David wrote: <While we evidently disagree on how narrow that range can be and still be acceptable my goal is to make the range as wide as possible even at the risk of being able to overdrive it slightly (emphasis on "slightly"). And my standard for that is determined by what I believe the piano literature actually calls for. Nick Wrote: <Thus it can be said that any safe and defensible compromises chosen here by the artist-rebuilder is what will determine the range of dynamics that should suit "what the piano literature actually calls for". I've been following David's and Ron's exchange with interest. While I already had a good idea of Ron's design approach, I have a better way of putting David's approach in a clearer context. The quotes above point to the bottom line disclaimer any post or anything any one of us of ever say regarding piano sound should contain in bold letters at the beginning of our posts; that is, WARNING, the following exposition and whatever design specifics it may contain, reflect first and foremost my personal tonal biases. I for one, explore Ron's side of the RC&S design spectrum very specifically because of the the way it tends to sound. I love the sounds I hear form these instruments . To my ear the sound quality is different than any piano sound in the current mass marketplace, save for a very few ultra high end instruments. I have a problem with the quotes above claiming ownership of "what the piano literature actually calls for", as they draw the nature of the "piano literature" with a wide, wide singular brush stroke. As such, the determination of what piano tone is appropriate to "the" literature, the entire piano literature is presented as a singular entity, which is most decidedly is not. "What the piano literature actually calls for". What does that mean?...specifics please. Is Scarlatti the same as Liszt? Is rock & roll the same as Debussy? Is Bach the same as Monk? Is Petruska really Tchaikovsky in disguise? Is Schoenberg Prokofiev? Is Gospel the same as the Goldbergs? Is all Jazz the same? Is the textural clarity of Mozart the same as thick texture of Scriabin? My take...my bias...is most decidedly not...Not by a long shot. Each style has particular aesthetic requirements. Can any of this music be played on any reasonable piano? Of course..I played all kinds of stuff on a worn out upright for years. When I go to the national convention, the exhibit hall is filled with great and varied pianos at the top of their game. The variety of piano sounds and aesthetics is quite interesting. As I sit down at each piano, each and every piano suggests to me what music "it wants to play". Can it play other music? Sure, but each will excel at select styles. Yet "what the piano literature actually calls for" reduces all this variety to a singularity. How can this be? I do know that if I go to New England Conservatory and listen to any piano recital, you would in fact think that Beethoven and Rachmaninoff are exactly the same thing...displaying either decided lack of performance imagination...or is it that possibilities available on the one flavor fits all concert instruments limits the imagination and the technique? Edwin Good's article "Pianos I Would Like to Hear and Play" in the may 2010 journal might be of interest in thinking about this question. Jim Ialeggio -- Jim Ialeggio jim at grandpianosolutions.com 978 425-9026 Shirley Center, MA
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC