Well, Joe, I think you bring up some interesting ideas If your overriding concern/preference is to preserve or duplicate what is there, then that is a choice that you can properly make. With instruments that are quite elderly and likely to be considered an antique, I am completely reluctant to make any changes in the design of the instrument. Indeed, I do not touch them at all and refer these instruments to the specialists who are trained to take care of them because I fear destroying their value as antiques by making uninformed decisions concerning their restoration. I'm with you so far. Changes in damper system design are part of the evolution of the instrument. The early pianos had primitive damping systems, but also did not require the damping efficiency of modern pianos because they were not as loud or sustaining, and musical ears of that time had different expectations of what damping should be. As the tensions and number of strings increased, as soundboards were steadily improved towards what we would consider modern designs (starting in the last 100 to 130 years), the dampers had a lot more work to do because there was a lot more energy to shut off. And the expectations of the artists changed too. (I would submit that the public had little to do with these preferences, as they were probably as oblivious as they are today). It was the artists who demanded change as the instrument evolved, and the manufacturers responded to their desires with design changes that moved the instrument forward. Let's go back to the trusty old 1902 Steinway upright that I am redesigning the damper system for in my example of before. Is this what we would consider a "modern" piano?. If we are comparing it to a modern K-52, I would submit that it is. Most of the differences between the two lie in the action. The soundboard system and stringing scale are pretty similar. Damping requirements are going to be about the same, if we are holding the two instruments to a single standard of damping efficiency. For me, the old damper system design is not adequate. K-52's are used for low end concert service, and I would submit that musicians would not be satisfied with the older style, and would prefer the modern K-52 damper design because it simply damps better and is more controllable. We need to have that conversation with our customer as to what their expectations for their instrument are. If they prefer that it remain as much like it was as possible, then I would make decisions in my restoration process to best respect that. And that could mean preserving the damper system more or less as it was, except with new felt that duplicates the old. That is clearly what you do, fair enough. But when I discuss with my customers how I can improve the damping of the piano by making modifications, they make the decision to allow me to go ahead. And they are always happy with how much better the damping is, because that is important to them musically. A number of us who do make such modifications DO understand what is going on. It IS an improvement in damping. As for Mason and Hamlin trying to be what it is not, please explain. As for the makers choosing to keep things the same, where does inertia and indifference fit in here? J Will From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Garrett Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:11 AM To: pianotech Subject: [pianotech] re. Changing dampers on a Steinway Upright Frank said: "Consider the tiny little dampers even on concert grands of 100 or so years ago (not to mention square pianos!). It would appear that damping efficiency was not a great priority back then. Of course, we can significantly improve damping efficiency fairly easily, today. As with any design change, consideration must be given to preserving the original design vs. improving performance. I am generally inclined to improve performance unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise." Frank, Most techs are too quick to "change" what they don't understand, IMO. You are somewhat correct, in your assumption "...that damping efficiency was not a great priority back then." I'm sure you are aware that most manufacturers made Overdamper Uprights right beside "modern" uprights. And, "modern" Grands right along side of Square Grands. Have you ever considered WHY? I would submit, to you, Consumer Demand is the reason. It is my supposition that there was a demand for that "Sound", (which I further imagine as a replica of the sound of a previous time, i.e. early 1800's - "just like grandma's piano"!) By the late 1800's the industry KNEW how to make a piano dampen, (in our eyes/ears), properly. They just chose not to make them all the same. (Like so many cookie cutter types of today, I might add!) For some reason, our society, (and the musical society), wants "sameness". Personally, I prefer the wild differ ences of bygone eras. The huge differences of the Grotrians/Steinways/Mason-Hamlins/Pleyels/etc, was what MADE those companies, IMO. Today, we hear a Mason Hamlin that is trying to be something it is not. The same applies to most other manufacturers, as well, IMO. Keeping that in mind, please do not rush to Change what you percieve to be an improvement, unless, it really is an "improvement"! In the case of Square Grands, do not EVER try to install unichord/bichord/trichord dampers! You will create the biggest mess you can possibly imagine. I've had to untangle many of such messes. The same goes for over-damper uprights. Please do not do that?!! IF a client complains about "poor damping" in an instrument, we are quick to rush in and say: "I can fix that"..(by altering the design). Many such re-designs negate any of the character of what WAS that individual piano. Hence, more "cookie cutter crap", IMO. Thanks for listening, Regards, Joe Joe Garrett, R.P.T. Captain of the Tool Police Squares R I -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20110208/fb470135/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC