One size fits all?. Or not!

Maria Joao Pires can barely span an octave, and always complained that her weak arm strength limits her way to compete with an orchestra in concertos. Although that was a limiting factor in repertoire (she loves Lizst, but never recorded anything...), she never really complained and it did not limit her career.

vagfilm it did not limit her career.

I think this missed the point. Hazing (when it was popular and unavoidable) did not stop people from having a successful military career. Hazing (when it was popular and unavoidable) did not stop people from entering prestigious schools who had such rituals and graduate from them.

Does it mean it was not a problem that we needed to address? Certainly not, and I refuse to talk to anybody who argues that the military and the universities were better when hazing was the norm.

Obviously I am comparing you with some which is much more exaggerated, I know that and I'm doing it just as a hyperbole to make my point clear.

My point is: even though, some people can "make it" even despite great difficulties, that does not mean that we should not remove the difficulties which are possible to remove! We should remove such things as much as possible.

I raised MJ Pires because she is also very vocal (unless she changed her mind) about keeping the default key size. In her opinion the compromises in repertoire are less important than the compromises caused by smaller keyboards, unless all the pianos in the world were adapted to less wide keys. But then the people with thick fingers would complain...
Pianists (not named Horowitz or Hewitt) don't have the privilege of carrying their own instrument with them, as violinists do...
But I am all for it... I have a 3/4 classical guitar that love playing and sometimes prefer it because I played it for so many years.

As far as I’m concerned, Alicia had no problems despite her tiny hands, and she was known to take on a full-size orchestra with her tiny little hands, and still, come out victorious!

So, Maria should stop ‘complaining about her weak arm strength limiting her way to compete with an orchestra’ and just grow up already (musically speaking), and learn to adapt, adjust, and move on!

The world isn’t perfect, and sometimes one size has to ‘fit all’, and yes, under certain circumstances it is allowed to ‘fit’ you perfectly (a tiny violin for a tiny player, for example); however, this custom-made perspective isn’t always possible, or it is just too expensive.

So I say, dribble that huge basket-ball with your tiny hands until your hands grow.

If, per se, your hands never grow, and you’re stuck with tiny hands for life, there are two solutions: adapt despite your tiny hands and keep on dribbling, or leave them balls 🏀🏀 for someone else to dribble; but please, don’t ask for custom-made tiny balls…. (you’ll also need to be at least 7 feet tall for basketball; so yes, there’s also that to think about).

And if the PASK keyboards become a norm, someone needs to make an international ban (prison-enforced...) to prevent composers to pieces with 12 key spans in PASK, othwrwise the cycle is repeated endlessly 😊
Show an artist his limit, and he will push it...

vagfilm I raised MJ Pires because she is also very vocal (unless she changed her mind) about keeping the default key size.

I see. Thanks for clarifying that. I did not know that and (as you have guessed from my reply) I interpreted your point quite differently.

vagfilm In her opinion the compromises in repertoire are less important than the compromises caused by smaller keyboards, unless all the pianos in the world were adapted to less wide keys.

Potentially, major venues can have two keyboards for each instrument, so it's not exactly like this. But we are again at the chicken and egg problem. Do you have a link to an interview or something were she expresses that view?

vagfilm And if the PASK keyboards become a norm, someone needs to make an international ban (prison-enforced...) to prevent composers to pieces with 12 key spans in PASK, othwrwise the cycle is repeated endlessly

Musically speaking, the 10th is a very important interval. Going beyond that, I can't hear such strong case. So yes, somebody will compose stuff with larger intervals for sure, but I don't think it'd be such a problem, because it'd be less important musically.

Pete14 As far as I’m concerned, Alicia had no problems despite her tiny hands, and she was known to take on a full-size orchestra with her tiny little hands, and still, come out victorious!

To reiterate what I've said before with other words: the fact that same succeed despite difficulties, do not make these difficulties useful to be there in the first place. The goal of the instrument is making music. Having an instrument that enables making music in a easier way is a desirable goal. We can argue whether or not PASK "enables making music in a easier way" and I am not sure what the answer is (it solves some problems and creates others). But I don't agree with the some have succeeded, hence there is no problem stance.

RIP I agree that one has to make compromises, and if that's what you mean, fine. On the other hand, your whole post sounds to me like simply an "I don't care about change or progress" which is something I totally disagree with.

How in the world do you read that from my post? Nothing can be farther from the truth that I don't care about change or progress.

If this discussion is about whether keyboards with narrower keys should be manufactured or not, then by all means do it. If that can help some people being more musical by making it easier to play bigger intervals, I'm all for it.

It's just something I'm not that interested in for myself. If my hands are too short to play a tenth, I can arpeggiate it or play the higher note with my right hand. Yes, that means the right hand is not free to play other notes, like chords, but the pedal can be used to compensate for that (up to a point, of course).

Edit

I might add, that manufacturing keyboards / keybeds with narrower keys is also dependant on the market. If there are not enough potential buyers, the companies will not deem it economical to build them. Maybe an idea for the next DIY project?

theodorn How in the world do you read that from my post? Nothing can be farther from the truth that I don't care about change or progress.

Well it's hard to get exactly what one means from just a few written words with no inflection like in the spoken language -- and little or no context about the other person's background. Plus, I'm very naive, almost to the point of being dumb, with social interactions and not only, so that should explain it. I hope my own "if that is what you mean fine" followed by "sounds to me" made it clear that I was not sure and contemplating both options as possible.

theodorn I'm all for it.

It's just something I'm not that interested in for myself.

Thanks for clarifying it.

theodorn I might add, that manufacturing keyboards / keybeds with narrower keys is also dependant on the market. If there are not enough potential buyers, the companies will not deem it economical to build them. Maybe an idea for the next DIY project?

Especially so ... because pianos don't jump off the retailers shelved like bread at the supermarket or like roofing nails at Home Depot. Pianos sit for quite a while in inventory ... a costly undertaking. Adding a narrow keyboard into the mix would increase the inventory cost and peril.

I still would like to see a slightly narrower keyboard design. But I wouldn't count on it happening the world of acoustic pianos.

Maybe with digitals ... especially the low- or mid-priced keyboards? These move much more quickly and don't suffer the inventory overhead of their acoustic cousins. But I'm still not holding my breath.

Pianos can be modular. Often the action slides right out. It seems that's how Steinbuhler is retrofitting pianos. Keep a spare action in the backroom and slide it into a new piano on customer request. Seems like Hailun can do it.

navindra Pianos can be modular. Often the action slides right out.

Yes but the actions are very expensive to build and maintain.

theodorn Maybe an idea for the next DIY project?

Yes, that was indeed my idea as I (probably unclearly) stated in my message. I did not pursue further because (as I write above) building even a simplified action is a lot of work (and no, 3D printing does not make it easier), so I opted Cybrid/Mybrid, a DIY project with a higher chance of success.

MacMacMac Maybe with digitals ... especially the low- or mid-priced keyboards? These move much more quickly and don't suffer the inventory overhead of their acoustic cousins. But I'm still not holding my breath.

I totally agree with you. I think they have most if not all, of the needed parts. They already make several narrower keyboards (usually with crappy actions). They could leverage that expertise. But the market needs to be big. Assuming they can't use the exact parts they are already producing (the narrower ones are not good enough and the regular ones might not be easily adapted), they need to setup or subcontract the manufacturing needs. While in volume any part costs practically nothing (a key might cost less than $1 in material, energy to make and shipping), the setup costs are very high. Injection molding is a fantastic process which allows many wonders in building parts with everything one needs, but its costs are staggering. Last time I spoke with a friend who works in the field, we are talking about ten millions. So if you make a million identical keys (there are only about 10 identical white keys per keyboard, so you'd need to sell 100,000 of these), we are talking about 11 bucks each. Alright, I got into the weeds here, but I just wanted to say that to make a product with economy of scale, you need, well, scale -- and with this we have the chicken-and-egg problem: there is no demand, hence there is no supply, but without supply the demand cannot materialize either.

navindra Pianos can be modular.

Yes for grands, but much more uncommon on uprights, and uprights comprise the bulk of acoustic sales and resales...

I think @navindra meant having different sized keyboards for a concert grand, so that top artists can choose from.

vagfilm Thanks for the correction, I thought uprights were just as easy.

CyberGene Nice idea!

CyberGene I passed the edit period, but this is indeed what I meant. Actions on a piano should be interchangeable with different key size standards. Seems this is much easier on a grand, though still possible on an upright. I get that the business would require creative solutions to make this work.

I think it would be nearly impossible to regulate the grand action if it were not possible to remove it for this service.
The keybed and the action parts are a single assembly.

OTOH, regulation of the upright action does not require removing the action.
And it would be outrageously difficult to remove the action.
The keybed could be made removable. But everything else? Yikes!

MacMacMac I think it would be nearly impossible to regulate the grand action if it were not possible to remove it for this service.

True. The pinblock is in the way and the only alternative would be to have tuning pins back in the tail of the grand piano and just hooks in the front -- which raises a whole sort of problems.

MacMacMac The keybed and the action parts are a single assembly.

Yes but they are hold together by simple 8 screws. Easy to remove, nothing going out of regulation by removing and reattaching. So you can have two or more different keyboards (e.g. a "regular" one a one or more reduced size of different pitches) for the same action. Not a big deal, besides the space for storage, and hassle to swap it. But then, in concert venues, a technician always tunes and often regulates the piano before each serious concert, so that person could well swap the keyboard per artist's request -- potentially easy-peasy. Not done simply because of the chicken-and-egg problem I mentioned so many times in this thread (assuming that it does provide a benefit, which we are arguing about)

MacMacMac OTOH, regulation of the upright action does not require removing the action.

True for most of the regulation, and only for modern uprights which have the dampers (and their wires) in the back. Older ones have the dampers (and their wires) in the front, which makes regulating dampers much easier, but regulating everything else much harder. That's the "birdcage action" if you have ever heard that.

MacMacMac And it would be outrageously difficult to remove the action.

Not really. The action comes off uprights relatively easy. It's just a number of screws. One problem is that once it's out, there is no safe way to put it anywhere non-specialized: it does not hold any position where it does not risk breaking parts. So you must buy one of these things for the purpose: https://www.howardpianoindustries.com/vertical-upright-piano-action-cradle/

MacMacMac The keybed could be made removable.

I assume you mean keyframe: they keybed is part of the cabinet. Anyway the keyframe could be made removable, but it is never made that way. It's always screwed to the cabinet. Well, always perhaps it's too strong of a word, there are probably a handful of very rare upright models in which the keyframe slides on the keybed like in a grand (for una corda effect), but it's more complicated, the damper action needs to be separate from the hammer action (because you don't want dampers to slide when you slide the rest). Those rare pianos had upright actions totally removable in one piece (keframe and top stack) like a grand one.

MacMacMac But everything else? Yikes!

The only thing that's hard-to-impossible to remove from an upright at the yikes level is the tuning block. A close second is the soundboard. A distant third is the plate/harp (all of these are relatively easy to remove/replace from a grand). Everything else in an upright can be removed/disassembled and replaced even by an avocational person like me, given some time, patience and tools (such as the cradle mentioned above)