Hi, David, I completely concur...he's part of why I gave up on studio work in LA...no point in fighting what had long-since become "the system". Cheers! Horace At 02:53 PM 2/13/2011, you wrote: > > Hi, David, > > > > Hmmm...as long as you and I have been at this, and as hard as > we've worked, we'll be lucky to live to be 90...let alone still be > "tuning" then. > > > Best. > > > > Horace > >Totally agree with the sentiment; God bless him as a human being and >sweet, charming old man; but don't get me started about this guy and >his "just needs tuning" litany; frankly, he has poisoned the well of >piano maintenance---normal, regular service beyond tuning for >recording pianos---for 60 years in L.A. Except for certain movie >studios, which had a tradition of tapping full-service, wonderful >technicians like Norman Neblett, the rest of Los Angeles' studio >community has been infected by the willful ignorance of this >man---who was too insecure to outsource regulation, voicing, repair >and rebuilding, so his stance was "Hey---these are magic boxes, not >machines. They just need to be kept in good tune. Everything else is >unnecessary icing on the cake." > >'Nuff said. Rant over. I guess maybe I need to remember the Thumper Principle. > >Best, > >DA > > > > > > > > > At 07:00 PM 2/12/2011, you wrote: > >> Wow---I maintained that piano, I believe, for three or four > years sometime in the last decade (2003-2007?) Then they changed > the management regime, lost the high-end paradigm, consistently > banged on me to lower my price and "besides, why do you have to > mess with the piano so much?" > >> > >> Thus, the el cheapo "elderly famous studio tuner," who is > literally 90 years old and refuses to give up, providing very good > tunings ONLY---nothing else, EVER---for about half of what I > charge. The only reason that Bosie isn't as torn up as the other > studio pianos the "senior tuner" "maintains" is because the studio > is kind of out-of-the-way and has a reputation as an expensive and > boutique place---the piano gets softer, less frequent use. > >> > >> That's a great piano; one of the best 225s I ever put my hands > on...I'm glad you got a chance to give it some love, Alan.... > >> DA > >> > >> > >> > >> On Feb 12, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Alan Eder wrote: > >> > >>> And now back to octaves and unisons (although I have nothing > against unions, especially the good kind!). > >>> > >>> I was asked to tune for a recording session in a very high end > studio here in the Los Angeles area. Bosendorfer 225, nice > piano. The pianist featured in the recording selected the studio > for its general state-of-the-art-edness, and particularly for the > high-end (treble) of the piano. The piece she was recording, with > string quartet, was quite subtle--slow, quiet, much space between > the attacks of notes. She hired this studio on the condition that > she could bring in her own audio engineer and piano technician. > >>> > >>> I established in advance what the pitch should be, in > conjunction with the manager of the studio (and running it by the > string players). 440 is where he said they maintain their Bosie, > and the strings were fine with that. I was to have 90 minutes with > the piano (tune & some voicing as per the pianist's request), then > the session would commence. (It went the full 7 1/2 hours > available to them.) I was not engaged to stand-by or be on call, > so leaving a stable tuning was the foremost consideration in my > mind. When I arrived, I found the unisons and octaves sounding not > too shabby. In a situation like this, however, close does NOT > count, and "good enough" is not good enough. The pitch was > generally between 440 and 441, so I made the executive/battlefield > decision to depart from our agreement and set my SAT II at 440.5 > (because it would require the least pitch change overall). That > did not turn out to be a problem for anyone. > >>> > >>> As I went through the scale, I noticed that some notes were > further off than others. B4 was a bit sharper than it's neighbors, > for example. B5, even more so, and B6 about 13 cents sharper than > the other pitches in that area. (For those amongst us who do not > use gizmos and may not be familiar with the parlance, 13 cents is a > substantial deviation when surrounding pitches are much closer to a > given curve.) Knowing that the quality of chords (expected to be > in equal temperament) in the high end was crucial to this piece, > those "B"s (and certain other pitches, to a lesser degree) HAD to > be reigned in. And they had to be stable enough to last all day > with me 30 miles away. > >>> > >>> Like the man said, "Mission accomplished!" > >>> > >>> As I headed out of the studio, the manager approached me, noted > he hadn't seen me there before and asked why I needed, "So much > time with the piano." I gave a brief accounting of myself and > inquired as to who normally services this instrument. A well-known > and highly-thought-of tech here in L. A. who specializes in studio > work. "Tunes by ear." I know this individual and attested to the > fact that he is one of the best available. > >>> > >>> As I drove away, I couldn't escape the thought (we do a lot of > thinking behind the wheel of our cars here in "Hell A.") that this > piano probably gets those touch-ups by ear alone, which Israel has > described so well previously in this thread, as a regular diet, not > just while recording the same piece, but from session to > session. It must have been a while since it was last thoroughly > tuned, from scratch. > >>> > >>> So this was a situation distinct from that of touching up the > tuning while a session is in progress. However, it is related in > that touch-ups seemed to be the order of the day at this $175/hr > studio (what, in order to save money--go figure?). Given that it > is such a high-end operation, the reasoning behind that eludes me. > >>> > >>> Should I have changed the thread to, "When touch-ups become tunings"? > >>> > >>> FWIW, > >>> > >>> Alan Eder > >>> > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC