Rebuilding

[Delwin D Fandrich]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment


Stephen Birkett wrote:

> Robert really is asking to choose between: restore or rebuild?
>
> Rebuilding, or "modernizing" an old piano has been accepted practice for 2
> centuries. Restoring is a modern idea, to preserve the piano in its
> original aesthetic. The older the piano is the more divergent these two
> paths are. And for really old, or rare, specimens there are ethical
> considerations coming into play. Taking this to the extreme, Mozart's
> Walter was substantially rebuilt (i.e. modernized) around 1800, by an
> early 19th C "Del"...we will never know what its condition was when M had
> it. Some important history lost. On the other hand, when Del rebuilds a
> mass-produced 20th C. grand, especially a run-of-the-mill one, "improving
> the acoustic properties in light of current knowledge", nothing is lost.
> The answer to Robert's question comes somewhere between these two
> extremes, and each piano has to be considered as an individual.

OK. I promise. When we're down to just one original configuration Steinway B, I'll leave it alone.
But you're point is well taken. And, of course, it raises another question. How does one tell the
difference between a "run-of-the-mill" instrument and one which may have some historical
significance at some point in the future? Did the person rebuilding, or "modernizing" the instrument
used by Mozart understand he was altering something that future historians would have valued much
more if it had been left in its original form? This is something I do consider from time to time. So
far I've never been asked to alter anything that will ever be considered to have any historical
value. At least as far as I know.
----------

> Are the "mistakes" of early builders really mistakes, or an essential part
> of the character of the piano? Do we prefer an earlier aesthetic or the
> modern one?  One thing that is for certain is a funneling of tonal variety
> toward the end of last century, so modern pianos are now much more
> homogenized between manufacturers than ever before...i.e. less choice for
> the consumer.  Andre likes the tonal structure of the early pianos, but he
> also likes the "thundering power" of a modern concert grand...there is a
> tradeoff here since we cannot have both in the same piano. But we can have
> both separately. And in fact we can have all the earlier aesthetics as well.

I'm not entirely convinced yet that what Andre is looking for is not obtainable in one instrument.
As I read his post, he was loving the sweetness and the softness of the sound of an earlier piano.
We have accepted that we cannot have this in a modern piano and we tend to believe it because modern
pianos don't have it. Well, don't believe everything you hear! We have too long accepted as reality
the notion that modern, large pianos have to sound like they were in tin cans so that they can
"project." Well, phooey! What has gotten lost along the way is the notion that this thing we call
the piano is really supposed to be a pianoforte. We should have petitions circulating to change
their common name from "the piano" to "the forte" if all they can do is play loud and less loud. We
should not be judging a piano's tone by its "power" -- within its size range, that's a given. We
should be judging it by its dynamics. The same instrument that conjures up images of the waves
gently lapping against the shore should also be capable of sending them crashing against the nearby
boulders and cliffs. The rain should gently fall through the leaves and the thunder should crash and
roar! We need to set a higher standard and stop accepting all these cop-out excuses about how it
can't be done. Of course it can.
----------

> The current piano world is very much influenced by the notion that the
> piano has reached some sort of pinnacle and cannot develop further.
> Wrong. In fact this sort of stagnation is dangerous and really for the
> first time in the history of the piano. It has to evolve or die. Why are
> modern manufacturers so scared to introduce new technology or radical
> designs into their instruments?

And therein lies a book or two. It boils down to two major factors, I think. First, in this country
at least there is an unwillingness to invest the money in R&D in what, to management, seems like a
bottomless pit. While I was at Baldwin, The entire R&D budget was somewhat less than 1/10 of 1.0% of
gross revenues. Even for what is considered a "stable" industry, that's pretty sad. I doubt that it
was much more than that for any other U.S. company at the time. In fact, I doubt that any other U.S.
company except, perhaps, for Steinway even had an R&D budget. Unfortunately, R&D is not something in
which a $100.00 investment today will yield $140.00 next week. Guaranteed. But it will keep your
company in business. Back in the mid-1960's I called Aeolian and asked to speak with someone in
their R&D department. They didn't have one. I asked to speak with one of their product engineers.
They didn't have one. In the mid-1970's when I called to speak with someone in the company -- they
didn't have one.

The second reason is fear of the unknown. It is the rare piano company executive today who is either
an accomplished pianist in his or her own right or who has an undying love for and understanding of
the instrument. They depend on the opinions of others. Which would be fine if those "others" would
fit into one of those categories. But this is business and everyone has their own agenda. Everyone
else is also scrambling to get to the top and the best way to do that is to go along with what has
worked in the past and don't rock the boat. So they are not necessarily the most reliable sources of
advice. This leaves the company leader somewhat at a loss to know whether or not it is really safe
for the company to make any changes in the instrument that do get suggested. They cannot, on their
own, sit down and listen to the piano and form their own judgment of the thing. And, good luck, if
you thing you're going to get any two musicians to agree about anything. So, the "safe" course is to
do nothing. Keep building the same product. Talk about "quality." Talk about "hand-craftsmanship."
Talk about "tone." Talk about anything, but don't rock the boat.

>
>
> For certain what I do, the most extreme version of "restoration", making
> reproductions, would have been laughed at in 1814....maybe some of you
> think the same in 1997...
>
> but I am rambling a bit...so will stop
>
> Stephen
>
> Stephen Birkett Fortepianos
> Authentic Reproductions of 18th and 19th Century Pianos
> 464 Winchester Drive
> Waterloo, Ontario
> Canada N2T 1K5
> tel: 519-885-2228
> email: birketts@wright.aps.uoguelph.ca

Well, I also ramble... so will stop.

Del

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vcard.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 392 bytes
Desc: Card for Fandrich, Del
Url : https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/b8/a2/dd/4b/vcard.vcf

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment--