[CAUT] 1850's Pleyel Grand

[Chris Solliday]

I strongly second Fred's message. This is what we have been teaching in the
Pianotek Masters Class "Grand Action Renovation" for several years. If you
understand the principles you can customize either way, light or heavy
hammers or how bout just right hammers, and high or low ratio to drive the
thing. Sometimes somewhere in the middle is best. It really depends on the
situation and the client. Flexibility is your greatest asset here.
Chris Solliday
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Sturm" <fssturm at unm.edu>
To: "caut" <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] 1850's Pleyel Grand


> On 11/29/07 11:13 AM, "Douglas Wood" <dew2 at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi, all. I can't leave this one untouched. I, and several other NW
> > techs, have plenty of experience "un-educating" pianos for
> > dissatisfied clients. It's quite expensive. I don't want at all to
> > get into any bashing or disrespect, BUT hammers that are too light
> > produce a very monochromatic tone, actually. Penetrating and
> > constricted. At least on Steinway boards. And the actions are
> > actually quite a lot of work for a good pianist. They don't help the
> > hand in the way that more traditional preparations do. Just because a
> > little lighter hammer is often appreciated doesn't mean that a much
> > lighter one is also good. As in so many things in our profession,
> > there is a range around an optimum, and different folks like things a
> > bit different.
> >
> > For my money, the bigger hammers have more tonal potential, but as
> > they get bigger, they get to be too much work.
> >
> > It's easy to forget how subtle and complex the relationship between
> > the hand and the ear is--the one that the piano connects so
> > satisfyingly.
> >
> > Doug Wood
> Hi Doug,
>     I do want to make clear that I am not a "light hammer advocate." I
don't
> think all pianos should be redesigned to have lighter hammers and higher
> ratios. What I am arguing for is an open mind. And, I guess, against what
I
> see as a knee-jerk redesign with heavier hammers and a lower ratio,
> something I think a number of people are doing.
>     I agree with you whole-heartedly on your last two sentences. Yes,
those
> extra heavy hammers become virtually impossible to prepare so that you can
> get a good range of color. There is definitely a "too heavy" for most
> practical purposes, though there may be a place for that too heavy I
> suppose. And that subtle and complex relationship of hand/finger/ear is
what
> I am trying to point out. That in many cases a lighter strike weight with
a
> higher ratio might be just the thing - for a given piano and pianist.
>     I'll go a bit further and note that we tend to focus on the concert
> instrument in the large or moderate size hall, and maybe we forget that
most
> pianos are in living rooms or studios or something else much smaller.
There
> is definitely a place for pianos with less power, less brilliance, but a
> very subtle and refined preparation. Most pianos are, like clavichords of
a
> few centuries back, only used for the player's own enjoyment most of the
> time. There is room - and, I think, a good market - for a very wide range
of
> input/output.
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico
>