Interesting. And thanks for the very clear perspective. And I trust all this was a large influence for the Charles Walter grand case dimensions. I must admit, it does look "smaller - petite" for its size. I'm a big ZERO when it comes to interior decorating - but I also realize that the furniture aspect of a piano GREATLY influences purchases of new pianos. Terry Farrell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Delwin D Fandrich" <pianobuilders@olynet.com> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 1:14 PM Subject: Piano Size & Shape > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Farrell" <mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com> > To: <pianotech@ptg.org> > Sent: December 01, 2001 7:19 AM > Subject: Re: Grand Regulation Compromises > > > > Just curious Del, what do you mean by "they are big pianos"? The sound is > so > > big that you need a large home? Or they are physically big - like they > look > > big - like the Walter grand "fits" into homes nicely because it "looks" > > smaller? Surely you are not referring to the physical dimensions of the > > piano - the extra inch or two for the thick rim, et. al.? How much bigger > > would the home need to be (how much bigger is a M&H?)? Not trying to pick > on > > you, but I have never quite understood the piano shoppers that say they > can > > easily fit the 5' 1" piano in their parlour, but the HUGE 5' 11" will > never > > fit, so they go and buy the 5' 1" toy piano. I'm really not trying be be > as > > snotty as my wording might make it sound - but rather trying to understand > > some of this kind of thinking. Thanks. > > > > Terry Farrell > > --------------------------------------- > > Yes, Terry, I'm referring to the physical dimensions of the piano. And its > shape. That extra inch or two may not seem like much to you, but it does to > others. Most specifically, it often seems overwhelming to the non-pianist of > the family. Especially if that non-pianist member of the family is also the > one primarily involved in establishing and maintaining the decor of the > home. > > Another lifetime ago, when I was doing primarily new piano prep and service > work and most of that on Steinways, I would encounter many folks who had > just purchased new Steinway B's or L's. I generally made it a point to talk > to them a bit about their new purchase, primarily to be sure they were happy > with its performance and with the service the dealer (including me) was > giving them. One of the questions I started asking was, "Why did you buy > this piano instead of something else." What I hoped to hear, of course, was > that the dealer I worked for gave better service or some such. Very often > what I heard was something like, "Well, it's my husband who plays and he > really like playing the Baldwin better but I just couldn't see putting a > piano that big in my living room." > > Now, go measure the physical size of the Baldwin SF-10 and compare it to > that of the Steinway B. Not a lot of difference, is there. Yet if you put > the two of them side-by-side you'll see what these folks meant. > > While I was working on the small grand project at Baldwin I brought many > people in to look at pianos of various size and shape and had them write out > their opinions and impressions. People do have decided and strong opinions > about what will and will not fit into their homes. Some 5' 2" (157 cm) > pianos look less bulky than some 4' 7" (140 cm) pianos. Opinions These > opinions are strong and there are some current manufacturers that would do > well to heed them. Since we are not going to change those opinions, our > industry would do well to look for ways to capitalize on them rather than > simply criticize them. > > It's not just the physical size of a piano, it's also how its relative shape > and bulk affect one's perception of that size. The M&H BB is a very wide and > bulky looking piano. That's fine in some settings, not so fine in others. > Until someone does a really scientific study of this I will remain convinced > that one of the main reasons the S&S B is a more popular piano than the M&H > BB is its shape and style. In its heyday the BB was built at least as well > as the B, in many ways better. It's performance also was at least the equal > of the B, again, if not better. But, and there is always that But, it is a > large and bulky looking piano. Yes, one can say that by the time Aeolian > went out of business the BB's were built rather poorly. But the same can be > said of the B during that time. > > Terry, you are approaching this strictly from a (pardon the expression) > 'male' perspective. Find of couple of friends, male or female, who are > interested in interior decorating and take them piano shopping. You'll see > what I mean. Beauty is not only in the ear of the beholder, it is often in > the eye. > > Del > > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC