[CAUT] Weikert felt; was 80 year old S&S hammers

[Porritt, David]

Fred said: " A lot of  
discussion tends along the lines of deciding on "the very best" hammer  
felt or soundboard design or scaling or touchweight ratios. These are  
good discussions to have, but rather than come to a decision about  
what are the very best elements for some ideal instrument, I argue for  
divergence of opinion leading to variety."

That's fine for you and me at a school, but most people are buying or rebuilding their _one_ piano for their continuous use.  They have to find out what is the main thing they want and settle on that and their "variety" is limited to what that piano, hammer selection and action set-up will give them.  This means a hammer that is not too bright nor too dark, a whole set-up that will give them some tonal variety, and an action that they can live with for (probably) the rest of their life.  I think the perception of the importance of this decision makes people head for the "safe" choice - or what the technician/salesman convinces them is the safe choice.

dave

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: Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:20 PM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Weikert felt; was 80 year old S&S hammers

On Apr 16, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Don Mannino wrote:

> Where the flexible board / low tension scale relationship to this  
> breaks
> down, for me, is to consider the old Mason & Hamlin pianos.  Correct  
> me
> if I'm wrong ye bellymen, but my understanding is that those pianos  
> had
> rather thick and stiff soundboards, and what we all love about them is
> their singing quality and expressive nature.  It was a different
> approach than Steinway, and may have kept them out of the concert hall
> to a large degree, but they were beautiful, expressive pianos.

	Yes, "singing quality and expressive nature." Where do those things  
lie, and for whom? And for what music? (I share the love of the old  
M&H). Which is why I try to make a point of saying that I am not  
meaning to advocate for one design. I think there are many ways of  
assembling the various factors to come up with very good results. One  
will have more sustain, and "singing" quality. Another will have more  
clarity. Another will have more "range of color." Another will have  
more "power." Or "sweetness." Or "character."
	Same thing with violins, in terms of quality of tone. And the variety  
is wonderful, not a detriment. Violinists spend a great deal of time  
agonizing over what instrument to buy, and the answer is rarely cut  
and dried. "Better for this but not so good for that."
	I think the same can be true of pianos, and it can be to a greater  
extent than it is in current production, which tends to converge in  
many ways around a fairly narrow band of parameters. There are a lot  
of philosophies that can be pursued, and the more the better. A lot of  
discussion tends along the lines of deciding on "the very best" hammer  
felt or soundboard design or scaling or touchweight ratios. These are  
good discussions to have, but rather than come to a decision about  
what are the very best elements for some ideal instrument, I argue for  
divergence of opinion leading to variety.

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