ELEVENTH EXHIBITION

OF THE

MASSACHUSETTS

Charitable Mechanic Association,

AT

FANEUIL AND QUINCY HALLS,

IN THE CITY OF BOSTON,

SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, 1869

The pianofortes form the larger and more important portion of the instruments exhibited. Your Committee respectfully report that each of its members made a separate trial of every instrument ; that we held several meetings, and after further trial and full discussion made our awards.

We had some difficulty in reaching a conclusion by reason of the "instructions" under which we acted and by which we were governed, and to a certain extent hampered. These instructions are the same for all the judges, and on all the infinite variety of objects exhibited by the Association. We are unanimous in the suggestion, and we respectfully but urgently advise, that in future the judges of musical instruments shall either be left unfettered by precise directions as to the conditions on which their awards are to be made, or that their instructions shall be so modified as to allow them greater freedom of action. It is not possible, nor if possible would it be fair, to apply the same rules and tests to articles of an aesthetic and to those of a mechanical nature - to inventions the object of which is beauty, and to those which aim only at utility.

In conclusion the Committee deem it proper to add that all the awards are their unanimous verdict.

We have examined the following articles, viz. :-
2130. GEORGE W. NORRIS & CO., Boston. One Piano.
2374. OLONZO A. GAMAGE, Boston. One Piano.
2375. WILMOT N. GATES, Boston. One Piano.
2378. THE UNITED PIANO MAKERS, New York, represented by F. ZUCHTMANN, Boston. Three Pianos.
2449. GUILD, CHASE & CO., Boston. Three Pianos.
2453. T. PARSONS, Boston. Two Pianos.
2456. G. A. MILLER & CO., Boston. Four Pianos.
2473. A. M. MCPHAIL & CO., Boston. Two Pianos.
2499. J. W. BRACKETT, Boston. One Piano.
...

On mature consideration we decided to follow our instructions literally, to ignore the action of past committees, and to consider each article solely with reference to its own intrinsic merits. To this end we have held frequent sessions, and have acted throughout in a spirit of entire impartiality.

Of the pianofortes exhibited two were grands, one was a parlor grand, and the rest were squares. It is, in our judgment, matter for regret that the use of the upright piano is not more general in this country. The grand is, strictly speaking, the only piano, and all the others may be said to be more or less inferior substitutes. With its broad sounding-board and parallel strings and action, the grand piano is the sole perfect example of the class of stringed instruments with keys. The piano which most closely resembles it is the upright. Economy of space is a strong claim for its use in ordinary households : and combining as it does a large proportion of the quality of tone and action with much of the force of the grand piano, it holds unquestionably the second position in instruments of this class. The grand piano is, and must remain, the instrument for musicians and amateurs, but the upright might and should take the place of the square in the average use of the country. If makers would devote to the upright piano the same time and pains they now give to the others, its few remaining defects might in a short time be much modified. The public at large would certainly be the gainers, could they be induced to give it the place which the square piano now holds in their affections.

This latter instrument, as made at the present time, would seem to have reached its utmost degree of elaboration. But its sounding-board, "overstrung," as it is in a double sense, in the vain attempt to bring it to an equality with the more perfect forms of pianos, its variable system of leverage in the mechanism of its action, its bulk in proportion to its tone, all these defects are necessities of its construction, and admit of no perfect adjustment.

The grand pianoforte of Mr. BRACKETT is the most interesting of the instruments of this class examined by your Committee. It is claimed by its maker that it is the Erard piano Americanized, and that it will stand perfectly in our climate. We, however, cannot consider it as yet more than an experiment, nor, even if it be all that it is claimed, that in the Erard piano is to be found the best mode [to] follow at the present day. The quality of tone of Mr. Brackett's piano is elegant, and, though not a powerful instrument, and wanting somewhat of sonority, it has a peculiar metallic clearness of tone, which is characteristic of the Erard pianos. But these instruments do not seem adapted to our extreme climate, nor to our overheated houses. The plate is of wrought iron, the bars are of the same metal, and a section of cast of bronze metal forms the head-piece. Such a pattern does not offer the solidity required for the modern piano. There is not metal enough in it to properly resist the shock of a powerful action. The respective merits of wrought and cast iron are still to some extent an open question, but it is the judgment of your Committee that, perfect as Mr. Brackett's piano is, considered simply as a copy of Erard, it is based on a wrong principle.

The theory of the modern piano is to employ the material which will best resist the shock of the hammer, and cause the string to give out only a pure, full sound. Hence the rule of great solidity is the basis of construction. The end of the frame near the striking-point of the hammer cannot possess too much firmness and resisting power. The cast-iron frame with its solid bars is the only one which will afford all the qualities of tone required at the present time. In exemplification of this, it is to be noted that at the last French Exhibition, although it is true that Erard was not represented, the American pianos of solid iron frames, there thoroughly tried, were generally held to be an advance on anything yet made, in the qualities now considered essential in such instruments.

Something more is needed than a pure tone, - and that is, a tone pure, but having within itself all the elements of sonority and power when required. The wrought frame lacks these last qualities just in proportion as it lacks comparative weight. In the lower half of the scale, as the tones become broader and slower in vibration, the importance of this great element of solidity somewhat diminishes, and it may be noticed that these lower tones are much alike in all first-rate pianos. But in the upper, the singing half of the scale, the solid frames give a fulness and sonority, a nobility and richness of tone which is and must be wanting in the wrought-iron frames.

And, finally, all experience seems to show that no piano will stand in tune the year through at full pitch as well as those of the solid cast-iron frame construction.

* The numbers are those on the pianos, not those in the catalogue of the Exhibition.

site index