Pianotech Digest, Vol 1282, Issue 29

[RicB]

If I recall Anne is an enthusiast of old pianos with accent on 
historical value and if this if correct her comments must be seen from 
that perspective.  For myself, I have been round and round on this issue 
and have come to the conclusion that once an instrument type has been 
adequatly archived for historical purposes, there is no particular 
reason or rhyme for attempting to maintain its historical integrity.  It 
just makes no sense.... at least seen as an imperative.  If one wants to 
produce a sound picture that is the partial product of a 120 year old 
soundboard  then by all means do so... but there is no compelling reason 
not to turn it into something completely different either.

Museums will have us relegate old instruments to their care so that 
folks can come and look at them... essentially for the same kinds of 
reasons others would prefer to come and play them...  and for the 
purpose of creating an archive for historical purposes.  I see no reason 
why a musical instrument should be kept only for viewing purposes... it 
looses half its meaning and really only becomes a kind of facsimile of 
an instrument.  Nor do I see why once an instrument type has been 
archived that it needs archiving again.

All things must sooner or later die.  An instrument should go down 
singing... IMHO.

Cheers
RicB


    I seem to recall that Mark Cramer is not on the list, is that
    correct?   While I am impressed with his Wapin experience, and have
    much respect for Tim,  I think Mark needs to think a bit longer
    before putting this on an 1885 Steinway A.  There are more issues to
    consider.  Perhaps he could email me?  

    Anne Beetem Acker
    a.acker at comcast.net