<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; =
-khtml-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Greg,<DIV><BR =
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></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.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></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...</DIV><DIV><BR =
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></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.</DIV><DIV><BR =
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></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.</DIV><DIV><BR =
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></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!</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>- =
John</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"><DIV><DIV><BR =
class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> John,<BR> =
<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. <BR> <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.<BR> <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.<BR> <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.<BR> =
<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?<BR> <X-TAB> </X-TAB><BR> my =
best to all,<BR> Greg Newell<BR><BR> <BR><BR> At 12:53 AM 6/24/2005, you =
wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Hi =
Greg,<BR><BR> 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?":<BR><BR> 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.<BR> <BR> Experiment away, but with humility and =
respect for those who love what presently exists.<BR><BR> 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.<BR><BR> 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.<BR><BR> -- John<BR> <FONT =
color="#0000DD"><BR> </FONT><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite" =
class="cite" cite="">Horace,<BR> 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.<BR><BR> =
best,<BR> Greg<BR><BR> P.S. and not once did I denigrate or call anyone =
any names ...</BLOCKQUOTE> <X-SIGSEP><P> Greg Newell<BR> Greg's piano =
Forté<BR> <A href="mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net" eudora="autourl"> =
mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net</A> =
</P></X-SIGSEP></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BODY></HT=
ML>=