Richard, comments interposed:
Richard Brekne wrote:
> John Hartman wrote:
>
> >
> > But Ron, I am making waves! Just that my waves say that we have been
> > failing to meet the challenge of developing the craft and aesthetic
> > understanding that is vital to getting the most out of the many fine
> > pianos we technicians are likely to come across in our careers. If we
> > would just do this many of the these engineering issues will fade into
> > the background. If there is an "endemic problem" I think it is with
> > putting science before art and craft.
> >
>
> Here Here !!... And I might add the sometimes near total disregard for plain
> old fashioned empiricism. Its fine and dandy to push numbers around, adding
> or subtracting this or that known quantity to form this or that mathematical
> maodel of some or another system... but loosing track of what is actually out
> there... insisting that real life pianos conform to some theoritical idea of
> a piano... or dismissing it as worthless in some or another fashion... is
> just ... well it doesnt add up :)
>
It is apparent to me that for a few "redesigners" this list is in reality a
soapbox for the self-serving promotion of certain favored techniques laudable or
not, but postured as rationally based but which, in reality, are the result of
simple emotional attachment and, an efficient, methodology derived from
experience. The highly questionable result of such attachment is a general
condemnation of of all other alternatives, deserved or not, and I, for one, tire
of such. Ignoring current production at Steinway which I have commented on
before, it is my experience and, I believe, the experience of most technicians
here and elsewhere, and, certainly, most musicians, that the M - despite its
so-called, tainted, inadequate design points, is actually, to those who use it
for what its purpose is, a very, very nice piano indeed as are the heretical
works of foolish rebuilders that refuse to "Redesign" and find themselves
condemned to endless suffering trapped in a timewarp of intellectual
stagnation. Furthermore, I must confess that I have tuned and played several of
the Walter c. 6 foot grands and seen one of the small Baldwins designed by one
of these contributors and while the Walter was a nice pianos, neither comes close
in expressivity to any number of M's.
In actuality, most technicians don't suffer the emotional need to posture
themselves as salvors come to relieve the world of its
degenerate dependency on "inadequate designs" hence most don't have the
self-serving inducement to disregard the actual reality of what is, in fact, out
there - the very large number of wonderfully appreciated M's among other pianos
here regularly maligned. Well, we all may be guilty of such things from time
to time and I have no doubt that this is so, but there is no reason to condemn
persistently, chronically, the multitude who may not have seen the light
according to one's own particular view, but this is done routinely here on this
subject in all its complexity and make me wonder if ultlimately the list itself
will be just a fools forum of sycophantic admiration - a development which would
be a most unfortunate. In addition to the general communicative function which,
I believe, is what it actually is intended for the list to be, and should be,
some take the opportunity to sing endlessly a hymn of praise for their own
techniques. This appears to be, in reality, intended to have a commerical
result. This, again is unfortunate.
On a separate, but related subject, the claims made for the role of
compression and compression damage and other aspects of wood technology in
soundboards, recently visited here again with all the routine but urgent
adamancy of dogma, seem to me, again, part of the emotionality and disregard of
all contrary facts so evident on this question. It is frequently claimed that
compression damage occurs, in a particular fashion over time to older instruments
in general rapidly ruining their tone production - sometimes before they are even
able to escape the shipping crate! All technicians interested in such subjects
should take up the very references so frequently obliquely referred to here, by
these redesigners, as gospel, but who actually seldom resort to take quotes from
these sources themselves. I am very familiar with these resources and if one
will take the time to acquire such familiarity one will find much to put to the
test and render very questionable the claims made here by the redesigners and
loudly predicated upon such aspects of wood technology the points of which I
will forego the work to comment on at the moment. Without taking a position on
the compression crowning vs rib crowning debate, I must say that the entire
theoretical structure upon which the conclusions so often trumpeted here as
gospel and published in a series of articles in the Journal are based upon an
analysis which, at best, if I may be kind, is shaky indeed and at, worst, could
be seen as nothing but a fantasia of misconstruction and analytical error.
The real question of importance for the readership of the list is whether
indeed the redesigners views which are no more than a simple workmanship like
generalization of some physical facts, will be received for more than that for
which it simply is, at best a rough start on a difficult subject. and whether,
indeed, such a rough start which is masqueraded about as a complete analysis,
will preclude the development of an understanding which takes into account the
general, normal, accepted tenets of mechanical physics per se. The present view
held forth is inexpert at best and the question is whether technicians will let
that be determinative of their understanding. This would be most
unfortunate.
A good example - the recent claim that small pianos, which may well be
susceptible of improvement, are, and have never been of acceptable, or even
remarkable sound until the light which lately has been shed down from on high by
the present "modern" concept of design results in new ":improved versions".
Another foolish, emotional absurdity! Consider the Steinway S, the M, the M&H A
and the B, and, in particular the quarter grand series of pianos by Chickering
all wonderful instruments to most pianists who don't suffer from the emotional
distortions of the need for a redesign fix.
A second example - It is disingenuous at best and borders on the
ridiculous to claim an originality in varying ribbing and stiffness
characteristics in order to impart more or less ringtime in the treble or
elsewhere, or to manipulate flexibility of the board to enhance of the bass, etc,
as these very things and many others furtively claimed as original, have been
done on any number of occasions to their own lines by any number of factories,
generations ago. Similarly, the choice of rib crowning vs the maligned
compression system. By the way, at Steinway in 1987 I watched ribs placed upon
soundboards - the ribs were crowned not withstanding the general claims here of
this being otherwise. I leave it to others to fully judge the purpose of such
claims but they appear to be commercially self-serving to me. I could go on but
it is too much trouble and I will disregard the efforts of the potshot
specialists.
Regards, Robin Hufford
> > Many of us are frustrated by how hard this work is and how long it takes
> > to master. We dream about pianos that will be so design as to emerge
> > from the factory without the many faults that plague us now. Pianos
> > that will never disappoint us or our clients and will never challenge
> > our skills. There will not be a need to know how to suppress false beats
> > or expand the dynamic range. They probably would not need voicing or
> > regular tuning either. Pianos that anyone can build, anyone can tune and
> > anyone can repair and rebuild.
> >
> > Well Ron that's not going to happen for me, I live in the real world!
> >
> > John Hartman RPT
>
> I'm all for developing new ideas and new sounds, and new actions, and the
> rest of it. I just fail to see what such admirable endeavour has to do with
> all the wild condemnations of other building techniques and philosophies.
> Ofte times it seems to me that many of these same advocates who decry the
> stiffled state of development in our industry would simply replace that with
> yet another such ideology. One way or the other... it all comes out as...."
> there's two ways of doing things... My way... or the wrong way".... or so it
> sometimes would appear.
>
> > John Hartman Pianos
>
> Whats wrong with a little positivism in all this anyways ?
>
> --
> Richard Brekne
> RPT, N.P.T.F.
> UiB, Bergen, Norway
> mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
> http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
> http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC