[CAUT] S&S Hammers and lacquer

[David Love]

But wasn't the earlier reinforcement of the outer and lower shoulders only?
Also, wasn't it largely to do with reinforcing the felt for purposes of a
better glue joint on the molding or holding the staple better or something
like that?  That's a different thing than using the chemicals to build tone.
I have read the tone building book that Del edited (though there is a fair
amount of material to cover) and I don't know if you saw his post on this
but he suggests that there is no evidence that reinforcement (certainly not
of the type they are doing now--total saturation) was in practice that
early.  I didn't notice any mention of that either.  While I haven't done
the full chemical analysis, my exposure to countless sets of old hammers
from that period doesn't suggest that any chemical hardeners were in use and
if so they certainly weren't reaching anywhere on or even below the strike
point.   

 

I will certainly agree about the importance, artistic demand and motivating
force of developing a good tonal concept and control.

 

David Love
davidlovepianos at comcast.net
www.davidlovepianos.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Solliday
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 10:32 AM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: Re: [CAUT] S&S Hammers and lacquer

 

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 <mailto:fssturm at unm.edu>  

To: College and University <mailto:caut at ptg.org>  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/b73fea6c/attachment.html