Ron, Thanks for you comments. A few more of my own. -- On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:43:37 Ron Overs wrote: >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. -- No, I don't imagine that he would. I was (partially) jesting. -- > >>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. -- Granted. -- > >>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. -- Perhaps. When pianos get to a high level I'm not sure that the terms better, best, super, turbo, improved, etc. have much meaning. The piano will be different than it was before. Perhaps it will be more to your or your customers liking and so in that way you could call it a Supersteinway. I didn't take the term Frankensteinway to necessarily mean a bad sounding piano. Just one that has been modified freakishly (hope that's not too harsh a term). It could be better or worse depending on your particular ears and point of view. You could also say that it's a monster piano, which among certain musicians at least, would mean you've achieved greatness. -- > >>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. > -- I still worry. I've seen too many good things ruined by 'progress'. I don't believe in the view that certain pianos represent the ultimate of what can be achieved, although I think that there are certain manufacturers who believe that or want their potential customers to believe it. I believe that further change is possible (call it evolution if you like). I welcome that. I would like to see more of it on new pianos. I just don't want to see it on an older piano that represents a certain statement by a conscientious maker. I think it's important that the world get to experience these pianos as their makers intended. Call it maintaining the complexity of the gene pool if you like. -- >> 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. -- I agree with all of this except the part where you say 'and modified where contemporary thinking deems it appropriate'. -- > >>. . 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. -- I wouldn't say outdated. They represent a certain philosophy of building. I agree that the company is choosing not to change that for reasons of their own (most likely having to do with business). This is certainly not in keeping with the role of Steinway in the past and I too am sorry to see that they are not experimenting more. I'm not sure I would agree about the scales. Perhaps on paper they don't look technically correct but some of them sound pretty good. -- > >>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. -- This is precisely my point. Why does everything have to be state of the art? A 1960s E type is a wonderful car. Different than a new car certainly. Many people would say in some ways better. I think it's important that we have these cars around as they were, but restored to new life. I think that someone that would put five mile an hour bumpers, a digital dash board, air bags, ABS, a fuel injected V-8, etc., etc. on a 1960s E type should have their hands cut off. (Just another jest Ron). -- > >> 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 welcome that. I hope to check out your piano at the convention. -- > >>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. -- Well put. -- > >>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. -- Yes the New York and Hamburg pianos are different but it's amazing how similar you can get them to sound just by playing around with the hammers. I don't think of them as completely different. Just minor variations on the same theme. I agree that we need to get past the concept that only one maker can 'cut the mustard'. Piano makers need to get past that idea too. That way we won't have several makers (including a few new names every year) that are building the same piano. It's amazing how many pianos now look alike and sound alike. If they didn't have different decals on the fallboards you wouldn't be able to tell them apart. I think this is the potential danger of the 'state of the art'. If everyone agrees on what it is then the temptation is for everyone to build a similar piano. I just played an 1880s Erard concert grand recently. Definitely not state of the art but what a beautiful piano. Doesn't sound anything like or play anything like a new piano, but would that a few new pianos were as interesting or as exciting to play. But maybe if it had a redesigned scale, a heavier plate, thicker soundboard, ............... -- Phil Ford > >Regards, > >Ron Overs >-- >Overs Pianos >Sydney Australia >________________________ > >Web site: http://www.overspianos.com.au >Email: mailto:ron@overspianos.com.au >________________________ > Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC