Horace, Sorry to hear of your month long illness. I hope that this particular episode is a done deal. I wish to respond to parts of your post at your convenience: >...These things are really subjective. However, in re: both the double-flange >S&S and the >W,N&G actions, there was a design emphasis on minimizing the differences >(as to the overall >feel of the action) between the upright and grand actions. Thus, in part, >these are actions which > _tend_ to follow the motion of the finger more than a "normal" (whatever >that is, given the period >we are discussing) action. (People approached the playing of the piano >differently then. Keys >were not approached like "on/off" switches, but as levered extensions of >the finger, which was, >itself, an extension of a series of levers beginning with the >muscles/vertebrae of the back. >See, e.g. Ortmann and Matthay, among others.)... So, basically I am understanding you to say in this paragraph is that the double flange action was a superior action because it lent itself to be a more feeling, controllable action for the pianist, but that it can't really be explained because its too subjective, and not a technical factor. >...Another factor which we, as technicians often overlook, is that piano >building has always been >a for profit venture. While we could argue what that has meant at >different times, for different >manufacturers, in essence it boils down to making decisions like: Do I, as >a maker, make more >profit by designing an action which uses one less machined part and one >less screw than a do >by designing one which uses two of each? This paragraph confuses me from your first paragraph by the fact that it seems to imply the double flange action was made with the "for profit" mentality (one screw, one flange vs two), which would take away from the "superior action" concept. Or did they just get lucky and get a superior action in the process? >Recommended reading is "Piano Building in America:1890-1940" by Carl Roelle... Does this book explain in detail the reasons for the "superior action" concept? >Does this help? It's a continuing problem - the things which make a given >instrument more >or less "musical" are not always things which can be reasonably reductively >analyzed. By this paragraph I am deducing there is not really an answer my original question. Yes...no...maybe...never mind :-) Peace, Keith A. McGavern, RPT kam544@ionet.net Oklahoma Baptist University Saint Gregory's University Shawnee, Oklahoma, USA
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC