Rescaling

[Farrell]

WOW! Thars music in them words. AWESOME dude!

Toads, Princes - too much! I love it!

I figured that post by Mr. Ford would hit a nerve or two!

Terry Farrell

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Nossaman" <RNossaman@KSCABLE.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: Rescaling


> > How can an instrument be described as 'better' or 'worse' when it can
play
> >sounds well enough to bring tears to the eyes and a lump in your
> >throat........oh some pianos do it differently than others but if the
result
> >is the same....... who gives a big rats about whether it is "state of the
> >art'??? :-)
> >Just some thoughts.
> >Jim Bryant (FL)
>
> Absolutely right Jim, except for the pianos with the same name on the
> fallboard, and the same model designation on the plate which bring tears
to
> your eyes for an entirely different reason than their musical beauty. This
> is all well and good when talking about one singular, individual piano
> which by a serendipitous accident of cumulative happenstance is a
> demonstrably wonderful instrument. How about it's twin that remains a toad
> despite the best efforts of the most princely field technicians of the
> realm, or the unfortunately wretched sounding piano that the owner raves
> about because of the name on the fallboard? The fact that even an old
blind
> sow occasionally finds an acorn is probably what kept most of us in
> business through the early years, but being able to occasionally luck into
> a miracle isn't a real comforting sort of philosophy for the long haul. We
> endeavor to accumulate education, update our methods and attitudes, admit
> our shortcomings with an eye toward overcoming them to the degree we are
> able, and generally improving our understanding and our product. How can
we
> not morally expect the same attitudes and efforts from piano
manufacturers?
> Insisting that authenticity be maintained in a piano that sounds lousy
> enough to be rebuilt, to the extent that it is nearly as authentically
> lousy sounding after the fact just doesn't meet the criteria. If the
> original designs and methods were all that sacrosanct, shouldn't rigorous
> adherence to these designs and methods produce nearly universally
wonderful
> instruments? So why doesn't it, even by the original owners of these
> designs and methods? How many piano models can you name that every
> instrument of that brand and model designation was an extraordinarily good
> sounding instrument? If not every one, what's the highest percentage,
would
> you say? How many manufacturers would make the cut? How many model
> designations? Clearly, there is more to be learned than infinitely
> repeating what has gone before in the hopes of producing, one time, that
> extraordinary result. If hoping to get lucky at the same rate the original
> manufacturer did is the best we had to hope for, I could probably make
more
> money and get more job satisfaction with a Roto-Rooter franchise.
>
> This elusive quality of beauty these multi toothed instruments are capable
> of is the whole point of sweating the blood, doing the R&D, pursuing the
> education, and trying to improve upon the deficiencies we encounter. We
are
> closer collectively to understanding how these wee beasties work than we
> have ever been strictly because of the tools at our disposal and our
> ability to share information and learn from one another. We can surely
> appreciate the extraordinary individual instrument of a particular genre
> without the unwarranted deification of the entire class, too many of which
> don't exhibit particularly desirable musical performance characteristics.
A
> wonderful sounding Steinway B in a controlled skid is pretty much
> indistinguishable from a terrible sounding one in the same situation, but
> the differences become apparent when music is attempted on them.
>
> Just a few thoughts of my own.
>
> Ron N