Phil and list, Newton wrote: >Most just follow what was done before. Phil Ford replied: >You make that sound like an insult. I feel sure that Newton would not have said it as an insult. >I'm one of those that just follows what was done before. I suppose >I should refer to myself as a piano restorer rather than a >rebuilder. That's what I believe to be my task. I think there is >an obligation toward the people that built the instrument to put it >back as much as possible to the way that it was originally. That's fine, but it just depends on whether you believe your purpose is to restore something which was created at an earlier time to something resembling what it was, or whether you strive to update the instrument to something resembling the current state of the art. >If you do otherwise the finished product is not the maker's piano >but your own. There is nothing wrong with that, provided that you 'otherwise finish the product' with the full knowledge and consent of the owner. >I once went to a class given by Mr. Sanderson (whose name often >seems to come up in discussions of improving pianos). He made a >comment which I thought was very much to the point and it went >something like this; well, you could redesign the scale on a >Steinway but then you really wouldn't have a Steinway any more you'd >have a Frankensteinway. You may well, but you might also have a Supersteinway, depending on the skill and tone building knowledge of the re-designer. >I start to worry when I hear the words redesigned or improved or >some variation thereof. These words are often used by those that >think that new is better and technology is our friend. I don't worry about this at all. But I do worry about folks who put forward the view that certain pianos represent the ultimate of what can be achieved, and that further evolution is impossible. It would be wrong to assume that new is better, it could be or it could be worse depending on the knowledge, skills and commitment of the practitioner. > the past didn't have our technology and in some areas they didn't >have our knowledge. Exactly. >But they were just as smart as we are, were tireless workers and >experimenters, and could play and hear just as well as we can. Agreed. And some today are tireless workers with similar abilities. >I believe many of their design decisions were made deliberately, not >accidentally nor through ignorance. Deliberately yes, but they like us today, must carry a certain level of ignorance since there is always more to be learned. Those who believe that there remains more 'performance' potential will be leading the charge. The charge never will be lead by those arrogant enough to think that they have arrived. When each goal is achieved there always will be another further up the road to be conquered. We build upon what's gone before. In turn, our thinking of today will superseded by future designers. That's the way it should be. In fifty years time, the worthwhile pianos of today should be rebuilt (and modified where contemporary thinking deems it appropriate), while today's 'rubbish' should be burned. >. . The Steinway B seems to be a favorite whipping boy of some of >these discussions. Only because Steinway are 'sitting on their hands'. The charge is not being lead by Steinway at present. Their designs are outdated. While the D is a reasonable scale (as the Yamaha and Kawai clones also indicate), the smaller grands from the C down inclusive leave much to be desired. >If you talk to pianists (who, not so incidentally, are the ones that >pianos are built for - not piano technicians) you will find many who >love that piano. Many still love 1960s E type Jag's too, but they're hardly state of the art in 2001. > I have played on some Steinway Bs that will make you cry or laugh >out loud they are so wonderful to play. I seldom have that >experience on new pianos with their low inharmonicity scales and >their properly designed thi! >s > and properly designed that. Hang in there Phil, it'll happen one day. >I have the impression that there are many people who seem to feel >that if you just find the right formulas and right computer programs >you can design a perfect piano. You may be right, but I believe it's absolute nonsense. Formulas and computers are merely tools to be used by folks with a flare for design coupled with a musical sense. Computers are not designers, just dumb machines, and a useful tool for todays designers. >Then once this perfect design is achieved everyone can just build it. No they can't. Firstly, the perfect design doesn't and never will exist and secondly, there are pianos being built out there by folks you wouldn't trust to build a wheelbarrow. >The problem with this is that every piano will be the same. I don't agree (even the Hamburg and New York Steinway Ds are completely different beasts - yet they share almost the same scale. The plate of the New York piano is much heavier than the Hamburg piano, so they could never sound the same). Different folks like different tonal qualities and different piano makers will be just as different. Believe me Phil, the world won't be a boring place provided that folks can just get past the floored concept that only one piano maker can 'cut the mustard'. There are always several leading people in any age. Don't let the political rhetoric of marketing departments get in the way of the truth. Regards, Ron Overs -- Overs Pianos Sydney Australia ________________________ Web site: http://www.overspianos.com.au Email: mailto:ron@overspianos.com.au ________________________
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC