---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Hi Greg, Great post! My response actually was less to do with your postings =20 than the things I've heard on the list since I joined a year ago. =20 Intentionally or not, the real impression I get from those interested =20= in new piano designs/methods are basically, "Old - mainly Steinway - =20 bad, new good". Like you (and I'm glad to hear!), I have heard some =20 gorgeous older pianos. Perhaps my explanation for the inconsistencies =20= you mentioned are just human nature - we are approximate beings. =20 Maybe money and work ethic play a roll. But that makes me wonder what the quality of instruments would be =20 like if Ron Overs (or whomever) were producing a high volume. =20 Business can be complicated... I have heard the Rachmaninoff snippets from Ron O.'s web site. In =20 fact, just the other day I listened to them again and his piano is =20 even prettier than I remembered. There is no doubt that Ron is a =20 superb craftsman and technician (and tuner!). I don't take this to =20 mean that change is necessary however. My favourite piano recording =20 is from the late 60s on a Steinway (I've mentioned it before on the =20 list), and it has more depth and complexity to its sound than Ron's. I have never experienced this in person, which is partially why I =20 have very little opinion about the changes themselves. The issue of =20 sustain concerns me a bit (I wrote about that previously), as does =20 the recent discussion about the different pedalling effect that was =20 started with the Dale Erwin thread "Steinway O Redesign" - it may =20 sound nice, but what does it mean for musical interpretation? I =20 already think the majority of professional pianists have little or =20 non-existent pedal technique, what would happen to these pianists if =20 there was even more sound to control?? But I do not really know =20 unless I experience it. In any case, I hope new ideas continue to be explored. I don't know =20 if the piano can be improved without a departure from what makes a =20 piano a piano, and that's why I take the position I do. If all that =20 is being desired is to make pianos consistently sound as good as the =20 best Steinways/M&H/etc., how can I complain? But if we're talking =20 about a big shift that might change the piano as we know it, how can =20 I not complain? I love the piano! - John > John, > I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that I have =20 > chosen to dismiss Franz Mohr's position. If by that you mean that =20 > he could be right and we have done the best that we ever can with =20 > our treasured pianos then yeah, I guess you're right. I dismiss =20 > that assumption quite handily. If on the other hand you believe =20 > that I have somehow chosen to belittle Franz Mohr in any way I =20 > believe you read something in to my post that was either not there =20 > or certainly that was not intended. He does indeed have many great =20 > 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 =20 > any industry and a position that certainly would never have been =20 > supported by many of the highly respected forefathers of this =20 > industry. There are a great many pianos already in existence I =20 > dearly love to hear played and therefor treasure. That's not ever =20 > to say that I wouldn't love to hear them improved either. I don't =20 > consider them sacred. > I well understand that many are reluctant or not convinced =20 > that many of the changes being talked about are worthy of =20 > adaptation into mainstream usage. That's fine! I'm not sure anyone =20 > wishes to force the issue. Maybe there are those who feel =20 > differently as the ongoing discussions have gone quite heated at =20 > times. This forum as pointed out many times is difficult since =20 > people tend to read something in to a post that was not intended in =20= > the absence of tonal inflection from the voice or body language and =20= > the like. I really don't believe any real feelings of hostility =20 > exist and I surely hope that they do not. I just hope that more =20 > people would leave tradition behind only temporarily for long =20 > enough to either try or experience some of these "improvements" for =20= > themselves. It would be great, for me included, to hear 2 or more =20 > identical pianos side by side with traditional implementations and =20 > new designs to compare. I'm sure that the logistics of this would =20 > prove quite difficult indeed. > In principal, John and list, I refer back to my original =20 > post on this subject asking the same questions. Summarized; "if we =20 > can do those things and they are better, is there any reason that =20 > we should not use them?" I can think of only one and that would be =20 > to preserve a museum piece. > John, you wrote about your concerns as a pianist and also =20 > about my confidence in dismissing (which I never intended to do) =20 > other positions but I wonder have you ever experienced any of these =20= > changes for yourself? I'm not trying to sell you or anyone on the =20 > ideas I'm simply asking if their being rejected out of hand. Have =20 > you heard the "Lilacs" CD of Ron Overs instrument with the artist =20 > Scott Davie? Even on my less than stellar audio equipment I can =20 > detect a change from the "normal" instrument. Not much that I have =20= > ever heard has compared to that. Is there any credibility for Dale =20 > 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. =20 > or Terry, or David L. If any of these people have redone =20 > instruments I would have some amount of confidence that the result =20 > would be predictably good. This brings me to another point. > Each of us has at some point in our lives heard that one =20 > piano that just made the hair stand up on the back of our necks. =20 > For me it was an old M&H BB that had such depth and richness that =20 > it really was an emotional experience to hear it. What bothers me a =20= > bit is that I've never heard another like it. Now I have to ask =20 > myself, why? I believe that this question is what drives a lot of =20 > this different design implementation. If you found one piano that =20 > just reached a part of you that couldn't be reached any other way, =20 > as a technically minded individual, wouldn't you want to duplicate =20 > it? Would you not also ask yourself why it is that there are not =20 > hundreds or even thousands of these pianos around that engender the =20= > same response? Why is it that when one model follows another of =20 > precisely the same design off of the factory floor having had the =20 > same hands produce it from the same materials on the same day do =20 > they sound different? Haven't you ever wondered about that? I =20 > certainly have! Let's further say that the first was the one that =20 > pulled your heart out of your chest but the second, while still a =20 > good piano, left a little to be desired in comparison. Let's yet =20 > further say that you, the owner of the factory, wanted more =20 > uniformity. I'm guessing that they all do. If you had a way of =20 > construction that gave you more predictable results which it seems =20 > would also last longer in that state would you not seek to =20 > incorporate that into your efforts? I can say, I believe, with =20 > confidence that this is what is driving the design topics you =20 > describe as meeting with resistance. Could all of us interested in =20 > design chime in and say that they have heard older designs which =20 > are beautiful and amazingly satisfying? I just have and I think =20 > that such has been amply stated by most others as well. Perhaps =20 > much can be set at ease by a change in phraseology. Instead of =20 > endeavoring to make the piano better, perhaps for the time being we =20= > can agree that we are trying to make them uniformly good. Will that =20= > take away some of the apprehension and 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 =20 >> it. I am happy there are people experimenting with new ideas, and =20 >> they should be encouraged. However, I can answer your question of =20 >> "Why should anyone of us be satisfied with what was when we have =20 >> the capability to do so very much more?": >> >> There are those, such as myself, that are simply not quick to jump =20= >> on the bandwagon of change - not because we're inflexible, but =20 >> because we're patient and haven't been convinced that the =20 >> "improvements" being presented are undeniable improvements. Some =20 >> or many of the changes I've read on the list have not be tested =20 >> enough against the accumulated knowledge of musicians and =20 >> technicians to have any kind of confident stance that the change =20 >> is musically better. I myself, as a pianist, have specific =20 >> concerns for some of these changes. >> >> Experiment away, but with humility and respect for those who love =20 >> what presently exists. >> >> I also do not believe you should be dismissing Franz Mohr's =20 >> position so *confidently*. Not to suggest he is the wisest of =20 >> piano people, but rather, as if you suggest that you know all that =20= >> he knows and can therefore judge his error without fear of your =20 >> own error (what you don't know can always change your viewpoint!). =20= >> No one should be arrogantly assuming that everyone in the piano =20 >> industry who does not believe in change is dismiss-able. >> >> In the end, it is undeniable that pianos exist using "old" designs =20= >> that are beautiful and amazingly satisfying. If some of the people =20= >> building new designs would acknowledge this regularly your cause =20 >> would probably meet less resistance. >> >> -- John >> >> >>> Horace, >>> This is all well and good and you are certainly correct =20 >>> in that there is much art in what we do. Still, the talking heads =20= >>> as you so brashly put it, have a great deal to say of some vital =20 >>> importance which will take the venerable piano well into the =20 >>> future in as much if not more of a beloved state than it already =20 >>> is with us. Why should any of us be "satisfied" with what was =20 >>> when we have the capability to do so very much more. This is =20 >>> where I take exception with the honored Franz Moor and why I left =20= >>> the meeting when it broke for a gratis dinner given by the local =20 >>> 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 =20 >>> them off hand) but where we can make it better why on earth =20 >>> wouldn't we? Because of a name plate or decal on the fallboard? =20 >>> Where would Chevy, Pontiac, Olds, Ford, Chrysler or Dodge be =20 >>> today if there weren't backyard tinkerers or even large shops who =20= >>> thought they could add something to the overall product? Wouldn't =20= >>> it be considered a plus if soundboard, ribset, bridge placement, =20 >>> and stringing scale were enhanced so as to offer a product that =20 >>> needed no demonstrable heroics in voicing? Wouldn't it be =20 >>> considered a plus to have a predictable action setup so as to =20 >>> 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 =20 >>> it also be great to find alternatives and perhaps even better =20 >>> performing materials that wouldn't unduly deplete old growth =20 >>> forests raping the land of anything for the future? Well, I think =20= >>> you would all agree that these are positive things. Franz is of =20 >>> an era to be sure. Much of what he has to share is entertaining. =20 >>> I have difficulty with the posturing that his generation has made =20= >>> an instrument we all cherish the best it can ever be. In my mind =20 >>> 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 ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/4d/ab/23/1d/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC