[CAUT] Natural key width

[Porritt, David]

Fred:

The Steinbuhler action for a Steinway D can be adapted to fit in any
Steinway D.  The one we have has been in many different pianos from
Chicago to Houston.  An artist has but to purchase one and then take it
with them.  Actually the switching back and forth has been less of a
problem for the people who use the 7/8 but when they play on a full
action they do have to forgo some of the reparatory that they play on
the 7/8 for the simple reason that they can't play it on the standard
action.  Our teacher who uses a 7/8 plays on standard keyboard also, she
just has to leave off some Rachmaninoff that plays on the 7/8.

dp

____________________
David M. Porritt, RPT
dporritt at smu.edu
 
-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
Fred Sturm
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 5:52 PM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Natural key width

On Jan 25, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Ron Overs wrote:

>  However, I do still believe that an unoccupied niche in the world  
> of pianos is that no manufacturer currently offers a smaller  
> keyboard as an option.

Amen to that! Although in performance, the problem is that concert  
halls have what they have, so the pianist has to adapt. It would be  
pretty hard to base a career on demanding a special instrument unless  
you were a very remarkable performer.
	Speaking as a pianist, even 2 mm less for an octave would be
welcome  
(more or less what you get going from the 1230 to the 1218). Better  
yet would be  around 5mm less per octave, which would be near 7 mm for  
a 10th, and that would make it a _lot_ less precarious to try to play  
one without rolling using my fairly average-sized hands. Going from  
the 1218 to the 1230+ is disconcerting and troublesome when playing  
pieces that involve such stretches. The number of large-handed  
pianists is tiny compared with average to small-handed, especially in  
this day of oriental women as the average serious piano student. But  
what are the odds of getting S&S to go a bit smaller in our lifetimes?  
Actually, probably better odds today than ever, as they are very open  
to outside feedback the past few years. But still a rather difficult  
nut to crack. I suppose if someone catered in that direction with  
enough budget, it would be possible to gain wide acceptance over time.
	I think the 15/16 is perhaps a more reasonable size than 7/8s,
in  
terms of being able to adapt back and forth. It comes to a bit more  
than 10 mm per octave smaller. 7/8 is over 20 mm per octave different.
	
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu