concert grand longevity

[Horace Greeley]

Allen,

As I head madly out the door for a few days, it occurs to me
that 1.5 degrees on an S&S D of that period could well be
asking for trouble.

More later, next week, on my return, in case you're still
slugging this one out.

I really like the approach of using two (or more) intruments
for "load balancing", especially as I've used it for decades with
great success.

Too hip.

Gotta go.

Best.

Horace




At 03:40 PM 1/22/98 -0500, you wrote:
>        Reply to:   RE>>concert grand longevity
>
>to the group: Sorry, I meant to mention the age of the piano - Steinway "D"
>#43____ ca. 1976. More specifics: my anonymous mustachioed colleague restrung
>the piano in 1989, and at that time had the plate out (in order to check for
>firm seating on the the dowels and resurface the capo bar) and at that time
>carefully reset the bearing off the bridge with 1.5 degrees angle of
>deflection. So perhaps downbearing can be ruled out as the problem? I hung
new
>hammers in January of last year and juiced them in a very methodical and
>determined manner! I've checked the congruence of the time of sustain of the
>hammers and with picking the strings.
>
>As for your suggestion, Horace, that there may be extra-musical factors
>involved: to a degree there are, yes - the favored piano (#50) has actually
>come to be known by some as the "faculty" piano (with all that that implies
>for the other piano). I was determined to change this perception by
installing
>new hammers, brilliantly voiced (!) etc., because #43 isn't a bad sounding
>piano at all. Sometimes guest artists with no preconceptions have chosen
it. A
>less habituated faculty member recently chose it to accompany Sanford Sylvan
>in a Schubert recital and it went over very well. 
>
>But I've been forced to the admit the reality that it doesn't have anywhere
>near the singing sustain of #50, and that's the reason that #50 gets probably
>90% of the use. Which is unfortunate because of the factor you mentioned
>concerning the amount of playing time these instruments get - it's not only
>the recitals, but the constant use every day by studio classes, faculty and
>students rehearsing, recording sessions, etc. I've always thought that it's a
>shame the two pianos couldn't share the burden more - and my hope with this
>recent hammer replacement was that this piano would become the logical
>"darker" alternative to #50 (which has no lack of brilliance and projection).
>Nice theory, but it hasn't panned out - people aren't buying it - they only
>use #43 when there's a duo piano piece and they have to, generally speaking.
>And the problem for players (at least the best that I can understand the ones
>I can get opinions out of) seems to be the lack of sustain, the "dropping
off'
>or choked quality of the instrument - however you want to characterize it.
>It's a big hall the piano is trying to fill.
>
>I'll be very interested to hear people's further opinions about this.
>
>Allen Wright
>
>
>
Horace Greeley

Systems Analyst/Engineer
Controller's Office
Stanford University

email: hgreeley@leland.stanford.edu
voice mail: 650.725.9062
fax: 650.725.8014