Hi Tim,
I think we both have the same over all feeling about the
comparison with these two fine instruments. Incidentally this is the best
new Steinway that I have heard, a real accident, an exception to the rule.
Or exceptional techs that whipped it into shape??
There is no doubt in my mind that the Stanwood action is more sensitive and
faster, but the deviation from a normal feel, what ever that may mean?
takes some getting some used to. Are serious pianist willing to pay the
dues to explore the full potential?? More questions than answers, in my
own mind.
But we as a professional group, will need to get to grips with all the
subjective issues with each other, before we can move outwards.
Some one on the PT list once said we are not artist, but technicians. I
disagree, this level of workmanship is artistry at it's best. We need to
become first class technicians before we can gain artistry. Unless we start
to investigate the piano as both tech's and artist, we will never achieve
the higher level of excellence.
Our sharing of experiences of tone, touch, and perception is where we need
to start.
Roger
At 06:54 PM 4/15/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi Roger,
>
>I appreciate your comments. I'm not trying to disagree with you. I
wanted to
>make sure I was interpreting your initial comments correctly. I wasn't quite
>sure.
>
>I agree that 29 is no longer a Steinway. It is better in my opinion. I have
>heard and played the piano before the Stanwood action went in. I traveled 30
>hours round trip on my own dime to experience what Michael Wathen told me was
>important. Michael and I have been friends for 23 years, and he has never
>steered me wrong. Except maybe when he tried to convince me I should use
a tree
>to burnish in the wax on my cross country skis <g>. That is the way of the
>original cross country skiers (1800s) you know.
>
>The tone and projection you are describing was happening when I first
heard 29
>with mainly the Wapin Bridge as the main change. I was told the most
dramatic
>change that happened to this piano was the installation of the Wapin
Bridge. It
>influenced me to become involved with the Wapin Bridge. At this point I have
>done more Wapin installations (20) than anybody, including Michael Wathen
(I'm
>one better). I believe the Stanwood action took 29 to an even higher plain.
>Eric and Lawrence have worked to advance 29 beyond what Michael did with it.
>
>As for the pianists perceptions, it has been interesting to experience their
>reactions. All the pianists I have dealt with felt the clarity and
projection.
>They were even more impressed when they heard the piano in the hall being
played
>by someone else. I also find it interesting that a 1929 S&SD is being
compared
>on equal footing with a hand picked new S&SD. Most of the people I have
dealt
>with have not had that chance to compare, but they have preferred the Wapin
>Bridged piano over almost all other pianos they have played. My
understanding is
>that it was a draw between 29 and the new S&SD. I think that is an
>accomplishment when you look at the cost involved with making 29 what it
is and
>buying a new S&SD.
>
>Tim Coates
>University of South Dakota
>University of Sioux Falls
>
>jolly roger wrote:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>> I'm not so sure of all of the details, the new piano is NY
>> stock so I presume NY hammers. But that may be wrong.
>> The 1929 is no longer a Steinway <G> and has, I believe Renner blues.
>> I was aware of the various tech's that were involved with various stages of
>> rebuilding. And am fully aware there are many factors and changes that
>> upped the projection and tone pallet.
>> I'm sorry if I made light of others work, but the point I was trying to
>> make. The old piano in the hall was by far the better sounding, however at
>> the piano bench one gets a different perception.
>> I'm not so sure what I'm trying to say, but I would like to hear a
>> discoarse on tone, touch, and the perceptions, both in a hall, and at the
>> bench. From both players and listeners.
>> Things are never quite what they seem.
>> Thank's for you comments. I have no disagreement.
>> regards Roger
>>
>> At 04:26 PM 1/2/70 -0600, you wrote:
>> >Roger,
>> >
>> >I'm not sure what you are saying here. Does the newer D have NY or German
>> S&S
>> >hammers on it? Or, are your referring to the Renner hammers as the
"German"
>> >hammers?
>> >
>> >If you are referring to the Renner Hammers as the German hammers, then the
>> >reason the older D sounds as it does isn't because of the hammers alone.
>> There
>> >was a transformation on the older D that was done in stages. What you
>> heard is
>> >the tail end of that transformation. The people who were at UC during the
>> >first part of the transformation were Rolf vanWalthusen and Michael
Wathen.
>> >Eric Wolfley and Lawrence Becker then came on board and did more
refinements.
>> >To judge this piano on hammers alone is discounting the work done on many
>> areas
>> >of this piano by several people.
>> >
>> >Tim Coates
>> >University of South Dakota
>> >University of Sioux Falls
>> >
>> >jolly roger wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Don,
>> >> I was in Cincinnati last fall for the Ohio state convention,
>> >> Lawrence Becker hosted a group of CAUT participant's to share ideas.
>> >> His two prize D's One about a year old, the other a 1929 rebuild with
full
>> >> Stanwood treatment and very high strike weight. Wapin bridge, and Renner
>> >> hammers.
>> >> Both pianos sounded wonderful, Obviously Lawrence showing off a little.
>> >> <G>. Would'nt we all in front of our peers? Beautiful work.
>> >> We had a grad student play the same pieces on the two D's and a Bossy.
>> >> (Also ran)
>> >> Interesting results. Most of use preferred the tonal pallet and
range of
>> >> the the old rebuilt D, from out in the hall. My immediate comment to
>> >> Lawrence, not knowing which was which, " That is not steinway
hammers". He
>> >> just smiled before telling us of the changes.
>> >> Talking to the Grad student, however, she much preferred the New D.
Several
>> >> in the group played both pianos, and some changed their minds, once they
>> >> sat at the instruments and got connected.
>> >> A very worth while exercise, and very illuminating about the human
>> >> connection of tone and touch.
>> >> I hope Lawrence is reading this and will expand on his observations.
But
>> >> you should exchange notes with him, we could all benifit from the
>> dialogue.
>> >> For my money the German hammers had a greater tonal pallet, with that
clear
>> >> singing translucent French romantic sound at ppp, so elusive with juiced
>> >> hammers. Not sure if I'm describing the tone that well.
>> >> Please keep us informed of the chapter results.
>> >> Regards roger
>> >>
>> >> At 11:59 AM 4/12/01 -0400, you wrote:
>> >> >Hi John,
>> >> >
>> >> >In January I put a set of Hamburg's on our 22 year old D. (this piano
>> >> >was restrung last August, used GC bass strings) Since then, every guest
>> >> >artist and one piano faculty member have chosen this piano over our 3
>> >> >year old NY D. In all fairness to the NY, it is in need of hammer
filing
>> >> >etc. but due to usage that has not been possible this semester. The
>> >> >Hamburg hammers have a very nice clarity but less of a tonal palate
than
>> >> >the NY. The pianists that have used the older D preferred the clarity
>> >> >and punch. I plan to work on the NY after commencement and then have a
>> >> >chapter meeting here to compare the two and analyze the tonal
>> >> >characteristics of each. Should be fun.
>> >> >
>> >> >I also but a set of Hamburg's on an old B in the practice rooms. Same
>> >> >tonal situation as above. The students scrambled to sign out that room.
>> >> >Go figure.
>> >> >
>> >> >Don McKechnie
>> >> >Ithaca College
>> >> >
>> >
>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC