Piano Design Question

[Michael Gamble]

Hello Stephen & List
Stephen says (inter alia): Michael suggested a revivalist approach based on 
historical
"fortepianos" (I detect a certain fondness for and familiarity with
English pianos in his postings from sunny sussex). Even though I
think this is a non-starter, other than the lessons that can be
learned by studying a wider spectrum, I would suggest turning to the
late 19th century for guidance on specifics.
My point, which you homed in on, was just as you said above. True I do have 
a fondness etc. for English pianos in all their oddities but I also share, 
it seems, an urge to develop the concept of those 19th.C. grand experiments. 
Once the overstringing became the norm (for whatever reason - usually cost 
and size I suppose) all development in straight - or oblique - stringing 
ceased. My thinking is based on the fore-runner of the frame (plate?) in the 
piano which was so similar to the harp in that the strings were parallel. I 
regularly service several olde grands - amongst them Broadwoods, Erards 
(French!) with their peculiar and usefully engineered under-damper actions, 
and Collard & Collard. This last maker (I am citing No.154652) is probably 
the most advanced in the straight-strung grands and maybe this is the point 
from which modern development could begin.
Over to you
from that sunny Sussex Downland village
Michael G.(UK)
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Birkett" <sbirkett@real.uwaterloo.ca>
To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: Piano Design Question


> Michael:
>>Are we tending toward a modern version of the Fortepiano?
>
> This would make no sense. Historical pianos met the needs  - both musical 
> and societal - of the time they existed. They are what they were and we 
> can't turn back the clock. I believe there's a lot we can learn from them 
> in developing new concepts for what I like to call a post-modern piano, 
> but it would be pointless to try to revive that particular aesthetic (or 
> more accurately those particular aethetics), other than for the purpose of 
> reproducing the musical capabilities for period performance of 
> compositions associated with them.
>
>>The problem with that particular piano has ever been the "hanging on" 
>>since the dampers were totally inefficient by modern standards. That said 
>>Schubert, played on a Fortepiano, is a joy to hear! Schubert obviously 
>>used the defects of these pianos to his advantage.
>
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. These aren't defects. They are 
> exactly the characteristics considered desirable at the time. The end of 
> the sound was just as important as the beginning. To throttle it with 
> highly efficient dampers would have been considered plain crude. Just as 
> we shouldn't try to extrapolate their aesthetics forwards in time to 
> define our piano concept, extrapolating our aesthetics backwards is not 
> valid either.
>
>>But I digress from the subject - that of producing a new piano with its 
>>very own distinctive sound - a sound which is acceptable to modern ears 
>>and sensibilities.
>
> Definitely. This is my objective. And I'm pleased to be living in a time 
> enlightened enough that it makes sense to do this, even commercial sense 
> as we've seen from the mavericks like Del, Ron O, W. Stuart, etc., as well 
> as the countless techs who constantly endeavor to tweak the existing raw 
> material into more desirable states by retrofitting, retro-adjusting, and 
> re-building.
>
> The key here is choice, first and foremost.
>
> Ric:
>>That said, again we are confronted with this matter of what sounds 
>><<best>>.
>
> Michael suggested a revivalist approach based on historical "fortepianos" 
> (I detect a certain fondness for and familiarity with English pianos in 
> his postings from sunny sussex). Even though I think this is a 
> non-starter, other than the lessons that can be learned by studying a 
> wider spectrum, I would suggest turning to the late 19th century for 
> guidance on specifics. The inexorable cross-strung forced march during the 
> last quarter of the 19th century, and total submission to this single 
> design concept during the 20th century, overshadows the hints of other 
> possibilities that existed (like the small rodents in the undergrowth 
> while the dinosaurs roamed). We should turn our attention to the wonderful 
> French straight-strung grands, e.g. Erards of 1900, for guidance. And ask 
> the question which direction would these have taken had they been able to 
> develop through the 20th century. Combine this sort of thinking with 
> sophisticated manufacturing and materials. That's where we're heading with 
> our post-modern piano.
>
>>>.....and I'll admit to a point (and only to a point) that these 
>>>preferences are coloured by fashion, and traditions. Which makes it all 
>>>the more difficult to get at any real meaningfull definitions of what 
>>><<is>> optimal piano sound.
>
> No point in trying to do that. There is no optimal. Aesthetic quality 
> needs to be assessed in a context relative to the ambient culture. In that 
> sense, the 20th century piano met the needs of the time perfectly. It 
> clearly is no longer doing that as well as it did so now we can ask what 
> else we could have. The change in the market conditions, and other 
> external pressures (e.g. electronics), also give impetus to this, now that 
> the entire industry isn't being supported artificially by cheap, 
> mass-produced, living room uprights. This is a good time to try to restore 
> some sort of real variety and real choice into the piano market (not just 
> the same old thing wrapped up and packaged in different boxes with 
> different legs).
>
> Without fashion and tradition we have no drivers and no products, but this 
> causality can be made to work in both directions as any successful 
> entrepreneur will tell you. The trick is to be clever enough to manipulate 
> fashion into ways you consider to be desirable, or, even better, provide 
> such a drop down, knockout, and inexpensive product, with enough clearly 
> evident advantages that can't be ignored, that the market is pulled along 
> for the ride. In other words you teach them what is good for them and then 
> provide it.
>
> Stephen
> -- 
> Dr Stephen Birkett
> Piano Design Lab
> Department of Systems Design Engineering
> University of Waterloo, Waterloo ON Canada N2L 3G1
> tel: 519-888-4567 Ext. 3792
> Lab room E3-3160 Ext. 7115
> mailto: sbirkett[at]real.uwaterloo.ca
> http://real.uwaterloo.ca/~sbirkett
>