[CAUT] S&S Hammers and lacquer

[Chris Solliday]

In fact Steinway has been reinforcing hammers chemically since at least 1911. It may not have been  lacquer per se but... see the discussion in Piano Tone Building recently edited by Del Fandrich and available from The Foundation. You've got to go along way to find hammers with no reinforcement in Steinway's history. As Fred implies we can learn to work with these hammers, and frankly despite attempts at conformity and consistency every set from every manufacturer has and always will be different (such indulgent hyperbole) so you've got to learn to build tone and knock it down, both brillance and carry.
I for one am grateful. If tone weren't such an issue I wouldn't have as strong a reason to get out of bed in the morning, and we all know what the absence of that could lead to.
Chris Solliday
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Fred Sturm 
  To: College and University Technicians 
  Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 7:59 PM
  Subject: Re: [CAUT] S&S Hammers and lacquer


  On Sep 21, 2007, at 12:30 PM, Jeff Tanner wrote:


    And so, if hammers were replaced by technicians in the field who didn't know to, didn't know how to, or chose not to use lacquer or shellac, this would explain why someone would find hammers from a NY 1920s D to not contain anything but felt.


    My question would have to be that if the ideal hammer was one that did not require lacquer -- if the sound they are looking for really required a hammer that did not require lacquer, then why spend $1 million plus <<recently>> on a new hammer press to manufacture hammers that still require lacquer? How much sense does that make?


    Why not just call up Renner and say, hey guys, pick up production -- we're switching to your Wurzen hammers because they produce the sound we've always been searching for?


    Jeff


  Hi Jeff,
  I don't think you can argue that there was a grand design way back when (1920 or before) to create the Steinway sound via felt impregnated with hardener. I agree that they have decided today that that is the way they want to go, without excuses or regrets, but I think they got there slowly. That's what the history I have been able to gather tells me, regardless of the "official line" that "they have always been that way." That's why I included the anecdote about Franz Mohr in my earlier post. Why wouldn't the chief C & A tech be clued in if this was really a planned company policy? Franz is one of the most true blue Steinway guys around, and will tell you endlessly what a perfect instrument it is. So why would he, just a year ago or so, tell me that the reason they used lacquer in the 60s and 70s was because the hammers they had those days weren't good enough? It just doesn't add up. 
  I'm happy with current policy and production. I can work with it, and lots of pianists and techs are satisfied, regardless of other arguments. But let's not try to re-write history. 

  Regards,
  Fred Sturm
  University of New Mexico
  fssturm at unm.edu





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070922/905e1c0a/attachment.html