>In a message dated 4/6/98 11:00:50 PM, yardbird@sover.net wrote: > ><<On Sun, 5 Apr, JIMRPT <JIMRPT@aol.com> wrote: >>Order of "voicing" precedence will vary according to each techs own "wick >>trimming" but mine would be, usually,: >>1. Even action touch. >>2. Hammer crown/shoulder squareness. >>3. Hammer/string spacing. >>4. Hammer rise. >>5. Tuning. >>6. Hammer voicing (overall level) >>7. String leveling. >> 5a. Tuning >>8. Hammer voicing (individual attetion) >> 5a. Tuning. > >Bill Ballard wrote: > <<"......................Until the open string work is done and all strings >are being struck solidly, I'm not interested in how the texture of the hammer >felt at the strike point may be controlling tone.">> > >But, Mr. Bill ! :-) > The initial "voicing" is for level only and is not meant as a 'finish' >voicing in any sense. If there are differences in tone production a >'leveling' voicing will not only remove those but help make the tuning easier >also. In addition it will allow you to concentrate more on formulating >'finish' voicing needs while doing the tuning and during the string leveling >process by having all of the hammers at a much more consistent level. Sure, >you can skip this initial "voicing" and fight the uneven tone production (if >it exists) during tuning and string leveling but why? > This 'leveling' voicing has to be done anyway, so why not get it out of the >way at the beginning and not fight with it throughout the entire >tuning/leveling/tuning processes? The more even tone is, during the leveling >process, the better you can judge the effects of the process itself. > But, your way will work too. >Jim Bryant (FL) Jim, I'm sure that the mnain differences here are semantic, and that by the time each of us is up to our elbows in it, we're working pretty much the same way. And as Newton so correctly points out: >I think that in the past, when softer hammers were the norm, we need to >do more leveling for the harder hammers. THe harder the hammers the >more critical string level becomes. I'd put that: the harder the hammer crowns are, the less they can mask open strings, the more unforgiving this business is. So, to that extent, yes, I'm concerned with the texture of the hammer at strike point. But as to whether I need some reasonable level of voicing quality to indteify open strings, the answer is no. When I do open strings, I start with the bottom bichord aggraphe and run as high up into the seventh octave as my sanity will allow me. I pick out opens strings, not for the whine they make when hit by a hammer, but by the "plck-ping-plehn" they make with my fingernail. (Can you guess which one is the open string?). This is what I'm reading during the string-leveling or (as I'd much rather call it), "open-string" step in the process. Certainly, open strings as heard under normal hammer play are more obvious as the voicing comes more into focus. And if I lift a hammer up to the string quickly enough, an open string will actually sing. But I don't really have to wait for the voicing to come into focus to be able to do my pluck'n'scratch FunkyChicken stuff. Ed Foote is right on the mark with the warning that open string work done in the standard position should not disappear when you put the U.C. pedal on. In fact, it's what a pattern of open strings on a given note does when the pedal shifts the action which tells me whether it's the hammer or the strings that need leveling. We should all be sending Jim Coleman things we want him to explore as he researches his article on this Bill Ballard, RPT New Hampshire Chapter, PTG "I gotta go ta woik...." Ian Shoales, Duck's Breath M. Theater
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC