<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html>   Delwin D Fandrich wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Brekne" <rbrekne@broadpark.no> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: September 20, 2001 11:58 AM Subject: Re: 1 string, 2 strings, 3 strings or more > > Delwin D Fandrich wrote: > > > >> but if a piano has lasted 100 > > > >years sounding good with a less than perfectly shaped bridge, I > > > >reckon it deserves to carry on for another 100 or so without losing > > > >its defects of character. > > > > Depends on whether or not those defects of character are audibly >>offensive to the musician. If they are I see no reason for it to carry on for >>another 100 years offending the very folks it's supposed to be pleasing when a >>new bridge(s) and some revised scaling can solve most of the problem. > > > > Del > > Hmmm... I wonder just who  "the musician" refered to could be. Personally I > find it almost incredible to think that I could not find some quite proficient > musician to swear by just about any piano. Gotta admit Del, this line above > seems somewhat in contrast with the stuff you recently exchanged with me on the > Petrof thread. In what way? Please elaborate.</blockquote> Well... here (in this scaling issue) you seem to think more like the technician / engineer... and play up all those incidents of where your technical insights coincide with comments you hear from musicians.... and you apparently include ..what ... all pianists ?? Re read your lines if you will.. <blockquote>>>Depends on whether or not those defects of character are audibly >>offensive to the musician. If they are I see no reason for it to carry on for >>another 100 years offending the very folks it's supposed to be pleasing when a >>new bridge(s) and some revised scaling can solve most of the problem.</blockquote> This was why I asked for clarification you see. What musicians are we talking about ?  And in the Petrof thread you made the point that perhaps we should not think like technicians so much.... (read throw away all that technical insight) and hear what pianists have to say. Now if I was to do that full out.... Petrofs or not... I would have so many conflicting ideas swimming around in my head it would ridiculous. (grin.. not that I don't already). Seems to me like the situation is reversed now. Seems like this time around it is you who are defining what is a "good piano" in terms of what is technically sound. That you get some number of musicians to agree with any subjective assessment shouldn't suprise anyone. Or what ?   <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  > Heck... lots of folks think the Steinway O is a horribly scaled piano... >and by some standards perhaps this is so... but then there are folks who just >love this S&S model. And we are often asked to improve things for the former and we are generally not asked to improve things for the latter. It's really the owners/musicians choice. Del</blockquote> Sorry, you lost me here... what former and latter are we talking about... I referred to the Steinway O only in that paragraph...But if you meant that you are asked often to improve the Steinway, and not the Petrof... well heck... I wouldn't pump a lot of money into a Petrof either. And as for justification for improving a Steinway.. that seems typical enough for high performance products. You see that all the time in any branch... and folks what want this kind of customization seem to know enough to separate a Porsche from a Polskie Fiat.... tho you do find the occasional lotto millionare....:) and everyone knows they are different then normal millionares.. -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway <A HREF="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no">mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</A>  </html>