Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Why and why not adding lead weight to key

Hi, I am sorry but she have to use gravity, as any pianist to be relaxed and free from arms to shoulders .

Due to the light action with worn centers and much use hammers, no way to have it heavy. I know that type of pianos, hopefully for that fine old lady it play easily.

Still there would be so much work to get really what the piano can do ...

The gravity is used as basic principle to keep the hand at the keyboard , harpsichord players eventually do not use much and keep their arms sustained a lot.
But on a piano, even if that was an old technique , she does not use it and play with a modern technique.

The hand low, allow the weight from the shoulders to flow in the keyboard easily when wanted.
That is on the contrary when the wrist is up that the pianist uses muscular force an impulse from the ankle to "enter" the keyboard with force.
But then if any note is hold the gravity immediately take the relay
The human arm even on a small or old person, weight much more than necessary to play FFFF even on a modern piano.
Now the effort on the wrist an fingers is not the same, as they receive I don't know exactly how much Kg of pressure directly induced by gravity.

The muscles at the back of the shoulders and back are here to make the arm light and free, hence the trauma pianist may experiment when they work too much, but those are relaxing as soon the hand can stay quiet of the keyboard, that mean, those muscles may learn to be instantly ready , more or less active and relax as often as possible.
That is why the good back posture matters as much, you cannot lift your arms with the shoulder muscles, this have to come from farther.

When they talk of "free fall" that is basically the back muscles that relax immediately. due to the kind of muscle they are this have to be learned and trained, as I suppose they also have some utility in our normal standing posture and tend to mobilize by themselves for different equilibrium corrections.
Keeping them mostly active for the arms imply a very strong position from the feet, legs and bottom, so the equilibrium can be maintained with minimal work from the "pianistic muscles"

That is how I understand the thing, globally.

Moving much the wrist is a mean to be aware of its position in space (and avoid blocking may be) a little as the tuner that waves his tuning lever to be sure to feel the pin...

Sorry long East wind writing there...

BDB says: it is a "rebuilt Steinway A (probably an A-2), not particularly well tuned, and voiced a bit bright for my taste, although that may be the tuning. The only thing that distinguishes it from modern Steinway As is the preparation."

Because I disagreed that it looked like a "modern Steinway" by seeing how the nice lady is able to press the keys, he seemed to feel the need to question my "credentials" as opposed to my judgment.

My judgment remains: that is NOT a "modern Steinway" in terms of action response. Anyone with experience looking at pianists to see how they respond to the piano, in order to know needs to be done next to fix the situation, can see this pretty quickly. That is not a heavy "modern Steinway" rebuilt to today's standards.

Shall we talk about other issues that one can 'see' regarding the piano, based on experience and careful observation?

I would think a C or a D, while I dont know if the "smaller" models share that particular shape.
DUe to the way the tone rise in power , it cannot be a small one I think.

But I like to see the hammers are they in you taste A443 (flat & light ?) this take some plage of dynamics out of the game, and we hear the noise of not firm centers when she play stronger (plus a goo tone of the sliding impacts on the wire)

Eevn in that worn out shape they could be voiced so the impact is more discrete and the hammer get faster off the strings.
It works here because the knuckles are at 16 mm an the hammer is more accelerate than on today actions, more linearly too.

So the faster impact helps a lot the rebound.
The tone is also less "hidden", more immediate, in that case , with a pronounced presence, and less need for mass or hard/dense hammer (while it is of course hard under the crown)

With unlaquered but "recovered" original hammers, on that type of instrument, it can take 8 years to attain the wanted concentrated energy at impact, but at some point it is there, when the strings imprints are large enough an the felt packed enough.

Always temped to use some lacquer beforethen but all the pianos I have seen in that situation where in flats with neighbors so we did not. I think I should but may be with rosin under the crown, may be it does not kill the resiliency as much.

Anyway at some point the recovered hammer acts really well and provide a good dynamic plague. One need to be really patient..

Nothing in that piano sound/tone is to my taste. But it works (i.e., the keys move up-and-down how she wants them to without struggling). <<<------ that is the main thing that matters most to me.

My observations had to do with the responsiveness of the keys due to properly functioning alignment of the parts and lighter than modern-day hammers. For these observations, my 'credentials' were taken into question by BDB. I want to know why.

BDB, what are your observations and why?

Hi nevermind A443 it is forums, we better fight that tendency than go along with, there is enough to read yet

I said what my observations were. "Why" should have been obvious to anyone with a reasonable amount of experience with pianos.

OK, BDB, I see: you'd rather continue to lob insults instead of discussing why you are wrong about your analysis of that piano. Should you ever change your mind, do let me know: there are many things that you missed and I would be more than happy to go over them with you.

Marty,
Yes, A443's statements can seem over the top. However he has independently verified the standards I documented in my 1980's book. So he has done his homework.

How long should a piano last with serious use? This is a question modern piano makers never want to delve into. My work has shown that going back to the old style light hammers and high leverage actions makes for a far more durable and stable piano.

I know touring performers don't want to worry about this, but they should, because it affects the economics of the business of public piano performance.

To play the devil's advocate, wouldn't less durable pianos, which need to be replaced more frequently, be better for the broad economics of the entire profession? That way, the builders of the great pianos wouldn't have to compete against themselves in the aftermarket sales arena.

MARTY,
Venues might give up on real pianos altogether, and go to digitals. Concert series might give up on piano recitals completely. They already are shrinking from past levels, especially proportionate to population growth.

I think more durable, dynamic, colorful, and ergonomically friendly performing pianos would be good for the public piano performance trade. And for the piano trade in general, because the investment would make more sense if more durable.

Then if you consider that there are new materials and methods that are obvious in the possible benefit to piano quality-and that piano manufacturers have almost no R&D-you can see that the industry is stumbling under the weight of history-and they can not find a way to make a truly modern piano that eclipses anything achieved in the past. This is the way to change the market-acheive new designs, utilizing new materials and methods that solve the quality, durability, and manufacturing process issues in pianos.

What I said was that what can be verified from the video is that the piano is an old Steinway A that has been extensively rebuilt. Anyone who views the interior shots of the piano should be able to see this.

What this A433 fellow claims is that he can tell the piano is original, which can be seen by the technique of the nonagenarian playing it.

How many of you see what I see, and how many see what he sees?

This makes absolutely no sense (i.e., the concept is not well-thought out). If the pianos are less durable, and replaced more often, there will be more of that piano competing in the aftermarket via rebuilders. However, more importantly, one of the main hallmarks of a great piano builder IS durability: pianos that are unstable in tuning, voicing, and regulation by definition are not made by great piano builders.

You have entirely missed the point. Of course it has been fiddled around with over the years. But, the setup has not been altered, like technicians in the US do all the time to conform to 'modern' standards using 'genuine' parts.

Apparently you have no clue what "devil's advocate" means!

I know what it means: you just don't know how to play devil's advocate very well. It is not intended to be a snarky and sarcastic opposition, it is intended to inspire further debate and test weaknesses in structure.

Can you tell the difference? Or, do you need more help?

Thanks, Ed.

Thanks, Ed. The point is that the S&S touch in question is more likely to be achieved with Steinway technology. (I did not say it was impossible):

"It is my experience that such - again, feeling the hammer through the key - is more likely achievable with a 100% S&S, as opposed to a S&S hybrid."

No doubt a good rebuilt S&S with non-S&S parts is desired by some. I have serviced both rebuilt S&S and S&S hybrids for many years - more of the latter since many (including dealers) do not want to pay the higher cost of the former.

By definition, the action is the "mechanism that allows the pianists fingers to connect to the strings." A properly regulated S&S brings that "connection" ever so closer. This was my point.

Have a great day.

When you get into modifying the SS action you find that the NY whippen cannot be modified.
If key capstans need to be relocated the whippen heal cannot be relocated to match up with it so the Hamburg Renner whip is a good way to go and this will retain the "all Steinway" image that so many are mystified by.

I find the precise adjusting of the stack really matters. As the good size for the jack.

I will keep original geometry on all older models, more sparkle, faster hammer, it compensates well the old panel, also with light enough hammers)

On larger models the modern parts can be mounted, but that imply some imbalance with the keyboard and tweaks are necessary.
The small key dip will be lost anyway.

My question is this... Would the extra weight placed on a hammer create more stress, thus reducing the life of the bushings, hammer felt, and possibly the same to the jacks? Perhaps this weight is so small, it is insignificant to the natural wear an action already experiences?