<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" = xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" = xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; = charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10"> <meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 10"> <link rel=File-List href="cid:filelist.xml@01C578F6.50A696F0">  <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue = style='tab-interval:.5in;word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space;-khtml-line-break: after-white-space'> <div class=Section1> It seems to me that a lot of what = we like is what we are used to. The = “whump” of a Steinway in the mid tenor we = learn to identify as depth when in reality it may be a belly with ribs that = can’t quite support the crown or stiffness necessary for that section and a predictable transition from bass to treble. The pop in the attack that we learn to look for in the treble may = be more to do with the failure of the killer octave region. But when you are accustomed to = hearing such things on a piano that you identify as the “crème de la = crème” then when it’s missing, it seems like there’s something = wrong. The difficulty is in wiping the = slate clean and approaching the instrument without bias. As one pianist said to me the other day (to paraphrase): “most of what pianists look = for is predictability; as long a what comes out of the piano is what the = pianist thinks will comes out before they play a note, then everything else can = be worked out.” Well I = think that goes for what pianists expect within an instrument as well as between instruments. And if they are = used to hearing the same things over and over, it’s very difficult to = break that pattern of predictability even if the heretofore unpredictable piano has = better balance, smoother transitions and a better combination of sustain and = power. Change is always an uphill = battle. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net <o:p></o:p> </div> -----Original = Message----- From: = pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Bec and John Sent: Friday, June 24, = 2005 6:12 PM To: Pianotech Subject: Re: Franz = Mohr <o:p> </o:p> Hi Greg,<o:p></o:p> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> Great post! My response actually was less to = do with your postings than the things I've heard on the list since I joined a = year ago. Intentionally or not, the real impression I get from those interested in = new piano designs/methods are basically, "Old - mainly Steinway - bad, = new good". Like you (and I'm glad to hear!), I have heard some gorgeous = older pianos. Perhaps my explanation for the inconsistencies you mentioned are = just human nature - we are approximate beings. Maybe money and work = ethic play a roll.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> But that makes me wonder what the quality of instruments would be like if Ron Overs (or whomever) were producing a = high volume. Business can be complicated...<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> I have heard the Rachmaninoff snippets from = Ron O.'s web site. In fact, just the other day I listened to them again and his = piano is even prettier than I remembered. There is no doubt that Ron is a superb craftsman and technician (and tuner!). I don't take this to mean that = change is necessary however. My favourite piano recording is from the late 60s on = a Steinway (I've mentioned it before on the list), and it has more depth = and complexity to its sound than Ron's.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> I have never experienced this in person, = which is partially why I have very little opinion about the changes themselves. = The issue of sustain concerns me a bit (I wrote about that previously), as = does the recent discussion about the different pedalling effect that was started = with the Dale Erwin thread "Steinway O Redesign" - it may sound = nice, but what does it mean for musical interpretation? I already think the = majority of professional pianists have little or non-existent pedal technique, what = would happen to these pianists if there was even more sound to control?? But I = do not really know unless I experience it.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> In any case, I hope new ideas continue to be = explored. I don't know if the piano can be improved without a departure from what = makes a piano a piano, and that's why I take the position I do. If all that is = being desired is to make pianos consistently sound as good as the best = Steinways/M&H/etc., how can I complain? But if we're talking about a big shift that might = change the piano as we know it, how can I not complain? I love the = piano!<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> - John<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div> <![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p> John, <X-TAB>        </X-TAB>I'm = curious how you came to the conclusion that I have chosen to dismiss Franz Mohr's = position. If by that you mean that he could be right and we have done the best = that we ever can with our treasured pianos then yeah, I guess you're right. I = dismiss that assumption quite handily. If on the other hand you believe that I = have somehow chosen to belittle Franz Mohr in any way I believe you read = something in to my post that was either not there or certainly that was not = intended. He does indeed have many great stories to share. I simply choose not = believe that we have done the best that can ever be done. That seems to me a silly = position for any industry and a position that certainly would never have been = supported by many of the highly respected forefathers of this industry. There are = a great many pianos already in existence I dearly love to hear played and = therefor treasure. That's not ever to say that I wouldn't love to hear them = improved either. I don't consider them sacred.  <X-TAB>        </X-TAB>I well understand that many are reluctant or not convinced that many of the = changes being talked about are worthy of adaptation into mainstream usage. = That's fine! I'm not sure anyone wishes to force the issue. Maybe there are those who = feel differently as the ongoing discussions have gone quite heated at times. = This forum as pointed out many times is difficult since people tend to read something in to a post that was not intended in the absence of tonal = inflection from the voice or body language and the like. I really don't believe any = real feelings of hostility exist and I surely hope that they do not. I just = hope that more people would leave tradition behind only temporarily for long = enough to either try or experience some of these "improvements" for themselves. It would be great, for me included, to hear 2 or more = identical pianos side by side with traditional implementations and new designs to compare. I'm sure that the logistics of this would prove quite difficult indeed. <X-TAB>        </X-TAB>In = principal, John and list, I refer back to my original post on this subject asking = the same questions. Summarized; "if we can do those things and they are = better, is there any reason that we should not use them?" I can think of only = one and that would be to preserve a museum piece. <X-TAB>        </X-TAB>John, you = wrote about your concerns as a pianist and also about my confidence in = dismissing (which I never intended to do) other positions but I wonder have you = ever experienced any of these changes for yourself? I'm not trying to sell = you or anyone on the ideas I'm simply asking if their being rejected out of = hand. Have you heard the "Lilacs" CD of Ron Overs instrument with the = artist Scott Davie? Even on my less than stellar audio equipment I can detect a = change from the "normal" instrument.  Not much that I have ever = heard has compared to that. Is there any credibility for Dale Erwin's efforts? = I certainly think so, though I've yet to hear an instrument of his = re-design. He's less attacked than Del or Ron N. or Terry, or David L. If any of = these people have redone instruments I would have some amount of confidence = that the result would be predictably good. This brings me to another point. <X-TAB>        </X-TAB>Each of = us has at some point in our lives heard that one piano that just made the hair = stand up on the back of our necks. For me it was an old M&H BB that had = such depth and richness that it really was an emotional experience to hear = it. What bothers me a bit is that I've never heard another like it. Now I have to = ask myself, why? I believe that this question is what drives a lot of this different design implementation. If you found one piano that just = reached a part of you that couldn't be reached any other way, as a technically = minded individual, wouldn't you want to duplicate it? Would you not also ask = yourself why it is that there are not hundreds or even thousands of these pianos = around that engender the same response? Why is it that when one model follows = another of precisely the same design off of the factory floor having had the = same hands produce it from the same materials on the same day do they sound = different? Haven't you ever wondered about that? I certainly have! Let's further = say that the first was the one that pulled your heart out of your chest but the = second, while still a good piano, left a little to be desired in comparison. = Let's yet further say that you, the owner of the factory, wanted more uniformity. = I'm guessing that they all do. If you had a way of construction that gave = you more predictable results which it seems would also last longer in that state = would you not seek to incorporate that into your efforts? I can say, I = believe, with confidence that this is what is driving the design topics you describe = as meeting with resistance. Could all of us interested in design chime in = and say that they have heard older designs which are beautiful and amazingly satisfying? I just have and I think that such has been amply stated by = most others as well. Perhaps much can be set at ease by a change in = phraseology. Instead of endeavoring to make the piano better, perhaps for the time = being we can agree that we are trying to make them uniformly good. Will that take = away some of the apprehension and invite at least exploration? <X-TAB>         </X-TAB>my best to all, Greg Newell At 12:53 AM 6/24/2005, you wrote: <![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p> Hi Greg, As I've always said, if the piano can be made better, then so be it. I = am happy there are people experimenting with new ideas, and they should be = encouraged. However, I can answer your question of "Why should anyone of us be satisfied with what was when we have the capability to do so very much more?": There are those, such as myself, that are simply not quick to jump on = the bandwagon of change - not because we're inflexible, but because we're = patient and haven't been convinced that the "improvements" being = presented are undeniable improvements. Some or many of the changes I've read on = the list have not be tested enough against the accumulated knowledge of musicians = and technicians to have any kind of confident stance that the change is = musically better. I myself, as a pianist, have specific concerns for some of these changes. Experiment away, but with humility and respect for those who love what presently exists. I also do not believe you should be dismissing Franz Mohr's position so *confidently*. Not to suggest he is the wisest of piano people, but = rather, as if you suggest that you know all that he knows and can therefore judge = his error without fear of your own error (what you don't know can always = change your viewpoint!). No one should be arrogantly assuming that everyone in = the piano industry who does not believe in change is dismiss-able. In the end, it is undeniable that pianos exist using "old" = designs that are beautiful and amazingly satisfying. If some of the people = building new designs would acknowledge this regularly your cause would probably meet = less resistance. -- John <![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p> Horace,         This is all well and good and = you are certainly correct in that there is much art in what we do. Still, = the talking heads as you so brashly put it, have a great deal to say of some = vital importance which will take the venerable piano well into the future in = as much if not more of a beloved state than it already is with us. Why should = any of us be "satisfied" with what was when we have the capability to do = so very much more. This is where I take exception with the honored Franz = Moor and why I left the meeting when it broke for a gratis dinner given by the = local dealer. There are, perhaps, things that should be kept and not fussed = with from the by gone era (though I can't think of any of them off hand) but where = we can make it better why on earth wouldn't we? Because of a name plate or = decal on the fallboard? Where would Chevy, Pontiac, Olds, Ford, Chrysler or Dodge = be today if there weren't backyard tinkerers or even large shops who = thought they could add something to the overall product? Wouldn't it be considered a = plus if soundboard, ribset, bridge placement, and stringing scale were enhanced = so as to offer a product that needed no demonstrable heroics in voicing? = Wouldn't it be considered a plus to have a predictable action setup so as to have a reliable touch and speed of repetition that didn't need a great deal of tweaking even from the factory delivery? Wouldn't it also be great to = find alternatives and perhaps even better performing materials that wouldn't = unduly deplete old growth forests raping the land of anything for the future? = Well, I think you would all agree that these are positive things. Franz is of an = era to be sure. Much of what he has to share is entertaining. I have difficulty = with the posturing that his generation has made an instrument we all cherish = the best it 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 = ...<o:p></o:p> <X-SIGSEP>Greg Newell Greg's piano Forté <a href="mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net" = eudora=autourl>mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net</a> <o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </div> </X-SIGSEP></div> </body> </html>