<html> <body> 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: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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 <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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 ...</blockquote> <x-sigsep></x-sigsep> Greg Newell Greg's piano Fort� <a href="mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net" eudora="autourl"> mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net</a></body> </html>