[pianotech] was GH-1s

[David Love]

Obviously there is room for subjective interpretation of what the piano
literature calls for but if you play or listen widely then you get a sense
of the range of expressive requirements and develop an opinion.  I have one
and don't mind sharing it.  If you don't play or don't listen to other than
your own tuning you probably have a different sense.  I'm not suggesting
that defines anyone's experience in particular in this conversation just so
no one starts getting huffy, but we all approach how we listen differently
and have different experiences that guide us.  

I don't think I ever suggested "ownership" of what the literature actually
calls for but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion.  The comparisons
you make below are pretty meaningless.  Of course the music of those
composers isn't the same, but so what.  The dynamic range covered in a
single Beethoven sonata can encompass every one of those listed below.  It's
the dynamic range that's at issue not the music being played.  When I go
hear a concert there may be Bach, Debussy, Kapustin (check out variations
opus 41 if you don't know this guy's work), Mozart, Schubert, Liszt,
Prokofiev and all the rest you mention all on the same program.  They don't
wheel out a different piano for each composer.   A well designed and well
prepared piano played by a capable pianist will be able to capture each one
of those composers (let's put Wanda Landowska aside for a moment).  If the
piano is limited at one end of the spectrum they'll have a harder time.
This notion that some pianos should be designed for different types of music
is excuse making and, forgive me, bullshit, in my view.  A well designed
piano should be able to do it all with the possible exception of concerto
requirements and being heard above an orchestra, but even those differences
on a well designed concert instrument should be able to be addressed by
voicing.  I do realize that the premodern instruments can complicate this
discussion, but since we're all basically dealing with the same scale
tensions on these modern instruments I think that discussion can be put
aside for now.  

The germane part of our recent discussion has mostly been about rib scales
and how heavy or light they need to be.  Try playing a Prokofiev Sonata on a
heavily ribbed piano with bacon felt hammers on it and see what you get.
Not much.  That piano might be fine for Debussy or some Schubert impromptus
but it will be limited.  Put a microphone on it I've heard.  No chance.  If
the rib dimension comparison that I put up are any indication, I would say
that the Nossaman designs are much heavier than mine.  But there are many
other differences as well.  A rib load of 25 lbs is outside the realm of my
experience in design.  Reducing the soundboard area by a considerable amount
is a consideration as well.  But it depends on how much and on what you do
with the rest of it.  We didn't really get into that and I don't want to go
there again now.  My main point in all this discussion was that the danger
of over building the design is just as great as under building it.  As Nick
G. mentioned, and I agree, there is a sweet spot and a sweet spot within
that sweet spot that will produce that dynamic range, at least the one that
I'm looking for.  

We could ask a different question.  How stable ultimately is that design
that we are building.  Well, I think that's a worthwhile question.  We are
dealing with materials that can change over time.  And if we want to build
something that will last 1000 years then we will have to approach it
differently than if we want something that is lighter in construction by our
own acoustic choices but is closer to the edge of what the materials can
handle.  How close?  Definitely a question that needs to be answered.
Again, based on these two rib samples I think we're pretty far apart.  I
would certainly consider my rib closer to that edge, but not precipitously
so.  Over building a safety margin comes at a price.  The price is the
sound.  

Professional pianists (those are the people we should probably use as our
guide as they are highly skilled and generally musically gifted individuals)
are at liberty to not only choose their pianos but choose the type of voice
and dynamic range that they want.  I would say that there is a trend there
and it's not clangy Asian as Ron suggests.  Nor do I think their tastes are
a matter of large manufacturer brain washing as has also been suggested.
They want power when they need it and they want an ethereal wash of sound
when they need that.  First, it has to be in the piano.  Second it has to be
made accessible through judicious voicing.  

Anyway, I think I've said all I wish to say on this subject for now.  It's
been worthwhile if not always enjoyable though, hopefully for the readers as
well  Always helps me clarify my own thoughts and this discussion hasn't
changed my view on what's required.  Onwership?  No.  Strong opinion?  Yes.
But I'm always open to new information, ideas and considerations.  It was,
in fact, my openness to these new design ideas from the start that has
helped me to solidify my current thinking. 

I hope that was specific enough.      



David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com




"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?
his question.

Jim Ialeggio