Horrible example(s) (flame, offtopic)

[Edward Carwithen]

Horace:  Hear, Hear!  I appreciate all of the comments, even those that are
about what not to do!  People... please don't blast us for having opinions,
and for expressing them.  If you don't like it, just delete.

At 03:09 PM 11/20/97 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>Bill,
>
>At 03:03 PM 11/20/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>    I simply don't find any useful purpose in revealing every gory detail
>>about someon'e inept and/or fraudulent attempt at rebuilding a piano.  A few
>>weeks ago, someone was trashing Dr. Floyd Stevens book of some 25 years ago.
>>    To uphold the right and privilege to read and savor this kind of
>>"information" makes about as much sense and is about as worthwhile as our
>>right would be to go digging in a landfill  to find out what someone threw
>>out in the garbage. 
>>     What can be gained by "analysing the scale"  of a poorly made
instrument
>>that was so poorly "rebuilt" that it cannot be tuned?  Why does anyone need
>>to read about that?
>
>In writing things like tha above, you say significantly more about who you
>are and
>how you do what you do than you may be aware.
>
>There is always something to be learned from each, and every, source.  This
>is particularly
>true when dealing with a profession which is not only as young as piano
>tuning, but has,
>additionally, had so little opportunity for its practitioners to learn how
>to separate the
>wheat from the inevitable chaff of "instruction" available.  Those of us
>who have been involved
>in piano work for multiple decades can assure you that what is happening
>today is positively
>a renaissance in comparison with what could be had even twenty years ago.
>
>We each learn what we can where and how we can learn it.  This means that
>Floyd Stevens'
>book is on my shelf right along with Braide White, Pfeiffer, Brinsmead,
>Wolfenden, and a 
>gaggle of others.  It also means that some of us subscribe to lists like
>this not only in order
>to stay abreast of things we might otherwise miss, but also to try to help
>newer technicians
>avoid some of the pitfalls which we may have run across.  I may, and do,
>disagree with some
>of the procedures and techniques presented here.  On the other hand,
>learning of them, or
>refreshing them in my memory, serve to increase my own knowledge and,
>hopefully, 
>understanding.
>
>As a case in point of misguided use of knowledge, I was once called into a
>fairly rural
>setting to do hammer shaping, regulation and voicing on a D.  The local
>technician was
>to install and travel new parts prior to my arrival so that that time would
>not be lost.
>Imagine my surprise when, on beginning work and having a great deal of
trouble
>doing some fine traveling work (the basic work had been very well done), it
>was
>explained to me that this technician had decided that, as this particular
>instrument
>had a history of certain kinds of problems, they would (and did) super-glue
>in the
>flange screws.  Now, I didn't (and don't) mind that a well-intentioned
>attempt was 
>made to correct a demonstrable problem.  I do mind that this work severely
>limited
>what it was subsequently possible to do with that instrument.
>
>Now, had this list been available at the time, there is no question but
>what the technician
>involved would have posed some appropriate question as to the use of a
certain
>technique, much as some folks have turned to Stevens' book. 
>
>This kind of question seems to have a life of its own.  They keep coming
>back, and,
>I suppose, serve the valuable purpose of reminding each of us of the first
>1000
>pianos we tuned, or hammer sets we ruined, or whatever.  None of us were
>very good at some certain point.  In trying to get better we've turned to
>whatever
>resource seemed appropriate at the time.  In terms of quality of content,
>Stevens' book is nowhere nearly as egregiously inaccurate, or as poorly
>written, as much of the Journal in the pre-Krefting days.  From that
>context alone,
>it is a work from which one can learn.  To my knowledge, the definitve
work on
>piano technology has yet to be written; thus, one has not only to move
between
>sources, but bewilling to take on certain kinds of work for one's self,
rather
>than just take another's word for thus and so.  How else will you know what
>constitutes a poor rebuild on a "poorly made instrument"?  Anything else is
>hearsay, and has the same value.
>
>End, for the nonce, of lecture.
>
>Best to all.
>
>Horace
>
>
>Horace Greeley
>
>Systems Analyst/Engineer
>Controller's Office
>Stanford University
>
>email: hgreeley@leland.stanford.edu
>voice mail: 650.725.9062
>fax: 650.725.8014
>
>
Ed Carwithen
Oregon