|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.201.70.172
My piano tuner, neighbor and friend Glen Brown, along with his younger son, has been working on this piano for 18 years. Now it can be yours for $5.5M.
After tuning my Steinway earlier this week, he invited my family over to see and play the piano. A once in a lifetime experience.
Follow Ups:
I've read the information on the site regarding the repair and replacement of many parts of the piano.Given that it has a repaired soundboard, a new pegblock, new hammers, apparently new keys, is completely refinished and has replaced decorative parts (including original ivory), it's hard to believe that anyone would pay $5,500,000 for it. If it were all original "near mint", then maybe - I don't know what the market is like for all-original near-mint old pianos.
Edits: 05/13/15 05/13/15
I seriously doubt he'll get that much. But then, given the $179.3M that Picasso's Women of Algiers recently fetched, nothing would surprise me.
nt
That's not a complete music system. It's just a DAC
That piano looks like a masterpiece! I'm glad that so much money, love, and care was spent on it's refurbishment.
Of course it's deplorable that the ivory was harvested in the manner it was, but since the deed has been done and there's no way to undo it, why not make the best of things? Failure to restore and preserve such an instrument would mean that the elephant's untimely death was completely in vain.
hear hear
For the benefit of our two environmental stewards and anyone else interested, I have the Affidavit of Origin in front of me.First, the brilliant individual that believes that the ivory used in this project resulted in "a lot of dead elephants", is just plain wrong. I'm guessing that the ivory used in the restoration of this piano might have been about 1% or less of a good sized tusk. Now, if that ivory was harvested illegally, unethically or inhumanely, the amount wouldn't matter. I would be as upset as anyone else, probably more.
I'm going to quote directly from the affidavit:
"This document serves as an Affidavit of Origin attesting to the legal pre-act status of the ivory listed below. This ivory is African Elephant (Africana Loxodonta) ivory. It is legal within the United States in accordance with Federal law and regulations 50 CFR section 17.40 e and US Code Section 1533(d). The ivory is legal within the United States but can NOT be exported to another country under any circumstances in any form as sold, reworked or modified."John Marks correctly stated what is contained in the last sentence.
For those that don't know, this is part of The Endangered Species Act of 1973.
So the individual that inferred that the ivory used in the restoration of this piano might be roughly 18 years old is, again, incorrect. In fact the ivory could be anywhere from 43 to hundreds of years old.
Our two environmental stewards are taking a brave stand against the killing of elephants for their tusks. But it's all talk, no action; easy to do behind the protection of their computers. I would bet neither has contributed a cent to any Save the Elephants foundations. I'm sure neither has marched in any protests, here or in Africa, started or participated in any grass roots internet campaign, etc. That would require action, not just words. And like I said before, I'm sure these two have and will continue to boycott any classical concert that has a piano with ivory keys.
One of these guys is proud to claim "And for the record, I will eat anything that moves." So it's okay to eat endangered species, shark fins, monkey brain, elephant meat, etc or horribly abused US farm animals but don't you dare put any animal parts on your musical instruments. Of course he will "eat anything that moves" because not doing so would require some effort and inconvenience on his part. And I bet he doesn't own or never will own a piano, so it's easy for him to lash out at others since it causes no inconvenience to him.
Let's take a pig for example. This animal is one of the most intelligent on the planet. But apparently that doesn't matter; it's just a fat, ugly, filthy critter not a majestic elephant. But let's assume it does matter. Pigs are far more intelligent and sensitive than say elephants, dogs, perhaps even more so than some individuals on AA (sorry, I can't help myself, I'm a pompous ass). Here's just one quote from the book I provide a link for below:
One facility he visited held 1,500 pregnant pigs in cramped individual cages. "They were like people sitting in the seats of one of those regional aircrafts," Estabrook says. "Their sides stuck out through the bars; they could not turn around. They could not move in any way at all and that's the way those pigs basically lived their entire life."
Now the majestic elephant gets to live his entire life in his habitat, with his friends and family, doing what elephants love to do all day. Then a guy with big tusks gets shot and dies relatively quickly and far more humanely than most farm animals in the US. Millions of highly intelligent pigs live their entire lives in indescribable suffering, orders of magnitude beyond what any majestic elephant has ever or will ever experience. But our environmental steward, proud to "eat anything that moves" will never respond to this terrible inhumanity simply because doing so would require some effort. And he still doesn't get it. Denial? Laziness? Stupidity? Who knows? Point the finger at anyone else when it doesn't affect you, but God forbid taking any action when it does.
One final comment. Just for fun, let's assume, by some miracle, our two environmental stewards inherited this piano. After doing the research, and I believe this to be roughly correct, they found that an accurate restoration, as close to perfect as possible (the miracle that Glen and his son performed), would net them $5M. But being the stand up guys that they are, they also research the environmentally responsible route; substitutes for the ivory, any of the hardwood inlay, the chemicals used to finish the piano (we know the worst stuff makes guitars sound their best), etc. Oh yeah, can't chop down any of that beautiful sitka spruce so let's go with fiberboard made of hemp. And so on. Then, to their horror, they find that they will net $500k, probably less because the piano looks and sounds like crap. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind which way they would go and I can assure you that dead elephants would be the last thing on their minds.
Edits: 05/08/15 05/08/15 05/08/15 05/08/15
It doesn't matter to me how old the ivory is. It came from an elephant, and an elephant died because it had tusks. I find that repulsive.I have done a great deal in support of elephants and the fact they they are, along with all large herbivores, on the way to extinction greatly saddens me. I have also investigated considerably their cognitive abilities and the neural underpinnings of those abilities.
In terms of intelligence, I very much question your statement about pigs. On what evidence do you base your claims about pigs?. I teach a cognitive neuroethology course and, although pigs are, indeed, quite intelligent, their cognitive ability is unlikely at the level of that exhibited by elephant.....though they may compete with dogs. Yes, domestic pigs are terribly mistreated, but the biological, psychological, and social devastation heaped on elephants because of poaching is a very different matter.
The piano in question is remarkable, and clearly a remarkable work of love. I appreciate that. But, regardless of its aesthetic or economic worth, to me, I'd rather see the ivory alive and well and wandering the savannas of Africa.
Edits: 05/08/15 05/08/15
I appreciate what you are saying and respect you as a person. At least, unlike some others, you put your money where your mouth is and are speaking from experience. Seeing one species after another go extinct over the course of my life greatly saddens me as well.I did a quick internet search and found a variety of results (there is still much debate among scientists, some that would disagree with you) but in most cases pigs, elephants and dogs are near the top under the obvious chimps, orangutans, etc and dolphins. This is obviously more than a passing interest for you, so I will defer to your knowledge and stand corrected. I also strongly agree with you; any endangered species should never be compromised under any circumstances. I believe we are both on the same page here. We both do whatever we can do and hope our actions are making an impact.
With that said, Glen took great pains to obtain legal ivory from animals killed many decades ago, prior to environmentalism and when elephants were relatively abundant, and used it for what I consider a noble cause. And I want to make it crystal clear; the restoration of this piano had zero impact on elephants currently living on the savannas of Africa.
Now here's the realist rather than the idealist speaking. I'm guessing if you had your way, you would collect and destroy, if possible, what I'm guessing is a fairly large inventory of old, legal ivory. I hope you realize that if this would occur, a certain demand for ivory would continue exist, right or wrong. Now with the old ivory inventories gone, the price of ivory would skyrocket and the slaughter of remaining elephants would go up proportionately. Basic supply and demand. Basic capitalism. Hopefully, since ivory is no longer pc in much of the world, this remaining old inventory of ivory will be here for a long time, reducing the demand for illegal, live ivory. This isn't my area of expertise, so if I'm wrong on this, please correct me.
What I don't understand though, are those that will pick one animal to protect and ignore, through their actions, other animals of roughly equal intelligence or even dumb animals that are suffering even more and at a much greater scale. In my post above, I just mentioned the suffering of pigs. What I didn't mention is the enormous environmental impact of these giant US corporate pig operations as well as the human health impact from the massive amounts of drugs required to keep these animals alive in such horrible conditions, resulting in all kinds of problems for humans. These two other factors don't exist with elephants, so I think the corporate animal industry is a much bigger issue. By reducing our consumption of these animals or eliminating it all together, we can all make a difference. What I'm talking about here is the big picture.
BTW, the level of poaching and abuse of animals in Costa Rica really shocked and saddened me, not at all what I expected. I learned a lot during our five years there and I could probably write a book about it. It's a very complicated issue, not at all black and white. So many variables. This experience really changed me especially what I experienced with NGOs and various "environmental" organizations, responsible directly or indirectly in many of these abuses.
Again, what I thought would be a fun discussion of a very interesting musical instrument has turned into something completely different, something that really took me by surprise. I am a silver lining guy though and on the bright side, I am getting a good eduction in the process. I really appreciate and admire folks like you; making sacrifices to do the right thing and educating others. I hope I am a better person for it.
Thank you.
Edits: 05/08/15 05/08/15
Well, given that I conduct neuroethology and comparative neuroanatomical research and know most of the other scientists that do this research as well, I feel safe in saying that most scientists I know would share my opinions about the cognitive abilities of elephants. Much less has been done on the neurocognitive abilities of pigs because, well, most neurocognitive research has been done on rodent and primates models. Rodents because they are easy to investigate, and primates because we are primates and are inherently anthropocentric. One can find anything one wants on the internet.
Comparing the plight of so-called wild (i.e., free) animals and a domesticated animal is a bit of a false comparison, and just because one is mistreated doesn't mean it is acceptable to mistreat another. Bottom line: humans, as a species, just don't care about any species, including their own--and that's the big picture, dire as it is.
Of course, all of this has nothing to do with music or being an audiophile. I don't object to the existence of the piano in question, and I do appreciate its restoration--such musical instruments are, in my mind, incredible inventions and are, indeed, remarkable testaments to the importance of music in human society. But, I want nothing to do with anything that has part of an elephant body in it. That's a personal decision. But that decision is independent of other environmental perspectives I might have, or other hypocritical decisions I might make. Each of us chooses particular causes and does what we can and not everyone is going to agree--indeed, look at how "normal" people view audiophiles! We're an odd group with odd values, but we do tend to very much appreciate music (or at least some kinds of music).
I don't have a problem that you picked a single species to make a difference. At least you are doing something rather than talking about it. My approach is more broad. To each his own.I'd like to point out that most scientists agree on the benefits of psychotropic drugs. The public has accepted this, in part, because the experts told them so. The scientists point to their studies as proof. But it turns out the studies are designed to skew the data in their favor. Who are paying these scientists? What would happen to their careers if the opposite were true? Then the doctors (psychiatrists) tell their patients they have a pill(s) that will cure what ails them. The patient accepts this without question. The doctors are the experts and the pill(s) are an easy solution requiring no more effort on the patients part to get well. These doctors spent a lot of time (12 years or so) and money getting their degrees and they always point to that when challenged. How could a lowly engineer like myself (we all know how to lie with statistics) know more than they do? Anyway, see the link below. You might find it interesting. I think it is one of the most important books, especially for parents, that most people will ever read. BTW, I spent months doing my own research in an attempt to refute the information in the book. I could not find anything significant.
I'm not implying that you or your colleges fall into this category. Just saying I don't automatically trust information from scientists and doctors anymore than you trust information on the internet.
Just one more thing. In Costa Rica we lived on a two kilometer white sand beach with incredible waves for surfing, one of my passions. This beach is also one of the main nesting beaches in Central America for the giant leatherback turtle, also quickly and sadly on it's way to extinction. Not as smart as the other animals we are discussing but still an incredible creature. We helped the rangers patrol the beaches at night and early morning to keep the egg poachers away. Being on this beautiful beach at night under a full moon watching these turtles, about the size of small car, come out of the water, dig their nests, lay their eggs, and return to the water is one of the most amazing things I have ever witnessed. Many well meaning people like yourself, with a passion just for this species, pour tens of millions of dollars into two US non-profit organizations that claim to be protectors of this turtle. In an attempt to keep a book size description of what is really going on down to a few sentences, all I will say is almost no money ever actually goes to the turtles. For example, an extra $100k a year would add enough additional rangers and provide maintenance and gas for the patrol boat they already have but has been sitting unused for years due to lack of funds and solve the poaching problem. Not a cent, during our five years there, went to this. Most of the money goes to their lawyers to keep people like me quiet. Notice, I didn't mention names; they have come after me in the past and I simply don't don't have enough money to fight them. Long story short, it's a land grab to one day build a giant, highly profitable eco resort. You dig deeper and see the huge salaries that go the the founders and administrators. My point is, be very careful if you are sending money to Africa. I've learned through this experience and others that what you see is usually not what you get. Hence leaving the US as an idealist and returning a realist.
Bottom line: in all the examples above, to get to the truth, just follow the money.
Thanks for taking the time to post and your patience in reading my replies.
Edits: 05/09/15 05/09/15
I am familiar with the issues you raise. I agree with most of what you said, but don't accept the argument that scientist are corrupt. There is overlap between pharmaceutical companies and scientific pursuits, but they are not the same thing. Staff scientists are not the same as academic scientists. Scientists also know what studies don't "prove" anything, unless one is talking about mathematical "proofs." Science works on the preponderance of evidence. Are there scientists that are swayed by their funding? Sure. But, in the end, faulty science will not prevail. To dismiss all of science, as some do (I'm not saying you do, just to be clear), because of flaws in the system is convenient.
That being said, however, these days, facts don't matter. See attached web page. Thus, despite the fact that the preponderance of evidence suggests that humans are adversely affecting the environment, these data will never change the minds of the climate deniers. So, what's the point of tying to convince someone--s/he will just become more entrenched in his/her mythology.
Poachers with helicopters and modern technology are a different type of breed than the single poacher trying to feed his/her family. The first is the result of capitalism and the greed of wealth, as you note. The other problem, perhaps even larger is human overpopulation--and this may be the root of all of the planet's problems, including those plaguing humans themselves. Humans have continually destroyed the habitat of different species so that they have nowhere to go. There are a couple of exceptions: cockroaches and corvids do quite well in human environments. But, most species don't fair so well.
Not sure what any of this has to do with audio.....and my apologies to those who have bothered to read this far.
First, I want to make it clear that no where did I say that all "scientist are corrupt".You did make an awesome point. The beginning of the end for the legitimacy of the current generation of psychotropics came about 35 years ago when clinical trial design and execution moved from the hands of academic scientists and universities to the hands of corporate scientists and for profit businesses and their minions, the paid psychiatrists (oh boy, here I go again, let the next onslaught begin). At that point, science went right out the window.
For the most part, I have the utmost respect for academic scientists but am always suspicious of corporate scientists and despise most psychiatrists (there are exceptions but they are very hard to find these days). Believe me, I know. I spent my entire career in the implantable medical device industry. I almost got fired on numerous occasions taking an uncompromising stand for quality against the managers, bean counters and corporate. For God's sake, we're dealing with lives here!
With that said, I am a firm believer in psychologists, therapists, counselors and alternative healers (at times I must suspend my logical mind) and the various modern talk therapies. Two of my all time favorite people and the reason I am alive today, are two very fine psychologists.
So thank you for pointing out that difference for others who may not be as knowledgable.
Edits: 05/09/15 05/09/15
I never claim you had said that "all scientists are corrupt"; in fact, I said the following: "To dismiss all of science, as some do (I'm not saying you do, just to be clear), because of flaws in the system is convenient. "
Now, once we solve all of the worlds problems, you think we can get to the difficult stuff, like how to improve a soundstage? Or, actually, back to the original post: how does the restored piano sound, especially compared to modern pianos?
"I am familiar with the issues you raise. I agree with most of what you said, but don't accept the argument that scientist are corrupt."
LOL, you are a good man. Yes, see other parts of this thread to feel my frustration.
It's not often I get to have a discussion like this with someone as intelligent as you and I'm enjoying myself. I don't care what anyone else thinks.
But yes, let's give it a rest. I've got to go anyway.
Thank you again from taking the time out of your busy schedule to have this conversation with me. I've learned a lot.
No need to lecture me about science and scientists. You are preaching to the choir. And I would never dismiss science and logic; it is the root of all my beliefs and arguments. But I do strongly disagree with you on one point.
"But, in the end, faulty science will not prevail." If we had the time and desire, using the psycho-pharmaceutical industry as an example and mental health treatments through the centuries in general, I could without a doubt, prove your statement wrong. As a matter of fact, faulty science has prevailed, time and time again, throughout the history of mental health treatment. You may enjoy another book linked below. I also have much personal experience to back up what I'm saying. But you're right, this isn't a scientific forum although I'm really enjoying this conversation with you. I love to be challenged by highly intelligent people like yourself. It's the only way for intellectual growth.
I agree 100% with your other comments. Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
Is the the science that prevailed the the false application of the science? Those are two different things. If one only looks a short time periods, then one might think faulty science has prevailed, but if you look at science over hundreds of years, I think you will find that science marches along slowly and that many of the "trends", "faulty applications of science", etc. will fall by the wayside. I mean, we don't really do trephening or prefrontal lobotomies anymore. Many academic scientists are now questioning and exploring what effects different pharmaceuticals actually have. Time will decide what remains as true science. Where we are now in pharmaceuticals is different from where we will be 200 years from now, and that future destination will be the result of science over time, including overcoming numerous theories that fell by the wayside along the way.
Obviously, in most cases good science will prevail. Electrical engineering is a great example.
"I mean, we don't really do trephening or prefrontal lobotomies anymore." Wrong about lobotomies. The only difference is that we now do them chemically rather than surgically. Been there, done that.
"Many academic scientists are now questioning and exploring what effects different pharmaceuticals actually have." Thank God, that's why I love you guys!!! Europe is a great example. All their trials, say for SSRIs, were done by academic scientists, not paid corporate pharma scientists. That's why that class of drugs has not been approved in most of Europe. But they are handing them out like candy in the US and Russia and destroying countless lives. Especially horrifying to me is what we are doing to our children.
"Time will decide what remains as true science." That hasn't happened yet with mental health science, for several centuries (with one interesting exception that has nothing to do with science) to this very minute.
"Where we are now in pharmaceuticals is different from where we will be 200 years from now, and that future destination will be the result of science over time, including overcoming numerous theories that fell by the wayside along the way." Yeah, based on the trends from several hundred years to the present, that really scares me. Brave New World anyone...
Mental health science, and the field of neuroscience as a whole are very young. The Society for Neuroscience, for example, has only been around since 1969. And the brain is a rather complex thing to investigate--it's going to take a long while to try to figure out exactly how it works. We have come a long way, especially in the last 50 years, but there is a long way to go. And this is what makes neuroscience an interesting field of study.
Lobotomies (leucotomies) are surgical procedures, and were irreversible. Pharmacological treatment, of course, is not a surgical procedure, and is, for the most part reversible.
First paragraph: You guys are one of my only hopes in turning this mess around. Please carry on.
"Lobotomies (leucotomies) are surgical procedures, and were irreversible. Pharmacological treatment, of course, is not a surgical procedure, and is, for the most part reversible." Wrong. You are making the same mistake I made earlier regarding elephant intelligence; wrong assumptions without doing the proper research. It happens to the best of us. The neuroleptics and the newer class that suppresses both dopamine and serotonin (even worse), result in a whole host of permanent brain damage, all well documented with fancy scientific names but somewhat suppressed for obvious reasons. Unless you are doing the research yourself, I would strongly advise you to question all "conventional wisdom" on this topic. If you really want to dig in, try tracing any documentation you see back to the source, if it's possible. Almost all of it leads you to one place. If a "respected" physician (psychiatrist) is the author, the article was most likely ghostwritten by a phara and the physician paid a nice fee to put his name on it.
Well, the mistake here, that both of us are making is painting with broad strokes: we have not defined "pharmaceuticals" or "pharmacological treatments". That being said, no pharmaceuticals that I know of severe the corticothalamic and thalamocortical axons between the prefrontal cortex and the dorsomedial thalamus, which is the primary goal of leucotomies.
"Well, the mistake here, that both of us are making is painting with broad strokes: we have not defined "pharmaceuticals" or "pharmacological treatments".Wrong. I was specifically speaking of psychotropics in general and more specifically mainly neuroleptics, all of which I clearly mentioned earlier.
"That being said, no pharmaceuticals that I know of severe the corticothalamic and thalamocortical axons between the prefrontal cortex and the dorsomedial thalamus, which is the primary goal of leucotomies."
Trying to increase your credibility or confuse me with fancy scientific terms won't work. Of course the neuroleptics aren't physically severing anything. But you can achieve the same permanent damage chemically. The good scientists, like you, have in recent years done MRI studies on folks heavily dosed on neuroleoptics showing, over time, permanent shrinkage of the frontal lobes and swelling of the basal ganglia resulting in more psychosis, rather than less. Physical changes to the brain. These changes are permanent. They now have new medical names for the new conditions (permanent damage) caused by these drugs. For example neuroleptic-induced acute dystonia and neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Symptoms include akathisia, parkinsonism and tardive dyskinesia. I believe the last symptom was coined after the side-effects of the first generation neuroleptics were studied. There are other conditions and symptoms but I don't have the time or desire to list them all. And we're just talking about the neuroleptics and atypical anti-psychotics. We could have similar discussions regarding the SRRIs and newer class SRRNIs (anti-depressant class) among others.
Most disturbing to me, based on recent Medicare Part D data, of the top prescribed drugs, number four is Abilify (atypical anti-psychotic) and five is Cymbalta (SRRNI, latest generation anti-depressant). In addition, compare the cost of Abilfy to the surrounding medical drugs; the profits are over twice that of the others.
If you ask most people today to describe a schizophrenic, most will describe a zombie like person: shuffling around, swollen tongue hanging out, drooling, twitching and jerking, etc. Just watch any TV show or movie depicting the severely mentally ill and you'll see this The use of these drugs have been so prevalent in our society since the 1950s, what people are now describing are the effects of neuroleptics and second generation atypical anti-psychotics and have nothing to do with schizophrenia.
For brief time, the mid-80s, neuroleptics went out of favor when writings of Soviet dissidents and political prisoners started to leak out (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is probably the best known). Long story short: the Soviets were using the same drugs to torture their political prisoners that we were using to treat our mentally ill. In many cases we were using the higher dosages.
Also keep in mind that many of the severely mentally ill (many of which were, when they first entered the hospital, just mildly neurotic) got that way from the treatment, not the initial symptoms.
Now you may say that newer, superior, atypical anti-psychotics have now replaced the first generation neuroleptics. Just to save time, I would counter that this newer generation is even worse and will cite other scientific studies to prove my point. Also, it will be helpful to all reading this to understand the main reason most of the newer psychotropics are developed. With all pharmaceuticals, patents eventually expire and so do the obscene profits as the generics take their place. So to keep the shareholders happy, slight or major changes are made (as I stated earlier, the first generation neuroleptics only blocked dopamine, the new generation atypical anti-psychotics block both dopamine and serotonin), new patents are obtained and ka-ching. Helping the mentally ill live better lives is at the bottom of the list of objectives, if there at all. So now they discredit their previous "medical miracle" in order to sell the latest "medical miracle". And so on.
As long as you continue to make false or misleading statements, I will be compelled to call you out on it. I hope you are not as sloppy or biased in your research.
Really, like you suggested earlier, let's give this a rest. Although mentally exhausted, I always enjoy to be challenged intellectually and you have certainly done a good job there unlike a couple of the other respondees. For that I thank you and keep up the good work.
Edits: 05/13/15 05/13/15 05/13/15 05/13/15
"I thought the post would be interesting to most music lovers whether they play or not. Didn't think this would start a pissing contest. But then it is AA."
Yet, you're doing a pretty good job of turning your own thread into an off-topic pissing contest with Slapshot.
First, I consider my discussion with slapshot an intelligent discussion, unlike some of the other sub-threads which I was referring to. Of course, one would have to be intelligent to get that.
Second, no one is forcing anyone to read this. What's your problem? Don't like the content of this sub-thread?
Finally, I stand by what I originally said. I certainly did not start the hypocritical eco criticisms.
It's all so complicated. For example, it's easy for us to sit in our comfortable homes and point fingers at poachers. But I will tell you this with absolute certainty; if my wife and sons were starving and near death and my only means of saving them would be to shoot an elephant, I wouldn't hesitate, not for second. Unless we solve these underlying issues, the slaughter will continue. Yes, I know that many poachers are simply profiteers, no different than war profiteers; selfish, greedy people. And if we don't solve the underlying issues leading to their motives (unregulated capitalism), the slaughter will continue. I know this saddens both of us greatly, but it's reality.With that said, one of my main life philosophies is this: accept the things you can not change, change the things you can and have the wisdom to know the difference.
Current trends have the world, at least several of the most powerful countries, moving in the direction of a purer, unregulated capitalism where profit is king. In addition, we have a long way to go before we make a significant dent in world poverty. Being a realist, and believe me it breaks my heart, the endangered species are goners and more animals will find their way on to that list as time goes on. To me, that is the reality of it and I feel there is nothing I can do to change that. Now, I still admire folks like you that continue to try. But based on my philosophy above, I believe the thing I can change is the current corporate abuse of farm animals in the US. How? By what I put in my body and how I spend my money. This is the real power we all have. Forget about elections at the federal and state level. With the passage of Citizen's United, that's now a rigged game with the winner going to the highest bidder (another reason I am loosing hope).
You are good person trying to do all you can do. I believe I am the same. We have different philosophies and that is okay. There is no right or wrong here. The main thing is we are men of action, not just words.
I believe we can solve all the worlds problems with education. But there are forces much great than us, suppressing the truth and creating faulty education to suit their needs. I'm afraid they will win in the end as long as profit is the main motive.
And no, I'm not a socialist.
Edits: 05/09/15
BTW, for the record, I have never purchased nor do I own anything made of ivory.
Thanks for posting.
Although I appreciate the skill and effort that went into producing and restoring that piano it's not my cup od tea, too ornate for my taste. My wife, on the other hand, would love it.
As for the ivory, it seems unlikely that any elephants killed in the past few years were the source of materials used 110 years ago. Worrying about that is a bit like objecting to owning a vintage Chris-Craft mahogany boat from the 1920's or 1930's.
Not just the hard brightness, but the equalised temperament which seems to be almost constantly out of tune.
:-)
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
.
Pitching is about relativities, not about trying to fix in place something that just can't be so in real music making.
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
Can't a piano tuner tune the keys to either equal temperament or whatever "system" he chooses? IE. it's not locked in by the construction of the piano - simply by the tension on the strings?
Regards,
Andy
I once was told by a keyboards expert that, depending of course on the player's preferences, an expert technician (such as Steinway will send out to an important recital in NYC) can, if there is one major work that accounts for much of the program, for example, Schubert's B minor sonata, the technician can nudge the instrument away from equal temperament in the direction of making the notes of the B minor scale more consonant with each other. But not all the way to a justly-intoned B minor scale.
There is a small minority school of thought that equal temperament was the death of classical music and the cause of the 12-tone reaction. But post hoc is not necessarily propter hoc.
ATB,
jm
Never seen such. I wonder how it compares to Liberace's rhinestone encrusted piano?
Beautiful!
To me it looks gaudy and politically incorrect. I wonder how the restrictions on the ivory trade affects it's saleability.
I have an antique violin bow with an ivory frog. I have been told that if I even take it to Canada, I can't bring it back home.
FWIW & YMMV.
JM:
PS: I don't play, I just was forced to take piano lessons for a requirement. But I do know something about pianos. Were I to buy a piano today it would be a choice between Stuart & Sons and Shigeru Kawai, Kawai's top-of-the-line.
# # #
I've never heard either and I trust your ears. I hope I have the opportunity to hear and, better yet, play both one day.
I always enjoy and appreciate your thoughtful and informative posts.
Thanks,
John
Otherwise you are a hypocrite.
Speaking of gaudy, those dogs look pretty ridiculous.
but it looks too 'lourthy torthy' through these Neanderthal eyes.Probably'll play a killer 'whole lot a shakin' goin' on' though.
Edits: 05/08/15
He commented that it looks gaudy, and I fully agree. Way overdone, IMO, not Liberace but not appealing.
Then there's the subject of killing elephants for their ivory. One doesn't need to be a vegan to understand the impact, nor does it have anything to do with one's diet.
Name calling here isn't going to ingratiate you.
Brian
So much music, so little time!
I just don't suffer fools gladly.
I didn't post this primarily because of the piano's looks or the ivory keys but the whole package; the history, the amazing technical skills involved in the restoration, the length of time it took, the incredible sound and action and my delight in being able to experience it first hand with my family. In general, I thought it would be an interesting read; especially the skill and effort Glen and his son took to restore the piano. What impressed me most was the sound and action. Would I want something like this in my living room? No, I'd prefer the equivalent sound and action in piano black. I have nothing financial or personal invested in this piano. Call it what you like. I just think it's a shame that with the many things to enjoy about the piano and article, some folks can't see the forest through the trees. And then, even worse, turn it into a political rant.
I guess I better think twice before I post an interesting story of an incredible violin or acoustic guitar. So then you guys will hammer me for the destruction of ancient hardwood forests, huge open pits mines for the metal for the strings, etc. Come on guys, get real.
Like they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Like those who wouldn't want that piano their home, I wouldn't be caught dead walking neolith's dogs around the neighborhood. But it's not because their dog crap is adding to the destruction of the planet. They are just plain silly looking. To each his own.
But if you are going to spout off publicly about one environmental atrocity but continue to indirectly or directly participate in 100s of other atrocities (but remain conveniently naive) then yes, your are a hypocrite. That's not name calling, that's a fact, Mr Walsh, arbitrator of what's politically correct.
I'm politically liberal and have been an environmentalist my whole life. Rather than spouting off on the internet, I quietly do everything possible to minimize my impact. After living for five years in Costa Rica, one of the eco capitals of the world, I've seen a whole other dark side to environmentalism; the hypocrisy and the reality, just follow the money. I left the US an idealist and returned a realist. So I have no patience with the likes of neolith; all talk and no action.
I'm just as appalled as any sensitive person by the current illegal slaughter of elephants (ivory), rhinos (horns), sharks (fins), etc. I can go on and on. But in the late 1800s when this ivory was harvested, it was legal and elephants were abundant. On the other hand a rhino horn connoisseur in another part of the world today where it is PC might be equally appalled at the conspicuous consumption and huge environmental impact of the audio equipment you sell and the energy it takes to run it all. It's all relative and somewhat cultural.
I find the way that 80% of pregnant sows are currently treated in giant US corporate farms so appalling, I wept. Far worse suffering than any elephant has experienced. And yes, I put my money where my mouth is; I don't eat pork among other animals that live in horrendous conditions. How about you? I don't know you well, maybe your are a vegetarian or vegan, but if I sent you substantial documentation to make this abundantly clear, will you immediately give up pork? I doubt it; all talk and no action. I consider the internal combustion engine one of our biggest modern environmental disasters. I drove my bicycle to work for the better part of 24 years before I retired. I could send you piles of documentation in this regard. Will you give up your vehicle and drive a bike? I doubt it. This is what I mean about hypocrisy.
I guess you guys have been and will continue to boycott any classical concert that has a piano with ivory keys.
So, why don't you tell everyone out there the real reason you choose to criticize me. Still pissed, huh. You certainly are not the paragon of ethics yourself.
Art Dudley is right. Why would anyone want to post here? Well, I'll never make that mistake again. Never in my life did I expect this kind of response. An interesting story about a musical instrument has turned into a political mess. Only at AA. I rarely see this at AudioKarma.
Someone makes a couple of critical comments, and you throw a fit.
This is the internet. Grow up.
Brian
So much music, so little time!
I am glad you don't find their poo objectionable as they probably produce less shit than you do. I actually enjoy taking them for walks as I usually get one or two comments every day on how good looking these dogs are but I guess I live in a different type of neighborhood than you do. And for the record, I will eat anything that moves.
I do appreciate the skill and effort that went into producing that piano, but I still find it unattractive. There is no need to get personal.
As far as the ivory issue, I understand that concerns were different 110 years ago, but the article says the piano was restored with the finest ivory, etc over the last 18 years and I do find that objectionable.
Edits: 05/07/15
I do live in a different kind of neighborhood. The only time we see dogs like yours, it's either a little old lady or a gay dude (not that there is anything wrong with that).
Nothing personal. Just making a point: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To each his own. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out. I saw your comment, then saw the dogs and it was like the pot calling the kettle black.
And just to make it perfectly clear. It wasn't the criticism of the piano that bothered me. It's your complete environmental hypocrisy.
I have to conclude that you are a pompous ass.
"I don't tolerate fools lightly." Because someone has a different opinion than you does not make them a fool -- calling those who disagree on aesthetics is in fact foolish.
Why mention the dogs at all or implying that those who own these dogs (they are Havana Silk Dogs by way) are gay. That's just plain stupid but is consistent with being an ass. BTW I did not make any claims about the dogs like you did about the piano.
You are fairly new to the Asylum so perhaps you should re-read the rules. The idea is to present ideas for discussion and opinion not to denigrate posters.
BTW, am I correct that the piano was refurbished with ivory in the last 18 years or did I misread the article that you attached.
Finally I have no idea about your comment "If you can't take it, then don't dish it out." It sounds like a childish school yard taunt, again made by an ass.
As far as being an environmental hypocrite - I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Are you saying dog owner's are environmentally hostile? What about cat owners? It would be my guess that 50% of the posters on AA own pets.
nt
I love musical instruments, but given that elephants, and all large herbivores, are being marched to extinction at an ever rapid pace, I too, and repulsed by ivory.
Nt
nt
I can respect the artisan skill it took to make, but the Fabergé egg treatment doesn't make it the Ultimate Music System, its the Steinway at its heart that possibly puts it in that spot.
Like so many here, you are quick to criticize something you have never heard. I was referring to the sound and action, unlike any piano I have ever played or heard. Maybe I should have been more specific.
I've heard many Steinways, Petrofs, Bosendorfers, etc. Some sound great, some so so, some bad. Assuming it sounds good because it's a Steinway, even possibly, is just plain silly. Like a good audio system, there are so many, possibly more, variables. See the link below for a really interesting book in this regard.
I thought the post would be interesting to most music lovers whether they play or not. Didn't think this would start a pissing contest. But then it is AA.
The best piano I've ever played was a Baldwin grand. I almost bought it even though I had no good place for it in my house. I thought it better than any Steinway I've played on.
Baldwin does make some very nice pianos. Years ago when I was looking for a good upright, Baldwin was at the top of my short list.
My dad was part of the team that picked a grand for the local nursing home auditorium. Because of the location, several retired music professors (great players) from ASU were also on the team. They had a huge budget which put them in a very nice range. The finalists were Steinway, Petrof and Baldwin. The Petrof won with the Baldwin a close second.
Like you, I'd love to have a grand (also a B3 and Leslie) but don't have the room to do it justice. Oh well...
This piano will most likely be purchased by someone, more for the looks and investment value than the sound. It will end up in a mansion somewhere rarely played like so many other classic instruments.
I find it sad to see so many great electric guitars in glass cases, never played, in the trophy rooms of wealthy collectors. They should be in the hands of our great musicians, doing what they were originally designed to do.
"This piano will most likely be purchased by someone, more for the looks and investment value than the sound. It will end up in a mansion somewhere rarely played like so many other classic instruments."
"I find it sad to see so many great electric guitars in glass cases, never played, in the trophy rooms of wealthy collectors. They should be in the hands of our great musicians, doing what they were originally designed to do."
Since your friend owns it, he can sell it to whichever bidder he chooses. So, if he sells it to a buyer who buys it as a "trophy" piece and it doesn't get played, he'll have only himself to blame.
Just my personal opinion.
Yes to that, wholeheartedly.
I used to get American-made basses at a good price, and sent them on in search of the holy grail, much as we do in audiophilia, so this practice isn't even remotely new to me. It's gone on from the moment I started playing bass in 1975.
Now, Chinese crap persists like a dreaded disease in my playing arsenal, so much so that I'm totally uninspired to play.
http://mindseyemusic.blogspot.com/
I play a 1982 Fender Elite II that I had Fender customize for me when I purchased it new back in the day. I believe it was their first attempt at an active pickup bass. I love that bass and would die if something ever happened to it.
My piano, several guitars, both acoustic and electric and some amps are from the golden era (but sadly no pre-CBS Fenders). Although I'm probably not worthy as a musician of any of these fine instruments, they all get played regularly by myself, my sons and several trusted superior musicians that occasionally need a certain style or tone for their current gig(s).
I agree with your observation referencing electric guitars. As a lifelong player, it's sickening
to read about the Les Paul or Fender Strat that goes to auction and gets snatched by some
non player which will likely just display it.
I can only admire those pieces and imagine wrapping my hands around an instrument of that caliber.
What's more comical, people with financial means also pay big dollars for a pseudo played/aged guitar that appears to have been played in some juke joint,complete with cigarette burns.
That piano is a fabulous piece, but a little garish and would only look appropriate in your
turn of the century estate!
nt
I developed my ear for music as a child learning piano on a run of the mill Chickerig upright.
Every piano has its own personality and I'm guessing that one has that "woody" somewhat muted tone and comes alive only with a physical plater?
A facilitating read; I learned so much.
Thanks for the link. It does look like a great read.
You certainly got some AA members blood pressure up over your original post!
I am really enjoying my conversation with slapshot. Here's a very smart guy who puts his money where his mouth is. The conversation is respectful and I'm learning a lot.
This book will totally blow your mind. If you are really into these things first start with his other book, Mad In America, a history of treating the mentally ill. I can vouch for some of the more modern madness being a survivor of the neuroleptic period. Enjoy.
Oh sorry, now I'm getting confused. I thought you were referring to another book I linked during my discussion with slapshot.
Yes, Grand Obsession is awesome. I learned more about pianos from this book than all my previous reading and experience. And it's a good story too.
> I find it sad to see so many great electric guitars in glass cases, never played, in the trophy rooms of wealthy collectors. They should be in the hands of our great musicians, doing what they were originally designed to do. <
I could not agree more! These guitars were meant to be admired for their sound as well as their looks... more so!
... Is your friend selling the piano to a musician who will play it daily or to the highest bidder? I do note the "Request for stewardship" but in reality it isn't enforceable even if your friend attempts to enforce it. I suspect the highest bidder will win out. (Which is how it should be IMHO)
I find it sad to see so many great electric guitars in glass cases, never played, in the trophy rooms of wealthy collectors. They should be in the hands of our great musicians, doing what they were originally designed to do.
I suspect many musicians are the ones who sell them in the first place. At least collectors usually keep the instruments in as pristine condition as possible. This is important in the long run.
I like the look of the piano, it is representative for an "Art Grand" of the period. I love the inlay.
I wish your friend good luck in securing a sale.
Smile
Sox
"This piano will most likely be purchased by someone, more for the looks and investment value than the sound. It will end up in a mansion somewhere rarely played like so many other classic instruments."
I have no control over that. But to be perfectly honest with you, after 18 years of painstaking effort and substantial expense (he wasn't rebuilding/tuning other pianos or performing during this process resulting in a major loss of income), I'd sell it to the highest bidder.
But knowing Glen, one of the ten most remarkable people I have known in my life, in his heart, he wants it to go to a player.
While at his home (he's a sick jazz player but can make any classical piece his own), he performed several numbers for my wife, my sons (16 & 18) and myself. When he finished all four of us had tears streaming down our cheeks (I'm getting weepy thinking about it). For every reason possible, this was one of the greatest musical moments of our lives. A day we will never forget.
And thank you.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: