I ask again, was Re: tapping strings

[Fred Sturm]

I'll throw in a brief opinion. Agree that the word should be "seat,"
not tap, for reasons already stated by several. This to be distinguished
from "fitting" or "mating" the string to terminations (causing definite
bends at bridge pins, capo, etc, which helps define the speaking length
and helps eliminate initial wildness - and which should be done, IMO, by
means of a massaging action, pressing on the string with a grooved brass
tool and pushing toward the termination, or pulling up at agraffe. And
generally only needed on new strings).
	One should "seat" strings on the bridge only when needed, ie, when
there is a symptom. The symptom is a kind of buzzy sound that tells you
the string isn't solidly on the bridge. Often happens after a
particularly energetic pianists beats the crap out of a piano (to put it
politely). But sometimes "just happens" even when the piano gets less
than abusive treatment. A pushing movement in the speaking length,
toward the angle between pin and bridge, is the maximum required. Often
just placing the tip of a screwdriver or whatever on the string
somewhere on the bridge behind the pin, and giving it a nudge, will be
enough. Or maybe a tap with the palm of the hand.
	If it's a false beat you're dealing with, string seating isn't the
answer, IMO. That's a separate can of worms, having to do, almost but
not always, with loose bridge pins.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico

Wimblees@aol.com wrote:
> It is so interesting that a simple question has resulted in such a
> diverse answer. On the one extreme is the notion that tapping is not
> only not needed, but actually bad, and the other notion, which states
> that it is needed and should be done. While I would welcome the
> thought that it is not needed, I still have not read the answer to my
> basic question: how often should strings be tapped, or seated, on the
> bridge?
> 
> Wim