[CAUT] Brodmann pianos

[Jim Busby]

Fred,

All I know is what I've seen, and every time I've made the changes Ron and Del recommended it came out measurably and aesthetically better (Yea, yea, IMO!!!) than the original. Furthermore, I've never heard of anyone who has actually done it, then moved it back. ("Wow, that didn't work...") Only those who poo poo it and who have never done it.

I guess another man's trash is indeed the other mans treasure.

Regards,

Jim Busby





-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Fred Sturm
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 7:48 PM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Brodmann pianos

Okay, I guess if somebody says that having no cantilever, and longer
back scale, is "better" and that this is something that should be
accepted as a "fact" I get the impression that it implies that
everyone else is wrong <G>. No big deal, I really admire and prefer
the attitude that constantly challenges assumptions and authority. But
sometimes there are dangers lurking in having "proven" the other side
wrong.
        Granted, the pro-cantilever crowd justify their design on false
premises: "it puts the bearing out in a more resonant part of the
soundboard;" "it allows for longer string length, which obviously is
to be preferred." This is twaddle, as you have very ably pointed out.
But that doesn't necessarily make shorter back length and cantilever a
bad design feature per se. Lots of people do the "right" thing for the
"wrong" reason - and vice versa <G>.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu



On Apr 29, 2008, at 5:10 PM, Ron Nossaman wrote:

>
>>    But Ric is also right, in telling Jim and Ron that their opinion
>> based on experience doesn't make everybody else wrong.
>
> Where did either Jim or I say that everybody else was wrong, and why
> is it so inevitably phrased and misrepresented that way?
>
> Ron N