Franz Mohr

[Bec and John]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Hi Greg,

As I've always said, if the piano can be made better, then so be it.  
I am happy there are people experimenting with new ideas, and they  
should be encouraged. However, I can answer your question of "Why  
should anyone of us be satisfied with what was when we have the  
capability to do so very much more?":

There are those, such as myself, that are simply not quick to jump on  
the bandwagon of change - not because we're inflexible, but because  
we're patient and haven't been convinced that the "improvements"  
being presented are undeniable improvements. Some or many of the  
changes I've read on the list have not be tested enough against the  
accumulated knowledge of musicians and technicians to have any kind  
of confident stance that the change is musically better. I myself, as  
a pianist, have specific concerns for some of these changes.

Experiment away, but with humility and respect for those who love  
what presently exists.

I also do not believe you should be dismissing Franz Mohr's position  
so *confidently*. Not to suggest he is the wisest of piano people,  
but rather, as if you suggest that you know all that he knows and can  
therefore judge his error without fear of your own error (what you  
don't know can always change your viewpoint!). No one should be  
arrogantly assuming that everyone in the piano industry who does not  
believe in change is dismiss-able.

In the end, it is undeniable that pianos exist using "old" designs  
that are beautiful and amazingly satisfying. If some of the people  
building new designs would acknowledge this regularly your cause  
would probably meet less resistance.

-- John


> Horace,
>         This is all well and good and you are certainly correct in  
> that there is much art in what we do. Still, the talking heads as  
> you so brashly put it, have a great deal to say of some vital  
> importance which will take the venerable piano well into the future  
> in as much if not more of a beloved state than it already is with  
> us. Why should any of us be "satisfied" with what was when we have  
> the capability to do so very much more. This is where I take  
> exception with the honored Franz Moor and why I left the meeting  
> when it broke for a gratis dinner given by the local dealer. There  
> are, perhaps, things that should be kept and not fussed with from  
> the by gone era (though I can't think of any of them off hand) but  
> where we can make it better why on earth wouldn't we? Because of a  
> name plate or decal on the fallboard? Where would Chevy, Pontiac,  
> Olds, Ford, Chrysler or Dodge be today if there weren't backyard  
> tinkerers or even large shops who thought they could add something  
> to the overall product? Wouldn't it be considered a plus if  
> soundboard, ribset, bridge placement, and stringing scale were  
> enhanced so as to offer a product that needed no demonstrable  
> heroics in voicing? Wouldn't it be considered a plus to have a  
> predictable action setup so as to have a reliable touch and speed  
> of repetition that didn't need a great deal of tweaking even from  
> the factory delivery? Wouldn't it also be great to find  
> alternatives and perhaps even better performing materials that  
> wouldn't unduly deplete old growth forests raping the land of  
> anything for the future? Well, I think you would all agree that  
> these are positive things. Franz is of an era to be sure. Much of  
> what he has to share is entertaining. I have difficulty with the  
> posturing that his generation has made an instrument we all cherish  
> the best it can ever be. In my mind improvement is ALWAYS possible  
> and desired.
>
> best,
> Greg
>
> P.S. and not once did I denigrate or call anyone any names ...

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/d7/b9/1e/6b/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--