Museum vs Functional Authenticity
By Terry Smythe
> S.K. Goodman writes:
>
> No No, a thousand times no! I had this on both my KT and KT
> Special- you DON'T want to "modify" this "archaic and dangerous "
> switch as that would destroy the authenticity and originality.
After some 25+ years in this avocation, I have come to appreciate and respect the views of both sides of the "authentic" debate. I do not disagree with the principle of what Mr. Goodman supports, and in fact much of my restorations also support the his views.
Consider for a moment if the Seeburg company was still in business today and still making a KT or its contemporary equivalent. In all probability, its innards will reflect contemporary electrical and other official requirements. Normal evolution would have put in place the very thing we are discussing.
Consider also that a typical "museum" restoration is not a restoration at all. From the viewpoint of their quest for authenticity, the very most that would ordinarily be done is a good clean-up for static display. However, this unique slice of musical heritage we all admire, cherish and enjoy was never intended for a static display to appeal only to the sense of sight.
Music is primarily intended to appeal to the sense of hearing in addition to the sense of sight. To do nothing more than a cleanup to appeal to the sense of sight alone, only goes halfway towards satisfying the concept of authenticity to original purpose. The antiques we love so much are not static, they are functional and to be functional, they should do so in a manner as to 'functionally' replicate their original intention, if not their original form.
So what we have here is a tug-o-war or balancing act, where the opposing forces of museum authenticity vs functional authenticity are at work here. I support striking the balance in favour of functional authenticity where I will try to preserve the visual portion as closely as possible, and improve upon the hidden portions where possible and practical. It's a constant judgement call.
I have no problem at all supporting modifications that will make an instrument safer and likely protect it into perpetuity. I welcome the current debate about the electrical support systems in our instruments. Quite frankly, I'm astonished it has taken so long for this particular concern to surface.
Over the years, I'm personally aware of several such instances where an instrument could easily have been destroyed, along with the home in which it resides. One such incident actually occured during the Sunday Open House following one of AMICA's Conventions. I cannot now remember which one or which house, but a house full of visitors suddenly smelled something burning, and quickly spotted smoke emerging from the underside of a Duo-Art reproducing grand playing its heart out. Someone smartly pulled the plug out of the wall, likely minutes before raw flames might have erupted.
So, while we are on the topic of making modifications, has anyone thought about installing an overheat sensor nearby the electric motor of an instrument, such that the circuit will be killed upon an overheat condition? This is another modification that I would fully support.
Thoughts of others?
Regards,
Terry
Terry Smythe (204) 832-3982 (voice/fax)
55 Rowand Avenue smythe@mts.net
Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3J 2n6 smythe@freenet.mb.ca
Home page: http://www.mts.net/~smythe |
(Message sent Wed 14 Aug 1996, 14:18:07 GMT, from time zone GMT-0500.) |
|
|
Mechanical
Music Digest™ Archives
