I rest my case. David Love davidlovepianos@earthlink.net > [Original Message] > From: Robin Hufford <hufford1@airmail.net> > To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>; <davidlovepianos@earthlink.net> > Date: 5/11/2003 11:32:34 PM > Subject: Re: Rear Duplex Bars on Steinways: > > David, > Comments interspersed below. > > David Love wrote: > > > This seems so given over to hyperbole it's hard to know where to begin. > > "Abrogated the very nature of the instrument.. ...completely transcending > > the fundamental nature and design of the instrument, negating its very > > essence"??? > > This is a nice feat of editorial legerdemain, addressing no point that I > make, falsifying the context, and creating an impression greatly contrary to > that actual context in which these phrases played their parts - those necessary > for them to make the several points which you take no notice of. One little > caution: why demonstrate such infidelity to the facts in public, where others > can see? This works much better if there is no immediate record of that which > you are trying to obfuscate. > You would, no doubt. have done well as a tenditious editor for Pravda, > making black seem white and white seem black, imparting other "objective, > scientific facts", into history, and, possibly, have made a lot of money. > Perhaps you should apply for a job somewhere as a professional propagandist - I > would suggest contacting Castro, he would probably appreciate this skill. To > me, though all this is a waste of time, even though I can admire the effort. > I reproduce below for accuracy the actual sentences and partial context by way > of contrast. In my opinion the term hyperbole does indeed seem appropriate as > you suggest, but I would argue that such a skill in misinformation demonstrated > here is much more worthy of this label than my feeble efforts. To the quote: > > " Again, > what is a known quantity is the ability of many unredesigned instruments, > and instruments in need of attention, to deliver, at the least, some level > of reasonably acceptable performance witness the Horowitz piano recently > commented upon here....... Nevertheless, do > these have to be reached by completely transcending the fundamental nature > and design of the instrument, negating its very essence, so to speak, and > tossing the very thing the owner is likely to have acquired it for in the > first place, and which maintains, rightly or wrongly its value in the > marketplace, out the door? I rather doubt it." > > > Please. Who is making absolutist claims. > > > The archives are full of them - check out the postings of the four or five > Redesigners. In fact, I am sure you are aware of such absolute claims. > > > changes are hardly earth shaking and for the most part exist or have > > existed in whole or in part on various models of the same manufacturer, in > > this case. Nobody's talking about changing the goal, just finding a better > > way to insure that the goal is achieved. I think these are legitimate > > areas of inquiry, many of which have a great deal of research behind them > > and are not simply empty claims of superiority. Who are you quoting when > > you say "These methods produce a superior performance" and, "Because we use > > these methods the performance is superior." > > Both are rhetorical quotes, in essence paraphrases which attempt to > succinctly make a point. That point is well demonstrated, as I say above, in > the archives. Again, another point you ignore, and please believe me I am > sincere when I repeat again, that this is with all due respect to you, is, that > by deflection and distraction, you, as best I can tell, attempt to wish away my > criticism that the only results that can be discerned here are reports, as all > that we have are words and ideas showing up on computer screens, not the actual > experience of the sound itself. These reports are from the enthusiastic > efforts of the Redesigners themselves. Surely, in all fairness one can say, > without intending the least bit of recrimination that they may, at the very > least, be held to possibly be a little less than objective, favoring their > outcomes? This would only be characteristic of human nature itself. > Most of the technicians reading this list have experienced the sounds of > thousands of pianos, as you probably have and so have I. Why is it necessary to > claim that all these other sounds are inadequate? They are not, they are > merely different. In general, for high quality American pianos of historical > vintage, I like nearly all of them and consider the differences from one > manufacturer to another virtues which I am grateful to encounter. In my > opinion, any "new, modern" method is not likely, given the very extensive design > history in the US and Europe, to be truly original using, as I have said before, > the ordinary soundboard components that have been around for 150 years, at > least. The results originating from any new approach are just one more of the > palette of sound possibilities we are all lucky, as I said above, to experience, > at least in my opinion, and I am grateful for any worthy addition. > > > I don't recall reading that. > > > > Those who do make these types of changes do so with full knowledge of the > > owners, as far as I know. Recall that the piano is in the shop for such > > extensive work in the first place because it is not performing up to the > > level that the owner wants it to. If it were, it wouldn't be there. If > > the piano is owned by the rebuilder, then they are certainly within their > > right to make whatever changes they think are necessary. I'm working on a > > Steinway M at the moment. I'm considering changing the bridge layout by > > adding a transition bridge in the low tenor to smooth out the change from > > between tenor and bass and address the awkward scaling as it currently > > exists. Will it be a Steinway M anymore. Well not exactly, more like a > > small Steinway A, I hope. Have I abrogated the very nature of the > > instrument, transcended its fundamental nature and negated its very > > essence? > > The point Ed Foote tried to make, which you now disclaim your reponse to as > nothing but levity, was that at some point there is indeed the risk of this > happening. He was charitable enough to use the term "improved" with regard to > this kind of tinkering - an assumption that may or may not be the case. > Nevertheless, the risk is real that such a point may, one way or another, be > arrived at. Should we be forced only to take the reports of the tinkers > themselves as Gospel? Further, there may well occasionally be repercussions in > such a case, some of which I attempted to point out in the material you so > skillfully rearranged. For me, personally, the changes your intend may well > improve the piano, make it more musical, etc, and, certainly, would be > interesting to me, but will it still be exactly a Steinway? Perhaps, or > perhaps not and should I rely solely on your reports here that it is or isn't? > Would you or anyone else in a similar context do so? I daresay not. > > > If I stiffen the belly rail and add a cutoff bar like you see in > > other Steinway models will have done further damage to its poor soul. I > > don't think so. > > > > I am not conscious of the soul of a piano, leaving that to you, sound would > be what I would address. If, as you say, Steinway or other companies with their > own characteristics, have done these things from time to time, then by > superseding their design you are claiming your concept of such things should be > paramount and implying thereby that their design decisions are inadequate. Are > they? I think they are merely different and intend a characteristic result, > indeed, as does any proposed "remanufacturing" and that this is true of all > factories and other such efforts. Couple this with the loud trumpeting of > such "improvements" endlessly here by some, not particularly you, compound it > with what appears to be numerous analytical errors, leaven this with a kind of > dogmatic intransigence, sarcasm and loud shouting at any contrary view and all > this become most questionable. > > > It is clear that the bar has been raised very high by the instrument > > makers of the past and that there are many, as you stated that Phil Ford > > stated, instruments performing well. There are also many that are not. > > You can put two pianos of certain manufacturers next to each other that > > have come off the line back to back and one can be quite good, while the > > other is not. A design is only as good as it can be executed with some > > consistency. If the design leads to frequent poor execution and > > performance then you either have to look at the manufacturing process, the > > design or both. > > The poor execution in the modern period is a subject of some complexity and > does not impugn the adequacy or lack thereof of any design as far as I can > tell. > > > If a small change in the design can lead to more > > consistency in the product without changing the nature of the tone (in this > > case) when the execution was successful, then why would you hesitate to > > make the change? Posterity? > > > > I don't think anybody called the designs deficient. It's a bit of an > > overstatement. > > The endless repetitions of the phrase "design deficiency, design flaw, > legacy shortcomings, etc. etc." may not signify such to you. Have it as you > wish, but I find it hard to see otherwise. In any case it is certainly an > overstatement as you say. > > > As with all things, there is always room for improvement. > > Steinway has a history of implementing changes, letting go of poor designs > > (ringing bridges, teflon bushings) and these changes are often driven by > > the input of technicians who work with the pianos day in and day out. > > Should we always wait until the manufacturer comes round to feel > > comfortable implementing changes that we as technicians become aware of as > > available improvements. I think most rebuilders operate under the > > philosophy of the Hippocratic oath: Do no harm. Changes in design are not > > taken lightly, in my observation, and are not implemented on blind belief > > as you would suggest. There's no reason to believe that any piano has > > reached the apex of design and execution. The boutique manufacturers are > > certainly pushing the envelope with a high percentage or resources being > > spent in these areas. And I'm glad that they are there if only for that > > reason. Success breeds complacency, remember Xerox? It's the arrogance of > > believing that there can be no improvement that often leads to demise. > > > > I don't suggest such things and have posted just such recently on this subject. > It is not arrogant to suggest that any design is suitable for its intended use > and represents the efforts, whether sloppily done or not, of those who put > their money in to it, risk their livelihoods for it, hope to profit from it and > accept its present efficacy. > However, it most certainly is the height of arrogance, at a minimum, and I > attempt to remain collegial here, to claim that all who don't subscribe to one > or two tinkerers' singular views are burdened somehow by extensive > rationalizations that originate in supposed frustrating experiences encountered > with the instruments, to the degree that they are not able to appreciate > anything new. Claiming all the while, that this paralyzing frustration flows > from the intractably difficult problems to be encountered in the instruments of > present design, particularly when the extent of such flaws themselves may be > things of very considerable dubiousness and loudly trumpeting up supposed > improvements. Indeed, in my opinion, this is a view worthy of real criticism > and, almost indignation, as there are numerous self-serving implications > residing in this, the emotional utility of which I do not wish to go into but > which are readily obvious on a little reflection. I, for one, do not find > myself assigning character to situations difficult of solution in a supposed > attempt to relive myself of, again, some supposed responsibilty to correct > them. Nor do I find this characteristic of other technicians, although it may > well be characteristic of those who propose this for others. > Regards, Robin Hufford . > > > There may be a line that can be crossed where in the remanufacturing of a > > piano so many changes are made that it genuinely is not that piano any > > more. But I'm not an absolutist. I think it's perfectly reasonable to > > make some changes without fear of crossing that line. To be perfectly > > honest, I'm bothered more by the idea of putting hard German hammers on NY > > Steinways than I am by changes in the belly work. > > > > With similarly due respect to your comments on the trivial and tautological > > nature of my statement to Ed, I was actually aiming for irony. > > > > David Love > > davidlovepianos@earthlink.net > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC