<!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 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT color=#008000>A few comments are interspersed = below:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#008000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#008000>Terry Farrell</FONT></DIV> <DIV> <SPAN id=__#Ath#SignaturePos__></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV>----- Original Message ----- <DIV>From: "Robin Hufford" <<A href="mailto:hufford1@airmail.net">hufford1@airmail.net</A>></DIV> <DIV>To: "Pianotech" <<A href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>></DIV> <DIV>Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 6:27 AM</DIV> <DIV>Subject: Re: Post Responses/Killer Octave</DIV></DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV>> Hello David,<BR>>      You do an = admirable job in organizing and following the soundboard<BR>> related theme as it = has proceeded over time.  My responses along these<BR>> lines were = not a function of temper then,  nor or they now, although, at<BR>> = times I did experience real frustration at the dogmatic shouting and,<BR>> = apparent, unwillingess or incapacity of the pressurists to rationally<BR>> = advocate the very views they claim to be supersedent of all others - in<BR>> = general there was little in the way of argument and much in the way of<BR>> mere = assertion - a kind of dogmatic claim that it is this way because It<BR>> Is.   This may have been a matter of temper for others, as it frequently<BR>> appears to be when anything approaching soundboard = behavior is<BR>> encountered on this list - witness the recent = prosecutorial,<BR>> antagonistic, responses of one of them to John Hartman's post = regarding<BR>> crowning of the underside of bridges.<BR>>      = Actually, my own view here, which I must insist on the right to<BR>> have free = of the kind of emotional badgering seen on this list on the<BR>> subject of soundboards and, - I would urge all on this list to make<BR>> similar = insistance for the validity of their own experience, - is that<BR>> = the argument by Ron N that it is, basically not worth the effort is<BR>> = likely the case.  But this agreement is a matter of insignificance = -<BR>> nevertheless, whether I, or any other, no matter how informed they = may<BR>> be, or at least consider themselves to be, agree or disagree with = any<BR>> proposition or observation put forth here, which should be for<BR>> discussion,  one should restrain the emotional instrusion which = the<BR>> antagonistic responses larded with sarcasm, represents and which = are<BR>> very common here on this particular subject.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#008000>I would have to agree with this, as this is a = public forum - although I would have to say that I don't feel as strongly about = it as you - but that's OK. I just love the back and forth of ideas. I think = sometimes a little aggression can pull out an idea that might not otherwise be = expressed. But yes, in a public forum I do think a measure of civility is appropriate.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR>>       The lack of substantive = response to the recent Killer Octave<BR>> thread and the petty, tribal = celebrations of five or six respondents<BR>> under its byline masquerading as posts = worthy of  public dissemination,<BR>> which  demonstrates just = this kind of emotional response and is a real<BR>> waste of bandwidth - and = this particularly at a time of increasing OT<BR>> behavior lamented by = many on this very list  makes plain the<BR>> exaggerated  emotional = attachment to particular points of view on just<BR>> this subject by = some and demonstrates what should be avoided.  I am sure<BR>> censure = should come equally my way also as may regard other postings.<BR><FONT color=#008000>________________________________________________________<= /FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>>      Sure, we can all secretly believe we = have reinvented the wheel with<BR>> "modern" methods and publicly claim so = with loud protestations of<BR>> originality and superiority, but the end = product is still  likely to be<BR>> essentially circular, after all and = most other wheels are going to<BR>> demonstrate a substantial similarity.   I must say, that all efforts to<BR>> the = contrary, when I see a wheel I am compelled for some strange set of<BR>> = reasons to call it a wheel and when I am informed of a "new, modern"<BR>> wheel = -  well - it still looks like a wheel to me.  Similarly, I = think<BR>> such is likely the case regarding soundboards using traditional = methods<BR>> of construction, that is a bridge, ribs and solid flitches to lay up = the<BR>> panel,  and,  particularly, those that are only claimed to be superior<BR>> but are not presented for actual = evaluation.    If one has a better<BR>> mousetrap one should take it to the market, = there to be rewarded not by<BR>> the feeble aplause of sycophancy but by the = much more pleasant<BR>> experience of commercial success.<BR>>       The measure of success in such a case = will be the persistence and<BR>> profitablity of the product in the market not = merely sarcastic,<BR>> derogatory commentary on the deficiencies of  = other, similar, products,<BR>> although, as we all know, this may facilitate = sales to those who will<BR>> only later become aware of technical considerations.<BR>>       No piano or other = product,  is, or has ever been perfect in either<BR>> design or execution and I am sure the traditional system is greatly<BR>> = susceptible of improvement in every detail.  Like it or not, the level<BR>> of = quality in an instrument is determined, ultimately,  by = marketability<BR>> and not technical considerations or the manifold possibilites for<BR>> improvement.  The survival  in this country and elsewhere of certain<BR>> companies through the long decline of the industry = brought on<BR>> fundamentally  by changes in the market itself,  indicates  the delivery<BR>> of a successful product, however = flawed, to the market,  and chronic<BR>> bellyaching about the "design deficiencies" , "legacy shortcomings",<BR>> other maladies, real or = not, and the loud representation of "new,<BR>> modern, superior" fixes = represents only emotional baggage or<BR>> self-serving promotion when taken past a = certain point.   This point has<BR>> long since been past here, in = my opinion.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#008000>I believe there is a valid point to consider = here. It sounds to me as though you consider success in the market as having a = major piano company use a particular idea. "...</FONT><FONT = color=#000000>the level of quality in an instrument is determined, ultimately,  by = marketability and not technical considerations..."</FONT><FONT color=#008000> Consider = that there are two ways to view a piano - utilitarian or performance (or maybe = commercial or custom). </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#008000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#008000>A good analogy can be made with automobiles = here. Most people view the piano from a utilitarian standpoint. Believe me, I = realize it is a continuum among a beginning student and an accomplished professional = concert pianist. Just as most people view cars as utilitarian (perhaps a = expression to be used here is a car for the masses, or one that has commercial = appeal). Mass-produced cars are available that range from Yugos to Cadillacs to = Corvettes - all within the utilitarian class. If a driver wants a really high = performance auto, where do they go? TO THE SMALL CUSTOM SHOP. There, they can get = what they want. They will get something that greatly exceeds the performance of = the commercially available autos. The commercial car builder MUST compromise = to produce what the masses desire - not what the few high performance = oriented discriminating buyers want. That is the role of the small custom shop.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#008000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#008000>Same thing with pianos. No one will ever = convince me that any commercial piano manufacturer has one goal - to make the best = possible piano. Especially a publicly owned company. Get real! The focus of these = companies is to make the largest profit. Period. Now they may decide = that the way to biggest profit is to try and make a very good piano - but plenty = of compromises will also be made. Here again is where the small shop can = provide a level of product unavailable from the commercial builder. Unfortunately = the analogy between cars and pianos falls apart here. The car can be timed = in the quarter mile to determine which is faster. One can count the number of = races it wins on road tracks. Not so easy with the piano - very much a matter or = personal opinion. But one can use some of your marketability criteria here - if = the small shop has a backlog of work, maybe they have something there. I think the = car/piano analogy also is strained by the fact that most = performance-oriented car drivers also have a pretty good knowledge of the mechanics of their = cars (they have a good idea of the technical reasons of why a particular = car is fast) - not nearly as true for pianists.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#008000></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#008000>Just a point I think is worthy of = consideration. Just because a commercial piano manufacturer does not pick up a particular = design, idea, or innovation, does not mean it is without merit - it just = means it may not be for the masses.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR>>      I don't wish to be put in the = position of defending the prominent<BR>> maker so much maligned here as there is = much worthy of relentless<BR>> criticism some of which I have pointed out before,  as those who have<BR>> read my previous post on this = subject may remember, but, nevertheless,<BR>> the success of their method is demonstrated in their survival and wide<BR>> spread use of new = product, and enduring utility of old product,<BR>> something that is,  given = some of their deficiencies of assembly, almost<BR>> a source of astonishment = for me, at least for present production.  But,<BR>> it is as it = is.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#008000>See the green blob of words = above.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR>>       Needless to say, I am not = greatly in agreement with the views<BR>> along these lines of the = pressurists, although I publicly acknowledge a<BR>> debt of gratitude for myself = and urge the same for other technicians to<BR>> Del Fandrich for his series of = articles in the Journal even though, in<BR>> general, I can't agree = with much of the analysis or conclusions obtained<BR>> thereby.  = Nevertheless there is an insistence, at least, on a refreshing<BR>> level of = rationality on these kinds of subjects which had been rather<BR>> sorely lacking previously.  It is the method and extent of analysis, and<BR>> conclusions drawn from them with which I disagree and this,<BR>> unfortunately, appears to give offense to some and renders = problematical<BR>> the utility of further discussion.<BR>> =       As I am sure you are aware, given your research of the subject<BR>> = threads, these and other kinds of efforts for analytical purposes take<BR>> time. as = has this one,  and we all have to make a living, a point made<BR>> = by Ron O. a year or so ago, a fact which tends to constrict the amount<BR>> of = time that can be given over to argumentation here.  Arguments,<BR>> = whether rational or emotional and antagonistic, represent investments of<BR>> = considerable uncompensated time and are a sacrifice.  Yet I see = no<BR>> relevant posting from you, other than your organization of the = relevant<BR>> threads, which would indicate a willingness to make the same = sacrifice<BR>> you urge on others.   Surely, you have an opinion and why = don't you<BR>> express it?  Public argument and counterargument is as available to you<BR>> as it is to anyone else,  one of the very = real virtues of this list.<BR>> Regards, Robin Hufford<BR>> David = Skolnik wrote:<BR>> <BR>> >    Part = 1.1    Type: Plain Text (text/plain)<BR>> >            = Encoding: 7BIT<BR>> <BR>> = _______________________________________________<BR>> pianotech list info: <A href="https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives">http://www.ptg.org= /mailman/listinfo/pianotech</A></DIV></BODY></HTML>