On Jun 5, 2010, at 10:09 AM, rwest1 at unl.edu wrote: > In summary, it's helpful to entertain a variety of needle insertion > choices that can be employed and make judgments based on the feel of > the needles going in. Well put Richard, your whole post. Lots of different techniques work, but there are principles that apply to all, I'm going to go back to the original post I was responding to, in which Marc Cramer talked about "overly aggressive needling" shortening hammer life. That sentence was combined with talking about replacing hammers on a three year regular cycle. Both things raised my eyebrows. I live in a different world, probably somewhat lower use pianos and certainly lower expectations. But I replace hammers in a concert instrument on more like a 15-20 year cycle. So there is a pretty big level of magnitude difference. It makes me wonder why a set of hammers would need to be replaced so often. What is overly aggressive? In my experience, sharp stab voicing is. And why should voicing shorten hammer life? I don't believe my voicing shortens the life of my hammers appreciably. Once the shoulders have been opened up, the most destructive work is done. If the shoulders are done again (and they usually are, because the felt tends to pack again after playing a while), it is less work, and the fibers are looser so there is less tearing. The remainder of the work is mostly single needle, or focused 3 needle in the area up to the crown, or very narrow needles (#10, #12) in the crown. Very little destruction, no aggression. BTW, the small needles allow for dealing with the packing of the hammer grooves in a less destructive and very rapid manner. Insertion directly in the groove, usually three per groove (centered and to each side), and insertion between the grooves for una corda (usually #12 for the grooves, #10 for the u c). About 2.5 to 3 mm. This allows for less hammer filing, and the smaller needles definitely are far less destructive, and are quite effective in getting the effect I want (it is mostly for p and pp playing, losing the "ping" but retaining the focus). Also, it is very fast. 5-15 minutes for the whole piano, and the difference is quite apparent and pretty darned even. I am also going to mention again the possibility of two needle as opposed to three or one for prevoicing. For hammers where the effort to press three needles in is too much (and that is true of many if not most), using two needles can be a very good solution. The pattern is to make two rows of two needle insertions, ie a row up each half of the width of each hammer, so you end up with four evenly spaced needle insertions across the whole width of the hammer, done multiple times. Generally speaking, ten pokes per row (shoulder up towards crown), so 20 pokes per side of each hammer (40 total individual needle insertions per side). This takes me usually 1.5 - 2 hrs, and opens up the shoulders enough to allow for three needle voicing. And it is a lot faster than single needle for the same effect. I have been preferring this to other techniques like voice grips or steam - more controllable and predictable - even for nasty-ish hammers in noncritical situations. I can usually afford two hours, and the results are much better than what I have got with other techniques. Regards, Fred Sturm fssturm at unm.edu http://www.youtube.com/fredsturm
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC