CHAPTER XVI.

CONCLUSION.

If the present treatise has convinced the reader that the making of pianofortes is a very serious matter, and one not to be attacked in a spirit of levity, then one of its immediate objects has been attained.

Indeed there has been an abiding fear in the breast of the author that he might presently be charged with piling on the agony too strongly and searching with excessive zeal for scientific causes and rules when the shortest solutions may be found by empirical methods. This is not really the case, however, for the whole problem of the construction of pianofortes is naturally acoustical. While it is doubtless true that many pianofortes have been and are continually made, not merely with indifference to, but in defiance of, every law that has been expounded in these pages, it nevertheless remains that none of these have been good pianofortes. Of the making of thump-boxes there is no end. Unfortunately for the public, musical ignorance is well-nigh universal, and the impostor finds it easy to palm off shoddy in place of the real article. Of course, it is quite true that bad pianofortes are soon found out, but when the inevitable discovery comes, the mischief has been done and the purchaser is, as usual, the victim. A student of the construction of good instruments cannot fail to be astonished that anyone should wish to turn out anything but the best. For, as one continues to investigate the multifarious problems that are continually suggested, the desire to overcome them and to produce perfect instruments becomes almost irresistible. Perhaps this is why the clever designer, if left to himself, often develops into a crank. And, indeed, there is not an industry on the face of the globe that has produced more cranks.

The files of the patent office are full of the ideas of unrewarded genius that has spent its time, its money and its enthusiasm in the unenviable task of producing innovations in pianofortes. No feature of construction has been left unimproved; yet how many of these inventions ever see the light? Few, indeed; and the fact is a sad commentary on the unpractical nature of genius in general.

These reflections lead one to the feeling that a fitting conclusion to a treatise on pianoforte construction may be made by giving particulars of some of the most famous and revolutionary inventions that at one time and another have been launched upon the unfeeling world of piano-making. Not all of these by any means can be denominated freaks; indeed there are the germs of most valuable developments in many of them. We shall consider a few of the really valuable ideas at least.

Among these primacy must be given to the screw-stringing device of Mason & Hamlin. This invention was intended to substitute a positive mechanical fastening for the tuning-pin, in place of the wooden wrest-plank. It consisted of a screw, threaded vertically in a socket, which was cut in a projecting shoulder on the iron-plate. As it extended below its socket, it was provided with an universal joint which ended in a hook. On this hook the string was wound, and was then free to pass on to the agraffe. A small T-hammer sufficed to turn the screw and the string was tightened or slackened as the screw turned in the threaded socket. The action was slow but sure, and the strings had the curious property of sharping under a test blow instead of the opposite, as is usual. The method of tuning was the same except that the screw turned in the opposite direction to the ordinary style and required much more turning to bring the string to the desired point. On the other hand, however, setting the pin was unnecessary, and the evils engendered by bad wrest-planks and sticking or twisting pins were unknown. Moreover, the turning of the screw involved very slight effort.

With all these advantages, however, the reverse motion and the slowness of action were fatal; and after several years of effort Mason & Hamlin gave up the attempt to popularize their invention, and let it drop. It is, indeed, unfortunate that this device did not become more popular, as in that case its many inherent advantages would doubtless have been emphasized and the bad points in it eliminated. Prejudice and the tuners, however, were against it, and it died.

The well-known house of Brinsmead in London has also experimented with a similar device, but it is not known with what success. One of the advantages held out by the makers of such string devices was the supposed facilitation of the work of tuning--that is to say, it was alleged that every musician could become his own tuner as soon as he had learned the theoretical principles of the Equal Temperament. The hope was delusive, however. Perhaps the professional tuners attended to this point.

Another similar but more successful device is being manufactured by the Wegman Piano Co. This is in the form of a fastening for the pin in the iron plate. The appearance of the plate and pin is not different from the usual design, but the tapered end is done away with and the pin, instead of being driven into the wooden wrest-plank, is fastened in the plate by means of the friction set up between the peculiarly bored hole and the back of the pin. A special twist is needed to fasten the pin when a string is drawn up to pitch, but otherwise the method of operation is not unusual. The device appears to be of value.

The sound-board has ever afforded a fertile field for inventive genius. It has been altered in every conceivable manner, but the old style continues to flourish with all its pristine activity. This is not to say that it is ideal and insusceptible of improvement. On the contrary, one cannot deny that many praiseworthy ideas have been patented for the purpose of improving it. The ribbing has been the subject of much attention from inventors. It is true that this method of giving strength and tension to the board is by no means perfect. Yet we find that the various devices proposed for the abolition of ribbing have almost uniformly failed. A large number of these failures owe their conditions to the lack of acoustical knowledge of the inventors. It has often been supposed that the enormous relative resonance power of the violin belly was connected in some way with the duplicate nature of the resonance table and the consequent hollow shape of the resonating body. This has been conclusively disproved, however, for it has been shown that the violin’s special shape is given to it merely for the purpose of bearing the strain of its strings. Moreover, the tone and resonance of a violin have been reproduced by means of a vibrating diaphragm and a horn. This device, known after its inventor as the Stroh violin, satisfactorily disproves many cherished theories in regard to violin resonance. In spite of these facts we find that several patents have been taken out for pianoforte sound-boards, of which the guiding principles have been ingenious applications of the violin idea. The “_equilibre_” pianoforte of Frederic Mathushek was an example of this type. It seems passing strange that experimenters have not all become aware long ago of the essential differences between the resonance apparatus required for struck and for bowed strings.

There have been other and saner variations of sound-board construction. It has been suggested that the use of a double board composed of two cross-grained thicknesses glued to each other would obviate the necessity of ribbing and increase the power of resonance. There seems to be little doubt that there is the germ of a valuable idea in this, and if the notion is properly worked out, it will very likely produce valuable additions to our knowledge of the phenomena of resonance.

Unusual ideas have been less frequent in the domain of action-making. There have been several praiseworthy attempts to get rid of the troublesome, but hitherto necessary, tape in the upright action. The patent of Leo Battalia is one of these. He abolishes the tape and bridle wire, and substitutes a two-branched spring fork projecting from the jack. One branch works in a slot cut in the hammer butt and the other bears against the back check. The back stop is done away with and excellent repetition is assured, superior to that which is obtained by ordinary methods.

In the domain of pure scale design, we note the ever present and perennial notion of sympathetic strings. This idea has taken various forms. The most conventional development is, of course, the “duplex scale” of Steinway and others. This utilizes the waste ends of the strings and scales off lengths of them that correspond to aliquot parts of the vibrating length of each string, thus obtaining the advantage of sympathetic partial tones. Most of the ideas in this direction have gone further than this, however. Some makers have gone so far as to have a fourth string tuned to the octave of every three-string group. But this is surely unnecessary when we consider that the octave is, on the pianoforte, the strongest partial tone of any musical sound, and least of all needs adventitious aid.

There are many other similar devices used and unused that we should waste our time in considering. In any case the true test of the utility of an invention is use, and each one of these unusual notions that have been put on the market would have been universal long ago had they been uniformly practical and valuable.

We cannot close this hasty survey without mention of the remarkable innovation in action mechanism devised by Mr. Morris Steinert. Here the forcible hammer-blow is superseded by a gradual push on the hammer at the strings, executed through the interposition of an articulated double lever between the hammer and the jack. The result is to produce a different form of hammer attack and a noticeable modification in the coloring of the tone produced from the string. While the claims of the inventor are somewhat exaggerated, there is no doubt that Mr. Steinert has hit upon a valuable variation in the method of actuating the hammer, and his invention opens up new prospects of pleasure to the pianist.

If all these and the innumerable others have no other value, they at least teach that inventive genius and the hunger for improvement do not entirely sleep; that the pianoforte is continually being improved, and that many are spending their time in finding new ways of improvement. It shows that the value of the pianoforte to the community is sufficiently great to cause the expenditure of much valuable thought upon its mechanical and musical betterment. The fact that these things happen should console anyone who has ever thought that the limit of mechanical excellence had been reached.

The designing of a pianoforte is art with a big A. It demands of its practitioners the temperament of an artist and the skill of an excellent mechanic. There is no greater pleasure and no nobler work than the construction of an instrument equipped to give forth lovely tone and to interpret the inspired works of the masters of music. May the advancing years bring the pianoforte as much more of mechanical and musical excellence as the last two centuries have so richly imparted.

And now our task is done. It has been a labor of love to place the results of long study and much practical experience before those to whom this exposition of the principles of pianoforte construction might be expected to appeal. It has been far from easy to put into really intelligible and concise English an explanation of certain of these laws; and if the reader finds here aught of vagueness or obscurity, may he blame the subject rather than the author. The latter has, as best he might, laid down the principles that underly the right building of the noblest musical instrument that man has yet devised. And in the contemplation of these principles he may properly be content to leave his patient readers.

THEORY AND PRACTICE OF PIANOFORTE BUILDING.

APPENDIX A.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAYER-PIANO.

Events are moving quickly in these latter days, and the conservative pianoforte trade is feeling the effect of the extraordinarily active spirit of constructive commercialism that is so pronounced a feature of the contemporary industrial movement. When the first chapters of the present work were in course of preparation, some two years ago, the pianoforte equipped with an interior playing mechanism was just beginning to be heard of; to-day its manufacture and marketing are recognized features in the policy of nearly all pianoforte houses. It would therefore be unwise to conclude the present treatise without certain observations on the player-piano question, although a truly philosophic temper would probably prefer that some further time elapse before any feature of the player-piano problem be considered in a work of the same scope and character as this. Abandoning the strict scientific view of our duty in this matter, however, we may better adopt a more popular _point d’appui_ and round off this work with a few observations on the more important and essential underlying problems connected with this new and remarkable movement in the pianoforte world.

Had the exterior type of pianoforte playing device--the so-called cabinet-player, in fact--remained alone and supreme in the territory that it first opened to exploration and development, this work would contain no notice of any mechanism of the kind. But since the movement has spread until it comprehends the pianoforte itself, since, in the nature of things, such a development must profoundly affect the solution of the problems that confront the pianoforte maker in the construction of his instrument, it seems to be not only natural, but imperative, that we should devote some space to certain notes on the player-piano problem and its relation to the application of such acoustical and mechanical principles as are germane to the theory of pianoforte construction.

We are under no obligation to delve into the history of these ingenious devices. The plan of this work requires nothing of the sort. We may say, however, that the first impetus towards the production of a piano playing mechanism came about through the success of the self-playing organ which began to appear about fifteen years ago. Meanwhile various inventors had experimented with electrical devices and had succeeded in producing a mechanism that could be placed within the case of the instrument without entailing any great distortion of form. Such devices, however, were, with some exceptions, exceedingly mechanical in effect, and did little to show the possibility of adequately rendering pianoforte music through artificial means.

It was, however, through the successful development of mechanism for the automatic operation of organs that the true principles for piano-player construction began to come to light. Two leading manufacturers had both produced reed organs of a very superior kind, equipped with mechanical playing devices. The principle was pneumatic, and was applied through the medium of compressed air. The organs themselves were also operated on this principle, this being a return to the old force bellows system, adopted in the European harmonium, and always used in connection with the pipe organ. When developed to their highest point, these pneumatic self-playing organs produced superior musical effects, so that they became, and still are, well known and popular. The latest styles, indeed, rival the orchestra in their versatility and coloring, especially when operated by a skillful musician.

The pneumatic principle thus applied, and the success of the attempts to adapt it to the organ, led experimenters to emulate, and if possible improve upon, the early attempts at the practical manufacture of pianoforte-playing mechanism. Without going too much into details, it may be recorded that the two concerns previously referred to were nearly ready in 1896 to come out with such an instrument, and patents were granted in 1897 for a complete piano-player of the cabinet style, attachable to any piano, and easily detachable therefrom. Other patents soon followed, and other manufacturers fell into line, with the result that the great piano-player movement had soon begun in earnest. The productions of the different firms, of course, varied in details, but only two widely separated schools have developed, and inasmuch as both of these employ the pneumatic principle, which has triumphed over all others, and is now adapted unanimously by manufacturers who desire to render possible an approximation to artistic rendition of pianoforte music, it will be unnecessary to treat of any instruments constructed on other lines.

In the meantime it will be well to note that the above short sketch of the preliminary skirmishing, as it were, is intended to be nothing more than an outline, as the policy adopted throughout this entire work has been to avoid the historical view-point, as much as possible, and to confine ourselves strictly to the business in hand; namely, constructional principles and their application.

The pneumatic principle has been adopted in all the piano-players that we have occasion to survey, and its application has been in all cases essentially similar. Indeed, the two schools of construction differ, not in the application of the pneumatic principle, but in certain details of construction, which are important but not vital. One general description will be quite sufficient to acquaint the reader with the make-up of these instruments, and it will be easy to undertake any further explanations of important variations.

The underlying idea, upon which the whole player is built, may be described as arising from the knowledge that a bag or bellows of suitable material will collapse whenever the air is exhausted from it, and become inflated again when the air is permitted to rush into it, which happens as soon as the vacuum is destroyed. Now it is obvious that here, in these two processes, we have the possibility of producing a reciprocating motion, and the value of this is evident when it is remembered that the process of pianoforte playing, when reduced to its lowest terms, is essentially the combination of the alternate manual motions required to depress and release a key. Consequently, the matter of designing a pianoforte-playing machine is reduced to the problem of placing a bellows over a key, or in mechanical connection with it, in such a way that the inflation and deflation of the bellows will operate levers to depress and release the key. Thus far, it may be understood, we are dealing with elementary mechanical principles. But the questions arising from consideration of the control of these bellows are far more delicate, and require for their solution a high degree of mechanical talent. Let us see how the problem has been worked out.

A musical composition which is to be performed on the pianoforte by means of one of these “players,” as they are called colloquially, is first reduced to a series of perforations on a long sheet, the perforations being of uniform width, but varying in length according to the duration of the musical tone for which each stands. The sheet is then wound upon a spool and is connected with motor mechanism which is adapted to draw it across a “tracker-board” pierced with holes, each of which corresponds to some hole in the sheet. The latter, when so drawn across the plane of the “tracker-board,” is wound up on another spool, and the motor mechanism of the player is so arranged that the sheet can be re-wound on to its own spool when the whole composition has been played, so that it may be withdrawn from the “player,” and another substituted in its place. The actual process of operation is as follows: The “player” is provided with foot pedals, which operate exhaust bellows, and thus maintain a reservoir bellows in a state of exhaust, on the same principle as in the reed organ. As long as the exhaust bellows are operated, and the reservoir is kept in a state of vacuum, it is possible to maintain an “exhaust chamber” within the “player” also in a state of vacuum. This exhaust chamber communicates with a “diaphragm chamber,” in connection with the “tracker-board” hole, and with an “inflation and deflation channel” in connection with the striking pneumatic or bellows which depresses the pianoforte key. The connection with the “diaphragm chamber” is by means of a very small hole pierced in a leather diaphragm which is stretched between the “exhaust chamber” and the “diaphragm chamber,” so that the latter will be in a state of partial vacuum. Resting on the leather diaphragm is a button, attached to an upright spindle which stretches through an orifice into the inflation and deflation chamber, and there operates a poppett valve which, in one position of the spindle, will close the chamber against the exhaust chest, while opening itself and therefore also the pneumatic to the outer air, and in another position will reverse the process, opening the chamber to the power of the vacuum in the exhaust and simultaneously closing itself and therefore the pneumatic to the vacuum, which will cause the latter to collapse, and thus bring down the key. Now, when a hole in the perforated sheet comes opposite a hole in the “tracker-board,” an atmospheric communication is opened with the “diaphragm chamber,” and air will immediately rush down into the “diaphragm chamber” and at once destroy the partial vacuum which existed there. As a consequence of this, the leather diaphragm will immediately rise to its fullest extent, influenced by the vacuum in the chamber above it, and will therefore push up the poppett valve. This action will open communication between the exhaust and inflation and deflation chambers and will expose the latter to the vacuum, while shutting off the outer air which has kept the pneumatic inflated. Thus the pneumatic will collapse, and the piano key will be held down until the closing of the “tracker-board” hole once more restores the partial vacuum in the “diaphragm chamber,” thus permitting the poppett valve to sink, and reopening the connection between the pneumatic and the outer air, which re-inflates it and releases the key.

As will have been anticipated, there are endless small variations of detail in the construction of different “players,” but they all work on the same principle, and the above description will be sufficient to give an idea of what goes on inside the “player” when the perforated sheet is put into position and drawn over the “tracker-board.” Variations on the mechanical carrying out of these principles are dependent upon the ideas of the different makers. It can easily be understood that there is plenty of room for endless changes in details, and that every maker of “players” has his own special notions on the subject.

We have spoken above of the motor mechanism designed to move the perforated sheet across the “tracker-board,” and to rewind it when required. It is clear that such a motor device must be very sensitive to changes in speed control, very light and very easily operated. In the search for the ideal device manufacturers have gradually separated themselves into two schools of practice, each being champions of one particular type of motor. These two schools of opinion and practice have adopted respectively the pneumatic and the clock-work motors. Both have virtues; neither are free from vices. It is no part of our plan to enter into didactic discussion of the relative merits and demerits of the two styles, but we shall confine ourselves to an exposition of the method whereby each is adapted to its required work, and shall point out the more obvious of the good and bad features of both.

The pneumatic motor has the initial advantage of simplicity and lightness. It consists of a number of bellows, usually three or five, which are arranged in series on a board and connected by passages with the exhaust chest. They are adapted to be collapsed and inflated alternately by means of the exhaust from the bellows of the “player,” and are governed by valves so arranged as to cause one bellows to be open to the atmospheric air, and therefore inflated, while the next to it is simultaneously closed to the atmospheric air and exposed to the vacuum from the wind-chest, and therefore collapsed. This alternate process produces a motion which can, of course, easily be transferred by means of connecting rods to a crank-shaft, which by reciprocation produces a rotary motion, and also permits the take-up spool of the “player” to be connected with it by suitable gearing. The controlling valves are generally connected with the crank-shaft somewhat after the manner of the valves of a steam cylinder, and are operated by the motion of the shaft through suitable connecting rods. The reverse motion of the spool, for rewinding, is accomplished by gearing between the motor and spool, and the reversing lever, while operating this gear, also closes the valve between the exhaust reservoir bellows and exhaust chamber so as to permit the full power of the exhaust to be exercised on the motor when the rewinding is required. The speed control of the pneumatic motor is governed by another finger lever adapted to operate a valve which can entirely close the passage between the exhaust chest and motor board, the gradual opening or closing of which increases or diminishes the power of the exhaust upon the motor bellows and hence the rapidity with which they collapse and reinflate. This speed control combines simplicity and effectiveness.

In considering the less agreeable qualities of the pneumatic motor we have to note that a great deal of the alleged deficiency of the type arises from the fact that its operation depends upon the same agency as is employed for the striking pneumatics; namely, the exhaustion of air from the exhaust bellows reservoir. This means, of course, that the striking pneumatics and the motor are artificially brought into relations which would never naturally subsist between them. In consequence, there is a continual tendency on the part of one of the elements to monopolize the power reserve, to the detriment of the other. Thus, a fortissimo passage will tend to use up so much power that the motor will be slowed down; while, contrariwise, the latter, when driven at its highest speed, will take too much power from the pneumatics and prevent the expression of their highest dynamic forces. Here we touch upon the most serious defect of the pneumatic motor, and while we find the practical workings of these devices quite excellent, there is no doubt that they would be far more responsive and far lighter in operation if these fundamental defects did not exist.

The clock-work motor, on the other hand, is entirely separated from the striking mechanism, except as far as it is sometimes connected with the pedals for the purpose of winding the spring. Even this, however, is not a real interference with the striking pneumatics. The chief advantages of the clock-work motor are that it is built of steel and brass, instead of wood and leather; that it is independent of the rest of the player, and therefore always self-contained and free from extraneous influences; that rewinding is effected by the reserve power of the spring, and that the use of the pedals as in the pneumatic motor, is therefore not necessary.

Its disadvantages, as alleged by its critics, may be considered as follows: That it requires oiling and cleaning frequently, and that if neglected will rapidly become impaired; that it is sometimes slow in acceleration and retarding; that it is heavy and complicated, and that the winding, when done by pedals, is wasteful, and when effected by a handle, is tiresome.

The above tables of vices inherent in both types are by no means as terrible as they look, however, and experience seems to show that many of them do not appear in practical work. On the whole, the clock-work motor seems to have much in its favor, although the question still remains open, and time alone can show which is practically better.

It is neither necessary nor profitable to go into any considerable detail as to the pianoforte pedal operating devices, the soft stops, or other details of the sort. We may better employ the space at our command in a short discussion of the movement which has resulted in incorporating the mechanism described above into the case of the pianoforte itself. This movement is, of course, a natural outcome of the successful introduction of the exterior “player.” The public soon began to find fault with the latter on account of the space it occupied, and also because of the annoyance incidental to its removal from the instrument for manual playing. It was not long before the makers of “players” were experimenting, with a view to using the waste space in the upright pianoforte for the purpose of including the “player” therein. The advantages of such a plan are obvious, provided that the actual mechanical difficulties can be overcome. These difficulties proved very stubborn at first, and it is not to be supposed that all are entirely overcome, even now.

It has been very hard, indeed, to arrange the mechanism in such a manner as to make all parts accessible for adjustment and repair. The results of any neglect of this important requisite are very serious. Makers should bend their first energies to the removal of all difficulties incidental to the obtaining of access to the playing mechanism or to the rest of the pianoforte, before they consider anything else. For example, it should be possible to remove the action or keys of the pianoforte without having to detach pipes and tubes. Nor should it be difficult to disconnect the pumping apparatus, or some individual valve or pneumatic which may need attention.

Again, the manner in which the pneumatics strike the keys or action is very important. The earlier player-pianos generally had the pneumatics placed below the key-bed, so that they operated from the rear end of the latter, striking them upwards. This had the double disadvantage of inflicting a hard, rigid kind of blow, and of making the pneumatics very inaccessible. A better plan has lately been devised, which puts the pneumatics over the keys, so that they operate at the front ends, just back of the ivories. Some such method as this is excellent always, since it permits a considerable concentration of the mechanism and a consequent curtailment of the inconveniently long tubes leading from the “tracker-board” to the valve chambers. All these matters, however, are in process of practical development, and the future holds the key to the ultimate solution of any such problems.

In considering the influence of the “player” mechanism upon the pianoforte itself, we may note that the general adoption of these devices, if it occurs, will inevitably produce certain modifications in the action mechanism, as well as in the general design. There is no doubt that the ordinary action mechanism of the pianoforte will not prove strong enough to endure the furious onslaught of the “player,” and it is questionable whether pianofortes constructed on the old plan will not more rapidly deteriorate when exposed to this wear and tear. The precise direction in which this modification is likely to come may not now be accurately determined, but it is probable that a general strengthening of centres and flanges will be the first result.

As for the distortion of the pianoforte case, this, as far as it now exists, may very easily be corrected. But it will not be easy to arrange the playing mechanism so as to avoid interference with the acoustical or mechanical forces of the pianoforte. For one thing, there is a great deal of machinery to put into a very small space, and for another there are certain parts of the pianoforte that must under no circumstances be touched. Thus the sound-board, the strings and the iron plate must be left severely alone. But the elimination of the Boston or double-rolling fall-board, and its replacement by something that will take less room, will provide a sufficient space to house the pneumatics and exhaust chamber above the keys. This is where they ought to be, and the only possible place where they can be reached without trouble or damage. The pumping apparatus must be kept away from the sound-board, and placed where it will do no harm; under the key-bed, necessarily, but not so as to interfere with the piano pedals or the resonance apparatus. Some portion of the bottom frame can usually be eliminated with advantage, and this will assist in providing the necessary space.

The position of the motor should be such that the minimum of waste occurs between the crank-shaft and the take-up spool. Thus, if possible, the motor ought to be above the key-bed. If it be of the clock-work type, it can hardly be placed anywhere else. Lastly, the whole of the exterior apparatus, such as levers, pedals, spool, etc., should be arranged to fold away or be covered up out of sight when the instrument is in use for manual playing.

While it has only been possible in this appendix to give the barest outline of the player-piano problem, the reader is besought to recollect that the industry is still new, and that the “present state of the art” hardly admits of any didactic assertions on principles of construction. We do not even know, today, whether the pneumatic principle will continue to prevail, or whether some new refinement of electric mechanism will not eventually surpass every device now known, both in responsiveness and convenience.

APPENDIX B.

THE SMALL GRAND.

It is a curious fact, but none the less characteristic of that most curious of industries--the pianoforte craft--that in it the development hypothesis, so familiar to all other branches of human endeavor here, appears not to be fully applicable. While the aim of the present treatise has been to systematize and codify, as it were, the laws that underly all right constructional methods, we have been forced to recognize that there is no appearance of any accurate and uniform generalization which may be applicable to the future guidance of pianoforte builders in their efforts to attain to the greatest perfection in later types. Although we have succeeded in laying down the broad and universal principles that govern intelligent practice of the art, yet we cannot fail to note that a progressive evolution is not yet possible. That is to say, there is no progressive synthesis in the art which shall carry us continually further from the original types, so that the ancient models shall become in time quite unrecognizable in the light of modern improvement. Rather would it seem that the course of improvement is leading us back to reversions towards the original types, and of this tendency the rise of the small grand pianoforte is one of the most striking illustrations.

It is not to be supposed that this reversionary movement is to be taken as implying a dissatisfaction with the methods that have grown up in the course of the last hundred years, and the systematization of which has been our task in the present work; it is rather that the tendency today is in the direction of utilizing the most modern methods in the resuscitation and further development of the type of pianoforte that was earliest in the field.

In other words, as the reader well knows, the last few years have seen a general tendency towards a revival of the grand, in forms suitable for modern ways of life, and with the advantages carried by the wealth of experience and practice on which the modern pianomaker can make unlimited drafts. This resuscitation has not taken the form of any attempt to bring the large-sized concert instrument into more popular use, but it has rather been a matter of evolving a new type out of the old, and of developing this latter along comparatively original lines. With the commercial success of such an experiment we are not here immediately concerned, but we have great and lively interest in the question of its constructional value and in the possibilities that are implied in its future development.

Without entering into wearisome detail, it may be stated that the last five years have seen a most systematic attempt on the part of leading manufacturers to construct and popularize a very small style of grand pianoforte, and to endow this new instrument, as far as possible, with the musical advantages possessed by the larger and older horizontal forms. The dimensions of the “small grand,” as it has come to be known, range from a length of five feet to one of six, with width in proportion, and the smallest sizes are continually attracting greater attention on the part of experts. The idea is to reduce the dimensions to the very lowest point compatible with something approaching to grand pianoforte tone, and to make the general outline as beautiful to the eye as possible. The latter of these desires is easier of consummation than the former, and it has therefore appeared that some of the makers of these instruments have been somewhat apt to overlook truly musical results in deference to a public sentiment in favor of something that is graceful, if nothing else. In fact, when considering the small grand we are obliged to note that it has been developed, and is now being produced rather to appeal to that portion of the pianoforte-buying public that demands something for its homes more beautiful than the upright and less bulky than the large parlor or concert grand than in answer to any general cry for the better musical development of the instrument itself.

If we bear this fact in mind, and its truth is obvious to the student of pianoforte history, we can the more easily understand and appreciate the essential features of this latest development.

The small grand has been produced, we repeat, to please the public, and the public at large is not exclusively composed of musicians.

But even while acknowledging the probability of this statement, we need not conceal from ourselves that the small grand can thus fulfill a very useful function. Reduced to its lowest terms, it remains a grand pianoforte, with the action and touch so essentially associated with the horizontal form, and so immeasurably superior to anything that is found in even the best uprights. And here the small grand has an enormous advantage, nor does it appear that its truly musical and tonal development need be permanently stationary, if only the limitations of the instrument be appreciated, and work on it be directed with especial reference to its own size, and without dependence upon the traditions that have supported the building of larger forms.

In a word, the builders of small grands have the opportunity, if they care to avail themselves of it, to produce a form of miniature horizontal pianoforte that shall possess all the advantages of the large concert instruments, with the exception of the great tonal volume peculiar to the latter, and none of the disadvantages of bulkiness and ungracefulness. They can never hope to obtain the same tonal results from a 5-foot as from a 9-foot instrument; but they have the opportunity to popularize a touch and technique that is impossible of achievement for players of the upright, and a quality of tone that is equally unattainable on vertical instruments. Under all circumstances, it must be borne in mind that the results of small grand building, even when most carefully and skilfully executed, are essentially different from anything that has yet been produced in the tonal development of the pianoforte, and that no attempt to imitate the tonal properties of the large grand can be successful. The action and the touch are fit subjects for this kind of imitation, but such tonal quality as is susceptible of development is entirely original and indigenous to the miniature grand. The only legitimate field of inquiry along these lines, then, is that which has reference to the development and constructional principles of the small grand considered as a distinct type, and needing particular and definitely differentiated principles and methods.

Assuming the correctness of these premises (and their truth would appear to be obvious), we have to ask ourselves what is the exact nature of the problem which is set for solution, and wherein it differs from any that we have had to consider as yet. Bearing in mind that we are dealing with what is known as the “small grand,” although it is marketed under various other names selected by different manufacturers, we can state the constructional problem in fairly definite and exact terms.

It is required to build a pianoforte in horizontal form, of which the extreme length shall preferably not exceed five feet and six inches, and which shall be compensated for shortening by means of extra widening; which shall have the lines of a larger grand, refined to the highest degree, and within which the greatest possible tonal value shall be contained.

Viewed thus, it appears that the principal factors to be considered are string-length and sound-board area. It is obvious that the diminution of the former and restriction of the latter are inevitable; and the net result must be seen in a radical alteration, if not deterioration, of the tonal property of the instrument. It remains to be seen how we shall set about to transform this disadvantageous condition into one that shall work for us, and in accordance with our desires. In other words, as we cannot get a sound-board containing, say “_n_” square feet of superficial area into a case that only contains 3/4 “_n_” square feet of space, we must resign ourselves to the inevitable, and search for ways and means whereby the difficulty of putting into a quart bottle more than it will hold may be evaded, if not explained away.

And first, then, let it be remembered that the only line where-from we can safely base any calculation is that which leads in the direction of a continual refinement of the means of applying sound-board construction to the instrument. We must utilize every inch of the superficies; we must discover and apply methods for opening up the vibratory area to the impressions received from the strings in a manner superior to that which has been deemed sufficient when space has been at a discount. We must arrange bridges and bearing-bars so that the string-lengths may be stretched to the utmost, and, lastly, we must use such minute care in the treatment of the hammer-striking line that the inevitable “breaks” in the tone shall be minimized.

The intelligent reader will not fail to observe that we have put forth here a tolerably difficult set of requirements. But he will likewise be equally quick to note that ultimate success in small grand designing depends entirely upon the manner in which these conditions are met. If they are slighted or slurred, if the designer attempts to ignore them, he will find that failure will surely follow. On the other hand, it would be too much to say that even the most faithful and conscientious effort applied to the elucidation of the problem will under all circumstances have the desired effect. The conditions are unusual; in some cases they do not admit of any direct and positive settlement. But in so far as these conditions can be met, in so far as they are susceptible of solution, the designing of the small grand can properly be made successful.

It must be recollected that the “striking-point” of the hammers is a vitally important element in the success of pianoforte building. It is the one factor that cannot be trifled with, and in treating which there must be rigid adherence to rule. Now it is well known that the correct striking distance has been ascertained (as shown in the body of this work) to be at a point between one-seventh and one-ninth of the speaking length of the string, the exact place for each string being calculated with reference to the actual speaking length. As worked out in the best practice, the shortest and highest pitched strings have their striking points at about one-tenth of the speaking lengths, while the longer and lower pitched elements further down the scale are made to conform more closely to rule. Now it is obvious that the application of this law to the very much shortened strings of a small grand will result in distinctly unsatisfactory quantity and quality of tone. But it will not do for us arbitrarily to change the actual striking point, for that would change the position of the hammer line, and experience has amply demonstrated that no such idea will work. Inasmuch, therefore, as we are estopped from interfering with the striking point, as far as concerns the actual hammer line, it becomes necessary to discover some means for obtaining a somewhat greater length of string in proportion to the dimensions of case. Careful measurement will show that the higher strings do not fall under the classification of “dangerous.” It is only when we approach the point where the overstringing begins that the disadvantage of decreased case length becomes apparent. The treble string-lengths at or near this place will be too great, if carried out according to the well-known and practiced laws of scale designing; while, if they are unduly shortened, the tensions and thicknesses will require to be submitted to such radical alteration as to make most unpleasant changes in the tonal quality and volume.

But while an absolute solution is out of the question, there is no doubt that we are able to find a fairly satisfactory substitute. There are two courses open to us. We are not permitted to make any great change in the tension, but, within certain limits, we may weight the string, and we may even stretch out its length, if we be very careful and watch out for every inch. The first method must always be used with caution. It is susceptible, and very easily, too, of improper application, and when abused becomes an enemy rather than a friend. In fact, the weighting of treble strings with iron or copper wire should be undertaken with the greatest caution, and only indulged in when the designer is absolutely unable in any other manner to obtain a proper vibrating length. The last two or three strings above the overstrung portion of the pianoforte may usually be wrapped without troublesome complications, but under no circumstances should the highest of these have a frequency greater than 128. On the other side, where the bass strings begin, this condition does not apply, for it is possible by means of suspension belly bridges, to increase the actual speaking lengths several inches. These suspension or extension bridges, as they are called, may also be used, though with caution, for the lowest treble strings. We have never advocated the splitting up of bridges, but there are cases, such as these, where unusual methods are quite unavoidable.

In the several ways thus sketched out, the designer of small grands may do something to overcome the manifest difficulties of his task. He may likewise take heart of grace when he approaches the matter of sound-board area, for in treating the string-lengths there appears a partial solution of the latter problem. In speaking of the use of suspension bridges we omitted to note that the position of these may be modified so as to give greater length to the speaking portions of the strings, by increasing the obliquity of the angle of the overstringing. Of course, this would be obvious, but it is perhaps not quite so clear that such adaptation will result in an opening out of spaces on the sound-board that are usually left severely alone. Moreover, if the necessary splitting up of the bridges be avoided by means of connecting strips of the same material, it is clear that the opening up of the sound-board may thus be carried up to the highest possible value.

Along such lines as these, it would seem, must the course of small grand designing be laid, at least as far as concerns the vital elements of string-length and sound-board area. There remains the question of the metal plate, and this deserves separate treatment.

We have taken pains already to insist upon the necessity for compromise in the building of small grands. Regarding the iron plate, we have to observe that great care must be taken to avoid undue massiveness, for this will entirely spoil the tone quality, as the other dimensions are not capable of supporting a large mass of metal without tonal deterioration. On the other hand, it is equally certain that we can afford to sacrifice nothing in the way of strength, as we purpose to have the highest tensions and the greatest lengths possible within the space limitations of our instrument. The ordinary form of plate, copied from the large grand, may very advantageously be modified by the adoption of a truss or arch construction, which will enable a large amount of metal to be cut away from the treble sides without sacrificing any strength.

Along such lines, as we have already said, the design of small grands must of necessity proceed. We feel that it would not be improper to repeat our formerly expressed opinion as to the nature and functions of the small grand. It has come into existence in answer to a public demand for something differentiated from the upright, possessing great beauty of outline, and yet adapted to the confined surroundings of contemporary domestic life. It is not and cannot be a rival of larger horizontal forms; it is physically estopped from the realization of such ambitions. But it has a place in the economy of the musical world, and such a place as nothing else would satisfactorily fill. Wielding the mighty influence of the name “grand pianoforte” and with the initial advantages over the upright that its form, touch and action imply, it would indeed be remarkable if the production of the small grand did not become more and more a part of the regular routine of all pianoforte manufacturing establishments. The design of its case will always, surely, be above criticism. It is out of our province to enlarge upon the details of case architecture, but it may be pointed out that such details as graceful trusses, well-designed lyre, and carefully molded curves do much to make or mar the future of a small grand, entirely apart from the excellence of its scale. The general effect should be that of lightness and grace; a touch of frivolity even will not be out of place. The little instrument is likely to find its way into homes where money is not always an object, and where the ability to enjoy the best that life contains is usually present. The designer will make no mistake if he keeps this in mind.

UNUSUAL METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION.

As the reader is well aware, the greater part of the present work has been devoted to an exposition of the broad principles underlying all right methods of pianoforte construction. We have devoted little space therefore to the elaboration of features without this classification, or to the consideration even of such ideas and methods as do not fall within the lines laid down in the theoretical portion of this treatise. Busily occupied, as we have been, with the development of acoustical and mechanical principles and their application along the most obvious and natural lines, we have been forced to neglect one of the most interesting studies that can be taken up by the investigator; to wit: the ideas, inventions and devices that have sprung from the brains of the numerous mechanical and acoustical geniuses who have illuminated the course of pianoforte history and development. Many of these ideas have proved impracticable under the stress of use; others, again, have been shown to be commercially unprofitable; a still larger number have flourished during a longer or shorter period or have been neglected by all others than their original inventors. The true place for a study of these neglected children of enthusiastic, if not always practical, brains is in a history of the pianoforte rather than in a technical treatise on construction.

[THE END.]

The following corrections have been made to printer’s errors in this text:

Page Correction Location in Text 20 Handel to Händel time of Händel; 20 pianforte to pianoforte which the grand pianoforte 27 begin to begun now about to be begun. 32 closing parenthisis inserted staff in the bass clef) 32 B-sharp to B-Natural note 15 in harmonic series table 41 B double F-flat to B double flat minor sixths table 42 clasisfied to classified These sounds are thus classified: 49 of to or imply a length or height of 53 asumption to assumption made on the assumption 68 veenered to veneered turning out of such veneered cases, 77 missing comma inserted (more elaborate than the other two), 86 homogenous to homogeneous plate as homogeneous with the sides 87 is to it In fact it occupies 99 REPETITON to REPETITION DOUBLE REPETITION ACTION 109 fough to fought already been fought out 113 any one to anyone through by anyone who hopes 123 synchromize to synchronize will synchronize with each other, 124 mesontonic to mesotonic that the mesotonic system, 125 period added in the ratio 1296:1250. 131 turned to tuned conversely, if the tuned notes 148 closing quote added vacuum in the “diaphragm chamber,” 154 Wtihout to Without Without entering into wearisome detail, 154 possesed to possessed musical advantages possessed 155 circustances to circumstances Under all circumstances,