Richard,
I am not going to jump too far into this lacquer/fight, as it were, as
experience varies, but, in my opinion the need for the use of lacquer in a
hammer is, prima facie, an indicator of inadequacy in the hammer and very
definitely suggests an inadequcy in the pressing regardless of the felt.
The lacquering method has been taken up and posed as a kind of
state-of-the-art measure by a very prominent American company whose factory
on this side of the pond has used it so. However, I believe this does not
lend any extra validity to this technique and, as I have said in another
post, what is, to my view (only one man's opinion), a general confusion has
developed as to its legitimacy. I see the need for lacquering, particularly
when used as anything more than a slight, ancillary effort at hardening
just here or there, as a distinct indicator of an inadequate hammer, and I
would maintain that the present use of lacquer, and "juicing up" is an
aberration without precedent in the American industry and contrary to the
historical facts and ordinary practice.
On the question of American versus European hammers it seems to me
there is evidence, practically on every street corner in the US of extremely
high-quality un-lacquered American hammers found in the used pianos all
about us as any technician routinely encounters. The preponderance of these
hammers suggests that this continent was not the land of lacquer but, rather
of non-lacquer. There existence leads me to argue that wholesale lacquering
which many contributors here imply is just another, equally useful technique
in the armamentarium of technicians did not exist in such a fashion until
shortly after WWII and I would not construe it to be anything other than an
attempt, for whatever reason, by technicians and the industry to deal with a
bad situation which we must all continue to labor under. This situation was
the inadequacy of hammers on the part of a prominent manufacturer, its
method of dealing with this and the subsequent imprimatur of legitimacy this
imparted. Indeed, this foolishness has reached the laughable point of some
taking the view and maintaining in public that such methods are sufficiently
innovative and worthy that they have been patented, per se, a point I have
made before in other posts. Hammer making has suffered, particularly until
ten years ago or so, the general decline of quality seen in so much of
things related to piano production in the period after WWII. However, I
feel like things are now improving as regards availability of even merely
acceptable hammers.
Personally, I believe great hammers can and have been made from any
number of felts and that, all things being equal, the stress and mass
distribution will determine the hammers functional usefulness. I am just
ordering, taking Dale Ervin's reports to heart on this, so I may be on the
verge of learning something new in this regard, a set of the Wurzen felt
hammers from Ronsen, and look forward to having them to work with. .
The unlacquered Steinway hammer up until just before WWII, and,
continuing perhaps, in a somewhat lessened fashion up until the 60's, was,
in my opinion, the hammer, par excellance. Culminating in its development
in the1880's with a redesign which employed the use of underfelt, a
stiffening solution on the shoulder and a smaller shape than used
previously, along with the use of the staple a few years before, this was
the very paradigm of the modern, high-quality, highly developed American
hammer. Lacquer had no part in this or its very numerous imitators. As far
as I can tell, this continued in use in a general similar fashion until the
period shortly after WWII. From my perspective, it is erroneous to claim,
as some have, that lacquer has been a valid technique for a hundred years or
so. I don't think this is the case. The use of the stiffening solution in
the shoulder is quite different in approach and purpose than the present
wholesale use of lacquer. Of course, lacquer itself was not even around a
hundred years ago, a petty point perhaps, but pertinent nevertheless. As
this hammer did use, I think, for much of this time the Wurzen felt, it is
probable in my mind, that its superiority was a function both of the felt
and the hammers mechanical characteristic. Nevertheless there were many,
many, other hammers with substantially similar capability, although perhaps
not quite as great, and, as it is hard to believe they were all Wurzen
felt, I believe this suggests their mechanical design and pressing were at
least as important a set of factors, as that of the felt, if not more so.
The dark, dull sound of the poorly pressed, excessively soft hammer,
however pretty in the lower dynamic ranges can never be adequate, for my
ear, for a full range of pianistic expression as the midrange and upwards
can't be perceived readily enough against the tenor and bass. Neither is
the half time or ring time acceptable. Nor can lacquering render the
fortissimo levels acceptably or sufficiently stable. This is said with all
due respect to the advocates of lacquer - even when they momentarily find a
point in its use when the hammer sounds almost great - the prospect of
unintended change looms large. Of course such exists in the unlacquer
hammer as well, but, in my opinion change does not come as fast nor is as
unpredictable.
The other side of the coin - the bright and brassy sound consigned to
the garbage below postures itself as acceptable on the point of
perceptibility but is woefully inadequate on the other, and is, to my mind,
equally worthless, but, the public can, at least, hear something from the
instrument. High quality piano sound is far removed from the consciousness
of the conditioned, harried, busy consumer of today listening to symphonic
renditions at the drop of a hat. His piano is just another item among the
many, and, as such, does not get the scrutiny his great-grandmother
subjected the instrument to when it was all she had to provide entertainment
through the long winter evenings years ago.
I think the mysterious TP is a previous contributor to the list, who
wishes to remain anonymous.
Regards to all, Robin Hufford
Richard Brekne wrote:
> This is a fascinating report from an apparently American source, once
> which goes a long way towards explaining a hidden identity thing. You
> are basically throwing the whole light and bright sound in the garbage
> pile.
>
> Personally, I remember many folks complaining years ago about overly
> bright metallic sounding Japaneese instruments, and remembered how dark
> and moody western pianos sounded in comparision.... and as the years
> went by how the growing dominance of Yamaha seemed to be changing that
> picture.... to the point where I almost never find pianos that come
> close to sacrificing any of that bright brilliance for tone. The
> accepted <<voice>> has definantly gotten brighter over the years.
>
> All the more welcome then the apparent return by some hammer makers to
> an approach that produced some of those wonderful pianos of yester-year.
>
> I agree... with the <<substance>> comment below.
>
> Cheers
>
> RicB
>
> Topperpiano@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Andre, Thanks for your response. I really meant that I just
> > group piano hammers in two groups, _needle down_ or _juice up _and in
> > no way meant to put words in your mouth. I know there are
> > pretty distinct differences between the three in their materials and
> > sound but I should have made my statement more clear in that I expect
> > German or Asian hammers to be harder and I expect American Steinway
> > hammers to be much softer and needing some lacquer to function. I
> > don't know if you see many of the smaller American Steinway, Ms and Ls
> > over there but they seem to be the ones that come from the factory
> > needing the most attention. Most of the larger pianos are coming in
> > with more power but in recent months I have hung German produced
> > hammers on two very nice B's that were less than 6 months old. The
> > buyers just like the sound better and both had already been juiced to
> > the extinction of the power. I have on occasion juiced hammers that
> > were made in Asia, but only very sparingly on most German brands
> > because they already have some in them to begin with. The Steinway
> > pianos have already had some lacquer in the factory and /some/ don't
> > need any more. But when you start with a new set you have to really do
> > some pretty radical manipulation. Part of the problem here in the US
> > is that we have a pretty unsophisticated sense of tonal aesthetic.
> > Too many Americans have been bombarded with such bad piano sound that
> > many do not really have a sense of what good tone is. For so many
> > years we have had such badly regulated, poorly voiced American pianos
> > of several brands that almost anything that is even to the touch and
> > evenly voiced is regarded as wonderful. The escalation of BRIGHT by
> > the low end Asian manufacturers has obliterated any sense of tone.
> > Just a couple of weeks ago I was asked by a dealer to do some
> > voicing to a Chinese piano because it was not BRIGHT enough. In a
> > voicing sense of course the problem was not bright but a total lack of
> > volume and decay. Many pianists here complain about pianos being not
> > bright enough when the problem is not one of timbre but of
> > substance. Not that I want you to suffer, Andre but I'll bet that
> > faced with a voicing project on a Kimball La Petite you would be
> > reduced to tears. A perfect example is the ongoing debate among
> > pianists who believe that the Steinway concert grands that are used in
> > New York and as station pianos around the country are manufactured in
> > a completely different way with better materials and different
> > soundboards, actions, hammers, etc. When you try to tell them that
> > the only difference is that they have been voiced and regulated they
> > are incredulous. Steinway has long maintained that there is no
> > difference but many pianists, salespeople and dealers alike just do
> > not believe them. I can tell you that they are the one and the same
> > instrument. Sure they pick the better of the production to be C&A
> > pianos. Every company would want their best foot forward. But the
> > reality is that many beautiful Steinway pianos are languishing at the
> > dealer level unpurchased because the dealer won't put 7-10 hours into
> > them. Rant for today. TP
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC