Franz Mohr

[Greg Newell]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
John,
         I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that I have chosen to=20
dismiss Franz Mohr's position. If by that you mean that he could be right=20
and we have done the best that we ever can with our treasured pianos then=20
yeah, I guess you're right. I dismiss that assumption quite handily. If on=
=20
the other hand you believe that I have somehow chosen to belittle Franz=20
Mohr in any way I believe you read something in to my post that was either=
=20
not there or certainly that was not intended. He does indeed have many=20
great stories to share. I simply choose not believe that we have done the=20
best that can ever be done. That seems to me a silly position for any=20
industry and a position that certainly would never have been supported by=20
many of the highly respected forefathers of this industry. There are a=20
great many pianos already in existence I dearly love to hear played and=20
therefor treasure. That's not ever to say that I wouldn't love to hear them=
=20
improved either. I don't consider them sacred.
         I well understand that many are reluctant or not convinced that=20
many of the changes being talked about are worthy of adaptation into=20
mainstream usage. That's fine! I'm not sure anyone wishes to force the=20
issue. Maybe there are those who feel differently as the ongoing=20
discussions have gone quite heated at times. This forum as pointed out many=
=20
times is difficult since people tend to read something in to a post that=20
was not intended in the absence of tonal inflection from the voice or body=
=20
language and the like. I really don't believe any real feelings of=20
hostility exist and I surely hope that they do not. I just hope that more=20
people would leave tradition behind only temporarily for long enough to=20
either try or experience some of these "improvements" for themselves. It=20
would be great, for me included, to hear 2 or more identical pianos side by=
=20
side with traditional implementations and new designs to compare. I'm sure=
=20
that the logistics of this would prove quite difficult indeed.
         In principal, John and list, I refer back to my original post on=20
this subject asking the same questions. Summarized; "if we can do those=20
things and they are better, is there any reason that we should not use=20
them?" I can think of only one and that would be to preserve a museum piece.
         John, you wrote about your concerns as a pianist and also about my=
=20
confidence in dismissing (which I never intended to do) other positions but=
=20
I wonder have you ever experienced any of these changes for yourself? I'm=20
not trying to sell you or anyone on the ideas I'm simply asking if their=20
being rejected out of hand. Have you heard the "Lilacs" CD of Ron Overs=20
instrument with the artist Scott Davie? Even on my less than stellar audio=
=20
equipment I can detect a change from the "normal" instrument.  Not much=20
that I have ever heard has compared to that. Is there any credibility for=20
Dale Erwin's efforts? I certainly think so, though I've yet to hear an=20
instrument of his re-design. He's less attacked than Del or Ron N. or=20
Terry, or David L. If any of these people have redone instruments I would=20
have some amount of confidence that the result would be predictably good.=20
This brings me to another point.
         Each of us has at some point in our lives heard that one piano=20
that just made the hair stand up on the back of our necks. For me it was an=
=20
old M&H BB that had such depth and richness that it really was an emotional=
=20
experience to hear it. What bothers me a bit is that I've never heard=20
another like it. Now I have to ask myself, why? I believe that this=20
question is what drives a lot of this different design implementation. If=20
you found one piano that just reached a part of you that couldn't be=20
reached any other way, as a technically minded individual, wouldn't you=20
want to duplicate it? Would you not also ask yourself why it is that there=
=20
are not hundreds or even thousands of these pianos around that engender the=
=20
same response? Why is it that when one model follows another of precisely=20
the same design off of the factory floor having had the same hands produce=
=20
it from the same materials on the same day do they sound different? Haven't=
=20
you ever wondered about that? I certainly have! Let's further say that the=
=20
first was the one that pulled your heart out of your chest but the second,=
=20
while still a good piano, left a little to be desired in comparison. Let's=
=20
yet further say that you, the owner of the factory, wanted more uniformity.=
=20
I'm guessing that they all do. If you had a way of construction that gave=20
you more predictable results which it seems would also last longer in that=
=20
state would you not seek to incorporate that into your efforts? I can say,=
=20
I believe, with confidence that this is what is driving the design topics=20
you describe as meeting with resistance. Could all of us interested in=20
design chime in and say that they have heard older designs which are=20
beautiful and amazingly satisfying? I just have and I think that such has=20
been amply stated by most others as well. Perhaps much can be set at ease=20
by a change in phraseology. Instead of endeavoring to make the piano=20
better, perhaps for the time being we can agree that we are trying to make=
=20
them uniformly good. Will that take away some of the apprehension and=20
invite at least exploration?

my best to all,
Greg Newell



At 12:53 AM 6/24/2005, you wrote:
>Hi Greg,
>
>As I've always said, if the piano can be made better, then so be it. I am=
=20
>happy there are people experimenting with new ideas, and they should be=20
>encouraged. However, I can answer your question of "Why should anyone of=20
>us be satisfied with what was when we have the capability to do so very=20
>much more?":
>
>There are those, such as myself, that are simply not quick to jump on the=
=20
>bandwagon of change - not because we're inflexible, but because we're=20
>patient and haven't been convinced that the "improvements" being presented=
=20
>are undeniable improvements. Some or many of the changes I've read on the=
=20
>list have not be tested enough against the accumulated knowledge of=20
>musicians and technicians to have any kind of confident stance that the=20
>change is musically better. I myself, as a pianist, have specific concerns=
=20
>for some of these changes.
>
>Experiment away, but with humility and respect for those who love what=20
>presently exists.
>
>I also do not believe you should be dismissing Franz Mohr's position so=20
>*confidently*. Not to suggest he is the wisest of piano people, but=20
>rather, as if you suggest that you know all that he knows and can=20
>therefore judge his error without fear of your own error (what you don't=20
>know can always change your viewpoint!). No one should be arrogantly=20
>assuming that everyone in the piano industry who does not believe in=20
>change is dismiss-able.
>
>In the end, it is undeniable that pianos exist using "old" designs that=20
>are beautiful and amazingly satisfying. If some of the people building new=
=20
>designs would acknowledge this regularly your cause would probably meet=20
>less resistance.
>
>-- John
>
>
>>Horace,
>>         This is all well and good and you are certainly correct in that=
=20
>> there is much art in what we do. Still, the talking heads as you so=20
>> brashly put it, have a great deal to say of some vital importance which=
=20
>> will take the venerable piano well into the future in as much if not=20
>> more of a beloved state than it already is with us. Why should any of us=
=20
>> be "satisfied" with what was when we have the capability to do so very=20
>> much more. This is where I take exception with the honored Franz Moor=20
>> and why I left the meeting when it broke for a gratis dinner given by=20
>> the local dealer. There are, perhaps, things that should be kept and not=
=20
>> fussed with from the by gone era (though I can't think of any of them=20
>> off hand) but where we can make it better why on earth wouldn't we?=20
>> Because of a name plate or decal on the fallboard? Where would Chevy,=20
>> Pontiac, Olds, Ford, Chrysler or Dodge be today if there weren't=20
>> backyard tinkerers or even large shops who thought they could add=20
>> something to the overall product? Wouldn't it be considered a plus if=20
>> soundboard, ribset, bridge placement, and stringing scale were enhanced=
=20
>> so as to offer a product that needed no demonstrable heroics in voicing?=
=20
>> Wouldn't it be considered a plus to have a predictable action setup so=20
>> as to have a reliable touch and speed of repetition that didn't need a=20
>> great deal of tweaking even from the factory delivery? Wouldn't it also=
=20
>> be great to find alternatives and perhaps even better performing=20
>> materials that wouldn't unduly deplete old growth forests raping the=20
>> land of anything for the future? Well, I think you would all agree that=
=20
>> these are positive things. Franz is of an era to be sure. Much of what=20
>> he has to share is entertaining. I have difficulty with the posturing=20
>> that his generation has made an instrument we all cherish the best it=20
>> 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 ...
>
>Greg Newell
>Greg's piano Fort=E9
>mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net=20
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/6b/cb/61/60/attachment.htm

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