Richard, I am not going to jump too far into this lacquer/fight, as it were, as experience varies, but, in my opinion the need for the use of lacquer in a hammer is, prima facie, an indicator of inadequacy in the hammer and very definitely suggests an inadequcy in the pressing regardless of the felt. The lacquering method has been taken up and posed as a kind of state-of-the-art measure by a very prominent American company whose factory on this side of the pond has used it so. However, I believe this does not lend any extra validity to this technique and, as I have said in another post, what is, to my view (only one man's opinion), a general confusion has developed as to its legitimacy. I see the need for lacquering, particularly when used as anything more than a slight, ancillary effort at hardening just here or there, as a distinct indicator of an inadequate hammer, and I would maintain that the present use of lacquer, and "juicing up" is an aberration without precedent in the American industry and contrary to the historical facts and ordinary practice. On the question of American versus European hammers it seems to me there is evidence, practically on every street corner in the US of extremely high-quality un-lacquered American hammers found in the used pianos all about us as any technician routinely encounters. The preponderance of these hammers suggests that this continent was not the land of lacquer but, rather of non-lacquer. There existence leads me to argue that wholesale lacquering which many contributors here imply is just another, equally useful technique in the armamentarium of technicians did not exist in such a fashion until shortly after WWII and I would not construe it to be anything other than an attempt, for whatever reason, by technicians and the industry to deal with a bad situation which we must all continue to labor under. This situation was the inadequacy of hammers on the part of a prominent manufacturer, its method of dealing with this and the subsequent imprimatur of legitimacy this imparted. Indeed, this foolishness has reached the laughable point of some taking the view and maintaining in public that such methods are sufficiently innovative and worthy that they have been patented, per se, a point I have made before in other posts. Hammer making has suffered, particularly until ten years ago or so, the general decline of quality seen in so much of things related to piano production in the period after WWII. However, I feel like things are now improving as regards availability of even merely acceptable hammers. Personally, I believe great hammers can and have been made from any number of felts and that, all things being equal, the stress and mass distribution will determine the hammers functional usefulness. I am just ordering, taking Dale Ervin's reports to heart on this, so I may be on the verge of learning something new in this regard, a set of the Wurzen felt hammers from Ronsen, and look forward to having them to work with. . The unlacquered Steinway hammer up until just before WWII, and, continuing perhaps, in a somewhat lessened fashion up until the 60's, was, in my opinion, the hammer, par excellance. Culminating in its development in the1880's with a redesign which employed the use of underfelt, a stiffening solution on the shoulder and a smaller shape than used previously, along with the use of the staple a few years before, this was the very paradigm of the modern, high-quality, highly developed American hammer. Lacquer had no part in this or its very numerous imitators. As far as I can tell, this continued in use in a general similar fashion until the period shortly after WWII. From my perspective, it is erroneous to claim, as some have, that lacquer has been a valid technique for a hundred years or so. I don't think this is the case. The use of the stiffening solution in the shoulder is quite different in approach and purpose than the present wholesale use of lacquer. Of course, lacquer itself was not even around a hundred years ago, a petty point perhaps, but pertinent nevertheless. As this hammer did use, I think, for much of this time the Wurzen felt, it is probable in my mind, that its superiority was a function both of the felt and the hammers mechanical characteristic. Nevertheless there were many, many, other hammers with substantially similar capability, although perhaps not quite as great, and, as it is hard to believe they were all Wurzen felt, I believe this suggests their mechanical design and pressing were at least as important a set of factors, as that of the felt, if not more so. The dark, dull sound of the poorly pressed, excessively soft hammer, however pretty in the lower dynamic ranges can never be adequate, for my ear, for a full range of pianistic expression as the midrange and upwards can't be perceived readily enough against the tenor and bass. Neither is the half time or ring time acceptable. Nor can lacquering render the fortissimo levels acceptably or sufficiently stable. This is said with all due respect to the advocates of lacquer - even when they momentarily find a point in its use when the hammer sounds almost great - the prospect of unintended change looms large. Of course such exists in the unlacquer hammer as well, but, in my opinion change does not come as fast nor is as unpredictable. The other side of the coin - the bright and brassy sound consigned to the garbage below postures itself as acceptable on the point of perceptibility but is woefully inadequate on the other, and is, to my mind, equally worthless, but, the public can, at least, hear something from the instrument. High quality piano sound is far removed from the consciousness of the conditioned, harried, busy consumer of today listening to symphonic renditions at the drop of a hat. His piano is just another item among the many, and, as such, does not get the scrutiny his great-grandmother subjected the instrument to when it was all she had to provide entertainment through the long winter evenings years ago. I think the mysterious TP is a previous contributor to the list, who wishes to remain anonymous. Regards to all, Robin Hufford Richard Brekne wrote: > This is a fascinating report from an apparently American source, once > which goes a long way towards explaining a hidden identity thing. You > are basically throwing the whole light and bright sound in the garbage > pile. > > Personally, I remember many folks complaining years ago about overly > bright metallic sounding Japaneese instruments, and remembered how dark > and moody western pianos sounded in comparision.... and as the years > went by how the growing dominance of Yamaha seemed to be changing that > picture.... to the point where I almost never find pianos that come > close to sacrificing any of that bright brilliance for tone. The > accepted <<voice>> has definantly gotten brighter over the years. > > All the more welcome then the apparent return by some hammer makers to > an approach that produced some of those wonderful pianos of yester-year. > > I agree... with the <<substance>> comment below. > > Cheers > > RicB > > Topperpiano@aol.com wrote: > > > Andre, Thanks for your response. I really meant that I just > > group piano hammers in two groups, _needle down_ or _juice up _and in > > no way meant to put words in your mouth. I know there are > > pretty distinct differences between the three in their materials and > > sound but I should have made my statement more clear in that I expect > > German or Asian hammers to be harder and I expect American Steinway > > hammers to be much softer and needing some lacquer to function. I > > don't know if you see many of the smaller American Steinway, Ms and Ls > > over there but they seem to be the ones that come from the factory > > needing the most attention. Most of the larger pianos are coming in > > with more power but in recent months I have hung German produced > > hammers on two very nice B's that were less than 6 months old. The > > buyers just like the sound better and both had already been juiced to > > the extinction of the power. I have on occasion juiced hammers that > > were made in Asia, but only very sparingly on most German brands > > because they already have some in them to begin with. The Steinway > > pianos have already had some lacquer in the factory and /some/ don't > > need any more. But when you start with a new set you have to really do > > some pretty radical manipulation. Part of the problem here in the US > > is that we have a pretty unsophisticated sense of tonal aesthetic. > > Too many Americans have been bombarded with such bad piano sound that > > many do not really have a sense of what good tone is. For so many > > years we have had such badly regulated, poorly voiced American pianos > > of several brands that almost anything that is even to the touch and > > evenly voiced is regarded as wonderful. The escalation of BRIGHT by > > the low end Asian manufacturers has obliterated any sense of tone. > > Just a couple of weeks ago I was asked by a dealer to do some > > voicing to a Chinese piano because it was not BRIGHT enough. In a > > voicing sense of course the problem was not bright but a total lack of > > volume and decay. Many pianists here complain about pianos being not > > bright enough when the problem is not one of timbre but of > > substance. Not that I want you to suffer, Andre but I'll bet that > > faced with a voicing project on a Kimball La Petite you would be > > reduced to tears. A perfect example is the ongoing debate among > > pianists who believe that the Steinway concert grands that are used in > > New York and as station pianos around the country are manufactured in > > a completely different way with better materials and different > > soundboards, actions, hammers, etc. When you try to tell them that > > the only difference is that they have been voiced and regulated they > > are incredulous. Steinway has long maintained that there is no > > difference but many pianists, salespeople and dealers alike just do > > not believe them. I can tell you that they are the one and the same > > instrument. Sure they pick the better of the production to be C&A > > pianos. Every company would want their best foot forward. But the > > reality is that many beautiful Steinway pianos are languishing at the > > dealer level unpurchased because the dealer won't put 7-10 hours into > > them. Rant for today. TP > > _______________________________________________ > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC