<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; =
charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi Rich,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I loved you post! I do agree that =
we can grow
accustomed, more or less, to many different action characteristics, but =
I do
pity the poor concert pianist who has to move from piano to piano =
(and the
poor techs who have to figure out how to make all the pianos as uniform =
to the
pianists expectations as possible)! I can appreciate why Horowitz =
traveled
everywhere with his Steinway D. I also agree that a system of =
standards
would greatly assist the concert pianist. </FONT><FONT =
face=Arial
size=2>Having said that, I don't think that uniformity is a good =
thing, as it
would arrest evolution of the piano in the same way that evolution of =
the violin
has been arrested.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I was fascinated recently by an exhibit =
at the
Metropolitan Museum in NYC (I think that's where it was). An =
acoustic
engineer whose name I forget took it upon herself to redesign string =
instruments
in the 1940's (?). She did this by analyzing the vibrational =
patterns of
the various elements, the acoustics of the air cavities, etc. She =
came up
with a system of probably 6 or 8 new instruments to replace the violin, =
viola,
cello, and bass. These instruments were purportedly superior to =
the
existing ones and were received with considerable curiosity.
However, most of us have not heard these instruments. =
The string
community is so conservative that it could never break away from its =
uniform
standards and embrace these superior instruments. So sad. We =
may
have "the standard" violin forever, with no hope of ever tasting a =
sweeter
instrument.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The piano is still evolving, and I mean =
"evolving"
in a technical sense. Students of evolution will recognize that =
evolution
cannot occur without phenotypic variation. How can any mechanism =
of
selection work if there is nothing to be differentially selected? =
The
modern piano is not as good as it will one day be. Perhaps more
accurately, the modern piano is not in the form that will eventually be =
more
preferred. As needs and preferences change, the piano will =
continue to
evolve to meet those needs, and hopefully (IMHO) that process will never =
stop.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>This begs the question of whether =
tomorrow's piano
will still be completely recognizable as a piano. Would
Cristofori or any of the early composers recognize the modern =
piano?
Would it have been better if we had the Cristofori piano even
today?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I was fascinated to listen to a piano =
with a steel
soundboard (posted on the web somewhere). While the bass and tenor =
sounded
more or less piano-like, the treble rang slightly like a steel =
drum.
It was a fascinating sound, not all that bad. The tonal =
qualities in
the treble were probably partially attributable to higher efficiency =
from a
better impedance match. (Del???) However, it didn't sound =
completely
like "a piano." A piece written for "a piano" might not sound =
right if
played on it. Of course a piece from Cristofori's time played on a =
modern
piano probably wouldn't sound right to the composer either! =
Is a
steel piano still a piano? (Is the modern piano really a
piano?)</FONT> Should the steel piano be a "speciation" =
point, in the
same sense as an acoustic and an electric guitar? Should it take =
its own
parallel course of evolution and have pieces written specifically for =
it,
instead of the wooden soundboard piano?</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Our tastes in "the piano" change from =
generation to
generation, and that's probably a good thing. The steel piano, or =
whatever
innovation we may concoct, may seem pretty weird to us right now, but I =
have no
doubt future generations could ease into it (or into whatever better =
suits their
tastes). The same could be said of actions. You yourself =
pointed out
that you can adapt to new action characteristics. So can we =
all.
With time, and with lots of trial and error, perhaps we will arrive at =
something
even more efficient, dynamic, and intuitive. Here's =
hoping.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>For the time being, I understand your =
desire for
piano uniformity. Perhaps as an alternative, we could have a =
system of
uniformity in *characterizing* piano actions, much like we have a system =
of
uniformity in labeling the nutritional attributes of the foods we =
eat. An
experienced dieter can read the labels very quickly and understand =
exactly how
fat the food item will make her. As someone with acoustical =
experience, I
can read acoustical specifications and view charts and know exactly how =
a device
will sound. It would not surprise me if a system of numerical
specifications could be used to characterize a piano. I think =
the
experienced pianist could ascertain from those specifications =
much of
how a piano would perform, and furthermore he/she could request that a =
piano
meet certain specifications. This would leave the pianist more =
certain of
the piano he/she will be asked to play, while still allowing for =
individual
variation in taste and continued evolution of the =
instrument.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>What form might the specs take? =
Perhaps
spectra at different notes, reflecting brightness/darkness. =
Perhaps
a curve of the acoustic power, as a function of the mechanical =
input to the
soundboard. Obviously action ratio. Key mass (range). =
Hammer
mass (range). Total action inertia (range).
Regulation settings. Average bushing tolerances. =
Average
departure from key-to-key uniformity on the above.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Yes, most would argue that one must =
listen to and
play a piano to know what it will do. We used to say that about =
stereo
amps, but most people today are able to form reasonable =
expectations of an
amp's performance based on the specifications. Walk into many =
audio shops,
and they won't even be set up to let you listen to and compare =
amps. Few
people do. We still say one has to listen to speakers, but I =
assure you
that an experienced acousticians doesn't really need to do =
this. Just
give me a valid response curve (i.e. no smoke and mirrors stuff), info =
on the
crossover, and power and efficiency specs on the various =
speaker
elements (again, no smoke and mirrors, please), and that's pretty much
enough enough. Very predictable stuff. Professional =
pianists
would be capable of the same, with experience.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Peace,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sarah</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=classictouchent@comcast.net
href="mailto:classictouchent@comcast.net">Classic Touch Ent</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=davidlovepianos@earthlink.net
=
href="mailto:davidlovepianos@earthlink.net">davidlovepianos@earthlink.n=
et</A>
; <A title=pianotech@ptg.org =
href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">Pianotech</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, April 29, 2003 =
12:48
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: even balance =
weight or
something</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Hi David,<BR><BR>Sounds like a very reasonable starting =
place
(the muting experience should produce interesting results and =
'feedback?'. As
a pianist I can say for sure that given enough time I get used to =
whatever
I've been playing (whether I think its normal or not is another =
story.) To
date my personal experience has been: My first piano = (new) late =
60's Baldwin
'acrosonic' spinet. 2nd piano=(bought in early 80's) 1905 Mason =
Hamlin AA
<U>USED</U> complete with mismatched Aeolian hammers,shanks,flanges =
THEN
restored 2002 with correct Renner action parts, repaired board, custom =
cold
drawn (european) bass, remainder Roslau strings, and a 'second to none =
regulation' (talk about your Also Sprach Zarathustra experience). 3rd =
piano
1964 and a half Mason Hamlin CC (just broken in really) first 2 years =
of its
life the<BR>as necessary concert rental out of the Manhattan Mason =
dealer
showroom (some <U>very </U>particular artist(s) must have played this =
in
concert because the regulation <U>even now</U> is such a pleasurably
responsive experience), then having regular but minimal use until I =
purchased
in July 2003 and immediately restrung (same stringing as Mason =
AA).<BR>Yes
there is a point to all this. 1.) I got used to and could perform =
musically on
each of these instruments. 2.) the Baldwin and the unrestored AA could =
not get
me where I wanted to go (not responsive enough/dynamic range extremely =
limited) no matter how much practice/energy expended. I learned to =
STRUGGLE.
Restored AA and the CC gave me the experience of what it is to play =
'without
constant struggling', then 'with relaxation' , then 'with total =
childlike
abandon' WHEE-E-E-E-E!!!!!! Fortunately for me I never bought in to =
the
'heavier all the time is better just in case/ for when I run across =
it'
mindset. My practice routine has evolved to include the softest =
pianissimo
(for at least an hour at a clip each day) and the biggest (fat &/
thundering but not machine-gun percussive) fortissimo (also for an =
hour at a
clip each day). That keeps me competent for reasonably heavy and =
reasonably
light actions.<BR>It is still TOUGH to go from the delight of either =
Mason to
MANY other pianos I have the opportunity to perform on (setting aside
regulation differences) just because of my tonal quality/color/sustain =
preferences. I just love the synergy of so many elements coming =
together in a
personal preference kind of way. This is where I believe David's idea =
of 'mute
regulation analysis' has maximum potential value. It precludes me (the =
pianist) from dragging other personal preferences (having little or =
nothing to
do with action response/feel)<BR>into the feedback. Playing without =
sound. My
initial reaction is 'fingernails on the chalkboard', but I'd volunteer =
in a
heartbeat if asked.<BR><BR>I believe (okay I hope, better make that =
PRAY) we
could arrive at a standard or a 'standard range' BUT EVEN FAILING THAT =
perhaps
a 'certification' of balance weight/front weight ratio or whatever =
system is
used to label/quantify the 'feel' pianists want or claim they =
want.<BR>I
believe that venues that have their own instruments, or concert =
instrument
rental businesses have conflicting economic interest in what they =
deliver to
the performer/audience & what their fee scales will be based upon =
(lower
fees don't always/not even usually produce better value). Once again =
what is
the perception of true value? With a certification system for concert
instrument providers, standards have the potential to increase =
competition to
provide better musically responsive product to the performer, and =
ultimately
better performances for the audience. COWABUNGA DUDE !!<BR><BR>Best, =
Rich
Olmsted<BR><BR><BR>On Monday, April 28, 2003, at 09:41 PM, David Love
wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'll stick my neck out and say that you could =
easily
establish a standard.<BR>If you could poll all pianists about their =
likes
and dislikes, have them<BR>sit down to a row of mute pianos and just =
feel
the actions, my bet is that<BR>there would be a fairly normal bell =
shaped
curve with a standard deviation<BR>that would bring 95%of the =
players within
a fairly narrow range of balance<BR>weight and regulation specs. =
Some of the
outliers might actually be<BR>personal preference, some might be
misperception. Tastes may also have<BR>something to do with what =
people are
used to. Once you've learned to get<BR>what you need out of that =
1970's B
with more lead than wood in the keys, it<BR>feels normal to you. =
Over the
past couple of years, I have defaulted<BR>almost everything to a =
narrow
range of 34 - 42 balance weight with front<BR>weight maximums in the =
85 -
90% range depending on requests of lighter<BR>versus heavier and the =
particular set of hammers. Regulation specs have<BR>always taken =
priority
and I have not deviated far from 10 mm dip delivered<BR>by a SBR of =
5.6 -
5.8. If I had to choose a standard it would be smack in<BR>the =
middle: 38
balance weight, 5.7 SBR which produces a regulation of 10<BR>mm dip, =
front
weights below maximums by 10 -15%, and whatever the SW zone<BR>that =
both
fits into all that and is realistically acheivable with the =
set<BR>of
hammers you have. Setting the action up with an adjustable rep =
spring<BR>to
get you that entire range quickly (if you wanted to) would mean that =
the<BR>rep spring would need to displace an average of 8 grams of BW =
(lower
is<BR>better in my opinion). With a midrange default of 38 BW, to =
get to 34
BW<BR>you would then have to go up to 12 grams for the rep spring, =
and for
42<BR>down to 4 grams leaving you a comfortable margin of error. My =
guess
is<BR>that you would have very few complaints<BR><BR>David
Love<BR>davidlovepianos@earthlink.net<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>[Original Message]<BR>From: Phillip Ford
<fordpiano@earthlink.net><BR>To: =
<pianotech@ptg.org><BR>Date:
4/28/2003 1:47:43 PM<BR>Subject: Re: even balance weight or
something<BR><BR>I received this e-mail privately from Rich =
Olmsted and am
responding to<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>the list with his permission as I =
thought this
was interesting and I think<BR>contributions to the list from =
pianists are
valuable.<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR>At 08:22 AM 4/24/03 , you wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Dear Phil,<BR><BR>I appreciated your (below) remarks, =
and
think you are right on about<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>the =
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>nature of the (real world) issue(s). From my own =
experience
and in my <BR>discussions with colleagues (pianists all). Some
observations & <BR>suppositions include:<BR><BR>1.) Pianists =
may
prefer more inertia/ heavier actions because, even if <BR>less
inertia/lighter might be personal preference, most
pianos<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>performed <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>on in the field (concert hall or other) would not =
match the
pianists <BR>personal preference so... better to be able to =
perform on
the <BR>stiffest/heaviest of actions (because an audience has no =
idea
how good<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>or <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>bad (responsive) the action is). They often assume the =
performance is <BR>entirely about the pianist (with the possible =
exception of an out of<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>tune <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>piano) in much the same way that they often assume an =
out of
tune piano<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>is <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>entirely about the tuner.<BR>2.) Well practiced =
pianists
tend to develop chops & can cope
with<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>greater <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>inertia (they can do the heavy =
lifting)<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I
was aware that many pianists take this approach of working
on<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>a heavy action so that they can build up trength =
and
stamina to deal with<BR>heavy actions when they encounter them. One =
of the
unfortunate<BR>consequences of thisfor some pianists is physical =
damage.
Another<BR>unfortunate consequence is that some teachers take this =
as some
sort of<BR>mantra and tell their students to buy a piano with a =
heavy action
so that<BR>they can 'develop their strength', even if these students =
have no
desire or<BR>ability to be professional pianists, and the result is =
a piano
that's a<BR>chore to play. Also, the upper limit of what defines a =
heavy
action may be <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>determined by a piano action that is poorly set up, so =
that
the pianist<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>is building himself up =
more than he
would need to if he got to play on<BR>actions that were well =
designed or set
up. I'm reminded of a pianist (a<BR>young woman) I saw recently on =
TV
playing the Rachmaninoff 3rd piano<BR>concerto, which she had =
presumably
been practicing a lot. She had arms<BR>like a blacksmith's.<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Also, my experience as an amateur pianist is that the
best<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>situation for me when playing =
on different
pianos is for the piano to be<BR>similar to my personal piano. I =
have
trouble if the action is a lot<BR>heavier because my muscles are not =
built
up to deal with it. But, I also<BR>have problems controlling the =
action if
it's a lot lighter. If a<BR>professional constantly practices on a =
heavy
action doesn't he have some<BR>control problems when he encounters a =
very
light or fleet action?<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>These things aside, I like choices and I don't mind =
change
IF it<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>produces <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>a great enough return. So there is a difference =
between the
market for <BR>'performing' pianists (performers at multiple =
venues),
and the market<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>for <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>pianists who almost exclusively perform on their own
instrument.<BR><BR>What is difficult to manage is having the =
action
change <BR>significantly/unpredictibly with every
piano/venue.<BR><BR>Maybe we (pianists) don't have much choice. =
I'm
wondering if having<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>more <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>choices would just create another whole set of issues, =
but I
think more <BR>choices has the potential to educate, AND =
EDUCATION IS
KEY !!!!<BR><BR>Best, Rich Olmsted<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Good =
points.
The sort of range of choices that I was talking =
about<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>really
only make sense for pianists' personal nstruments or for those =
very<BR>few
artists that get to travel with an instrument. It would be =
interesting<BR>to
see what pianists would end up choosing for themselves if they =
were<BR>given
some options. Performing pianists of necessity desire =
uniformity<BR>from
instrument to instrument, since they are required to play on so
many<BR>different instruments. I suppose their ideal would be a sort =
of
'standard' <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>action that would be the same from piano to piano. But =
what
should<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>this standard action be =
like? The
technical community is gaining the<BR>knowledge to set actions up to =
give
desired results rather than take<BR>whatever results from putting a =
bunch of
action parts together. Perhaps<BR>it's time to start talking about a =
standard action setup, just as we have a<BR>standard pitch. =
Performing
artists would then not have surprises when they<BR>showed <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>up to play on yet another instrument unknown to
them.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>Phil Ford<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Phil Ford wrote:<BR>I think this shows that =
different
pianists have different ideas
about<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>how <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>pianos ought to feel. I think we have been lead to =
believe
that there<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>is <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>an ideal setup and we just have to find it. I wonder =
if we
shouldn't<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>be <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>working towards having the ability to vary the feel =
of the
actions more<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>in <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>a quantifiable way to give pianists more choice. =
Some
might like<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>heavier, =
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>some lighter. Some more inertia, some less. Some =
evenness
from one end<BR>to the other, others a graduation from one end =
to the
other, etc. Now,<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>to =
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>the extent that we give them any choice at all, it =
seems
to be - you<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>can <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>have this balance weight or that one. Sort of like =
saying,
what<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>flavor <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>would you like, vanilla or french vanilla. I also =
wonder
if having<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>some <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>of these options might change their tastes somewhat. =
I
sometimes hear <BR>technicians say that pianists like 10 mm =
keydip,
heavy actions, =
lots<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>of <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>inertia,<BR>etc. Not surprising, since that's what =
most of
them play on all the <BR>time. They don't have much choice. =
And most
of them don't like <BR>change. But if they were given a chance =
to live
with some =
other<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>setups I <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>wonder if they wouldn't end up preferring them. (I =
suppose
this is a<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>bit <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>like the temperament =
discussions).<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
=
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>____________________________________________=
___<BR>pianotech
list info:
=
https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOT=
E><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>pianotec=
h
list info:
https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCK=
QUOTE></BODY></HTML>