CBS years at S&S was improvements

[Richard Brekne]

Delwin D Fandrich wrote:

>
> > John Musselwhite wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe this is an exception but for example, I look after a 1999 B that I
> > > think is going to be a killer piano in a couple of years. All it needed
> > > (and to some extent still needs) was the "customizing" in the touch and
> > > tone that new Steinways have always needed, plus a few years of playing
> for
> > > it to mature.                  John
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Here we have this "mature" concept again. Despite all the scientific
> > explainations why this can not be so... time and time again people have
> > this observation that instruments can get better as they get older.
> >
>
> Several observations about that observation:
>
> First, John's comment must be regarded more as prophesy than as scientific
> observation. It assumes something is going to take place rather than
> observes something measurable that actually did take place.

I must disagree. Prophesy is really not the word for it at all. Johns statement
reflect something about his expectations, which again reflect his experience
with similiar instruments / situation. This is something entirely different then
prophesy. Its really quite a bit closer to the idea that a ball when dropped
gives rise to expectations of a rebounding bounce. :) That being said I would
like to point out that I simply commented on yet another example of this general
view that instruments can "mature" over time / with use / etc......

>
> Second, as always comments like this are subjective. With respect to John's
> technical and professional abilities, I did not see any scientific evidence
> in his post to substantiating these prophetic proclamations. Assuming that
> the performance of the piano has improved since 1999--and this has not yet
> been scientifically proven though I'd be willing to take John's word for
> it--has this improvement been the result of some mystical qualities residing
> within the piano or by the ministrations of Mr Musselwhite? Frankly, I have
> more faith in the latter than I do in the former.

Yes I aggree such comments are subjective. How else could it be ? For that
matter how else but through subjective criteria can one in the end judge an
instruments "quality". What is <<good>> for one person is not neccesarilly so
for another.... Quantatative analysys of sustain, power, resonance frequencies,
acoustical impedance etc etc can yield valueable information to aid us in our
endeavours to understand better what  <<good>> piano sound commonly or
frequently is associated with, but it can never completely define it.

My understanding of good science is that it always starts with observation....
and observation is in reality always at least partialy subjective.  What
"scientific proof" of improved performance could there possibly be ? How is
"improved performance" defined then to allow for anything close to such an
exacting quantifying of such a subjective concept ? Assuming that the piano is
under good care from a seasoned tech with reasonable climatic parameters I think
one is going to run into quite a bit of difficulty assessing an instrument thus.

So called mystical qualities are in my book simply the unanswered questions that
we all are interested in understanding better.  As I have said before, I  dont
see fit to simply dismiss observations as mystic mist because science has not
yet found a quantity to explain them one way or another yet.  Indeed when
science enters that arena of presumption, it becomes like all the other players
of that field.

>
> Third, I am not aware of any 'scientific explanations' as to why this might
> not be so in some situations and for some period of time. While I am of the
> opinion that generally and ultimately the performance of all pianos does
> degrade over time, several explanations of why some aspects of a piano's
> performance might actually improve in some situations and for some period of
> time have been given on this list several times both by myself and by
> others.

What does "some situations and for some period of time" mean ?  I have seen
nothing written by anyone here that precludes under all reasonable circumstances
an instrument from "improving" over a time period of even 100 years when it
comes down to it.  When large numbers of humans relate to us that this is there
experience, I think we should listen and try and find out why it is so.  Not
grasp at every straw that points the other way.

>
> Finally, the evidence presented claiming that piano performance does improve
> over time is rare and subjective while the evidence of piano performance
> degradation over time is common and easily measurable.
>
> Del

Hardly rare.... and "degradation of piano performance" is such a wide concept as
to include many things that are readily renewable.... or even easily avoidable,
leaving us back in the aged soundboard / wood discussion. And if we are left
there.... then there are plenty of examples of fine sounding old instruments
that many reasonable ears and minds find very much more to their satisfaction
then anything brand new.

I think its reasonable to ask why, and I dont think its reasonable to answer
with something that amounts to a dismissal of human observation... however
subjective it may be.


--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html