S & S capo

[Horace Greeley]

Ron,

At 03:47 PM 2/26/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>Horace, I think you've said it before, and you've said it here; that (in
>my words) pianos have a natural tendency to have zings and buzzes, that
>they sound different on stage from how they sound at a distance. I think I
>agree on the last count, but not the first.

OK.

>When the legendary "Franzie" was here, last year, he iterated that he
>didn't like to take credit for what you hear in Horowitz's recordings
>because Horowitz would never let Franz voice the piano properly - wouldn't
>give Franz the time he needed. Consequently, when you hear those obnoxious
>"oinks" and zings, you can bet that Franz wouldn't have wanted those
>things there.

The recordings of Horrorwitz to which I refer predate Franz by no small period.
The latest would be from 1953.  Further, by the time he was making the 
recordings of his last few years, it's pretty clear from the disks themselves
that he was increasingly reliant on whatever the piano itself could do.
It is from that frame of reference that I place Franz' remarks.  Specifically,
while it is well known that Horrorwitz' instruments were (by and large)
always very light, his further insistance on volume meant that the hammers
were hardened far past where Franz would have otherwise chosen to leave them.
While this did result in a louder piano, it also resulted in an instrument
that was extra-ordinarily sensitive to being overdriven (in the sense of
being driven into distortion on loud playing).  Also, he was obssessed with
"finishing" his recordings, and did not feel that he could sacrifice any
time.  

I must also say that I am not sure that I agree with your last sentence, as
stated.  The oinks and zings specific to those particular recordings are
endemic to recordings made in any closely miked situation.  S&S dampers are
simply the worst to try to make quiet in the studio, and the engineers
would much rather have a piano that is "flat", with the sound of which they
can "play" at will.  This, also, is a very different environment from the
stage of a hall of any real size.  I would, most certainly, agree that 
Franz would have preferred that things be, at least, more regular, from one
note to the next.  All of that being said, I really do not want to put words
into his mouth.  

>In the case of other recordings, I suspect that similar situations are
>responsible for (at least to my ears) those embarrassing unmusical sounds.

This really is a matter of perception, I think.  By and large, recordings
made since 1960 grow less and less like what one hears in a hall.  That
is my frame of reference - what does one hear from the audience?  This is
a _very_ different perspective than that of the person sitting on stage.
It becomes a question of from which perspective does one listen?  Having
spent many years playing in orchestras, back stage, and listening from
the audience, as well as many, many recordings, mine is not "average" - 
whatever _that_ is, to begin with.

What this experience continues to teach me is that these things which can,
most certainly, be entirely unacceptable in one setting, can be the very
things which make the difference between being heard and not being heard
in a real concert setting.  And, it is from those clearly divergent 
perspectives that I suggest that we learn to work with these noises, rather
than to simply decide that they are bad and have to go away.

>From still another perspective, even if one were to assert that these
noises are undesirable, a cursory look at the design suggests that the
potential for them to be used in positive ways exists.  Granted, and with
full appreciation of the work of Del Fandrich (and others), what I am 
representing is a 19th/earlier 20th Cent. view of piano tone and projection.
Given the current state of production, and, taking into account the trends
in piano design and scale, to say nothing of sales numbers, etc., my view
is characterized, most chartiably, perhaps, as old fashioned.

Another factor, but the subject of yet another discussion, would be the
influence of _other_ recording techniques on our perceptions of what
piano tone might have been.  Many, if not most, of the pre-1950/60 
recordings made, would have been done with carbon ribbon microphones.
These are, by their nature, warmer, in that they do not record high
frequencies (especially transients) as accurately as newer types.  The
resulting recordings tend to be "warmer" than the performances would
have been.

>Perhaps it's the anal-retentive side of me at work, or perhaps it's just
>that I listen so hard to the piano that I can't stand the shift zings and
>damper oinks. (I've gotten so discouraged about eliminating the
>shift-pedal oinks that I've actually shied away from using full shift when
>playing PP or PPP passages! Makes for challenging playing, to be sure!) I
>don't think it's such a bad thing to be watchful of. 


Well, as a bassoonist, I gave up piano playing (as a _player_) many years
ago, so some of these problems are not mine.  At the same time, I think
that that has also given me some distance on these issues.  Shift pedal
oinks require most anal work  - spacing, leveling, fitting, regulation,
needle work,...right on down the line.  Bottom line is that the work
is never done - one simply has to find a reasonable place at which to stop.
(Rather like the apprentice polisher who, after a day of working on one
piece of wood, asked the old master how he knew when he was finished with
a given piece.  The answer was: "When they take it away and give me another.")

>Certainly,
>eliminating extraneous noises isn't any less important than, oh, say,
>measuring centerpin friction with $170 gages, right? <E-E G> :-)

One place where, as the owner of very early models of digital micrometers
and linear scales, I can throw no bricks.  (My Correx gauge didn't cost $170,
either.)

Besides, there is no nit too small to pick.

Best!

Horace