<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:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>Not really, this subject could turn into War and Peace, couldn’t it?  J  But, fair enough.  I think the gist of my question was if you were moving back towards Original Principles (whatever they are!) ala Steinway in your work.  But I take you to mean here that the design of a piano is a complex, interactive system where making changes in one place can sometimes have unintended consequences in others, so one must always be mindful.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I can’t help but think that the factory drifted away from ways of executing procedures that resulted in very consistent, high quality work, having forgotten why they had established those protocols in the first place.  The 20’s was likely a time when the factory had worked hard to evolve these standards and really had their shit together.  Rebuilding those pianos seemed easier to get a pleasing result in my experience, because so many things were set up well originally.  Steinways from the 1940’s on are quite a different animal in these respects.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I have noticed that it is taking place in two different places.  The fact that we have two lists has diminished the vitality of the discussion, and the number of people participating.  A couple of years ago, some incredibly interesting threads would get going that would continue for a long time.   A number of highly knowledgeable people would engage at great depth.  Incredibly interesting and educational.  Blew the journal out of the water in what it could give anyone who was interested.  Those discussions are, with rare exception, for the most part gone.  That’s sad, and completely lost to those who have made the changes to Pianotech and who will make the decisions for the future.   They don’t look at it deeply enough to know the difference, because they don’t participate in the process.  Ah, the Peter Principle.    <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Will   <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Love Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 1:14 PM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Gen-u-whine Steinway parts:OT RANT<o:p></o:p></div></div><o:p> </o:p>I have to some degree in several previous conversations including in the discussion recently published in the PTJ on tone.  It’s a loaded subject and I don’t want to delve too deeply into it at the moment.  For now, I hope it will suffice to say that I think one needs to approach design changes with caution.  BTW that goes for Steinway too.  I don’t think all the changes they’ve made over the decades have been a benefit and often (at least from my view) seem to have been done in isolation without looking at the whole picture.   If the 1920’s pianos were the design and execution pinnacle for them (as some believe) then they’ve gravitated away from that but piecemeal, not with a total concept in mind but just with certain individual changes.  They haven’t always been integrated well and haven’t always made sense.  Separating the design intention from the execution is difficult at times but we ultimately have to take them at their word.  What the produce(d) is(was) what they intended.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Cryptic enough?<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>btw, on an unrelated topic, have you noticed how this discussion is taking place in two different places, the new list and the old list?  Many who read only one or the other are getting only half the discussion.  What a mess.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><div>David Love<o:p></o:p><a href="http://www.davidlovepianos.com">www.davidlovepianos.com</a><o:p></o:p></div><o:p> </o:p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>From: <a href="mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org">pianotech-bounces@ptg.org</a> <a href="mailto:[mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]">[mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]</a> On Behalf Of Encore Pianos Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 9:19 AM To: <a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a> Subject: Re: [pianotech] Gen-u-whine Steinway parts:OT RANT<o:p></o:p></div></div><o:p> </o:p>“The more pianos I rebuild (bellies and actions) and the more I have been involved with design changes, the more I gravitate back to the original concept (with tweaks of course).”  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Would you care to elaborate on this a bit more?<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Will Truitt<o:p></o:p></div></body></html>