Piano Design Question

[Farrell]

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ric Brekne" <ricbrek@broadpark.no>
SNIP
> I read with interest Stephens comments about the Steinway lead move 
> towards overstrung pianos as being the greatest marketing coup ever. And 
> while I understand the drift and (I think) the degree to which this is has 
> truth, I simply can not escape the fact that the buying public in such 
> numbers as are neccessary to sustain a market preference for this, and 
> other design features, represents a kind of real and tangeble judgement as 
> to what sounds <<best>>.  Our individual tastes and preferences are one 
> thing, but what the masses of piano buyers evidently prefer are another... 
> and I'll admit to a point (and only to a point) that these preferences are 
> coloured by fashion, and traditions.

Hard to prove one way or another, but IMHO, a lot of it is fashion and what 
famous pianist is playing what piano on-stage, etc., etc. And what choice 
has the piano-buying public had for the past 125+ years? I think most folks 
have their set idea of what a piano "is" and if this new piano ain't it, it 
ain't a piano!

SNIP
> Still, I liked Terrys basic question, and it echos one I ask many times 
> about historic instruments.  Especially in the light of the weakening 
> piano industry, especially in the light that we (as Stephen has pointed 
> out) have arrived at a time when the Steinway sound is indeed being 
> questioned.  Why not try and create something new, break the mold as it 
> were ?
SNIP
> But... for all this to succeed... the public is simply going to have to 
> decide that one piano sound is not really in the end all that 
> interesting.... that piano music has far more potential for expressive 
> interpretation then seems evident today.  Difficult to achieve at best. 
> Strikes me that far far to many listeners... and indeed pianists and 
> musicians themselves are not really all that aware of the bredth of real 
> interepretation that really exists given the present situation.

I'm not sure that I've ever really thought of it that way. But seems to me 
you have quite a point. Think of the instruments so many wonderful classical 
works were written on - pianos without iron frames, etc., etc. - and the, at 
least somewhat, divergent sounds they likely produced.

And then think of the guitar. Professional players often own many different 
guitars because they want different sounds for various musical pieces. The 
amount of variation in sound among different guitar designs is vast - way 
more than any difference between Bluthner and Kawai pianos. Guitar 
manufacturers will make a variety of models - some design differences are 
indeed focused on selling price, but many of them focus on bringing out 
widely divergent sounds. There certainly is minor variation in instrument 
sound among the various piano manufacturers, and I know many piano 
manufacturers build two or more grades of pianos (but those grades are 
strictly focused on price), but is there even one piano manufacturer that 
makes two different models that purposely produce divergent sounds?

If Eddy Van Halen gets up on stage and wants to blow your ears off your 
head, he will likely grab a favorite guitar for that. If he is sitting 
around in a ski lodge trying to serenade his sweetheart with a soft melody 
(would he actually do that?), he would likely pick up a different guitar. 
Are guitar players more evolved than pianists?

Or is it that pianists just don't have a choice?

Terry Farrell

> Cheers
> Richard Brekne
>
>
> Ron Overs writes :
>
> .......................
>
> Since there should be a shortening of the speaking length from the last 
> plain-strung note to the first covered wire, if this break is also 
> positioned at the break between the tenor and bass in an overstrung 
> design, it will yield a good transition and a lowest-possible minimum 
> inharmonicity for a given length of piano. Now I realise that some will 
> argue that we don't want the lowest possible inharmonicity at the 
> crossover. That's OK if that's what one wants, but my preference is for a 
> low inharmonicity scale, and the overstrung layout would seem to allow for 
> this to be taken further than with straight or oblique stringing.
>
> I admit that the overstrung layout also makes a good tonal blend across 
> the break more difficult to achieve, but that doesn't matter provided you 
> are aware of the potential for disaster and position the bridges to 
> achieve a similar stiffness for both bridges at the crossover point. It 
> can be done, though we do see some rather ordinary examples in 
> contemporary and not-so-contemporary designs from time to time.
>
> Ron O.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>