Hi Bill,  Just read your posting in the MMD about the Nimbus CD's, which
I find to be "not-that-good", "knowing" the music and expression
arrangements on the original paper rolls, and also the fact that an
action shift (for Soft Pedal) -- such as the Stonehill player has,
according to my jacket notes -- "is not right" for the old rolls, which
were edited for the hammer-rail lift instead.

The hammer-rail lift is not only faster acting, but it doesn't change the
tone quality, which is "dry" on the striking effects for the shift.
Also, a human pianist uses it sparingly, and then only during a 'break'
in the music for UNA CORDA.  The rolls, scored for the hammer-rail's
motion only, move "on/off" all the time with the shift -- shaving the
hammers' voicing down in the process and missing most of the subtle uses
on commercial rolls.  (My rolls, ARTCRAFT, use very little Duo-Art Soft
Pedal because of these design differences ... and I opt for vacuum change
whenever possible on most arrangements.)

One other use of the hammer-rail lift was to make for a "safe RAPID
diminuendo", which strains the Pianola's valves as the vacuum lowers
swiftly.  By moving the hammers forward (or up) toward the strings, the
stack can adjust to a quieter playing level without having valves skip
"in the field".  This means that much of the Soft Pedal is being used for
the player action on old rolls ... and not for the pianist's pedal use at
all!

The Musical Heritage Society sent me a free Nimbus CD in this series
("Romantic Piano" I believe it was called) and I never played but a few
cuts.  On top of that, the sound of the audio is raspy and brittle,
either due to digital recording (which can create this) or poor hammer
voicing (due to the "shaving" of felt, mentioned above).

I know this sounds like I real beef on my part -- I guess it is.  If one
doesn't "know" the perforated arrangement, it's easier to accept the
music.  The same applies for the sledgehammer music sample of that 9'6"
Steinway used for the 'Earwitness' radio programmes and forthcoming CD's;
the Paderewski cut was "in the style of Scarlatti", and on the Internet
sample you hear no dynamics, no Themodist accents ... just a loud, ugly
blur.

I'm attaching an MMD posting about this awful 'Earwitness' recording
project, written on 3/23/97, in case you haven't seen this.  Much of the
claims on the Nimbus CD aren't too different from the Fostle/'Earwitness'
ones in this country.  Also, you'll see that there are _major_ problems
in playing commercial Duo-Art rolls on large concert instruments - unless
they're scored for that particular purpose.  However, just the
"incorrect" soft pedal device on the Stonehill player is enough to negate
the recordings for me.

Regards from Maine,

Douglas Henderson
ARTCRAFT Music Rolls


 [ Editor's note:
 [
 [ Douglas mentions a very critical point, which is quite confusing
 [ because traditional names are mis-used.  The _artist_ uses the
 [ keybed-action-shift of a grand piano for _tonal effects_, not to make
 [ it softer!  The name "Soft Pedal" is misleading; on the grand it
 [ should more accurately be called the "Hammer Shift" or "Action Shift".
 [
 [ Reproducing piano rolls have a control channel which really should be
 [ named "Hammer Lift", and the intent of the command is to drastically
 [ reduce the sound intensity for a given stack vacuum.
 [
 [ The Duo-Art editors edited the expression coding so that the
 [ performance sounded correct on a vertical piano, which uses a
 [ hammer-lift, and which reduces the sound intensity to less than 25%
 [ of normal.  The keybed action-shift has relatively little effect on
 [ sound intensity, and as Hal Davis notes in the following letter, the
 [ effect of shifting the keybed is unpredictable (at best) between
 [ different pianos.  As a _system element_ for predictable volume
 [ reduction, I think the hammer-lift method is superior.
 [
 [ -- Robbie