[CAUT] Natural key width

[Jim Busby]

Fred,

When we had the 7/8 here at BYU we found that 10 - 15 minutes were all needed for most pianists to adjust. However, there were 2 excellent pianists that acted like it was poison. 15 seconds and "OOOOH!!" and they were off. Kind of a funny response. Especially from the one fellow who has won many prestigious competitions.

Regards,
Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Fred Sturm
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 9:55 AM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Natural key width

Hi David,
        I'd be a bit worried taking a keyframe/action assembly with me.
First, getting it packed well and having it arrive safe and sound at
the venue at the other end; and then packed well for the return. But
second, you would need to be certain there was a tech at the other end
capable of doing the work needed. And it _could_ be a lot, depending
on a lot of factors. For instance, width of keyblocks (might not
accommodate optimum positioning - S&S keyblocks are custom cut to each
piano in the factory, so width is not standard); alignment of hammers
to strings (capo sections can vary a lot, and agraffes often do as
well); string height; string level (or out of level); unison spacing
in the capo sections (individual strings within the trichord -
especially problematic for una corda voicing). It might work out fine,
but it might turn out to be a nightmare, where a less than fully
competent tech faced a problematic fit. Certainly getting it in
concert ready condition would need a top notch, efficient tech, at
least in many cases. And how can a pianist know whether X tech in a
far away venue is competent in that way? Pretty much a roll of the
dice in many cases, especially off the beaten path. I guess if it
became common enough, a grapevine of techs and pianists would develop.
        I suppose going back and forth from 7/8 or 15/16 to full wouldn't
really be any harder than going from violin to viola, probably an
almost instant adaptation for a decent pianist. It's where I go from a
keyboard where I can fairly consistently reach that 10th around the
edges of the corners of those naturals (without making one of them
sound a little) to one where it is definitely hit or miss that is more
disconcerting. So close and yet so far. Frustrating as all get out.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu



On Jan 26, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Porritt, David wrote:

> 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
>
>
>