If it worked, ...

[John Musselwhite]

At 05:24 PM 3/10/99 -0600, Conrad wrote:

>----->Steinway grand regulation procedure #15 states, in part:
>
>"We have no definite measure between the strings and the caught hammer....
>Hammers should catch as high as possible in the treble and somewhat deeper
>in the bass,..."
>
>It looks to me as though "make it work" could be an interpretation of that
>instruction.

That is exactly what it's saying. There are so many variables involved that
a "definite measure" is quite difficult. When it comes down to it, as long
as it catches high enough so the fly can easily slip back under the knuckle
it's "high enough". Making it as "high as possible" seems quite clear,
although it can open the door for "too high" as well.

When I was first learning how to regulate my father told me that regulating
dimensions are only a guide and that my job was to make it work as well as
you can with what you have. Many teachers have said the same thing. Since
all things are never equal, the art is in "making it work" when it may not
want to. 

Every one of us runs into this every day.  If a piano has many regulating
problems and the client isn't interested in having the whole piano
regulated what do you do? You make it work the best you can with what you
have.

>"What we have here is a failure to communicate..."

I think what we have here is a complex and unstable mechanical music
instrument being played (and serviced!) by complex and sometimes unstable
people.   B-})

>This ties into the debate as to what is a "good" piano. To me, there is no
>such thing as a "bad" piano, only a piano which may be in the wrong
>location.

Or it could just be a piano that hasn't had proper care. I used to service
an S&S B for a customer since passed away who hated it practically from the
day it was delivered and had always complained that it was just a bad
piano. The dealer (in another city) had sent several technicians out to
look at it and had never satisfied him. When I started servicing it the
first thing I did was tune it to 440, set the letoff and drop to 1/16" and
the check to about a half inch because none of them were even close. The
touch and tone blossomed immediately and he fell in love with it. The only
problem with its former location was apparently the technicians involved.

>-There _are_ pianos whose proper location may be the landfill.

Where they are occasionally "exumed" and someone plays Dr. Frankenstein on
the monster piano and expects us to provide the spark so they can shout
"It's Alive!"  Unfortunately, I've been asked to do that too many times..
often AFTER they've refinished it.

>"Making it work" can be part of an effort to extend the life of a piano
>with the full understanding of the owner of what is being done, and why.

Could you not classify anything up to and including a total regulation as
"making it work"?

>I've helped extend the life of more than one piano long enough to allow the
>owners to save up for a better (dare I say 'real') instrument.

So have I... and it's depressing to see that same instrument sitting in a
half-million dollar house 10 years later while they ask for "just one more
tuning" or "couldn't you just glue that one back on?".

>CA in a concert grand?  Hell, yes!  I've done that to get through the school
>year until I had time to replace pinblock. Unprofessional? You make the
>call.

Take that a step further... to a hall or school where the pinblock may
NEVER be replaced because there isn't the money to do it. In this situation
the professional (as always) should do the least harm to the instrument
while achieving the greatest benefit, which is "making it work.

			John 
John Musselwhite, RPT -  Calgary, Alberta Canada
Registered Piano Technician   http://www.musselwhite.com
email: john@musselwhite.com