially because as a
> music major, I tended to like the heavy touch pianos, myself--or at least
> what I thought were heavy touch, but maybe they just weren't as bright as
> the others.
> 
Well.. I spend a good deal of time talking to the students and faculty
and getting them to understand this <<separation of touch and tone>>
piano techs operate with that pianists usually do not. And comments and
compliments as it were do not come usually unsolicited in these
conextions. I ask :) and often.


> Just curious, what size room is it in?

Its a little practice room...say 8 by 10 feet or so.

> 
> What *were* the comments on the tone--especially in relationship to the
> touch?  Did they really say, "Ric, my man......this piano's tone leaves
> something to be desired, but I really dig the touch!" ??   :-)    Didn't
> anybody say why they liked the heavy touch?  Say, for instance, "I am the
> whole orchestra here, and this piano makes it easier for me to control the
> inner voices!"  [Just for the record, those voices aren't in my head. :-) ]
> 

Long story. Initially this piano was not in use because the previous
tech didnt like it and let it fall apart in hopes they'd junk it. Lots
of broken strings... etc etc. So I started making it useable... I only
have X amount of hours a week to spend on such and we have a lot of
pianos so its been convienient to stretch the gradual upgrading over
time. I started off rock hard, and was played thus for a while, got
reshaped and very needled down to a mush tone, and has hardened up again
a couple times. Each time I make a change I start fishing for comments.


> I guess what it comes down to for me, is it just seems like there should be
> some *result* of the heavy and good touch, high ratio, or whatever, that
> make or made the students love to play it.
> 
> Do tell!   Inquiring minds want to know--even if they are terribly right
> brained  (what, who me?).  AND it will be very interesting to hear the
> comments on the new action!

Well... I still need new whippens... school budjets...sheesh.. and a few
other goodies. It has new hammers, new shanks, new damperfelts, rebushed
keys. All done over 2 years time. At the start I simply evened Strike
Weights and Front Weights to have a point of reference for future
changes to be made. The whole purpose being to seek answers to exactly
these kinds of questions. This one makes my head scratch... as it seems
to break a lot of the rules we generally agree on about touch do's and
dont's.

I have another instrument that has been recieving comments lately of
being heavy in a "bad way" Again... very largely voicing independant...
recently had strikeweights and frontweights evened out to get a 38 gram
balance weight without regard to the existing action ratio. Just evened
out what was. The like the eveness to be sure... but the touch wears
them down. I'll have to pull it and supply you all with the same kind of
data soon. 

Cheers
RicB


> 
> Barbara Richmond, RPT
> somewhere near Peoria, IL
> 
> PS  By the way, if you're ever in a convention class and the instructor
> starts talking numbers in a big way, you'll be able to spot me:  I'll be the
> one whose eyes have rolled back into her head and has passed out on the
> floor.  :-)


I hear you :)... numbers are cool as far as they go... but they dont go
as far as many numbers freaks would have them. I get into trouble all
the time around here because of that...