---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Hi David, Sorry for the delayed reply. I definitely agree with what you're =20 saying - more often than not people become comfortable with what =20 they're used to and resist changing from that - of course that can =20 always work in reverse, if one is used to the "new" piano designs =20 going back to "old" may just be a simple case of resisting change :-) Though I think many performing pianists are used to a variety of =20 pianos with differing sounds - good and bad. It's hard to dismiss a =20 pianists' opinion on a newly designed piano solely on this basis (not =20= that you are). Personally, had I not known there was anything =20 different about the piano in the Overs' recording I would have just =20 thought "Oh, what a nice piano", not "Behold the saviour of stagnant =20 piano design". In the case I was bringing up - my favourite piano recording vs. the =20 Overs recording - I have had surprisingly little experience with =20 Steinways compared to other pianos and I *loved* the quality of that =20 piano long before I knew it was a Steinway. I only bought my Steinway =20= a year ago, and previously was practising on mostly Baldwins for 8 =20 years prior. Something occurred to me though today when considering the re-working =20= of instruments to use new designs. Many pianists who own an ageing =20 instrument or problematic one are delighted when work is done to =20 restore the tone. Is it not possible that the delight of the =20 customers you guys do work for are perhaps delighted because of the =20 quality of work you guys to the piano in general, rather than the =20 changes themselves? Even a properly prepped piano can have a big =20 impact on someone used to non-prepped or poorly functioning pianos. =20 Also, plenty of people are ecstatic to get their old Steinway rebuilt =20= from the factory, to probably what is less quality in workmanship and =20= parts than what their pianos were when new. - John > It seems to me that a lot of what we like is what we are used to. =20 > The =93whump=94 of a Steinway in the mid tenor we learn to identify as = =20 > depth when in reality it may be a belly with ribs that can=92t quite =20= > support the crown or stiffness necessary for that section and a =20 > predictable transition from bass to treble. The pop in the attack =20 > that we learn to look for in the treble may be more to do with the =20 > failure of the killer octave region. But when you are accustomed =20 > to hearing such things on a piano that you identify as the =93cr=E8me =20= > de la cr=E8me=94 then when it=92s missing, it seems like there=92s =20 > something wrong. The difficulty is in wiping the slate clean and =20 > approaching the instrument without bias. As one pianist said to me =20= > the other day (to paraphrase): =93most of what pianists look for is =20= > predictability; as long a what comes out of the piano is what the =20 > pianist thinks will comes out before they play a note, then =20 > everything else can be worked out.=94 Well I think that goes for =20 > what pianists expect within an instrument as well as between =20 > instruments. And if they are used to hearing the same things over =20 > and over, it=92s very difficult to break that pattern of =20 > predictability even if the heretofore unpredictable piano has =20 > better balance, smoother transitions and a better combination of =20 > sustain and power. Change is always an uphill battle. > > > > David Love ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/1a/d8/38/e1/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC