This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Those interesting comments say to me that the cultural ocean is well between
us when it comes to tone liking !
When I was reading the list 8 year ago or so, there was a very reasonable
trend that say that not a technian would use original Steinway hammers on
his own personal Steinway, (huge global assessment in those times)
Apparently things have changed.
Many studies have been conducted on the piano hammer, viewed as a non linear
spring. I suggest that what changes with the use of the lacquer is that part
of the model (the tone tells me that impregnated hammers are producing a
more linear response).
The resiliency induced by hardeners give ALWAYS a somewhat straight tone,
with a restricted dynamic range, particularly at forte level, whatever the
dynamic is and whatever pleasing the tone is.
I'd call that articulation of tone, and (some) pianists employ that for
expressiveness.
That mean the change in the spectra is more contrasted between soft and loud
play, and you can search for tone density with your touch.
What I hear and feel is that seem lively part of the tone is immediately
killed with the use of hardeners (in the shoulders) and is replaced by the
"lacquer" tone, that is then present in all ranges of dynamics (Ill describe
it like having a permanent volume in tone whatever the output force is).
Then it is impossible to phrase when playing, the tone density is poor, the
power can't show up, it stay at the surface of things ...
What Steinway masters tech say about voicing is : "vocing is the art of
getting the ABSOLUTE ELASTICITY of the piano hammer at the highest level of
play"
Using added substances is indded a shortcut to create that resiliency at
forte levels, it is also a mean to correct unsatisfactory felts, and it is
not new to us that it have been employed , historically , since the 60 ' .
But it was always to fight an excess of inertia in the felt, the original
intention was certainly not to put hardeners in perfectly sounding hammers.
If we want to go one step further, we could say that a good piano tone is
not necessarly nice when played by a brutal or inexperienced pianist. We
have to create some easy beauty for the owner so he will be inspired, but it
is more important to give an instrument that provide a full range of tone.
Yes the pianist is happy when you give him an easy instrument, for instance
that well detached and pearl sounding tone of some German Steinway, that
please the amator, but does not allow to play legato, nor to have the
perfect repetition (regulation tricks to get the most power at the expense
of the tone palette)
Another tendancy, that is almost lost today, is to provide the pianist a
"blackboard" where he can create his tone. enough power, enough spectra, a
precise dynamic without holes, and the true artist can play, while a shy or
uninspired pianist will make harsh noises.
That is a comprehensible tendency among technicians to try to provide a nice
and beautiful tone, but we forget often that, even if we play piano a
little, we are not really pianists most of the time. Giving a too nice tone
is often at the same time leaving a hole somewhere.
Stephane's comment is welll true, one get accustomed with the tone and Music
he hear dayly, that is why it is so difficult to learn to listen in an
analytic way, the tone of a piano .
I have heard some (very few ) lacquered US type pianos and I believe I
understand what kind of tone you are accustomed to, I'd say it most often
lack darkness and deepness, and too much volume is present at piano level.
Sure indeed it is VERY pleasing, but in my view it is less manageable, the
pianist have too little material to play with. (I listened to records also).
I made my experiments with lacquer and iron as well . Have a nice week end
you all !
Isaac OLEG
Cheers.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]De la part
de Erwinspiano@aol.com
Envoye : samedi 24 avril 2004 04:04
A : pianotech@ptg.org
Objet : Re: Lacquer or what?
In a message dated 4/23/2004 8:04:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no writes:
The thing is that hardening... just about no matter how you go about
doing it, works to the detriment of felts natural resiliancy.
>> OK Ric ,I'll bite. Yes in theory I guess that's true but I think the real
problem & thus misconception & revulsion of lacquers as voicing solution
comes from A tooo soft hammer & toooo much lacquer(or whatever) in attempt
to rectify a manufacturing problem.
David
Stanwood has done some interesting research into that aspect of this
whole subject matter and has a very interesting lecture with some very
illustrative high magnification photos.
>> I would find this interesting as I do of most the things Dave expolres
but it wouldn't suddenly change may philosophy of tone & voicing.
You will harden up the hammers with laquer... and depending on what is
used on what you can impart a different kind of <<resiliancy>> from the
new combined felt/laquer material that results.
>>Resielency is resiliency
But it will impart a
different kind of sound quality then natural felt resiliency will,
Yes & no. Natural felt resiency.?? Giant can O- definition worms.
First lets clear something up for perspectives & definitions sake. No one
who is a serious student of voicing wants a hammer that is to soft or to
hard. Or under resilient or over resilient? We all want Goldilocks porridge
& piano hamrs to be juuuusst right. If you have a Renner hammer that's a
bit to soft &,occasionly it happens, what will you do? You file iron& juice
& then play in time.
If I get a Ronsen ,Stwy ,Isaac hammrs that a bit to hard what do I do?
I needle, reshape & a little fine filing & play in time
My point is that if hammers are very close to a desired stiffness & require
modest efforts of either technique to achieve desired results then how far
apart are we in our definition of traditional voicing techniques, or the
final auditory outcome. How far on our thinking of resilience. Not very. So
the sound are not going to be very different.
On the other hand If I have more natural felt resilience left in the
hammer without over densification & extra heat then which hamrs actually
more resilience? Once again define resilence.
The one requiring 50 strokes of needles per side or the hmr that
requires only 6 to 8 or perhaps a light solution of juice to stiffen the
felt.? You decide. I've already voted & my elbow & ears are happy. I usaully
get 90% of what I want tonally with zero needles.
Here to me is the magic & that is that what we all actually want & must
have for tone production is limited resielence not maximium resilence. Our
semantics on this subject are kinda screwed up or at least I am.
I haven't even gotten to "Traditional" yet but I'm guessin you can read it
be between the lines. Maybe later............
which
you may or may not find pleasing. Voicing is a hugely subjective... one
of the most subjective things in our buisness.
>>>To this I can quite agree. Also its' what we get comfortable with & what
our tonal preferences are. I bet most avid voicers aren't far apart in what
they call great tone.
Again... try out different approaches and find what you personally like
best. We all in the end impart some of our own creativity to the
instruments we work on, and thats good.... yeilds variety which in turn
insures there is something for everyone out there.
>. Yeah Man!!
As for me... I'll put up a fine traditional voiced hammer against
anything else out there with 100% clear confidence.
Me too Ric 100%
"Traditon" Tevia
Happy saturday
Dale
Erwins Pianos Restorations
4721 Parker Rd.
Modesto, Ca 95357
209-577-8397
Rebuilt Steinway , Mason &Hamlin Sales
www.Erwinspiano.com
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/b2/d0/2e/42/attachment.htm
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC