David I'm only reading the archives now and dont really see the need to attach names to ideas for the most part. Nothing personal in the <<someone wrote>> bit. Just in case you took it that way. But as to the point... I hardly missed it. One may indeed argue one way or the other until one is blue in the face, but the fact is the window of variability in what is actually accepted as a <<properly regulated piano>> or what is actually <<normal aftertouch>> is plenty large enough to allow for certain purposeful changes in aftertouch... or really just about any other parameter when it comes down to it. The degree any such change is productive or counterproductive is gauged by whether or not said changes result in the response the pianist desires from the instrument. In one sense your below agrees with Andres comments that an increase in aftertouch is an increase in waste, but on the other hand Andre, being the seasoned concert tech he is knows that going to a softer punching also has its performance drawbacks. He also knows that the sum of either configuration may in either case represent what any given pianist desires. It simply is not as black and white as is apparently drawn out below. You brought <<normal>> into the discussion... not me. I simply refuted its applicability in the context of very high level concert work a guy like Andre does every day. The issue is about taking into consideration as many regulation aspects that influence the pianos response as one can. The decision to use the firm yet resilient felt punching vs a soft cloth felt punching is more involved then the isolated issue of a given desired amount of the <<soft landing>> sensation. Your more forgiving punching has several attributes, not all of them equally conducive to improving <<action performance>> (whatever one means exactly by that at any given time). The issue is about being aware of all the tradeoffs involved... (or at least as many as we can figure out) and figure them all into our decisions about what to use, what to do, and when. Point of fact. You can indeed opt for a softer landing of the type an increase in aftertouch does whilst at the same time staying well within operating tolerances for concert work whilst at the same time providing a given (and by no means isolated) pianist a sensation of improved response. But then there are a lot of things we can (and need to be able to) do to meet the demands of a pretty wide variation in pianists ideas about what the optimum response is. Now, I will crawl back into my box of tasks over here and let you all get on with this. For anyone interested, here is a link to the music festival I've been given responsibility for this year. 50 + piano concerts in a two week period, nearly all given on Steinway D's. Lots of fun ! http://www.fib.no/ Cheers RicB That someone would be me and you miss the point. Andre argued that to change the feel you could change the aftertouch. I would argue that the aftertouch is as you say, the function of a properly regulated action--though you can adjust the amount of aftertouch by altering dip or blow. At any rate, the idea of changing the feel at the bottom of the stroke by artificially changing aftertouch seems counterproductive as it alters action performance. Changing to a more forgiving punching, if that's what it requires, makes more sense. Making an issue about what "normal" means misses the whole point.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC