David... again ... Number one.. nowhere in Robins post do I see him mentioning any one else by name. Nor do I see him refering to any particular person in directly personal deragotories. On the other hand... you start right off by accusing one of the PTG's most active and highly regarded members as contributing "pompus blather"... and then follow up by calling HIM counterproductive.... I'm sorry ... but I dont get it... any more then I get some of the other rather emotional displays you offer when you get mad. As for the rest I refer you to 1:) Terrys fine short and sweet synopsis of the jist of my own standpoint... and what I think largely represents Robins main thrust. and 2:) A reiteration of my own stated many times position that I really do appreciate all the contributions to knowledge and thought provoking material this list provides, but I do not see the need to lace that so often and so thickly with derogatory comments, sophist discussional techniques, or any of the rest of it. There is a good discussion theme on the table... if anyone cares to talk about that instead of throwing manure balls at one another. Namely... what criteria, or set of criteria should really be placed at the base of any definition of what a "good instrument" is. I dont think anyone at all has a problem with the issue of undertaking design changes perse. Cheers RicB David Love wrote: > At the risk of getting personal, I find Mr. Hufford's pompous blather > extremely counterproductive to what I consider an interesting and important > discussion--one I would like to see continue. If you (Richard) don't see > the personalized and insulting remarks in the text, I'd suggest you read > again--on second thought, one reading was more than enough. The issue of > whether or not to undertake design changes of any sort on existing > instruments is one that a lot of people feel quite uncertain and > uncomfortable about. Part of that may be due to lack of knowledge and > experience, and part of it comes from a conservative tradition. While I > agree that design changes should be approached cautiously, especially on > instruments that have an established tradition and whose owners may value > that tradition, I also think that it's important to be open to new ideas > and approaches as that's what continues to move the industry forward. > Those designers who have spent a great deal of time researching and > experimenting obviously feel strongly about their own body of knowledge. > Accusations of self-serving motives run counter to the time they spend > contributing that knowledge for the benefit of all of us. I, for one, am > glad that they share their knowledge so readily and hope they continue to > do so. It is that tradition that I hope will not be lost. > > David Love > davidlovepianos@earthlink.net > > > [Original Message] > > From: Richard Brekne <Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no> > > To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org> > > Date: 9/9/2003 7:24:47 AM > > Subject: Re: Steinway M > > > > Robin > > > > At the risk of being accused of mutual stroking once again. I have to > aggree with > > nearly every point you make. And I appreciate the care you take in > avoiding > > personalizing the discussion. > > > > Indeed, these criticisms echo my own very well and underscore that while > many of us > > admire greatly the efforts of one and all who endeavour to increase our > knowledge > > base, we same do not appreciate the all too often riducule of whoever > dares to raise > > differing opinion. > > > > It is ironic that this exact ridicule seems to come so often from those > who purport > > to represent an alternative to some idea they have of <<narrowness > imposed by > > traditionalism>>. It is also ironic, as one Calin Thomason (welcome btw, > Calin) as > > many before him have expressed, that this very attitude is quite likely > the most > > destructive element in marketing these <<new alternatives>>. > > > > I think personally the most interesting, and least seriously deal with > area in this > > whole discussion, is the basic validity of many of the criteria engineers > use to > > impose upon the art and music world what is and what is not "acceptable" > or "good" > > with regard to building and designing pianos. So much is written off has > being > > substandard, with no regard to the very obvious fact that piansts very > clearly in > > very large numbers dissagree entirely. What do we hear when this > condition becomes > > evident... that they are brainwashed, or fooled by marketing techniques, > or any > > manner of brushing these stark and conflicting contrasts under the > carpet. Classic > > discussional technique not aimed at arriving at any or another truth, but > in winning > > the point, for the sake of the winning alone. > > > > To bad too... because that whole "critera" discussion could be both > exciting and > > rewarding as well as extremely interesting. > > > > I also echo your thoughts along the threat to the real educational value > of this > > list.... but then I have stated that position several times before. > > > > Nice to hear you chirp in again Robin. > > > > Cheers > > RicB > > > > Robin Hufford wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > > > > -- > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives -- 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
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC