Rescaling

[Phillip L Ford]

Ron,
An interesting and well stated reply.  I don't think we should endlessly repeat what has gone before.  Manufacturers of new pianos should be constantly working to improve their instruments or their ability to more consistently turn out great instruments.  Rebuilders are fortunate to have access to education and information exchange and through the trials and experimentations of themselves and others can hopefully elevate the level of the craft.  The fact that there are so many mediocre pianos made from the same recipe that produces great pianos is cause for concern and a challenge to us as rebuilders.  This also provides motivation for study and experimentation. I see no point in rebuilding a lousy piano and having it turn out lousy when it's done.
Part of the point of my original point was (or was supposed to be) that if there is a recipe for a potentially great and unique piano I question whether or not we should change the recipe.  The fact that the recipe also turns out mediocre pianos doesn't necessarily indicate that the recipe is flawed, but that the execution of the recipe is somehow flawed.  I think we should concentrate on understanding what about the execution of the recipe results in some mediocre pianos and concentrate on fixing that rather than changing the recipe.
If Steinway B number 1 sounds great and Steinway B number 2 sounds so-so why do we think that it's necessary to change the scale, change the bridge design, change the soundboard design, etc. in order to get piano number 2 to sound good.  Piano number 1 sounds great with the original design.  I would take this to mean that the design is not the problem, it's the execution of the design.  If we as rebuilders can figure out the execution part and get that right then the piano should sound great after being rebuilt, which was the point of rebuilding it in the first place.  We then have respected the maker's intent and provided an invaluable service to the owner of the piano.  In the process what we've learned and try to share should also be invaluable to makers of new pianos if they choose to listen.

Phil Ford
--

On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 23:14:47  
 Ron Nossaman wrote:
>> 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
>


Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/