Theory and Practice of Piano Construction William Braid White 1125 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Theory and Practice of Piano
Construction
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: Theory and Practice of Piano Construction

Author: William Braid White

Release date: June 18, 2018 [eBook #57354]
Most recently updated: January 24, 2021

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57354

Credits: Produced by Colin Bell, June Troyer, Stephen Hutcheson and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THEORY AND
PRACTICE OF PIANO CONSTRUCTION ***

Transcriber’s Note:
The original contains inconsistent hyphenation; this has been preserved. Obvious
printer’s errors have been corrected; a full list is available at the end of this book.

William B. White

Theory and Practice of
PIANO CONSTRUCTION

With a Detailed, Practical
Method for Tuning

Dover Publications, Inc.
New York

Published in Canada by General Publishing Company, Ltd.,
30 Lesmill Road, Don Mills, Toronto, Ontario.

Published in the United Kingdom by Constable and
Company, Ltd., 10 Orange Street, London WC 2.

This Dover edition, first published in 1975, is an
unabridged and unaltered republication of the work
originally published by Edward Lyman Bill, Publisher,
New York, in 1906 under the title Theory and Practice of
Pianoforte Building.

International Standard Book Number: 0-486-23139-9
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 74-78811

Manufactured in the United States of America
Dover Publications, Inc.
180 Varick Street
New York, N.Y. 10014

CONTENTS.
PAGE
Some Remarks by the Publisher 5
Introductory Remarks 9
The Evolution of the Modern Pianoforte 13
Description of the Modern Pianoforte 23
Acoustical Laws of Sounding Strings 28
The Musical Scale and Musical Intonation 36
The Equal Temperament 44
Pianoforte Strings and Their Proper Dimensions 48
Resonance and the Resonance-Apparatus of the Pianoforte 58
The Casing and Framing of the Pianoforte 67
The Iron Frame of the Pianoforte 79
The Mechanism of Percussion 92
The Touch Mechanism 96
The Regulation of Pianoforte Touch-Mechanism 113
Tuning and Tone Regulation of the Pianoforte 122
The Draughting of the Pianoforte Scale 135
Conclusion 139
Appendix A—Development of Player Piano 144
Appendix B—The Small Grand 153

SOME REMARKS BY THE PUBLISHER.
For many years we have been receiving at the office of The Music Trade
Review constant inquiries for sources from which information might be
gleaned regarding the theory and practice of tone production as applied to
the piano. It has therefore been obvious to all who have given this subject
the slightest consideration that there has been a lack of book information
which should be at the hand of the student and the seeker of knowledge
regarding scale draughting and other essentials relating to piano
construction. Some years ago, after careful consideration of this subject,
special topics along these lines were assigned to the author of this work,
who was well fitted for the task before him, and as a result of more than two
years of conscientious study and research, the “Theory and Practice of
Pianoforte Building” is put forth as representing in a concrete form a work
of technical knowledge which hitherto has been unobtainable to the student.
The necessity of acquiring some knowledge of the principles of mechanics
before proceeding to the study of scale design is admitted. Such knowledge,
together with that of the principles of the acoustics as they apply to musical
sounds produced by vibrating strings, is essential to a correct understanding
of the fundamental ideas underlying true pianoforte design.
To know a piano accurately one must understand the laws governing tone
quality, and how the propagation and transmission of sound is produced as
well as the pitch and intensity of sound. And there are thousands of men to-
day in the various factories who are anxious to obtain sources of
information from which to gain a more correct knowledge of a profession
which should take high rank among industrial pursuits.
Owing to the gradual changes which have been wrought in all industries
through the abandonment of the apprentice system, there is more need for
instruction books than ever before.
A factory operative, according to the present plan, may know thoroughly
but one department of the business, but he can become more useful to
himself and his employers when he possesses a knowledge of all branches.
In the piano trade particularly there must be a correct knowledge of piano

building, else there can be no advance, and with our old piano makers
rapidly passing away there is need for a healthy school of new inventors, so
that wherever possible, improvements may be made and defects remedied.
These can only be accomplished by the possession of a knowledge of all the
intricate principles involved in piano making.
We feel that in presenting a work of this kind we are offering a volume
which will meet with the approval of those who seek knowledge, for while
there are great trade and technical schools which are the fountains of
inspiration for various trades, the science of piano making is not included as
a branch in any of them. It is therefore evident that knowledge must be
gained outside, for piano schools there are none. To every mind seeking
information there should be knowledge given, and we believe that a work of
this kind must be of value to an industry wherein there is such a dearth of
reliable text books.
It will be seen by examination that all of the practical problems which are to
be considered by the scale draughtsmen have been fairly treated in this
volume and yet the desire of the author has been throughout to avoid
tiresome details. Condensation is one of the recognized laws of our day, and
in producing this technical work the author has labored to create a volume
of convenient size which shall be of service to the student, and to the
advanced thinker as well, on account of the accuracy with which the
subjects are treated.
This book is not in the remotest sense a history of piano building or
development, and it should not be so considered; in fact it has been deemed
wise to dip into historical matters only to the extent of showing the
application of an enduring principle rather than to give credit to a number of
deserving inventors who have worked along special lines. A treatment of
worthy inventions would require a much larger volume than this; and while
there are many inventors who have given to the world special devices of
value, it has not been considered timely to describe them in this volume or
to enter into an exposé of their merits or demerits. We may say that this is
not a critical work but rather one which we trust may be eminently practical
in its mission as an instructive and an educational force.
We may add in closing that the “Theory and Practice of Pianoforte
Building” is the only work of its kind ever put forth in the English

language, and we have every confidence that it will find a growing demand
among music trade people everywhere.
EDWARD LYMAN BILL.
Editorial Rooms,
The Music Trade Review,

New York, May, 1906.

THEORY AND PRACTICE OF
PIANOFORTE BUILDING.

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
The development of the modern American pianoforte presents a most
interesting study to the practical member of the musical industries as well
as to the pianist. For it is possible to view the subject with equal facility
from the standpoints of both. Descended through a clearly defined line of
ancestry from the ancient psaltery, and showing traces of the various steps
in its evolution throughout its entire modern form, the pianoforte of to-day
is essentially the product of all the ages. There have not been wanting a
sufficient number of writers upon the history and ancestry of the
instrument; but an exposition of the correct principles of design has not
hitherto appeared in the English language, at least in a form that possesses
permanent value to the American manufacturer. The once classic work of
Rimbault is obsolete to-day, even in Europe; while, on the other hand, the
various German treatises have been difficult to obtain and necessarily
limited in their appeal to an English speaking people, nor have any
satisfactory translations of any of them yet been put forth.
Furthermore, the evolution of pianoforte building in this country has
proceeded along characteristically American lines and has resulted in the
existence to-day of a peculiarly national, advanced and complex type.
American pianofortes are universally acknowledged to stand among the
highest developments of applied musical craftsmanship, and artists of every
degree have willingly given their assent to every claim that has been made
for the instruments.
While, however, these facts are easily demonstrable, it would be by no
means correct to suppose that the development of the American types of
pianoforte has been materially assisted by even a respectable minority of
those who have been engaged in constructing them. On the contrary, the
magnificent examples of the musical instrument maker’s art that grace the
homes of musicians and people of culture throughout the United States owe
their present high excellence to the labors and skill of a small band of
enthusiastic and clever workers. The names of William Hawkins, Jonas

Chickering, and Henry Engelhard Steinway should be written in letters of
gold above the doors of all institutions devoted to the creation of artistic
pianofortes. For it is to the earnest labor and untiring enthusiasm of these
men and a few others, working alone and unassisted, that the modern
American instrument owes its present proud position.
And this state of affairs has continued to exist until the present day. There
are, as there have always been, a few talented and skilful men who have
never been content to rest upon their laurels or to desist from continual
labor along the lines of musical and mechanical betterment; but such as
they stand, and have always stood, alone. The great majority have been glad
to accept the improvements of their preceding or contemporaneous masters
after the commercial value of the innovations has been demonstrated; but
they have always lacked the audacity or capability to strike out into new
fields and untrodden pathways.
We may, however, discern a sufficient reason for this timidity on the part of
pianoforte makers. The principles that underly the design of the instrument
are primarily acoustical. They have never been very easily digested, either
by the mechanic or by the man of affairs. And since a knowledge of
acoustics has been profoundly developed only within the last sixty years or
so, it follows that its application to the design of musical instruments has
naturally lagged behind the progress of the science itself. Pianoforte makers
are not usually professing scientists or practical musicians; and they have
discerned little profit in attempting to keep up with the trend of modern
acoustical research, even so far as this has directly affected the principles of
musical instrument construction.
The development of the pianoforte has, in fact, proceeded empirically, and
has been prosecuted inductively rather than from any a priori notions. And
while we cannot withhold our admiration from the splendid success that has
attended so much of this empirical research, we cannot be blind to the fact
that very many modern pianofortes exhibit clearly the inherent defects of
such methods. The practical musical mechanician, if he possess the
requisite knowledge, is often able to remedy existing faults in tone quality
and tone-production. And while studying ways and means for doing this, he
cannot but observe innumerable cases of neglected opportunities, or even of
positive mistakes. The pure empirical method must always produce a large
number of failures. Yet the application of even the elementary principles of

Applied Acoustics would frequently prevent the commission of serious sins
in design. It is not necessary, of course, that every scale draughtsman or
designer should have the results of modern acoustical discovery at his
fingers’ ends; but it is here insisted that such knowledge, in so far as it
relates to musical instruments, is essential to the correct construction of
pianofortes.
Tone-production, otherwise than by the human voice, implies both scientific
and mechanical problems. Especially is this true of the pianoforte, which,
with the exception of the pipe organ, may properly be considered the most
complex of artificial devices for the performance of music.
Recognition of this truth and a general improvement in the knowledge of
the acoustical and musical principles involved cannot fail to exercise a most
beneficial influence upon the future of the American pianoforte.
As has already been remarked, there is a dearth of convenient treatises in
the English language that can be said to possess a present value to the
earnest student of pianoforte design. The present book is an attempt in the
direction of supplying the deficiency. The author has aimed at presenting
the various problems pertaining to the art of pianoforte construction with
due regard both to their acoustical and mechanical features. No attempt has
been made to delve profoundly into the mysteries of sound; but the
elementary and basic principles of tone-production have been stated, and
their true application to the various stages of pianoforte construction
explained. Each step in the making of a pianoforte from beginning to
completion has been subjected to analysis, and the correct principles
pointed out.
The author believes that the book may be read and comprehended, even by
one to whom the very term acoustics has hitherto been unfamiliar. While he
does not expect that a study of this book can make the novice a full-fledged
scale draughtsman, as it were, overnight, he does expect, on the other hand,
to assist those who have already investigated, or who intend to investigate
the whole problem, to a clearer and broader comprehension of a beautiful
art. If this hope be gratified, much will have been achieved, and no one who
has at heart the future of musical industry in America can fail to be
encouraged, if nothing else, by the appearance of this condensed work.

The general outline of the book can be explained with little detail.
Recognizing, as has already been suggested, the dependence of all right
pianoforte making upon the observance of the established principles of
acoustics, the author has thought it well, after a short historical sketch of the
pianoforte, to make a general statement of the laws that govern the
propagation and transmission of sound. It is but a step from this to a concise
explanation of the peculiarities of stretched strings and their behavior under
varying conditions of excitation, and differing phases of tension, etc. This
leads us directly to the discussion of pianoforte strings, their dimensions,
and the manner in which they become the agents of sound-production in the
instrument.
Continuing our investigations, we pass to the subject of resonance and
come naturally to a discussion of the resonating apparatus of the pianoforte.
The framing that holds together these two vital elements is next subjected to
analysis and explanation, and finally the mechanisms of percussion and
touch are brought under our inquiry and their peculiarities noted and
expounded. The remarks upon the draughting of pianoforte scales, that
conclude the volume, are necessarily broad and general, since it is quite
impossible to indicate with exactitude the actual method to be employed in
making mechanical drawings, at least within the limits that the relative
importance of the subject imposes on us. Attention has been drawn more
particularly to the calculations for shrinkage that are rendered necessary by
the vagaries of cast iron, such as is used in the manufacture of metal frames,
and to the details of hammer-stroke points and string dimensions, the
principles of which have been explained in their proper places within the
body of the work.

CHAPTER II.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE PIANOFORTE.
While the present work is by no means intended to serve as an elaborate
analysis of pianoforte development, it seems that a proper comprehension
of the various principles that are laid down in the course of our argument
will be facilitated by a short survey of the evolution of the instrument,
undertaken from an historical viewpoint. As we recognize in the pianoforte
of to-day the culmination of the musical-mechanical effort of ages, and as a
complete study of the results that have been achieved can best be
introduced by a preliminary knowledge of the manner in which the various
steps towards latter-day excellence have been attained, it seems that we
cannot do better than make an attempt to survey the field of pianoforte
evolution in a manner broad and general, though necessarily brief.
As was incidentally remarked in the last chapter, we may properly consider
the modern pianoforte as essentially the product of all the ages. The origin
of stringed instruments is lost in the mists of antiquity, but Greek
mythology has supplied us with a most pleasing legend to account for the
invention of that pioneer of all stretched-string instruments, the classic lyre.
We are told that Hermes, walking one day along the shore, found lying at
his feet the shell of a dead tortoise. The intestines of the animal had been
dried in the sun and were stretched along the rim of the shell so that when
Hermes’ foot struck against one of them, a musical sound was given forth
and Lo! the lyre was born. Earlier still are the accounts, in the shape of
cuneiform or other inscriptions, that show a form of lyre to have been in use
among the Assyrians. The biblical descriptions of various stringed
instruments, such as the psaltery, or the harp of David, are generally
familiar.
While doubtless we need not consider it illogical to trace the beginning of
modern stringed instruments, whether they be of the key-board variety or
otherwise, to such misty and vague traditions, we must look to more
modern times for a true understanding of the causes that operated to
produce the key-board. This, the distinguishing feature of the pianoforte

family, first arose through the need for a facile means of accompanying the
voice in the then newly beginning art of music which required the
simultaneous sounding of different tones. Instruments of the organ type
were earlier in the field, for we have accounts of the water-organ in the
writings of the historians of the later Roman Empire. The earliest form of
key-board seems to have been introduced in Europe in the latter part of the
eleventh century A. D. At about the same period we hear of a stringed
instrument called the organistrum, having three strings, one of which was in
connection with a number of tangents which were adapted to be pushed in
upon it so as to sound different segments and produce different notes. Later
we find that the ecclesiastical musicians were in the habit of using more or
less complicated monochords for the purpose of training their pupils in the
plain-chants of the church. These monochords gradually became more
complex and finally were mounted on a kind of sound board in groups and
thus became no longer monochords but trichords, tetrachords, or
polychords. The next step was obviously to furnish the instrument with a set
of balanced key-levers borrowed from the organ and with tangents to
connect the keys with the strings, these latter coming from the organistrum.
Thus we have at once the famous clavichord.
But this was not the only form of keyed instrument that was thus early
devised. We learn that the psaltery had contemporaneously been fitted with
keys. There were two forms of this famous instrument, one trapezoid and
one triangular. When both of these had been fitted with keys there were two
more distinct forms of keyed instruments; differences which had a large
influence upon the later development of the type.
These three instruments were thus developed into the accepted forms that
were in general use during the seventeenth century and later; becoming
respectively the clavichord, harpsichord and spinet. It is from these that the
pianoforte is directly sprung. The harpsichord, as its name implies,
resembled a harp laid on its back and enclosed in a case, while the strings
were plucked, by quills set on jacks, mounted on the keys. The natural
shape of the harpsichord, therefore, was similar to that of the modern grand
pianoforte and it derived this form from its direct relationship to the early
keyed forms of the triangular psaltery. The harpsichord had been a favorite
for a long time when Bartolomeo Cristofori, a maker of Florence,
completed in 1709 the invention of a hammer action to replace the quilled

jack at the end of the harpsichord key. Thus was made possible the
production of dynamic effects, of which the harpsichord action had never
been capable except through the employment of various mechanical
devices, such as swells and double or triple banks of keys with jacks and
quills to match. The hammer-action of Cristofori as completed by him in
1726 shows a remarkable similarity to the mechanisms that are still to be
found in certain forms of square pianofortes. He succeeded in producing an
acceptable form of escapement and a damping device as well, although as
the date shows, not until after several years of experimenting and improving
upon the original design. Examination shows that Cristofori’s action differs
in no essential respect from the square pianoforte actions that we have
mentioned. There is the upper and under hammer, the jack working on a
groove in the key, the escapement device to determine the travel of the jack,
the back-check, and the damper. Every feature that is essential to provide
escapement, repetition and damping is found here. Cristofori was, however,
obliged to make many changes in the construction of his “gravicembalo col
piano e forte” to provide the increased stiffness necessitated by the different
manner of exciting the strings. His work, curiously enough, was not taken
up after his death by any other Italian harpsichord maker, and it remained
for a German to continue his experiments and bring them to a practical and
commercial success. Only two pianofortes by Cristofori are known to exist,
and one of these is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
Gottfried Silbermann, who took up the work of Cristofori, built several
grand pianofortes towards the end of the first half of the eighteenth century,
and there still exist at Potsdam some of these that were sold by him to
Frederick the Great. These instruments appear to be essentially founded
upon the work of Cristofori, and the superior workmanship and better
adjustment of them do not serve to disguise the evident fact that
Silbermann, while improving in details, did not discover any new principles
either in action or otherwise.
Somewhat later we hear of Zumpe, who was apparently struck with the idea
of adapting the pianoforte hammer to the square-shaped clavichord, which
was not deep enough to take the Silbermann action, thus producing a
veritable square pianoforte. Zumpe’s device contained no provision for
escapement, which fault was afterwards corrected by the celebrated
inventor Stein. Mozart speaks of the merits of Stein and joyfully describes

how his mechanism prevented the blocking of the hammers. Mozart used
one of Stein’s pianofortes during the rest of his life.
The name of Stein is justly famous among the early pianoforte makers. He
was responsible, with the able assistance of his daughter Nanette, for the
Viennese type of pianoforte, which was for long such a favorite over the
heavier and more solid English style on account of its surprising delicacy
and lightness of touch. After her marriage, Nanette Stein, in partnership
with her husband Streicher, made many other improvements, and her
pianofortes were used by Beethoven and others. The firm of Streicher still
existed in Vienna a few years ago.
At this point, namely at the beginning of the nineteenth century, we begin to
hear of three revolutionary figures; a Frenchman, an Englishman and an
American. These are Erard, Broadwood and Hawkins.
Pierre Sebastian Erard settled in Paris during the latter part of the eighteenth
century as a maker of harps and harpsichords. Shortly before the breaking
out of the French revolution, Erard came to London and began to make
harps and pianofortes. In the meantime he was continually working to
improve his instruments and was responsible for many useful inventions,
such as the up-bearing to the strings by means of the “agraffe.” His chief
claim to the consideration of pianoforte makers is due, however, to his
invention of the “double repetition” action which was perfected by him in
1821, after many years of unsuccessful experiment. This action, with slight
modification, is used at the present day in all grand pianofortes, and its
manifold excellences have never been yet surpassed. Erard took out a large
number of patents, which were put into use by his successors, and the house
founded by him is still in existence and one of the most famous in France or
indeed in the world.
John Broadwood, the great English inventor and manufacturer, who also
has his name perpetuated in the continued and flourishing career of the firm
that he founded, was originally a workman in the shop of Tschudi or Shudi,
a London harpsichord maker. He rose from an apprenticeship to the head of
the house of Shudi and finally turned his attention to the improvement of
the pianoforte. He had early been the recipient of the knowledge of
Backers, the inventor of the so-called English action, and when he came to
build pianofortes on his own account, this experience was made to bear

practical fruit. Broadwood’s first achievement was in the re-designing of the
square piano of Zumpe. About the year 1780 he entirely altered its
construction, set the tuning pins at the back of the case, and added dampers
and pedals. He next set about the improvement of the grand, and divided the
bridge, giving a separate bass bridge and permitting the striking point of the
hammers on the strings to be adjusted with correctness, something that had
never been done before. This completed the divorce of the pianoforte from
the harpsichord. With the addition of the action invented by Backers,
Broadwood’s pianofortes became at once a standard of quality and
excellence and until the introduction of iron framing stood alone.
We now come to Hawkins. This remarkable man was an engineer of
Philadelphia, English by birth but American by adoption. In the year 1800
he produced an upright pianoforte, the first of its kind. This instrument,
though it was not a commercial success, was remarkable for the fact that
Hawkins in it anticipated so many of the ideas that have since become
essential to modern instruments. He had an independent iron frame
supporting the sound-board, a mechanical tuning device, and metal action
frames. His action, too, had many features that have since been adopted.
Unfortunately, the tone was so poor that the instrument was a failure from
the start. His ideas in regard to upright pianoforte construction were not
allowed to languish, however, and the labors of Wornum, who followed
Southwell, were at last successful in producing, in 1826, a practical action
which at once settled the destiny of the upright. This action had as its
peculiar feature the “bridle tape,” which is now such a necessary element of
the upright pianoforte. He also introduced the centre pin and flange.
At this point we begin to come to the great dividing line between the early
and the modern pianoforte. The introduction of metal framing marks this
division and it is from here that the American instrument begins its
independent and extraordinarily successful career. Indeed, the development
of American instruments is bound up with the almost concurrent progress of
ideas as to metal framing.
Although the first application of metal to pianofortes, not considering the
unfortunately abortive invention of Hawkins, may be credited to William
Allen, an Englishman, yet we must look to the United States for the pioneer
in the modern conception of metal bracing. The man in question, Alpheus
Babcock, was a Boston maker and had been originally an apprentice of

Crehore, who appears to have made the first American pianoforte. Babcock
applied his invention in Boston in the form of a cast metal plate for a square
pianoforte about the year 1822 and this date is most memorable in that it
marks the epoch of the strictly modern conception of the instrument.
Continuing the consideration of this National school of design, we find that
the celebrated Jonas Chickering produced, in 1840, a cast-iron plate for
grand pianofortes, having the string-plate, agraffe-bridge and resistance-
bars cast solid in one piece. This revolutionary invention unquestionably
paved the way for the wonderful American productions of later years and at
once placed the American pianoforte upon a plane of excellence that has
never been altogether reached by its competitors in other parts of the world.
European makers were at first slow to appreciate the eminently valuable
nature of the invention of Chickering, and until lately the solid cast plate
was not extensively used in Europe outside of Germany. The house of
Collard and Collard, which had the services of Stewart, the assistant of
Chickering for many years, was, however, most progressive in this respect
and for long was the only London firm which made grand pianofortes with
the iron plate cast in one piece. The celebrated house of Broadwood, after
much experimenting, produced a form of iron plate for grands that was
somewhat different in principle from that of Chickering. In this type, the
body of the structure was cast complete, but instead of the multiplicity of
braces, we find only two. One of these runs parallel with the line of the
vertically-strung bass strings at the extreme bass end of the instrument,
while the other crosses the plate in a diagonal direction from near the
middle of the agraffe-bridge to the point of greatest tension. Both of these
bars are cast separate from the body of the plate and secured to it by means
of bolts and nuts. Such a method has usually been characteristic of
European as opposed to American methods, but the Broadwoods, about
fifteen years ago, brought out a decided novelty in their “Barless Grand.”
This remarkable instrument has a plate of cast steel and is entirely without
braces or bars of any kind, the necessary stiffness being gained through the
tensile strength of the metal employed and the use of a number of turned up
flanges along the sides of the structure, these being screwed into the case of
the pianoforte at equal intervals on its periphery.
As to the further development of the grand pianoforte, we may look to the
progress of the Chickerings and the Steinways in America and to the
Broadwoods in England, the Erards in France and the Bechsteins and

Blüthners in Germany. These makers are considered here because they have
all contributed in no small degree to the development of the instrument as
an artistic product and because they have all been responsible for some
radical improvement that has later become essential to the make-up of a
good pianoforte. We need only mention the Steinway cupola plate, fan-like
disposition of strings, overstrung bass, duplex scale and capo d’astro bar to
give the reader some idea of the many inventions that have sprung from the
fertile brains of the members of this house. The other houses, notably that
of Chickering in this country, and Broadwood in England, have been
prolific in improvements, and the development of the grand pianoforte has
consequently been rapid and successful from the musical and scientific, no
less than from the commercial view-point. The history of the type in more
recent years is familiar to all, however, and it is unnecessary to enlarge
upon it here.
If we have seemed, hitherto, to have neglected proper consideration of the
upright and square forms of pianoforte, the fault is more apparent than real.
For there are two good reasons why discussion of these types should have
been delayed. In the first place, the square is already obsolescent if not
obsolete, while on the other hand the development of the upright into a
commercially successful and largely produced instrument has only come
about in recent years. This sketch would, of course, be incomplete without
brief consideration of them and we shall therefore devote some space to this
end.
As has already been indicated, the square piano may be considered as
having a genesis quite distinct from the grand or upright. It was developed,
as we know, by Zumpe, whose purpose was to fit the hammer action to the
body of a clavichord. Thus, when we consider the different roots from
which the clavichord and spinet-harpsichord types were themselves
evolved, and the direct descent of the grand pianoforte from the latter, the
entirely separate and distinct growth of the square is easily discerned. This
distinction is most interesting at the present day, when the glory of the
square has departed and its days are numbered.
The evolution of the square pianoforte in America has been recorded with
faithful detail by Spillane in his “History of the American Pianoforte,” and
the reader will find in that work an abundance of material to satisfy any
curiosity that may possess him. Incidentally it may be remarked that the

idea of cross-stringing the bass had been applied to clavichords as early as
the time of Händel; so that the overstringing of the square pianoforte came
about quite naturally, especially after the improvements of John Broadwood
the First. On the other hand, this principle was for long overlooked in the
design of the other popular types; so much so, in fact, that European grands
and uprights are still to be found in plenty with straight stringing
throughout.
The chief reasons for the gradual decline in the popularity of the square
may be traced almost as much to social and economic as to artistic and
mechanical causes, although these latter had the greater influence in
shaping the ultimate destiny of the type. The square was developed in the
United States until the native American product left all imitators and rivals
far behind, but even at that the fundamental defects of construction could
never be overcome entirely. The great gap in the middle of the structure,
required for the passage of the hammers, entailed dangerous weakness,
against which no reasonable weight of iron bracing has ever seemed to
prevail. Again, the fact that the bass keys, where the strength of the blow
and the leverage of the action need to be greatest, were the shortest of all,
while the extreme treble keys were longest, always tended to destroy the
touch proportions and entailed much counter-balancing and other operations
which were, however, but makeshifts at the best. Moreover, the
development of the grand type led to rivalry among those makers who
confined themselves chiefly to the square, with the result that the latter was
made more and more heavy and cumbrous in an effort to catch up with the
fundamental advantage which the grand pianoforte possessed on account of
its superior design. Besides, the square was never a thing of beauty, and its
increasing size was by no means an advantage in this respect, so that when
the rapidly growing population of the great American cities began to make
living room continually more valuable, the claims of the small, powerful,
elegant, and moderate-priced upright soon were successfully asserted. As a
last consideration, it should be mentioned that the makers of square
pianofortes were never able to apply to it a mechanism having the elasticity
and rapid repetition that belong to the Erard grand action or the tape-check
device of Wornum, which is universal in the upright.
In view of all these disadvantages, it is no longer a matter for wonderment
that the upright pianoforte succeeded the square as a bidder for domestic

favor, while the larger and more highly evolved grand remained the choice
of professional musicians.
The commercial development of the upright pianoforte, as we have
remarked, began at a comparatively recent period. In this country, owing to
the popularity of the square, we find that the upright was late in coming into
favor. Its development, however, had been going on in Europe since the
beginning of the nineteenth century. The “cabinet” piano of Southwell and
the “upright grand” of Hawkins were examples of early attempts in this
line, but it remained for the genius of Robert Wornum to place the upright
instrument on a truly practical footing. This was accomplished through his
invention of “the tape-check action,” which at once put the upright
pianoforte upon an equal plane of efficiency with the prevailing types and
assured its rapid adoption. By the end of the first half of the nineteenth
century the upright piano had become firmly established as the home
instrument throughout Europe, and about the same time began to appear
among American products. As soon as American manufacturers took hold
of it, they set about making vast improvements upon European models; and
we may properly date the modern development of the upright from this
time. Americans were responsible for the adoption of overstrung iron-
framed scales, and for the increase in size and power which now makes our
best instruments of this class equal, if not superior, to the grands of a few
years ago.
The later history of the upright, not less than of the grand, is a simple record
of continuous improvement in details of workmanship and material, in
beauty of case design and in scientific construction of scale. It is not
necessary, for the purpose of this short sketch, to enter into the familiar
modern history of manufacturing the various types of pianoforte, either in
this country or abroad; but we may note, incidentally, that European makers
have adopted more and more American inventions and improvements, so
that the modern, up-to-date pianoforte owes a great part of its present
efficiency to the genius of the great American makers, although these, of
course, have worked along the great principles that Broadwood, Chickering,
Steinway, Weber, Knabe, Erard and others laid down.
Thus we have surveyed, though truly in a somewhat hurried manner, the
interesting history of the growth and development of the pianoforte of to-
day. The reader will forgive the brief and sketchy nature of this bird’s-eye

view, when he recollects that our purpose in this book is to lay down the
correct principles of modern design, rather than to analyze those principles
from an historical standpoint. Some of the laws that we shall have occasion
to expound have already been noted here. In the succeeding chapters these
and others will be considered in the light of their scientific and practical
application.

CHAPTER III.
DESCRIPTION OF THE MODERN
PIANOFORTE.
The pianoforte of to-day is the most complex and ingenious of musical
instruments. With the possible exception of the pipe-organ, there is no
existing tone apparatus that combines within itself the product of so many
varied industries. Both as to the raw material and the finished parts, this
instrument draws its tonal charm, in the ultimate analysis, as much from the
saw-mill, the machine shop and the iron foundry as from the forest and the
mine. Trees of the forest, ore from the mines—even the wooly coats of the
peaceful sheep—alike contribute their share to the completion of the
wonderful product of musico-mechanical ingenuity that we recognize in the
modern pianoforte.
In such circumstances as these, it is easy to understand that the commercial
production of these instruments is a formidable undertaking. To the musical
and technical skill that is essential must now be added large capital and a
great manufacturing plant. The moderate prices at which it is at present
possible to sell pianofortes would not be maintained for a moment without
this modern system of productive concentration and distributive expansion.
The application of such business systems to the production of an essentially
artistic structure has had the double effect of cheapening the selling price
and improving the quality.
This is not the place to go into details of the organization of a modern
pianoforte factory, but we may very properly devote some moments to a
consideration of the main points of construction that are observable in the
pianofortes of the day. Critical analysis of these points will be in order later
on in the course of the present work. For the moment we shall be content
with obtaining a bird’s-eye view, as it were, of that which we are later to
dissect and criticise.
There are to-day two distinct and prevailing types of pianoforte. These are
the “upright” and the “grand.” Of the once popular “square” it is

unnecessary here to do more than say that the type has passed into a state of
obsolescence and is fast dying out. Both structurally and tonally, it was
most defective; and its popularity was due rather to the imperfect
development of the other types during the period of its vogue than to any
inherent advantages of its own. It has well and faithfully served its
appointed time, and we may properly leave it to die in peace.
For the last thirty years in this country and for considerably longer in
Europe, the upright, succeeding the square as a home instrument, has
remained victorious. Its small size and great convenience, together with the
surprising tonal capacity that has been developed in it in the United States,
have universally commended it, and only the development of the very small
grand has lately seemed to be threatening its long unchallenged supremacy.
The exterior form of an upright is familiar to all. If we strip from it all the
outer appendages, and then remove the action and keys, we shall at once see
that the instrument consists essentially of a sound-board and a frame, the
latter partly wooden and partly metallic, upon which are stretched strings of
regularly graduated lengths and thicknesses. Attached to this framing are
two more or less ornate wooden erections which are denominated the
“sides” of the instrument, while a horizontal wooden shelf, called the “key-
bed,” serves to join the sides and support the keys and their frame.
The strings of an upright are arranged vertically from the top to the bottom
of the framing already described, with the exception of those which serve
the bass notes. These are strung diagonally over the treble strings. It will
also be observed that the strings become progressively shorter as the scale
ascends until the speaking lengths at the highest notes are two inches or
less. The thickness also varies directly as the length. The material of which
the strings are made is cast-steel wire, and the overstrung bass strings are, in
addition, covered with copper or iron wire. These strings, in order that they
may be maintained at the proper tensions and in the correct positions, must
be supported by suitable framing. The demands of modern construction
require that the framing be most massive. We have already cast a hurried
glance at it, and may now proceed to describe it in more detail. First of all,
however, it is necessary to investigate the apparatus that amplifies the sound
waves projected from the strings and transforms them into the pleasing
tones of the pianoforte. We must, in short, examine the sound-board.

We shall have occasion later, critically to examine and discuss the
resonance apparatus of the pianoforte. It is sufficient, therefore, that we
glance briefly at it here, so as to familiarize ourselves with its general form
and construction. The sound-board is usually constructed of a sheet of
spruce fir of varying thickness and arched inwards towards the strings, the
crown of the arch being at its middle portion. It carries wooden bridges,
over which pass the strings and upon which the vibrations of these strings
are impressed and which serve to limit their speaking lengths. The side of
the sound-board, remote from the strings, is strengthened by the addition of
a series of strips of hard wood called “ribs,” which are tightly glued on to it.
All of this apparatus is fitted into a wooden frame technically called the
“back.” It consists of two horizontal beams, situated at the top and bottom
of the instrument and joined together with a number of vertical wooden
posts of great strength. Into this structure the sound-board is secured in such
a manner as to produce the arched shape above described, and in such a
manner also as to leave nearly the whole of its surface free to vibrate. The
top beam of the back is covered with the “wrest-plank,” a wooden block
built up of crossed strips of hard maple into which are driven the tuning
pins, or “wrest-pins” as they used to be called.
The whole structure is then covered by the “iron plate,” which is a massive
affair cast in one piece and bolted all round to the sides of the sound-board
and back, and to the wrest plank at the top and the bottom beam at the
bottom. This plate contains the “hitch-pins,” over which are looped the
waste ends of the strings, and also the iron bridge, which limits the upper
extension of their speaking lengths. The strings are arranged upon this
elaborate foundation, looped over the hitch-pins, passed over the sound-
board—or “belly”—bridges, and thence through the bearing-bar, up to the
tuning-pins.
To the sides of this structure are glued the external walls. A wooden bed for
the keys is provided, and the action is secured partly to the iron plate and
partly to the key-bed. The pedals are placed upon the bottom board, which
is secured between the external walls or sides, and the pedals are connected
with the proper parts of the action. When this has been done the
construction of the instrument is essentially completed.

The various kinds of upright pianoforte do not vary greatly in size. In the
United States the popular sizes vary between the extremes of four feet ten
inches and four feet in height, with sufficient width to accommodate the
eighty-eight notes that make up the modern compass of seven octaves and a
minor third. The multitude of different scale arrangements need not be
discussed here at all, nor is it necessary to enter into any investigation of the
various individual arrangements and devices that different manufacturers fit
to their instruments. All these things will be treated in their proper order.
The grand pianoforte has always been the favorite of the composer and the
interpretative artist. In this type alone has it been possible to combine the
highest qualities of tonal beauty and mechanical ingenuity. To-day the
concert grands of our most eminent makers stand unsurpassed, both as
mechanical structures and as musical instruments.
The most obvious dissimilarity between the grand and the upright is, of
course, seen in the difference of their planes. The grand might properly be
called the horizontal pianoforte. Its strings are stretched parallel to the plane
of the floor and the hammers strike upwards at them from below. The
second conspicuous difference is in the function of the exterior casing. We
have already noted that this part of the upright is chiefly required to
complete the exterior ornamentation of the structure, and secondarily to
support the keys and action. The case of the grand, on the other hand, is an
essential part of the resonant body of the instrument. It consists of a rim,
bent to suitable shape and built up of continuous veneers, running all round
in one piece and glued together at crossed grain until the desired number of
layers and the proper thickness are thus obtained. The whole of what
corresponds to the upright back framing, as well as the sound-board and
iron plate, are rigidly built into this continuous bent rim, and thus the whole
structure forms one complete resonant entity, entirely unified and
interdependent. The rim is made deep enough to permit of the insertion of
action and keys in the front portion, and a gap in the framing is left for the
hammers to strike upwards at the strings. The wrest-plank is placed on one
side of the gap and the sound-board occupies the remainder of the space on
the other side. The iron plate covers the entire structure, wrest-plank
included, and sustains the same relations to the instrument as in the upright.
Its shape, as also that of the sound-board, is adapted to the peculiar outline

of the grand, which is so aptly implied in the word “fluegel” (wing), used in
Germany to designate the entire grand type.
Until a comparatively recent period the large concert size grand was
practically the only type of these instruments. The revolutionary
improvements initiated by the Steinways in the middle of the nineteenth
century paved the way, however, for the general introduction of smaller
styles. It was found possible to retain the characteristically full and rich tone
of the large grand—at least to a great extent—while its inherent advantages
in the matter of touch and action all combined to assure the popularity of
the smaller instrument among the more critical and discriminating of the
public. Doubtless, also, the remarkable change in the housing of urban
populations that has been so conspicuous during the last twenty years had
much to do with the general desire for an instrument that should be less
common than the ordinary upright and that should at the same time be less
cumbersome than the full-sized grand. A powerful incentive was therefore
given to manufacturers to strive towards the perfecting of the small types,
and we cannot deny that they have succeeded in a remarkable manner.
It is true that there exists today a tendency to cut the size of these small
grands down to really impossible proportions. There is a limit to the cutting
down process; and it is apparent to the observer that more than one maker is
endeavoring to obtain a true grand tone from a sound-board area and from
string lengths that are such as entirely to prohibit the attainment of this
desirable goal. Of course, it may be retorted that the term “true grand tone”
is subject to variations of definition. It may even be plausibly said that tone
of any kind is too intangible a thing to be limited by any definitions.
Nevertheless, it would seem that there is a very decided limit, and that when
we arrive at the point where it is no longer possible to obtain the fullness,
richness and volume of tone that we are accustomed to accept as the
distinguishing characteristic of the grand pianoforte, then, indeed, we no
longer have a true grand. Other instruments may have the outline and the
action of a grand, but if they have not the proper sound-board area and
string length, then they are merely (if we may perpetrate a bull) “horizontal
uprights.”
The very general description that we have thus given of the two prevailing
types of pianoforte has not been intended to serve as more than what it so
obviously is—a rapid bird’s-eye view of the instruments as they appear to

the casual observer. The reader may thus prepare himself for the more
definite and critical investigation that is now about to be begun.

CHAPTER IV.
ACOUSTICAL LAWS OF SOUNDING STRINGS.
Sound is an impression produced upon the brain through the ear by the motion of air particles
excited by an external body. In the transmission of sound from the vibrating or “sonorous” body
to the ear it is motion that is transferred and not the substance of the air itself. In the same way
there can be no sensation of sound without the interposition of an elastic fluid such as air or
water, and the production of sound in a vacuum is, therefore, impossible.
Sound, in short, has no objective existence. We know it simply as a sensation, primarily caused
by certain physical processes, the nature of which is comparatively familiar to us. We are aware
of all that goes on between a sounding body and the ear, but we know nothing of the processes
whereby these physical motions are transformed until they become, within the brain, sensations
of musical sound or of noise.
While so much of mystery clouds our conception of the nature of sound, we may take comfort in
the knowledge that to penetrate the enigma is by no means necessary. Not even the musician
requires such transcendent knowledge. To the student of musical craftsmanship it is equally non-
essential. It is well, however, to recognize the fact that as soon as we leave the sure ground of
physical investigation, we become lost in impenetrable mystery and find ourselves face to face
with the ancient, yet ever new, questions of our origin and destination. When we reflect upon the
essentially spiritual and unearthly influence of music, we cannot but feel that, in the making of
instruments to serve this art, we are ourselves assisting, however blindly, at a more than
Eleusinian mystery.
The ear easily distinguishes between musical and non-musical sounds. Nor does it fail to
recognize differences in relative loudness or softness of any given musical sound. Again, the
relative degree of acuteness or gravity is distinguished, and, lastly, the quality of the same
musical note when played upon two different instruments or when sung by two different voices is
no less easily observed.
Now we have first to ask ourselves in what the difference between musical and non-musical
sounds consists. We may say that a musical sound is produced by regularly recurring motions of
the sounding body communicated to the air; or, more technically, a musical sound may be defined
as a sound produced by periodical vibrations. This may be proved by holding a piece of
cardboard against a rapidly revolving toothed wheel. As long as the revolutions of the wheel are
performed at a comparatively slow speed the noise produced by the impact of the cardboard is
broken and disjointed; but as the wheel is caused to revolve with greater rapidity the noise
becomes gradually continuous and assumes a definite pitch. By increasing the speed of the wheel
we cause a higher pitched musical sound to be produced. Now, if we arrange a second card and
wheel and cause them to be set in motion together with the first we shall find that when the two
wheels are revolved at the same speed, they produce sounds of the same pitch. Thus it is apparent
that the pitch of a musical sound depends upon the speed of vibration, or upon the number of
vibrations per second. Without going too deeply into technicalities it may be said that similar
experiments have enabled investigators to determine the behavior of sonorous bodies in reference
to all the other conditions that pertain to them. Thus, in the case of strings such as are used in the

pianoforte, we are in possession of facts that make it possible for us to state accurately the pitches
that will pertain to strings of given lengths, densities and thicknesses, which are stretched at given
tensions. It is unnecessary to go into details of the precise methods employed to demonstrate
these laws, and it will be quite sufficient to quote the laws themselves. The reader is therefore
invited to note carefully that:
1. The number of vibrations of a string is inversely proportional to the length of the string.
2. The pitch of a musical sound is proportional to the number of vibrations per second; the
greater the number of vibrations, the higher the pitch.
3. The number of vibrations per second of a string is proportional to the square root of its
tension. That is to say, if a string is stretched with a weight of one pound it will give forth a
sound one octave lower than the sound that it would emit if stretched with a weight of four
pounds.
4. The number of vibrations of a string varies inversely as the thickness of the string. So that if
there are two strings of the same material and length and subjected to the same tension, and
if the diameter of the first is twice the diameter of the second, the first will produce one-half
as many vibrations as the second.
5. The number of vibrations per second of a string varies inversely as the square root of its
density. Thus, if one string has four times the density of another, the first will produce one-
half as many vibrations as the second.
In addition to these valuable laws, there are certain others which have reference to the actual
musical sounds produced by strings. By means of them we know the relative proportions of the
strings that will, other things being equal, give the various notes of the musical scale. If a perfect
musical string be stretched and excited into vibration it will be found that an exact octave above
the note that the whole string gives out may be produced by dividing the string at its precise
middle point and causing one of the halves to vibrate. Now we have already noted that the
number of vibrations of a string is proportional to its length, and it is therefore obvious that the
halves of the given string each have double the number of vibrations of the whole, and that,
consequently, the octave to a note is produced by either twice or half the number of vibrations
that suffice to produce the given note.
Carrying the experiment further, we may, by dividing the given string at other points on its
surface, obtain all the other notes of the musical scale. It will not be necessary to repeat the
explanation in each case, and the reader will have no difficulty in comprehending the following
table, which gives the relative string length required to produce the eight notes of the diatonic
scale of C major, taking the length of the complete string that gives the keynote as 1, and
considering all other pertinent conditions to remain equal:
C D E F G A B C
8 4 3 2 3 8 1
1 ⁄9 ⁄5 ⁄4 ⁄3 ⁄5 ⁄15 ⁄2
Keynote 2d 3d 4th 5th 6th 7th Octave
At first sight it might appear that the above data ought to give us all necessary information in
regard to the phenomena of vibrating strings. Undoubtedly, the difficulties that surround the
pianoforte designer would have little power to cause worry if there were nothing more to learn.
Our troubles, however, are but just now beginning, and the difficulties that still exist are greater
than any that we have yet investigated. These difficulties have their origin in the nature of the
sounds that are emitted by musical strings.

While we have been investigating the relative vibration speeds and pitches that pertain to the
strings under various conditions, we have not as yet paid attention to any other difficulties that
might have their origin under entirely different circumstances. There are, however, certain highly
important phenomena which are determined by the nature of the strings themselves, irrespective
of all other conditions. These phenomena affect the constitution of such sounds as any musical
string may produce. Sounds produced through the agency of musical strings are not and cannot be
simple sounds. And this peculiarity arises from the fact that such strings in common with most
other agencies for the production of musical sounds are incapable of performing perfectly simple
vibrations. If a string vibrated as a whole uniformly and all the time, its motions might be
compared to the rhythmic swing of a pendulum, and the sounds that it emitted would be
absolutely simple and absolutely pure. The fact, however, is that this never occurs. No string ever
vibrates as a whole without simultaneously vibrating in segments, which are aliquot parts of the
whole. These segments, when thus vibrating, give out the sounds that pertain to them according
to their relative lengths; while the vibration of the whole length of the string, at the same time,
causes the production of the sound proper to it, which is called the “prime” or “fundamental”
tone. The sounds produced by the simultaneously vibrating segments are called “partial tones” or
“upper partials.” In the case of sounding strings, such as we are now investigating, the partials
follow each other in arithmetical progression and are produced by the vibrating of segments the
proportions of which may be expressed by the harmonic series 1, 1⁄2, 1⁄3, 1⁄4, 1⁄5, 1⁄6, 1⁄7, 1⁄8, 1⁄9, and so
on ad infinitum. Now, if we examine this series we shall see that the lower of the partial tones that
are represented by the various fractions must bear distinct harmonic relations to the fundamental
tone. It will simultaneously be observed, however, that as the series is continued, the fractional
quantities become uniformly smaller, and the difference between any pair of them (for the same
reason) is smaller as the position of the given pair is more remote from unity. Naturally, this
means that the partial tones represented by such fractional quantities are separated by continually
decreasing intervals. If the process is carried far enough, the time comes when the interval of
separation is less than a semitone. Clearly, then, partial tones in this condition can bear no proper
harmonic relation to the fundamental tone. They are, in fact, dissonant.
Here, then, we come upon a fact that has a very wide bearing. It is a demonstrated acoustical truth
that tone quality depends upon the number and intensity of the partial tones that accompany the
fundamental during the sounding of any musical note. If, through any cause, these high and
dissonant partials are excited into undue prominence, they may, and do, exercise a profound and
maleficent influence upon the quality of musical sounds. We shall later have occasion to confirm
the truth of this statement, and we shall learn, in the course of our investigation, fully to
appreciate its importance in the practical problems of pianoforte design.
For the purpose of assisting the reader in the comprehension of the above argument, the following
table is given, showing the order of succession and pitch of the partial tones of the note C (second
line below the staff in the bass clef). Taking the pitch of the octave above middle C, for
convenience of calculation, as 512 vibrations per second, this gives us 64 for the C in question.

Transcriber’s Note: For note 15, 960Hz is slightly below B-natural, not B-sharp.

[Listen]
NAME OF
C1 C2 G2 C3 E3 G3 B♭3 C4 D4 E4 F♯4 G4 A4 B♭4 B♮4 C5
NOTE
ORDER OF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
SUCCESSION
VIBRATION
PER 64 128 192 256 320 384 448 512 576 640 704 768 832 896 960 1024
SECOND

It should be observed that the seventh, eleventh and fourteenth partials and their multiples cannot
more than approximately be indicated in musical notation, as they do not exactly correspond to
the notes that are written to represent them. We are obliged to be content with an approximation
to the true pitch of these partials and the notation given here is as near as it is possible to
approach.
A brief consideration of the facts thus presented will convince the reader that a combination of
any fundamental tone with its first eight partials will produce a relatively harmonious effect. At
the same time we must observe that this harmoniousness is more and more obliterated as the
higher partials are permitted to sound simultaneously with the others. In fact, it may be said that,
although we can not and must not eliminate the dissonant partials altogether, we should attempt to
cause the strings to vibrate with entire freedom only as far as concerns the first eight partials, and
less freely as far as concerns the others.
Now, in what manner can this desirable end be attained? To answer this question we must first
discover what pre-disposing causes, if any, exist towards the favoring of any combination of
partials at the expense of any other.
In speaking of the automatic sub-division of a string into vibrating segments, we omitted, at the
time, to make mention of a fact which should, however, be obvious to the reader; namely, that the
various points at which the sub-division occur are themselves motionless.
It would be more correct, perhaps, to say “apparently motionless”; for, of course, if these dividing
points or “nodes,” as they are called, were entirely without motion, the formation of the vibrating
segments would be impossible. In most cases, however, the “amplitude” or length of swing of the
nodes when in motion is very much smaller than the amplitude of vibration of the segments.
Consequently, as the vibration of the segments of a string is itself ordinarily invisible, the motion
of the nodes may be considered as inappreciable.
Now, these nodes exercise considerable influence upon the problems that we are considering. For
example, according to the researches of Young, it appears that when a string is struck at any point
all those partials are obliterated that have their nodes at that point. Curiously enough, however, it
has since been found in the case of the pianoforte, that those upper partials are not necessarily
eliminated that have their nodes at the striking point. Undoubtedly, however, a properly chosen
node provides the best possible striking point, since its selection permits the operation of its
tendency to suppress those particular partials that have their nodes at the same place.
A consideration of the phenomena already observed has caused us to perceive that the highest
partials of the compound tone produced by a musical string do not bear precise harmonic
relations to the prime tone. As the successive sub-divisions of the string approach closer and
closer to each other, the tones thus generated are seen to be distant by proportionately less

intervals, until at length they cease to have a close similarity to any tone of the musical scale.
Consequently, as was said before, they exercise a generally harsh and dissonant influence upon
the nature of the compound tone. We have already concluded that, broadly speaking, we should
aim to eliminate these dissonant partials and, conversely, to favor the prominence of those which
are more nearly harmonic. The reasoning which has served to lead us to this conclusion may
profitably be carried a step further. If the highest partials are non-harmonic, it is obvious that their
presence or absence, their prominence or the reverse, must necessarily exercise much influence
upon the actual quality of a musical sound; upon the individual color which different generating
agencies impart to the same musical note; in effect, upon all the numerous gradations of what we
are accustomed to call harshness, hollowness or mellowness of tonal quality.
This inevitable conclusion has been fully substantiated by the results of experiment. The labors of
Helmholtz and Koenig have demonstrated conclusively that the quality of a musical sound
depends upon the number and intensity of the partial tones that accompany the fundamental. Thus
the mystery of the individual tone coloring that distinguishes the voices of different musical
instruments or of different persons is transferred from the realm of psychology to that of science.
In fine, it becomes clear that if we can govern the number of the segments into which a vibrating
string divides itself, and if we can also control the amplitude of vibration of these segments, we
shall find it possible to alter the tone quality of a musical instrument at our pleasure.
It has already been observed that the generation of certain partial tones is assisted or retarded as
the position of the striking point on a string is changed. It may not be out of place to note that the
various other methods of exciting a string, such as plucking, bowing, etc., permit the production
of equally variable effects as the points at which they operate are changed. Our inquiry, however,
is confined to the pianoforte, and we shall therefore continue to limit ourselves to the cases of
pianoforte strings as struck by the usual hammers.
The matter of choosing a proper striking point was first systematically investigated by John
Broadwood, founder of the celebrated house of that name, in the early part of the nineteenth
century. Until that time the pianoforte makers had, apparently, paid no attention to this important
problem and had been content to follow in the steps of the builders of harpsichords and spinets.
Examination of any of the instruments that are direct ancestors of the pianoforte will show that
the strings are struck, indifferently, at any point from one-tenth to one-half of the speaking length.
The only exceptions appear to be those clavichords in which the strings are all of the same length
and in which the tangents on the keys impinge upon the strings at different fixed points to give
the corresponding notes of the scale. Since the time of Broadwood, however, the vast importance
of correctness in this particular has come to be recognized with more or less unanimity.
The investigations undertaken by this eminent maker convinced him that the ideal striking point
lay between one-seventh and one-ninth of the speaking length of the string. Now, our
investigations have shown us that the most harmonious and agreeable compound tone is that
which is formed by the combination of the first eight partials. It would seem, therefore, that one-
eighth of the speaking length would be more correct than the approximation that was arrived at
by Broadwood. Theoretically, indeed, the latter is nearer to the ideal point; is, in fact, the ideal
point. For obvious mechanical reasons, however, it is usually impossible to hit this point with
exactitude, and the approximation suggested and used by Broadwood has been proved, by the
practice of the best makers, to offer the nearest practical solution.
We may, then, lay it down as a rule to be followed that a point as nearly as possible midway
between one-seventh and one-ninth of the speaking length of the string should be chosen and

adhered to as the proper place where the blow of the hammer should be struck. If this rule be
faithfully followed the greatest obstacle to purity of tone is removed and the most harmonious
and agreeable combination of partials is in a fair way to be secured. Nevertheless, it is necessary
to make an exception for the highest notes on the piano. Practical experience has shown that one-
tenth is a better striking point for the very highest and shortest strings.
Thus we have been able to enunciate and discuss the principal laws that govern the activities of
sounding strings, particularly those of the pianoforte. As the argument is developed, it will often
appear that the theoretical exactitude of the rules here laid down must be modified in practice.
Such a condition is always inevitable as between a body of laws and the application thereof. It
will be found, however, that the variations to be recorded are not generally very important, and
the reader will be well advised to make the rules enunciated in this chapter his continual leaning
post and guide.
The most conspicuous difference is, perhaps, that which exists between the theoretical and
practical results of halving string lengths to obtain octaves. In practice it is found that pianoforte
strings generally sound a little flat of the octave when divided at exactly the middle point. But the
variation is the fault of the steel wire and not of the rule.

CHAPTER V.
THE MUSICAL SCALE AND MUSICAL INTONATION.
We have now considered as much of the phenomena of musical sounds as may be considered to have a
bearing upon the purpose of our investigations. We may then devote some space to the matter of the
expression of musical ideas, and the intonation which has been devised in order to reduce the mental
products of composers to the limitations of musical instruments. Music is expressed through the
medium of a scale of tones, all of which bear definite relations to each other as to pitch. The “diatonic
scale,” which is the foundation of musical intonation, is composed of a series of eight tones which are
named after letters of the alphabet, the last tone having the same name as, and being the octave to, the
first. The frequencies of these tones always bear the same ratios, one to another, whatever may be their
positions within the compass of any instrument. Now, considering the frequency of the first tone to be
unity, the frequencies of the others are in the following proportions:
C D E F G A B C
9 5 4 3 5 15
1 ⁄8 ⁄4 ⁄3 ⁄2 ⁄3 ⁄8 2
If we now divide these proportionate numbers each by the other we have the proportionate intervals that
separate them. Doing this, we have the following result:
C D E F G A B C
9 10 16 9 10 9 16
⁄8 ⁄9 ⁄15 ⁄8 ⁄9 ⁄8 ⁄15
Now, it will be observed that we have in the above table three different kinds of interval represented by
the three ratios, 9⁄8, 10⁄9 and 16⁄15. The first of these is called the major tone and the second the minor tone,
while the third is known as the diatonic semitone. Following out these ratios, we may obtain the
frequencies of any diatonic series. We shall choose the scale of which C 528 is the key-note. Its
frequencies are as follows:
C D E F G A B C
9 5 4 3 5 15 2
1 ⁄8 ⁄4 ⁄3 ⁄2 ⁄3 ⁄8 ⁄1
528 594 660 704 792 880 990 1056
Knowing as we do the ratios and frequencies already calculated, it is obvious that we may similarly
calculate the ratios and frequencies for the diatonic scale, of which any given tone is the tonic or key-
note. Before doing this, however, it is well for us to remember that the diatonic scale is not adequate to
all the requirements of music. Musicians have found it necessary to interpolate other sounds in between
those which form the diatonic progression. The reason for this is that music, in order that it may have
the greatest possible freedom of expression, must be written in a larger number of keys, and must
contain more distinct sounds than the diatonic scale is able to afford. For these and other cognate
reasons the chromatic scale was introduced. The addition of five chromatic semitones, obtained by
taking the difference between a minor tone and a diatonic semitone, gives the chromatic scale thirteen
semitones from key-note to octave. Unfortunately, however, the same number of keys upon the
pianoforte cannot provide us with thirteen pure chromatic sounds in every key. This may be
demonstrated as follows: The ratio of a chromatic semitone is 25⁄24. The sharp of C 528 is, therefore, 550.
But in the diatonic scale of D (the major second in scale of C), C sharp has a frequency of 1113 3⁄4. The
octave below this latter sound is the C sharp, which is one chromatic semitone above C 528. We know
the frequency of the latter to be 550. The frequency of the octave below C sharp, 1113 3⁄4, ought,
therefore, to be 550. But we know that the octave below any given note has a frequency that is one-half
that of the given note. Now, one-half of 1113 3⁄4 is 556 7⁄8. Therefore, we see that there is a difference of

6 7⁄8 vibrations per second between the C sharp that is a chromatic semitone above C 528 and the C
sharp that is the octave below the major seventh of the scale of D, and which ought to be the same
sound, as it is in the same position on the key-board as the former. By carrying the same investigation
further we are enabled to perceive that sounds of the same name are not identical when played in
different keys, or, rather, that the same name does not imply that the sound so denoted means the same
thing when it is considered in its relation to any tonic different to that to which it was first related. There
is another difficulty also that confronts us in the problem of playing pure sounds upon the pianoforte;
that instrument, as we know, does not provide us with different keys for the sharp of one sound and the
flat of the sound next above it. There is a general belief that C sharp, for example, and D flat are
identical. But this is not so. The flat of D is a chromatic semitone below that note, while the sharp of C
is the same interval above the latter. By referring to our former calculations it will be seen that the
chromatic semitone ratio is 25⁄24. The sharp of C is, therefore, obtained by multiplying the frequency of
C by 25⁄24, and the flat of D is likewise evolved by an inverse process, namely, by dividing the frequency
of D by the same ratio. This is equivalent to adding a chromatic semitone to C and subtracting the same
from D. If we take the notes C and D from the scale of C 528, we have the frequencies of C and D as
528 and 594 respectively. Effecting the multiplication and division as above we see that C sharp has a
frequency of 550, while that of D flat is 570 6⁄25. That is to say that these two notes differ by no less than
20 6⁄25 vibrations per second.
It thus becomes obvious that the expression of all the sounds within the compass of an octave, in such a
manner that absolutely correct sounds in every key may be obtained, is a problem that calls for more
sounds than are provided by the pianoforte. As a correct understanding of this most important subject is
essential, a somewhat elaborate treatment of it will be given here. The reader who takes the pains to
master the true inwardness of the problem of musical intonation will have an insight into the matter
which few pianoforte makers or musicians possess.
“Just intonation” is the name given to that system whereby we are enabled to command the expression
of all the sounds that are required to be heard within the compass of an octave in order that the degrees
of each and every possible scale may be correctly and exactly rendered. It is not difficult to see that
performers upon instruments which do not have fixed tones should have no difficulty in adjusting the
intonation of every tone to correspond with the variations in pitch required by the different positions in
the scale that such tones may occupy. Experiments have, in fact, been carried out with violinists and it
has been shown that artists upon this instrument do naturally play the true diatonic and chromatic
intervals when left to themselves and when not forced to adjust their intonation to that of fixed tone
instruments.
In order to show with accuracy the total number of different sounds that are required to produce “just
intonation” in every possible key the reader is invited to consider the following table, which shows the
smallest possible number of sounds that will give the true diatonic intervals in twelve keys. The first
note in each row is the key-note and the last the octave thereto. The frequencies of those key-notes that
are not represented in the first scale (that of C) have been calculated as follows:
The key-note to scale of B-flat is the perfect fourth to key-note of scale F.
The key-note to scale of E-flat is the perfect fourth to key-note of scale B-flat
The key-note to scale of F-sharp is the octave below major seventh of scale G.
The key-note to scale of G-sharp is the octave below major seventh of scale A.
The key-note to scale of C-sharp is the octave below major seventh of scale D.
We therefore have the following results:
C D E F G A B C
528 594 660 704 792 880 990 1056

C-sharp D-sharp E-sharp F-sharp G-sharp A-sharp B-sharp C-sharp
556 7⁄8 626 3⁄64 696 3⁄32 742 1⁄2 835 5⁄16 928 1⁄8 1044 9⁄64 113 3⁄4
D E F-sharp G A B C-sharp D
594 668 1⁄4 742 1⁄2 792 881 990 1113 3⁄4 1188
E-flat F G A-flat B-flat C D E-flat
625 4⁄9 703 45⁄72 781 34⁄36 833 25⁄27 938 1⁄18 1042 11⁄27 1172 59⁄72 1250 8⁄9
E F-sharp G-sharp A B C-sharp D-sharp E
660 742 1⁄2 825 880 990 1100 1237 1⁄2 1320
F G A B-flat C D E F
704 792 880 938 2⁄3 1056 1173 1⁄3 1320 1408
F-sharp G-sharp A-sharp B C-sharp D-sharp E-sharp F-sharp
742 1⁄2 835 5⁄16 928 1⁄8 990 1113 3⁄4 1237 1⁄3 1392 3⁄15 1492
G A B C D E F-sharp G
704 792 880 938 1056 1173 1320 1408
G-sharp A-sharp B-sharp C-sharp D-sharp E-sharp Fx G-sharp
825 928 1⁄8 1031 3⁄4 1100 1237 1⁄2 1375 1546 1⁄8 1650
A B C-sharp D E F-sharp G-sharp A
880 990 1100 1173 1⁄3 1320 1466 2⁄3 1650 1760
B-flat C D E-flat F G A B-flat
938 2⁄3 1056 1173 1⁄6 1258 8⁄9 1408 1564 4⁄9 1760 1877 1⁄3
B C-sharp D-sharp E F-sharp G-sharp A-sharp B
990 1113 3⁄4 1237 1⁄2 1320 1485 1650 1856 1⁄4 1980
In order that the different sounds may more easily be separated, they have been collated in linear
progression, together with their frequencies and the scales in which they or their octaves appear:

1. The sound C = 528 C, F, G, B-flat.
2. “ C = 521 11⁄54 E-flat
3. “ C-sharp = 556 7⁄8 D, B, F-sharp, C-sharp
4. “ C-sharp = 550 A, E, G-sharp
5. “ D = 594 C-G
6. “ D = 586 2⁄3 A, F, B-flat, E-flat
7. “ D-sharp = 618 3⁄4 E, B, F-sharp, G-sharp
8. “ D-sharp = 626 31⁄64 C-sharp.
9. “ E-flat = 625 4⁄9 B-flat
10. “ E = 660 C, G, A, E, B-flat
11. “ E = 668 1⁄4 D
12. “ E-sharp = 696 3⁄32 F-sharp, C-sharp
13. “ E-sharp = 687 1⁄2 G-sharp.
14. “ F = 704 C, F, B-flat
15. “ F-sharp = 742 1⁄2 Appears G, D, E, B, F-sharp, C-sharp
in the
16. “ F-sharp = 753 1⁄3 A
scales
17. “ G = 792 C, D, F, G
of
18. “ G = 782 4⁄13 B-flat
19. “ G = 781 34⁄36 E-flat
20. “ Fx = 773 6⁄16 G-sharp
21. “ G-sharp = 825 A, E, B, G-sharp
22. “ G-sharp = 835 5⁄16 F-sharp, C-sharp
23. “ A-flat = 833 25⁄27 E-flat
24. “ A = 880 C, E, F, A
25. “ A = 881 D
26. “ A = 891 G
27. “ A-sharp = 928 1⁄8 B, F-sharp, C-sharp, G-sharp
28. “ B-flat = 938 2⁄3 F, B-flat, E-flat
29. “ B = 990 C, G, D, A, E, B, F-sharp
30. “ B-sharp = 1031 1⁄4 G-sharp
31. “ B-sharp = 1044 8⁄64 C-sharp
Thus we see that thirty-one different sounds are required to give the true diatonic intervals in only
twelve keys. But it is not necessary to remind the reader that there are more keys than these used in
music. We have, in fact, not yet considered the keys of A flat, D flat and G flat. The frequencies of the
keynotes of these scales have been calculated as follows:
A-flat is the perfect fourth to E-flat, which as calculated above = 625 therefore A-flat = 833 25⁄27.
D-flat is the perfect fourth to A-flat, which as calculated above = 833 25⁄27 therefore D-flat =
555 154⁄162.
G-flat is the perfect fourth to D-flat, which as calculated above = 555 154⁄162 therefore G-flat =
741 130⁄486.
We are therefore able to construct these following additional scales:
A-flat B-flat C D-flat E-flat F G A-flat
833 25⁄27 938 26⁄316 1042 73⁄236 1111 73⁄81 1250 8⁄9 1389 21⁄52 1563 132⁄216 1666 50⁄54
D-flat E-flat F G-flat A-flat B-flat C D-flat
555 154⁄162 624 640⁄1290 694 365⁄648 741 130⁄486 833 150⁄162 926 284⁄486 1042 528⁄1296 1111 146⁄152

G-flat A-flat B-flat C-flat D-flat E-flat F G-flat
741 130⁄486 823 3600⁄3888 926 1136⁄1944 988 520⁄1458 1111 308⁄456 1285 650⁄1458 1389 1408⁄3088 1482 260⁄486
By examining the last table the reader will perceive that we have obtained fourteen new sounds. They
are shown graphically in this manner:
In the scale of A-flat the new sounds are B-flat, C, D-flat, F and G.
In the scale of D-flat the new sounds are E-flat, F, G-flat, and A-flat.
In the scale of G-flat the new sounds are A-flat, C-flat, D-flat, E-flat and F.
None of these sounds had been obtained in the scales given before and, consequently, we have to
consider that there are fourteen more sounds to be added to the thirty-one that we have already found.
The above calculations would suffice to provide us with the diatonic intervals in all the keys that are
used in music. Harmony demands, however, certain other intervals. These are minor thirds, minor
sevenths, dominant sevenths and minor sixths. Accordingly, if we desire to probe the matter of just
intonation to its depths, we must calculate the sounds that are required to make up these intervals in
such scales as are now without them. Examining the tables already prepared, we find that there are
wanting the following members:
Minor thirds to the key-notes of the scales C, D, E-flat, F, G, B-flat, A-flat, D-flat, G-flat.
Minor sixths to the key-notes of the scale C, E-flat, B-flat, A-flat, G-flat, and D-flat.
Dominant sevenths to the key-notes of the scales E-flat, F and B-flat.
Minor sevenths to the key-notes of the scales A-flat, D-flat, and G-flat.
We shall have no difficulty in calculating the frequencies of the required notes by the same processes
that we have followed heretofore.
Key-notes—
C D E-flat F G B-flat A-flat D-flat G-flat
528 594 625 4⁄9 704 792 2
938 ⁄3 833 25⁄27 555 146⁄152 741 124⁄486
6
Minor thirds— ⁄5 Ratio
B- B double
E-flat F G-flat A-flat D-flat C-flat F-flat
flat flat
633 3⁄5 712 4⁄5 750 4⁄55 4
844 ⁄5 1125 11
⁄ 15 1000 106
⁄135 667 66⁄810
950 2⁄5 889 1330⁄2430
Minor sixths—8⁄5 Ratio
A- B double E double
C-flat G-flat F-flat
flat flat flat
1000 32⁄45 1501 13⁄15 667 38⁄276
841 4⁄5 889 358⁄810 593 10⁄2400
Dominant sevenths—16⁄9 Ratio
D-flat E-flat A-flat
1111 80⁄81 1251 5⁄9 1668 20⁄27
Minor sevenths—9⁄5 Ratio
G-flat C-flat F-flat
741 64⁄243 988 359⁄810 658 2908⁄4374
The result of these calculations may now be collated and summarized. We find that there are no less
than sixty-six separate sounds required for the production of the necessary intervals in all the possible
scales. These sounds are thus classified:
Different sounds in twelve diatonic scales 31
Sounds wanting to complete the diatonic scales of A-flat, D-flat, G-flat 14
Minor thirds wanting in scales of C, E-flat, F, G, B-flat 6
Minor sixths wanting in scales of C, E-flat, and B-flat 3

Dominant sevenths wanting in scales of E-flat, F and B-flat 3
Minor thirds wanting in scales of A-flat, D-flat and G-flat 3
Minor sixths wanting in scales of A-flat, D-flat and G-flat 3
Minor sevenths wanting in scales of A-flat, D-flat and G-flat 3
Total number of sounds in an octave 66
Now the obvious conclusion to be drawn from this analysis is that the true sounds of the just musical
scales are very different from any that we hear upon the pianoforte. Indeed, we may properly carry the
reasoning a step further. If the expression of all the degrees of the true musical scales requires this
formidable array of sounds, then surely, the sounds that are produced upon the piano are not all of the
required true sounds, but are totally unlike any of them. For it is evident that if the sixty-six true sounds
within the compass of an octave have to be reduced to the thirteen that are found upon the pianoforte,
the process of compression to which the former must be subjected will force the latter into the position
of so many compromises. In fact, with the exception of the standard tone from which all calculations
and all tuning must start, and its octaves, there is no tone upon the piano, as it is now tuned, which is
identical with any sound of the justly tuned scale. The process to which we have alluded, and which is
necessary to secure to the piano and all other instruments with fixed tones the ability to perform music
in all keys which are desired for the proper expression of the composers’ ideas, is called temperament.
Upon the skill and cunning with which this compromise with natural laws is effected depends the whole
beauty of, and the whole of our pleasure in, music as we are accustomed to hear it. It would be vain to
pretend that tempered intonation is preferable to that which is pure and just, but it is equally vain and
foolish to decry the accepted system of temperament until the mechanical skill of manufacturers of
musical instruments and the taste of performers have risen to the point of appreciating the beauties of
pure intonation and of devising mechanical means of attaining it. Until that time arrives we must fain be
content to accept what we have and make the best of it. There have, of course, been attempts to provide
instruments that could be used to give the pure intervals in every key, but they have been invariably
failures. Most of them have been forced to depend upon tempered intonation to a certain extent, while
others have been mechanically impossible.
In any case we must remember that the pianoforte, as at present constructed and played, depends
entirely upon an equally tempered intonation. So strongly has the pianoforte entrenched itself in popular
favor, indeed, that music and tempered intonation have become, to most people, exactly synonymous. It
is proper that we should be able to draw true distinctions, however, as the practical work of piano
building ought to be largely guided by the considerations induced from the necessity and fact of
temperament.

CHAPTER VI.
THE EQUAL TEMPERAMENT.
As was suggested in the last chapter, it becomes necessary to effect a
compromise between the demands of true musical intonation and the
limitations of musical instruments, in order that the performance of music
may be made practicable. The equal temperament, now universally
employed, has only risen to its present commanding position within the last
century. It seems to have been first used by Johann Sebastian Bach. Händel
did not know it, and it struggled throughout the whole of the eighteenth
century with the mean-tone system.
Temperament systems were, however, invented and used long before this
period. Pythagoras, the Greek pre-Christian philosopher, was one of the
earliest experimenters along these lines. The method that he devised has
come down to us, and we are thus able to see wherein lies the difference
between it and the modern diatonic scale. Without going into too much
detail, we may note that the Pythagorean system recognizes only two
intervals; namely, the tone and semitone. The diatonic scale, as we know,
has a major tone, a minor tone and a diatonic semitone. The Pythagorean
scale contemplates perfect fifths and sharped thirds, and is incapable of the
effects of modern harmony.
The next attempt to adapt the necessary compromise in the interests of
practical music was introduced after the modern diatonic scale had become
the standard method of octave-division; that is to say, some time in the
fifteenth century. It has been variously called the “mean-tone,” “mesotonic”
and “vulgar” temperament. In this method the tone is a mean or average
between the major and minor tones of the diatonic scale. The fifths are all
flattened, while the thirds are justly tuned. Such a system possesses both
advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, the nearer and more
frequently used scales are purer and more agreeable; on the other hand, the
remoter scales are exceedingly dissonant; so much so, in fact, that they
cannot be employed with pleasure to either the performer or the hearer. So
long, however, as the music is written in the commoner scales the mean-

tone temperament, possessing the great advantage over other methods of
having pure thirds, is far more agreeable to the ear. In fact, up till a few
years ago it was not uncommon to find organs in village churches in Europe
that were still tuned according to this system. The mean-tone system first
made harmony, as we understand it, practicable, but as the knowledge and
imagination of composers widened, the desire naturally arose to take
advantage of the greater powers for harmony that could alone be afforded
by the unrestricted possession of all possible scales. A substitute for the
mean-tone system had, therefore, to be found, and thus arose the modern
and accepted method, universally known as the Equal Temperament. By
this method, which is at the present time universal, the octave is divided
into thirteen equally distant semitones or half-steps. All distinctions
between major and minor tones and diatonic and chromatic semitones are
swept away, and it is assumed that the sound between any two sounds in the
scale is equally sharp and flat respectively to the sound immediately
preceding and following it.
This method, of course, implies a rearrangement of the whole scale, for it is
necessary to alter the precise pitch of every sound within the compass of the
octave in order that the equalization may be effected. Thus it comes about
that the equally tempered scale has only one interval tuned purely. This
interval naturally is the octave. All the others require to be sharped or
flatted in varying degrees. Every chord, every interval, with one exception,
therefore, is more or less out of tune. The effect of this system of tempering
cannot very well be noted accurately upon the pianoforte, owing to the
evanescence of that instrument’s tone; but the organ often shows the
dissonance of certain intervals and chords in a most distressing manner.
Perhaps the worst of the defects of the Equal Temperament are exhibited in
the inability clearly to distinguish between true consonances and true
dissonances. Where the actual distinctions between the true intervals are
fused together it is impossible that there should be such distinctions
between them as the true scale shows, and, consequently, we often are
obliged to miss many delicate shades of comparative consonance or
dissonance that would be clearly exhibited in a scale in which the intervals
were represented with fidelity. We already know, however, that no such
method is at present possible, and we must fain resign ourselves to the
compromise that we have, and hope for better things in the future. But at
the same time, the Equal Temperament possesses not a few positive virtues.

As explained above, there can be no difference between the sharp of a given
tempered sound and the flat of the tempered sound one whole step above
the former. In other words, the sharp of C in the Equal Temperament must
be the same as the flat of D, for these two sounds are assumed to be equally
distant from the sound which is between them, and the three are simply part
of a series of equal semitones. This being the case, the ambiguity that arises
from the identity of these sounds is very often found to be invaluable for the
purposes of quick and convenient modulation. There are instances in which
the connecting link between two modulations would entirely be lost without
the peculiar intonation that is afforded by equally tempered sounds. It
seems, in short, that the equal temperament, imperfect and artificial as it is,
cannot easily be replaced in the existing states of our acoustical knowledge
and of the mechanical musical industries.
In order that the reader may more clearly realize the actual effects of the
Equal Temperament upon musical intonation, the following table has been
prepared, showing the differences of frequency between the true sounds of
the just chromatic scale and the corresponding tempered sounds: (We are
already familiar with the identity, in tempered intonation, of the sharps and
flats of adjacent degrees of the scale.) C = 528 (Philharmonic Pitch).
True Scale. Equally Tempered Scale.
C 528 C 528
B 495 B 498 7⁄32
B flat 475 1⁄5 B flat—A sharp 470 7⁄20
A sharp 458 1⁄3 A 440
A 440 A flat—G sharp 417 1⁄20
A flat 422 2⁄5 G 391 11⁄20
G sharp 412 1⁄2 G flat—F sharp 373 7⁄20
G 396 F 342 4⁄10
G flat 380 4⁄25 E 332 17⁄20
F sharp 366 2⁄3 E flat—D sharp 313 19⁄20
F 352 D 296 7⁄20
E 330 D flat—C sharp 279 14⁄20
E flat 316 4⁄5 C 264
D sharp 309 11⁄24
D 297

D flat 285 3⁄25
C sharp 275
C 264
It would be without the province of our immediate purpose to enter into any
special discussion of the possibility of manufacturing pianofortes that shall
give pure intonation, as distinguished from the tempered sounds that we
have thus exhibited. We have already had occasion to mention that the
Equal Temperament has become so strongly and intimately bound up with
the performance of music, that the majority of musicians are probably
incapable of distinguishing between the idea of pure as opposed to that of
tempered musical sounds.
We have already pointed out, and reference to the various tables will
confirm the assertion, that the Equal Temperament imposes excessive
roughness of intonation upon very few of the musical intervals. Thus the
octave is pure, the fourths and fifths nearly so, and only the seconds, thirds,
sixths and sevenths are so rough as to be noticeable to other ears than those
of the professional pianoforte tuner. Indeed it is very doubtful whether the
musical public could ever be universally educated to the point of
appreciating the differences between pure and equally-tempered fourths and
fifths; while at the same time it must be remembered that the second and
seventh, at least, are dissonances whether purely intoned or not.
We may properly question the actual advantage that the mechanical
attainment of just pianoforte intonation would produce; we may ask
ourselves what would be gained thereby for the cause of art, and the answer
does not appear to be other than that any conceivable benefit must be so
slight as to be practically negligible.

CHAPTER VII.
PIANOFORTE STRINGS AND THEIR PROPER
DIMENSIONS.
The strings of a modern pianoforte are made of cast steel and possess a
relatively great thickness and stiffness. That is to say, they enjoy these
characteristics to a far greater degree than do the strings of any other
musical instruments that employ such agents for the purpose of generating
musical sounds. The strings of any member of the viol family, for example,
are so totally unlike those of the pianoforte that no comparison of their
respective behavior when subjected to tension can be of interest to any save
the scientist. In dealing with the strings of the pianoforte then, we face an
isolated and unusual problem which we shall have to consider at some
length. We shall investigate the peculiar effects produced by the high
tension, great thickness and great stiffness of the strings, as well as the
singular phenomena exhibited in the case of the covered bass strings. We
shall note that the strings are responsible for many unpleasant things of
which they are seldom accused, and that their proportions as to length and
tension do not comprehend in themselves the whole problem that the
scaling of them presents to the designer. This matter of the internal nature of
the steel and other wire has not, unhappily, received that attention to which
its importance justly entitles it. No treatment of the principles of pianoforte
design could be considered complete, however, without some discussion of
the phenomena thus presented. The investigation which we shall undertake
will lead us to the development of more of those general principles that we
are now engaged in enunciating, and we shall then be able to formulate
certain rules of wide application which may be employed in the practical
consideration of the problems with which the whole matter of pianoforte
design abounds.
As is generally known, the strings that are charged with the duty of emitting
the sounds comprehended within the two lowest octaves on the pianoforte
are customarily constructed of a combination of steel wire and some other,
usually copper or iron. The latter is wound over a core of the former wire,

and this winding is graduated, as to the amount and thickness of the
material employed, according to the pitch to which it is desired that each
string shall be tuned. There is an obvious reason for this procedure. For, as
we have already shown, two strings whose lengths are as 2:1 will, other
things being equal, emit musical sounds separated by the interval of an
octave. Consequently, under perfect mechanical conditions, the length of
each string of a pianoforte should conform to the rule thus indicated, and
should be one-half or double the length of that which produces the octave
above or below it; the absolute application of this rule, however, being
subject to certain practical modifications throughout the entire compass.
These will be discussed later.
Even in the absence of such considerations, however, this ideal condition
could not be attained. The mechanical difficulties presented would always
operate to forbid the carrying out of such an arrangement throughout the
whole compass of the instrument. For, to follow the rule with entire
consistency would necessitate a length of 256 inches for the lowest C, on an
assumed length of 2 inches for the highest note of the same denomination.
As this would imply a length or height of the instrument of nearly 24 feet it
is not difficult to see that such construction is impossible. Furthermore,
evenness of tone quality would be seriously hindered if the lowest strings
were of any such dimensions. To secure equality of tonal result it is
necessary, as has been noted above, that we should be able to equalize, as
far as possible, the particular forms of vibration that pertain to each string.
Obviously, the nature of the blow that would produce a given form of
vibration in a string of 256 inches in length must be very different from that
which would produce similar forms in a string only one-tenth as long.
Again, to maintain such long strings at the required tension involves
mechanical problems that savor more of engineering than of pianoforte
building.
For these and cognate reasons, therefore, the practice has arisen of
artificially slowing the rate of vibration in the bass strings by wrapping
them with brass, iron or copper wire. Naturally, the form of the vibrations
excited in these wrapped strings is entirely different from any that the plain
steel wire is capable of producing. The iron or copper wire is itself thrown
into vibration both independently of and together with the cord of steel, so
that we have the phenomenon of one string emitting two separate series of

vibrations, with resultant disarrangement of the generated upper partials and
concomitant production of beats in a more or less appreciable quantity.
Now if, in addition, the bass strings are not scaled with approximate
correctness as to their relative lengths, thicknesses, and other dimensions, it
follows that there will be two distinct and different causes of dissonance
and unevenness of tone-quality, either of which is sufficient, in itself, to
produce very unpleasant tonal results. It is clear, then, that particular
attention must be paid to the designing of the string arrangement, if
excellence of tone-quality is to be anywhere approached.
It is, fortunately, possible to give quite precise directions for the calculating
of string dimensions. As a preliminary, we must remind the reader of the
rules that were laid down in Chapter IV, relating to the behavior of stretched
strings. It will be recalled that we had occasion to observe that these rules
would require certain modifications in practice, as they referred only to
ideal musical strings which are of perfect flexibility and perfect uniformity,
and are stretched at an absolutely constant tension.
The first modification that appears upon investigation has reference to the
division of string-lengths. It has already been pointed out that, in practice,
we cannot obtain the octave above the fundamental tone of a given
pianoforte string by dividing it exactly in the middle. Conversely, an exact
doubling of the length does not produce the exact octave below the given
fundamental tone. This discrepancy occurs on account of the fact that the
shortening or lengthening of a given string causes a corresponding change
in the tension at which it is maintained and in the density of adhesion of its
molecules.
Now if we double the length of a string in order to obtain the octave below
its fundamental tone, we decrease its tension, and this causes a slowing of
the frequency of vibration. Then again, the increased resiliency of the string
brought about by the lengthening tends also to decrease the frequency. The
frequencies of vibration of a string vary directly as the square root of the
tension, inversely as the thickness, and directly also as the stiffness. These
axioms being admitted, we observe that to obtain an octave lower than a
given fundamental tone, we must obtain one-half the frequency that
produces the fundamental. Therefore, as we see from above, the double
length must be decreased by one-fourth to allow for the automatic decrease
of stiffness which varies directly as the frequency. And this modification

must itself be modified to compensate for the increase in frequency
produced by the very act of shortening. Therefore we must consider the
tension, and we find that to reduce this tends again to decrease the stiffness
in exactly the same proportions as it was before increased. But frequency of
vibration varies as the square root of the tension; therefore we take the
square root of one-fourth, which was the fraction first arrived at. This root
is one-sixteenth and is the differential factor that must be subtracted from
the ideal octave lengths, in order to obtain the practical lengths.
It will be found of course, as must be apparent to the reader, that the
differential factor here suggested does not provide a complete solution to
the problem of allowing for the exhibited differences between theory and
practice. It does, however, provide a true guide to the lengths. There is of
course a difference of produced frequency to be allowed for yet.
Fortunately, however, this is provided for by the graduated thicknesses of
pianoforte wire. By taking advantage of this almost geometrically
proportioned graduation of diameter we are able to calculate a stringing
scale that, if adhered to, will give the nearest possible approximation to
complete harmony between theory and practice. That is to say, we can
proceed with a string-length calculation based upon the differential factor
already obtained, and then by arranging the distribution of the string
thicknesses according to the diameters that are provided by the
manufacturers of music wire, we may obtain a true estimation, not only as
to the thickness of wire to be used at each place, but also as to the lengths
proper to each string. Of course the reader will remember that the matter of
pitch is of considerable importance in all calculations of this kind. A
difference in pitch implies difference of tension when the other factors
remain equal, and we therefore have calculated the following tables on the
assumption that the pitch to be used is that known as the International or C
517. Attention is, therefore, directed to the following
TABLE SHOWING TRUE LENGTHS OF OCTAVE STRINGS
FROM THE HIGHEST C STRING TO THE LAST C STRING
THAT IS USUALLY LEFT UNWRAPPED.
C5 = 2.048 in. = 2 1⁄25 + ... Approx.
C4 = 2.048 × 1.9375 = 3.968 in. = 3 24⁄25 + ... "
C3 = 3.968 × 1.9375 = 7.688 in. = 7 17⁄25 + ... "

C2 = 7.688 × 1.9375 = 14.875 in. = 14 7⁄8 + ... "
C1 = 14.875 × 1.9375 = 28.820 in. = 28 4⁄5 + ... "
C = 28.820 × 1.9375 = 55.828 in. = 55 4⁄5 + ... "
[Note.—The length of the first string is chosen arbitrarily, but as given is a
very close approximation to the practice of the best American makers. The
vulgar fractions are calculated from the decimals and the error in no case
exceed about one-fiftieth of an inch. The differential factor is, as we know,
1
⁄16. Therefore we multiply by (2 − 1⁄16) or 1 15⁄16; in decimals 1.9375.]
The above table, then, affords us a reliable guide to the scaling of the
unwrapped strings. At the same time, however, it is not by any means
complete, for the reason that there is no method shown as yet for the
calculation of the other and intermediate string-lengths. We are, however,
able to accomplish this task by the aid of a very ingenious rule proposed by
the late Professor Pole, F.R.S. It is as follows:
The proper length of any string may be determined from that of any other
string, provided that the length and frequency of the second string be
known. Given these factors: Then,
1. Take the logarithm of the length of the known string.
2. Multiply the number .025086 by the number of semitones that the
sound to be given by the required string length is above or below the
sound produced by the given string.
3. If the required string is below the given string, add together the two
numbers obtained; if it be above, subtract the second number from the
first; the result in both cases is the logarithm of the required length.
For example, we have calculated already the proper length of C. In
hundredths of an inch this length is expressed as 2882. The log. of this
number is 45943. (This may be verified by any table of logarithms.)

It is required to obtain the length of the string that, caeteris paribus, will
produce one semitone above C.
45943 = log. of 2882
02508 = .02508 (6) × the number (1) of semitones
(6) that required string sounds above given string

By = log. of 2718 = length of required string in
43435
subtraction, hundredths of an inch
∴ Required length for C-sharp = 27 18⁄100 inches
By reversing the process described above, and adding instead of
subtracting, the proper lengths for the semitone below and all others in
descending progression may be calculated with accuracy.
Having thus settled the matter of string lengths, we may proceed to consider
the questions of diameter. But it is first of all necessary to warn the reader
that the lengths that have here been calculated refer only to such pianofortes
as are capable, by reason of their size, of taking the ideal string-lengths.
Very small uprights, for example, cannot be brought within that
classification, except as regards the highest of their strings. In all
pianofortes, no matter what their size, the higher strings are practically
identical in length; but it will be found that shortness of height in an upright
or of length in a grand begins, towards the middle of the scale, disastrously
to affect the string proportions. As already pointed out, there are only two
ways in which these disproportions can be overcome. These are through
alterations in the tension or in the thickness. But such alterations necessarily
disturb the whole tonal balance; and here we find a very strong reason for
the poor tone that the average atrophied grand or upright possesses.
Moreover, it must not be forgotten that disproportionate thickness or unduly
slackened tension affect the actual nature of the vibrations that are set up
within the string. And the affections are operative both as to frequency and
to form. Therefore, naturally, bad tone and inability to stand in tune. This is
not intended as an argument against the small pianoforte; but it is desired
here to show that these little instruments, whether horizontal or vertical,
must not be expected to perform impossibilities. If we are obliged to build
small instruments, we must revise our calculations and tabulate the string-
lengths according to a different basis of apportionment. For the purpose of
the present work, however, the calculations have been made on the
assumption that the standard size of pianoforte is to be designed.
Turn we then to the consideration of string diameters. The cast steel wire
that is used for the pianoforte strings is supplied in definitely numbered and
graded thicknesses. The numbers that are used generally run from No. 13 to
No. 24. According to the tests made at the Chicago World’s Fair by the aid

of Riehle Bros.’ testing machine, the wire of these numbers was of the
following diameters and broke at the following strains. The wire
manufactured by the firm of Moritz Poehlmann, Nuremberg, Germany, has
been selected from among the various products that were subjected to these
tests, on account of its superior durability and evenness of gradation.
Number Diameter in fractions of an inch Broke at strain of
13 .030 325 lbs.
14 .031 335 lbs.
15 .032 350 lbs.
16 .035 400 lbs.
17 .037 415 lbs.
18 .040
19 .042
20 .044
Now it is a well known fact, and, indeed, obvious from what has already
been said, that the proportional relations as to length, tension, diameter and
breaking strain do not permit any other arrangement for the scaling of wire
than that which is universally accepted by piano makers. That is to say, the
shortest wires are taken from the thinnest numbers, and vice-versa, the
whole scaling being so arranged as to secure for each tone that its strings
shall be stretched at approximately the same tension. Experience and the
observations of the most eminent manufacturers seem to have established
that the strain upon each of the uncovered strings should be maintained, as
nearly as possible, at 160 lbs. If this be done it will be found that a
pianoforte so constructed will produce the proper pitch at each string when
the lengths are as calculated in the tables referred to. It will, of course, be
necessary to arrange with due proportion the number of strings that are to
be taken from the wire of each number. It will be found that the best
practice takes into account the half sizes not shown here and strings the
instrument with an average of five tones to each thickness of wire,
beginning at 13 or 13 1⁄2 and continuing down to the end of the unwrapped
strings according to the general directions suggested. Experience and the
individual ideas of the designer, assisted by such knowledge as this work
aims to impart, are the best guides that can be followed. Empirical
induction, based upon observation and experience, provides the only

possible and practical means for arriving at the true and proper
arrangements to be made for each individual instrument. This empiricism
extends with particular force to all string arrangements and is seen nowhere
so conspicuously as in the variety of methods that are adopted by
manufacturers in determining the number of strings within the unwrapped
sections of the scale. Thus, certain makers carry the wrapping over to the
beginning of the treble strings and have two or three string-groups provided
with wrapped wire before the overstringing is begun. The idea here is either
to correct original defects of scale design or to shade down the break in tone
that so often occurs at the point where the overstringing usually begins.
From observation of the practice of the best makers, it may be said that the
tone C below middle C is usually the first overstrung tone. Of course, when
the instrument is very small it will often be found that it is impossible to
give the last unwrapped strings their proper lengths. In this case these
offending strings may either be covered with light wrapping or may be put
bodily over into the overstrung portion of the scale, in which latter case
they will be wrapped anyway.
Supposing then that the matter of the number of overstrung strings has been
determined, we may proceed to the consideration of the dimensions,
number and covering of the strings that are to serve here. We are obliged to
confess that the problem of attaining to good tone in the bass is, indeed,
difficult. It is by no means hopeless, however, as the success of more than
one eminent maker has already demonstrated.
The simplest, most obvious, and easiest way out of the inherent difficulties
of the scaling of bass strings is to be found in the consideration of their
proper lengths. It does not require very much thought to perceive the truth
that the longer the strings the less weight need be imposed upon them. If, in
fact, we make the bass strings to approach as far as may be to the lengths
that they would require to have if unwrapped, we shall be able to reduce
proportionally the amount of artificial control that has to be exercised over
the vibration speed. Not only this, but the greater length thus attained
implies greater tension. That is to say that, as we saw before, the tension at
which a string is stretched acts to overcome the slowness of vibration-speed
induced by its greater length, and, consequently, tends to generate a more
regular progression of the upper partials (as experiment has demonstrated),
with resultant tendency to greater purity of tone-quality.

We may, in fact, accept it as an axiom that the bass strings should be as long
and, simultaneously, as lightly weighted as possible, and that the weight of
them should be strictly proportioned to the pitch of the musical tone that
they are desired, at a given tension, to emit. As far as the second clause of
these conditions is concerned it is well to remind the reader that limitations
of space within the body of a piano usually determine the possible lengths
of the bass strings. So much so is this the case, indeed, that it is not often
possible to make any great difference in their respective lengths. The best
makers appear to be agreed in a method of treating the problem that is at
once simple and effective. They recognize the great advantage of scaling
the bass strings at the greatest possible length, and then they take care that
the descending increase of length is no greater than to make the lowest bass
string one-fifth longer than the highest. At the same time they so graduate
the weight of the wrapping material that the same results are attained as
would naturally follow if they were as accurately scaled, in proportionate
length, as are the plain wire strings.
This equalization is, of course, only approximate. For the forms of vibration
excited in two strings of the same pitch will be different whenever the
various factors that govern the emission of sound by them are variable.
Thus when the factor of length is varied, no counter-adjustment of tension,
thickness or density can restore to the string so modified the exact form of
vibration that it may have originally possessed. Consequently it becomes
impossible to induce from artificially weighted strings precisely the same
series of partial tones that a plain wire filament will emit, even when the
tones generated by the two strings are of the same pitch.
The lesson of this is plain. As perfection of tonal quality can only be
attained in part, it especially behooves us to pay strict attention to such
scaling of the bass strings as will furnish a complement of sound producing
agencies that may be relied upon to induce as nearly as possible the same
successions of partials as are habitually emitted throughout the higher
sections of the piano. Thus it becomes evident that the greatest practicable
length and the least practicable weight are the chief factors that must govern
the designer in laying out the scale for the bass strings.
The relative densities of the wrapping material employed in the
manufacture of bass strings have been the subject of considerable study.
Brass, which was the earliest object of experiment, has long been

superseded by either copper or iron. As to the relative advantages possessed
by these two materials, it can be said at once that the chief and almost the
only advantage presented by the latter lies in its relative cheapness.
Acoustically, however, copper forms by all means the most suitable
material for the winding of bass strings, and this for the following reasons:
The specific gravity of copper is 8.78, while that of iron is but 7.78. Again,
the former metal, while inferior in tenacity to the latter, possesses, on the
other hand, the great advantage of higher ductility, so that its elastic
qualities are very marked. It is thus evident that copper is a more suitable
material for the generation of musical sound than is iron, and the qualities
which we have just noted as pertaining to it are precisely those most useful
in the production of harmonic progressions of partial tones. It is therefore
clear that as between copper and iron all the advantages lie with the former.
The thickest wire used for the uncovered strings is generally No. 24. In
beginning the scaling of the bass strings, however, we choose No. 17 or No.
18 for the notes nearest to the treble. The covering is usually from No. 25 to
No. 28 (standard, not music, wire gauge) according to the size of the piano
and the practicable string-length. Of course, longer strings may be covered
with lighter wire. The first covered string is generally approximately one-
sixth shorter than the string immediately above it. This proportion, as
suggested above, may, however, be profitably disregarded, if it thereby be
possible to lengthen the bass strings. There are always two of these strings
to each tone and the thickness of covering wire must be progressively
increased as the scale descends. A descending increase of one number in
thickness of the covering wire for each pair of strings may properly be
allowed, unless the lengths are too closely alike, or vice-versa, in which
cases suitable modifications may be made. But assuming that the
descending lengths are arranged in arithmetical progression with a mean of
3
⁄4 of an inch, and supposing the highest covered string to be 45 inches long;
then the suggested increase of thickness should under all circumstances
hold good. It may often be found, however, that the space limitations of an
instrument or other practical considerations make it impossible to follow
out these rules with exactitude. In any case, we must remember that all such
rules are themselves the fruit of empirical observation and to such
observations we must look, when it becomes necessary to revise them in
order to satisfy the requirements of some particular situation.

CHAPTER VIII.
RESONANCE AND THE RESONANCE-
APPARATUS OF THE PIANOFORTE.
We have now made a somewhat lengthy and thorough investigation into the
nature and behavior of the various materials and substances that are
employed in the construction of pianoforte strings. From this inquiry we
have been able to deduce a set of rules which, when practically applied, will
furnish us with a guide to the solution of many perplexing problems which
take their root in the conditions imposed upon the designer by the
limitations of space and the other mechanical conditions of pianoforte
construction. It would not be proper, however, to proceed forthwith to the
practical questions of support for the strings. For we must still find the
correct solutions of another series of problems that spring, not from the
strings themselves, but from their important and necessary accessories, the
sound-board and belly bridges.
The belly-bridge is the medium of connection between the strings and the
sound-board. Through it the vibrations excited in the strings are conveyed
to the freely vibrating surface of the sound-board, and the sonority of the
generated sounds is thereby enormously increased. This is the process in
bare outline, but, in order to obtain a proper view of the matter under
discussion it will be necessary to examine the phenomena to which the
juxtaposition of strings, bridge and sound-board give rise. We must, in fact,
make another brief excursion into the realms of acoustics.
The property which the sound-board possesses of reinforcing and
emphasizing the sounds generated by the strings is called “resonance.”
Important as this property of sonorous bodies is to musicians and the
makers of musical instruments, the fact remains that it is a matter very little
understood by the mass of them. This is the more remarkable when one
considers that, without resonant properties, no musical instruments would
be possible. For it is not difficult to perceive that music, as we know it,
could not exist were the means of expressing it limited to the actual and

immediate bodies that perform the motions which are the direct causes of
musical sounds. This fact is most clearly illustrated in the case of the
pianoforte. The unaided sound of a pianoforte string is ridiculously feeble;
in fact, it is quite inaudible at the distance of a few feet. Yet we are all
familiar with the wonderfully harmonious and powerful sounds that the
same string will be the means of producing when aided by the sound-board.
Resonance may be defined as the property which one sonorous body
possesses of impressing its vibrations upon another sonorous body. The
existence of this power may be demonstrated in a variety of ways. The most
simple proofs are afforded by the pianoforte itself. For example, if we strike
any key upon the instrument and at the same time gently press down the
corresponding key one octave higher, so as to raise the damper without at
the same time raising the hammer, we shall find that if the first key be
released while the other is held open, the string corresponding to the latter
will continue to give its proper sound. In this case the vibrations excited in
the first string travel along the belly-bridge until they reach the nearest open
string whose vibration rate is synchronous with that of the original sounding
string. When such a string is reached it is immediately impressed with the
motions excited in the former string, with the results above described. This
is a case of resonance of two attached bodies. Peculiar as it may seem,
however, it is not essential as a preliminary condition to the existence of
resonance between them that two sonorous bodies be tangibly connected.
For instance, the foregoing experiment may be varied by employing two
pianofortes and choosing one of the sounds from each. The result will be
precisely the same. It will, however, be noted that only such sounds as have
either synchronous or nearly synchronous rates of vibration will exhibit the
phenomena of resonance when separated from each other. Where they are
connected, however, especially when the connecting body is a sound-board
prepared for the purpose, synchronism is not necessary. In fact, it is a matter
of common observation that the sound-board of the pianoforte, in
conjunction with the belly-bridge, operates to set up more or less intense
vibration in every string within the compass of the instrument when the
dampers are raised, even if only one string be struck. When the damper
pedal is raised in playing, every string throughout the instrument is
immediately thrown into a state of vibration, and begins to sound. The
result is a large augmentation of the total volume of sound produced. Of
course, the sound of any one string thus sympathetically excited is

relatively feeble, but the total volume is considerable, with especial strength
in the particular partials of each string that are more or less synchronous, as
to their vibration rates, with the sounds originally produced by striking the
keys. When the dampers are permitted to rest in their normal positions, on
the other hand, the sound-board exercises its resonant powers in a different
manner. Whenever a string or group of strings are struck, the board is
thrown into a state of vibration which affects only itself and not the strings
that remain damped. The result of this excitement is to expose a relatively
great vibrating surface to the atmosphere, with the immediate consequence
that the quantity of air impelled into a state of periodic motion is multiplied
many times. Thus the size of the impelled layers of air, and the resultant
sonorous waves is augmented until we obtain sounds of the intensity and
richness which we are accustomed to associate with the pianoforte.
Now, from what we have already learned of the laws of tone-quality, it is
obvious that the resonant medium must be capable of reinforcing not only
the fundamental but the partials of all the tones which it influences. To this
end we must provide a substance that combines elasticity with the freedom
of vibration that is, of course, essential. It is not possible to employ metal
on account of its excessive stiffness and consequent resistance to the
influence of impressed vibrations; while on the other hand a wooden body
will not be sufficiently stiff and rigid unless artificially strengthened. For
this reason it is customary to construct sound-boards of a freely-vibrating
wood (the spruce-fir is generally employed for this purpose) and to
strengthen them by fastening to one side bars of hard wood called “ribs.” In
this manner the requisite stiffness is imparted to the board, which at the
same time is sufficiently susceptible to the impressed vibrations from the
strings.
It is a fact that this accepted and universal form of resonance table is
essentially similar to that which was used in the ancient harpsichord and
spinet. While there has been much experimentation along these lines, it
does not appear that any lasting improvements have been devised as yet, at
least in the governing principles of sound-board construction. We may then
confine ourselves to a description of the accepted styles.
The wood used in the construction of sound-boards is the spruce-fir, which,
as stated above, has been found to be the best possible for the purpose. It is

prepared in a sheet of suitable size, and is arranged so that the grain runs
approximately at right angles to the plane of the belly-bridge.
It can easily be understood that the thickness of the board must vary
according to the dimensions of the strings that act upon it. In other words,
we can perceive that more resonating power is required for the relatively
weaker treble strings than for the relatively stronger bass strings. The actual
thicknesses vary with individual makers. From 3⁄8 inch in the treble to 1⁄4 of
an inch in the bass may be regarded as a fair approximation. Nevertheless, it
is necessary to bear in mind that these dimensions are subject to
modification according to the variations in the total amount of tension that
the instrument is made to bear. Other things being equal, an increased
tension load implies a thicker board, and vice-versa.
After the dimensions and material of the board are thus determined, it
remains to consider the bridging, the reinforcement, and the adjustment of
the board. We shall consider these in their natural order, as given above.
The belly-bridges are placed upon the surface of the board, as we know, for
the purpose of conveying to the latter the minute blows that are inflicted by
the vibrating strings, in order that the vibrations may be impressed upon the
board and there amplified and intensified as described at the beginning of
this chapter. A secondary duty is that of delimiting the lower boundaries of
the speaking length of the strings. The bridges must naturally be constructed
with a curved outline that is determined during the draughting of the scale.
The actual shape of this curve has no effect per se, upon the activities of the
bridge, but has to do entirely with the string lengths. The bridge which
carries the overstrung portion of the scale may be considered as being
similarly affected, as to outline, by the exigencies of the bass string
dimensions. The bridges are made of hard wood, and their sizes are usually
from one inch and one-quarter to one inch and one-half high, and in width
about one-eighth of an inch less all round. The variations occur principally
on account of the necessity which arises of giving a bearing to the strings as
they cross over the bridges.
It is necessary that the strings be raised at the bridges in order that they may
be firmly held at the points of contact by means of the strain imposed by
them on the surface of the bridge when they are stretched at proper tension.
Of course it is most essential that this bearing be not too high, as in that

case the strain becomes too much for the board to bear with facility and its
durability is thereby impaired. The necessary immobility of the portions of
the strings that lie upon the bridge is secured by diverting the line of travel,
and causing them to bear against pins placed on either edge of the bridge, so
as to slant the line of the string as it passes over. The waste ends should run
parallel to the speaking-length after the bridge has been crossed.
It may be further properly remarked that there are interesting and
complicated problems to be overcome in choosing the material and the
exact method of building the belly-bridges. It is desired to combine extreme
facility of vibration with the requisite resisting power. In other words, the
bridge must allow the fullest possible scope to the impressed vibrations
from the strings and, at the same time, must possess such strength that it can
successfully resist the torsions imposed upon it by the pull of the strings.
The only method that appears to be thoroughly practical and, at the same
time, acoustically correct is one which most manufacturers have already
had the acuteness to adopt. The bridge, according to this method, is built up
of a number of layers of hard wood (generally maple) which are glued
together in such a way that the grain of each layer crosses that of the other.
In this way both the requisite strength and more or less facility of vibration
are obtained. But it has remained for one distinguished piano maker to go a
step further, and to apply thoroughly scientific methods to the design of the
belly-bridges. In the instruments made by him, he has built the bridges in
such a way that the impressed vibrations will travel in the line of the grain
instead of across it. The bridges, in fact, are built of end-grain and not, as is
general, of cross-grain wood. This ingenious and simple device facilitates
the passage of the impressed vibrations and, in consequence, tends to impart
a greater clarity to the various partials of the compound tones. Some
existing pianofortes might be greatly improved as to their clarity of speech
if a similar device for increasing the power of resonance were fitted to
them.
There is another point to be emphasized in reference to the bridges. In some
makes of pianos the line of the bridge construction is permitted to be broken
wherever there is a corresponding break in the hammer line caused by the
interposition of the various braces of the iron frame. The obvious result of
such a method of construction is that the resonance of the board is much
interfered with and the consequent tonal efficiency of the instrument

lessened. For it is easy to see that if the bridge line be broken at any point,
the vibrations that are carried from any sounding string along the bridge to
the surface of the sound-board will be stopped at the break and will be
unable to reach those parts of the board that are remote from its path, with
rapidity and ease. Incontestably, therefore, the bridge line should, if
possible, be continuous. Many manufacturers, however, while apparently
recognizing the force of this proposition, seem to be afraid to follow it out
to its logical conclusion. They are willing to make the line of bridge
continuous until the end of the plain wire strings is reached. After that point
they seem to think that it is no longer necessary that continuity of
communication between the various sounding members of the scale should
subsist. This idea is, of course, quite fallacious. The bass strings are simply
a continuation of the higher ones, and are, in fact, precisely similar except
in regard to the details of thickness and length. Moreover, it is quite as
important that the portions of the board over which the bass bridge
exercises control should be made freely resonant, as it is that this process
should be applied to the others. The bass bridge ought invariably, therefore,
to be connected with the bridges that serve the rest of the strings.
The reinforcement of the board is accomplished by gluing ribs of wood
across its back surface in a direction crossing the grain of the board. These
ribs are usually made about one inch square in the middle portions. This
size is continued until near the edge of the board on each side, when they
are gradually pared down in a graceful curve until at the actual edge the
thickness is no more than about one-thirty-second of an inch. According to
the most approved modern practice it is found advisable to pocket these ribs
into the wooden framing of the instrument, by continuing them past the
edge of the sound board and making suitable apertures in the framing, into
which the extensions are adjusted and fastened. This has the effect of
holding the board more firmly in its fastenings and also of preventing the
early loosening of the ribs from their places; an occurrence which causes
much rattling, and complete impairment of tonal quality. It is usual to have
twelve ribs upon the surface of the board, but the number may be varied
whenever it is considered necessary. If it is required to give specially ample
support to the board on account of unusually great strain, or for any other
reason, the number may be increased, but such procedure must be taken
with caution, as too many ribs weight the board to such an extent as to

deaden its power of molecular and undulatory vibration. This must at all
costs be avoided.
It is usual to glue the ribs upon the surface of the board first—that is before
the bridges—and good practice dictates that the surface of the board be
dried out in a hot-box for at least 24 hours before either of these processes
take place. If this be carried out properly, the resultant shrinking of the
wood will be taken up after the board has become thoroughly cooled, and if
the process is repeated when the board is glued into the framing of the
instrument, the result will be to endow it with a natural “crown,” or arch,
caused by the re-active swelling that takes place after the artificially
induced shrinking.
Although the above methods of ribbing are to be considered the best and as
representing the most advanced practice, yet it will be found that some
makers dispose the ribs in a fan-like manner, having the diverging points of
the fan at the upper end of the board, while others adopt an oblique
disposition and arrange them as before described. Also, we find a straight
up-and-down arrangement whereby the ribs are glued parallel to the plane
of the treble strings. We term these three styles the fan form, the oblique
form, and the vertical form respectively.
As for the comparative advantages of the three types of construction thus
described, it may be said that they all represent individual features that are
more or less beneficial. For example, the fan-like disposition gives a greater
number of long ribs, while the oblique form provides more of separate
units. The vertical system may be considered as a mean between the other
two.
In general, we shall be well advised in remembering that the prime function
of ribbing is to increase the tension of the board and its elasticity, and thus
to promote the power of resonance. A secondary function is that of
providing extra resisting power. Now it is obvious that both of these duties
can be better performed by a multiplicity of ribs, and consequently a system
is to be recommended that permits the employment of the largest total area
of ribbing. At the same time unduly long ribs are not good, for they have a
greater tendency to become loose and to spring up from the surface of the
board, with dire results to tone and durability. It would therefore seem that
the oblique disposition has more to recommend it than the others, since it

provides enough total ribbing area without imposing inconveniently long
ribbing units upon the surface of the board.
When the ribbing of the sound-board and the fixing of the bridges has been
accomplished, it remains to adjust the completed structure within the
wooden back-framing of the instrument. It is necessary that the board be so
secured that it shall acquire a position analogous to that of a stretched
membrane—at least as far as concerns the rigidity with which its edges are
fixed to the framing. There are several methods for obtaining the required
rigidity of the edges of the board. The natural or artificial crowning of the
board’s surface is best attained through the medium of particularly rigid
edge fastening; and the adoption of a continuous closing rim for the board,
as in certain grand pianofortes, together with the use of a system of screw
compression, alike indicate the various directions in which the ideas of
experimenters have led them. The underlying notion in all these devices is
to endow the vibrating surface with both elasticity and durability to an
extent that could not be attained with the unaided wood.
The gluing of the sound-board to the framing is a process that demands the
greatest skill and care. It is essential that the board be warmed, and that the
glue which is used be in just the proper condition; neither too thick nor too
thin, and, above all, boiling hot. If the fastening be done when the board is
in the shrunken condition described above, and with the required skill and
care, it will be found that the fibres of the wood have been squeezed
together so as to raise the center part of the board somewhat above the level
of the edges. This gives what we have denominated the “crown,” and is
important as affecting the durability and resisting power of the entire board.
It must be remembered that by relieving the sound-board of as much as
possible of the strain imposed by the strings, we are able to increase its
durability and to preserve its tone-producing quality more surely than is
otherwise possible. Boards that are not so protected must inevitably become
entirely flattened out in the course of a few years. When this happens the
level of the belly-bridge sinks and the bearing of the strings upon the latter
is destroyed. Hence an immediate and inevitable deterioration of tone
quality. For the altering of the level in this manner affects the impression of
the vibrations of the strings upon the bridges and hence upon the board
itself. If the height of the bridges be too great, the bearing of the strings
upon them will likewise be excessive, and the board will be crushed down

in the same manner. If, however, the directions as to bridging, ribbing and
adjustment that have been given are followed with discretion, the troubles
outlined here are likely at least to be minimized.
Of course, the later care of the pianoforte after it is sold has much to do
with the manifold troubles that occur within the entire resonance apparatus.
These things cannot be foreseen, and it is, therefore, most essential to guard
against them as much as possible by careful attention to the details of
construction and adjustment.
Lastly, we may observe that the practice of screwing the bridges down on to
the board by screws driven in from the rear is to be condemned. While it is
undoubtedly advantageous to take some measure to increase the
permanency of the fastening, it will be found that it is far better,
acoustically, to provide the bridge with wooden dowels and glue these into
suitable holes in the board. Thus the conducting power of the bridge is
increased and the vibrating surface of the sound-board is not broken up by
the insertion of foreign metallic substances. Another and concomitant
advantage is the absence of the wooden washers under the heads of these
bridge-screws. Such devices are too often, as they become loose, a source
of rattling and jingling.
It is well to be rid of them, as of all possible things that are likely to be
similarly affected by wear or atmospheric conditions.

CHAPTER IX.
THE CASE AND FRAMING OF THE
PIANOFORTE.
The grand pianoforte is distinguished conspicuously from the upright, as far
as concerns the principles of its construction, by the different function
which its exterior casing exercises. As was stated in Chapter III, the exterior
walls of the upright have no part in the bearing or resisting work that the
iron and wooden framing performs. They exist chiefly for the purpose of
giving support to the key-board and action, and of affording a foundation
whereon may be constructed the elaborate architectural and decorative
structure that, in its entirety, is denominated the pianoforte case.
The synonymous portions of the grand pianoforte, on the contrary, have a
far more important duty to fulfill. While they are equally charged with the
support of the key-frame and action, they are also an essential part of the
wooden framing, are one and homogeneous with it, and, in fact, occupy
much the same position as what is known as the “back” of the upright, as
well as being the external and decorative coverings of the instrument.
The case of the grand is constructed of a series of continuous veneers, glued
one upon another, and each extending completely around the periphery of
the case. These veneers are glued at cross grain to prevent splitting and are
applied to the pianoforte and bent into shape when in a heated state. The
complete outline thus obtained is denominated the “continuous bent rim”
and is a distinguishing feature of the modern grand pianoforte as made in
America. Several eminent German makers, as Bechstein, also employ
similar means of constructing the external walls. In England, on the
contrary, the case is usually made out of one thickness of wood bent into the
required shape by steam and joined in several places. This system provides
for separate moldings for the bent and straight sides and for the rear portion.
The advantage claimed for the continuous bent rim is that the whole case,
by this means, becomes so closely bound up with the rest of the structure as
to become part of one homogeneous resonant whole, thus improving the

general resonance and imparting a sostenuto and cantabile that can in no
other manner be attained.
While data are lacking for the precise investigation of this claim, it is
significant that the bent rim method has not only become universal among
American makers—by one of them it was first devised—but has even made
its way into European favor.
The case, after it has been bent in this manner into the proper shape, has to
be decoratively veneered according to the style of ornamentation that is
intended for it. The work of veneering these cases, whether for uprights or
grands, need not be gone into here in detail. There are so many specialists in
this department who confine themselves to the turning out of such veneered
cases, and the whole matter is so far away from the principles of pianoforte
construction, that it is not considered necessary to go into it here.
It is, of course, required to provide the case of the grand pianoforte with a
system of wooden struts which bind it together and give it strength and
resisting power. These struts are set into the case in the general form of the
letter A, having the apex at the forward end of the case. At this apex they
are crossed by another wooden strut running parallel to the key-board,
which serves to bind them together and to mark the limit of the space to be
occupied by the sound-board. These struts are not, as we may thus see,
carried into the very front of the case, but are confined to that portion which
is directly underneath the sound-board. In front of this space is left the gap
through which the action is later to strike, and underneath is provided a key-
bed to carry the action and keys. The key-bed joins the front portions of the
bent rim and closes the casing in the front, thus providing a definite and
uniform structure. Above the key-bed and in front of the gap is one of the
most important parts of the entire instrument. It is called the “wrest-plank,”
and is situated at the foremost portion of the case. This wrest-plank is built
of a series of hard wooden layers, glued together at cross grain and adapted
to be bored with holes in which are placed the “wrest-pins,” or tuning-pins,
that control the tension of the strings. This block or plank must necessarily
be of great solidity and be capable of holding the pins frictionally, so that
they will not pull round under the immense strains that are imposed upon
them.

MODERN METHOD OF GRAND PIANOFORTE CASE
CONSTRUCTION.
A. Continuous bent rim.
B. Wooden struts.
C. Iron shoe holding struts and connecting with iron plate.
D. Main beam.

The gap which is necessary in the grand pianoforte between the sound-
board and the tuning-pins makes it impossible to join the former to the

wrest-plank. This state of affairs undoubtedly constitutes a weakness
inherent in the grand and, besides, exceedingly unfortunate. For an
interruption of the continuity of communication between the various sound-
conducting materials of which the instrument is constructed entails a
corresponding loss of resonance. The tone of the pianoforte is inevitably
fleeting and evanescent; lack of continuity in the construction only
increases this fault. It has somewhere been stated that the construction of
the grand pianoforte implies greater resisting strength of the wrest-plank on
account of its being entirely supported by the iron frame and not dependent
upon a wooden back as in the upright. This view seems to be incorrect. A
properly supported back on an upright affords a very strong support to the
wrest-plank and in combination with the iron frame supplies all necessary
rigidity, and in a manner more direct and efficient. But the wrest-plank of
the grand pianoforte may and should possess a sufficient strength. Various
makers have adopted several different methods to secure this strength. One
very good device supplies a rear truss to the lower surface of the wrest-
plank by means of a downward projecting shoulder cast in the iron frame.
There are other methods more or less similar. The arrangement of the
tuning-pins within the body of the wrest-plank also requires considerable
care. Of course, their disposition depends ultimately upon the string
arrangement, but there are problems to be considered in connection with the
manner in which they are arranged with relation to their mutual positions as
considered apart from the strings. For example, it is most important that
they should be so placed that the strings do no rub against each other in
their passage between the pins and the agraffes. The frequent neglect of this
matter is a cause for regret. Much loss of tonal purity would be avoided and
the tuner’s work greatly simplified if all designers took the proper amount
of care in this important matter. Further, it may be remarked that the best
practice accords with this suggestion in every respect. It will also be found
that a slight tilting back of the pins in a direction that is remote from the
strings tends to lighten the pull of the latter and to assist the resisting power
of the wrest-plank.
When the iron plate is fastened over the entire structure, it is fixed on to the
wrest-plank by means of heavy iron bolts that should be sufficiently long to
go entirely through it and be closed with a nut on the other side. By this
means the wrest-plank is secured against lack of rigidity, and its durability
immensely increased.

The hardest kind of maple should be used in the construction of the wrest-
plank. No other wood appears to have so many of the required qualities, and
its use for this purpose has become, in America at least, universal.
The general details of the external case of the grand pianoforte are not
unfamiliar. The standard full size of nine feet and the miniature of six feet
or less, as well as intermediate parlor sizes, are familiar to all. The shape of
the fall-board that covers the keys is well known, and the design of the lid
and supporting legs sufficiently common to make further description
superfluous. It is proper, however, to note briefly the general change that
has come about in the conception of the decorative function of the grand
pianoforte case.
Formerly, the aim of pianoforte manufacturers was entirely different from
that of the early harpsichord and spinet makers. Instead of doing their
utmost to improve the external æsthetic value of their instruments, they
seemed too much occupied in providing means for internal improvement to
pay proper attention to appearance. Thus we see that the sombre and
hideous decorative ideas which prevailed in the furniture of the last
generation were long faithfully imitated in the external design of the grand
pianoforte. The ugly and cumbersome carved legs, the inartistic curving of
the lid and arms, and the general look of ponderosity and hugeness all
combined to give to the instrument of that era the general appearance of a
hypertrophied coffin on legs.
Modern makers, however, animated by a truer appreciation of decorative
values, and recognizing the refining influence of beautiful things, in
themselves, and apart from their other properties, have gone far towards
consigning the more crude and hideous designs to the limbo of obscurity. It
has become generally recognized that the coffin-like look of the concert
grand may be largely modified, if not wholly removed. By altering the
design of the legs and by regarding them rather as a part of the case than as
mere supports, it has been possible to combine the proportions of legs and
case so as to make them appear one harmonious entity. Of course, the actual
method of attaining to this end has varied largely among different makers,
and, likewise, the greater number of successful efforts in the direction
suggested have been made upon grand pianofortes designed to order to fit
the furnishings and decorative schemes of music rooms in the homes of the
wealthy. Nevertheless it is a healthy sign of the general æsthetic

development of the American people that the number of these specially
ordered and designed cases increases yearly. In this way we are going back
to the ideals that possessed the ancient makers of the virginals, clavichords
and other instruments, who were wont to call in the services of the most
famous artists in color and the most cunning carvers in wood to compass
their beautiful and costly designs.
It is true that the stock styles of grand pianoforte cases are usually plain as
to contour and decoration, but no one now can deny to them grace and
purity of outline or beauty and richness of material. On the other hand, the
practice increases yearly of keeping in stock cases made in such styles as
the Chippendale, the Sheraton and the Empire, to say nothing of the
perennial and truly American Colonial designs. The fact that these
numerous varieties all find purchasers is a striking commentary on the
growing taste and refinement of the general public.
In considering the case construction of the upright pianoforte, we are led to
observe that this type exhibits, in these matters, certain important
advantages over the grand. It is true that the case is not so homogeneously
fitted into the resonant structure, and it is equally true that the grand has
hitherto had much the better of it in the fight for tonal quality and volume.
Nevertheless, considering the upright in the light of its own peculiar fitness
for popular use, we are bound to observe, in considering the construction of
its case and back-framing, the special advantages over the grand that we
mentioned as existing.
The chief and most obvious of the inherent advantages of the upright
pianoforte lies in the position which the instrument takes up. The hammers
strike in front of the strings and tend to force them down upon the bridges,
so that the full energy of the blow is impressed upon them. Further, there is
none of that tendency of the strings to fly off from the belly bridge which is
always present in the square and to a certain extent in the grand. Again the
vertical position of the sound-board would seem to be more favorable to the
free vibration of the wooden fibres of which it is composed; while the
simplicity of the general outline of the upright permits the employment of a
larger sound-board area than is possible with either the square or the small
grand. Lastly, the wrest-plank is greatly strengthened by the omission of the
gap between it and the sound-board, which permits the use of lighter
framing and a consequent gain in portability.

While recognizing these facts, however, we are bound to recognize many
other features that go far to destroy the great initial advantage here
described. It cannot be doubted that today the upright is pre-eminently the
popular type. Whether this fact is entirely a matter for congratulation is
doubtful, for the upright form lends itself readily to cheap and trashy
production. The conditions of modern domestic life are such, on the other
hand, that the portability and convenience of the popular type, no less than
the possibility of producing it cheaply, have given it a hold upon the public
fancy which its own inherent and undoubted advantages might never have
secured for it.
The upright form is capable of the highest artistic and mechanical
development, and there is no good reason why it should not be so improved
as to produce tones equal in volume, purity and richness to those of the
grand.
In considering the details of back and case construction in the upright, we
are compelled to observe instances of faulty method. For example, it is
usual to fasten the sides of the case to the back by gluing after the latter has
been fitted with the sound-board, iron frame and strings. This method is
obviously faulty. It is not difficult to understand that, although the back
partially sustains the tensions imposed by the strings, the sides when glued
to the former are constantly subjected to a modification of these tensions.
Now, gluing, while convenient, is not the best possible process to give to
the sides the necessary strength to bear such strains, for it is a familiar fact
that pianofortes that are not of the highest class invariably develop in the
course of a few years, more or less serious cracks and breaks in the
continuity of the joins between the glued surfaces. When this happens, the
equilibrium of the instrument is disturbed and its strength diminished. In
addition, the breaks in continuity have, of course, a serious effect upon the
power of resonance. Furthermore, the glue method is subject to various
mechanical defects. It is absolutely necessary that the surfaces that are to be
united should be maintained, during the process of gluing, at an absolutely
uniform temperature. And this temperature must be high. Consequently it is
not hard to see that in the haste and confusion of construction in the factory,
the large sides and backs may not be so carefully handled as to insure the
continual maintenance of the ideal temperature conditions. If, in short, the
surfaces to be glued together are permitted to become cold, it is obvious

that the adhesion will be imperfect, that the wear and tear of constant usage
will complete what carelessness in the factory began, and that the value of
the instrument will be permanently impaired.
Before suggesting a remedy for these regrettable conditions, or a substitute
for the faulty methods described, it will be well to examine carefully the
principles that underlie the construction of the upright pianoforte back. It
will thus become less difficult to find some better method of uniting the
sides and back, so as better to conserve the strength and durability of the
instrument.
The back of the upright pianoforte might almost be considered as the
foundation of the instrument. Indeed, before the general introduction of iron
framing, this part of the construction deserved such a description. Its
position, however, is now somewhat subordinate, since the wooden framing
of which it is composed is quite inadequate to the task of supporting the
tension of the strings. As generally built, this back consists of a number
(usually six) of wooden posts arranged in an upright position and joined at
the top and bottom by braces, also of wood and of similar dimensions. Thus
is provided a compact frame that may be made to possess great strength and
resisting power. But, in order to accomplish properly the duties for which it
is designed, the construction of this frame must be very carefully planned
and carried out. At its upper end it must give proper support to the wrest-
plank and the sound-board must rest easily and securely within its embrace.
The iron frame must then be fastened upon and over the structure.
It would be absurd to suppose that the back is not subjected to
modifications of the strains imposed upon the sound-board, wrest-plank,
and iron frame, and it is equally certain that carelessness in working out the
details of construction will tend materially to reduce the coefficient of
resistance.
An important detail is the joining of the upright posts to the top and bottom
rails. If these rails are made continuous and the posts are tenoned into them,
the frame will possess the maximum of strength that is possible to such a
structure, and if, in addition, the joints are at all places made more secure by
the use of screws and other devices as supplements to the gluing, then we
may consider that we have a properly made back.

Unfortunately, however, examination of any considerable number of
pianofortes of various makes will soon convince the reader that these details
of construction are seldom given enough attention. Many instruments will
be found to have the back posts joined at top and bottom by short pieces of
wood which do not extend further than the two posts which each unites.
Such a method of construction, especially when combined with careless
gluing and an absence of other fastenings, provides a frame that possesses
none of the desiderata of homogeneity, compactness and strength.

BACK VIEW OF UPRIGHT PIANOFORTE, KNABE PATENTS,
SHOWING RIBBING OF SOUND-BOARD AND CONSTRUCTION
OF BACK FRAMING.

The upright wrest-plank differs somewhat from the synonymous structure
used in the grand. It does not suffer under the disadvantage of an
involuntary and inevitable separation from the sound-board and the lower

portion of the back, but, when constructed with a due regard for correct
principles, forms one homogeneous and uniform structure. The upright
wrest-plank should, therefore, possess rigidity and resisting power of the
highest order, and should form an unyielding support for the tuning-pins.
The general construction of such a wrest-plank will not differ materially
from that which has already been discussed in reference to the grand
pianoforte. That is to say, the building up of the body of the structure from
crossed layers of hard maple and the bolting of it into the iron frame (when
the latter is made so as to extend over the whole surface of the back frame)
will be done in the same way. But the upright wrest-plank derives from the
peculiar form of construction that is proper to the upright pianoforte a
further element of strength that is lacking in the grand. For it is in direct and
solid connection with the sound-board and the other parts of the back-
framing, and thus obtains a considerable addition of strength. Indeed, the
wrest-plank should be so constructed as to form an integral part of the top
rail of the back, and should be, in fact, the front portion of this rail. Further,
its connection with the rest of the back-frame should be as close and
binding as possible, and it is most essential that a sufficient number of lag
screws should be driven into the wrest-plank and through the latter into the
further and remote parts of the back-frame top-rail.
Having thus analyzed the construction of the back in all its parts and
divisions, we may return to the discussion of the sides of the case and the
best methods of uniting them with the back. The reader has now a good
working knowledge of the construction, prior to the putting on of the sides,
and he cannot have failed to come to the conclusion that gluing is a poor
method for joining heavy sides to the elaborate structure known as the back.
Nor does there seem to be any good practical reason why some other
method should not be substituted for the antiquated gluing. There is no
good mechanical reason why a system of screws should not be devised that
would not only not mar the outer appearance of the case, but also afford a
more certain and secure manner of uniting the sides to the rest of the
instrument. Moreover, such a method would largely increase portability by
making possible the removal of the sides when conditions of transport
required this. Manufacturers might profitably spend a little time in
estimating the saving that a detachable side would enable them and the
dealers to effect in their annual shipping and trucking bills.

The various sizes of upright pianofortes that are customarily found range
from nearly five feet in height down to about ten inches less. Some very
small models are made no more than four feet high. But the public appears
to prefer the larger styles, and in this they are entirely right. For the very
small pianofortes, no matter how cunningly they be scaled, cannot be
equipped with strings of the proper lengths, nor with sound-boards of
sufficient area. Hence their tonal possibilities are very limited. The full
sized upright, on the other hand, approaches closely to the tonal excellence
of the grand.
The styles of case decoration that are and have been applied to the upright
are even more striking and varied than those of the grand. For the upright
lends itself more readily to that kind of decorative treatment that considers
the whole case as one single entity, and thus harmoniousness of design and
unity of treatment are more easily obtained. At the same time, we are bound
to confess that the outline of the upright is essentially box-like, and that this
defect operates continually to nullify the efforts of the designer to conceal
it. It is a fact that over-elaboration of decorative treatment is usually
accompanied by most unfortunate effects; while the larger styles at least are
little adapted to sustain the burden of meretricious exterior adornment. In
fact, we may well say that the upright is decoratively at its best in the small
sizes. Since, however, there is a public demand for large models, which are
indeed mechanically and acoustically superior, we must be content to
observe the progress of decorative ideas as applied to the beautifying of
these.
One of the most striking features of the modern decorative movement, as
applied to furniture, is seen in the great popularity of rare and beautiful
woods. These are much prized, and it has come to be popular to finish them
in such a manner as plainly to exhibit the natural figurings and markings.
We have even seen a craze for plain rubbing with wax, which leaves the
wood in absolutely its natural appearance. Red and White Mahogany,
Burled and Circassian Walnut, Satin Wood, Bird’s-Eye Maple, Golden and
Flemish Oak, and many other beautiful and costly varieties are constantly
made up into rich and elaborate pieces of furniture. In this development the
upright has had a large part. While the large size and great first cost of the
grand has made the purchasing of specially decorated cases a matter to be
avoided by all except the wealthy, the same obstacle has not so largely

existed to frighten away the artistic would-be-purchaser of an upright. In
fact, the decorative movement has shown its best manifestations through the
medium of the upright pianoforte, and this in spite of the unfortunate
outline of the instrument that resists all efforts to conceal its excessive
crudity.
Models of the English schools have been produced with great success, and
the inlaying of rich woods, after the manner of Chippendale, has resulted in
some very beautiful specimens of this particular art. Again, we find the so-
called Renaissance, the Colonial, the Empire (more elaborate than the other
two), the Doric (severely simple), and last but not least, the Mission. The
latter, extraordinary perversion of the handicraft of the Spanish fathers as it
usually is found to be, has nevertheless been the cause of one great good. It
has begun to popularize the dull finish, and to teach the public that the high,
glassy, fragile, and unreliable varnish finish is not the only possible way of
putting a surface upon wood. The Mission craze has taught many people to
admire the natural figure and markings of a fine veneer or piece of lumber,
without regard to the fact that it is or is not covered with a mirror-like finish
that cracks as soon as the room becomes cold.
In fact we may discern the encouraging signs of a growing sanity and
refinement in the demand for, and production of, suitable designs for the
decorative treatment of pianoforte cases. It has come to be recognized that a
truly chaste and beautiful exterior is the fitting complement to richness and
nobility of tone. The growth of this feeling deserves the highest
encouragement from all. American makers may well congratulate
themselves upon being the foremost exponents of this movement.

CHAPTER X.
THE IRON FRAME OF THE PIANOFORTE.
In the historical portion of the present work, ample reference has been made
to the genesis and early development of metallic framing in the construction
of pianofortes. We took occasion to point out that the independent
development of the American pianoforte is intimately connected with the
rise and improvement of the system. It is a matter of no little pride to recall
that in the universal recognition of the value of metallic adjuncts to the
framing devices of the modern pianoforte, the Americans, as became their
traditions, blazed the trail. It is unnecessary to repeat the observations that
were made in Chapter II as to the controversies that have raged over the
question of priority of invention. It is sufficient to refer the reader back to
that portion of the present work where these questions have been treated in
a sufficiently copious manner.
We may therefore proceed directly to the task of investigating the nature of
the universal metallic framing that has been demonstrated to be so essential
in modern constructional systems. Following the plan that we have adopted
throughout, we shall first consider the nature and application of this kind of
framing to the grand pianoforte.
As to the form, then, of the iron framing, its weight and size. Ever since the
first grand pianoforte was produced with an iron plate cast in one piece,
designers have been busy with attempts to improve upon the original
invention. They have met with but moderate success. There have been
multifarious changes in the details of bracing and of fitting the plate to the
case, but the general form of the original design remains the same. It may
be described in general terms as follows: A plate of iron cast in one piece,
which follows the outline of the instrument and is so arranged that it may be
secured to the case and to the wooden framing that underlies and knits
together the latter and the sound-board. A gap is left in this plate at the point
where the hammers strike the strings, and the resultant weakness is
overcome by a system of bracing by means of resistance bars, also of iron
and cast in the same piece with the main body. At its front end, nearest to

the key-board, the plate is extended so as to cover the wrest-plank in which
are driven the tuning-pins; and at the end remote from the key-board it is
provided with a number of hitch-pins, to which are secured the waste ends
of the strings. This plate, further, is so arranged that the sound-board is not
covered by it except at the edges, and at the place where the bass bridge is
constructed another gap is left in its surface.

JONAS CHICKERING’S FULL SOLID CAST GRAND METAL
PLATE.

The above general description comprehends in bare outline the essential
features of the iron framing. There are, of course, many variations of detail,
and in seeking for the best methods of designing this important part of the
pianoforte we shall have occasion to examine the greater number of these
with some care.

SKETCH OF IRON PLATE FOR CONCERT GRAND, SHOWING
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF BRACES, BELLY-BRIDGES AND
SYSTEM OF BOLTS FOR FASTENING TO CASE.

A—B. Hammer line.
1. Body of plate.
2. Bass bridge.
3. Continuous treble bridge.
4. Agraffes.
5. Capo d’astro bar.
Plate is cast in one piece and scale is overstrung.

Of the various differences of detail that designers have effected in the
construction of iron framing, one of the most important is presented in the
so-called “cupola” style of construction. In this form the surface of the plate
is raised at the edges of the case in such a manner as to give the general
outline of a cupola or semi-dome. The result of this method is to increase
the resonance of the framing and, at the same time, greatly to enhance the
tensile strength of the whole construction. The “cupola” style was the
subject of a patent by Steinway & Sons of New York some years ago, but
has been extensively copied since that time. The same celebrated house was
the originator of another variation upon the classic manner of plate
building. Instead of arranging the strings in the usual manner, a fan-like
disposition was adopted, with the result of distributing the strain more
evenly throughout the entire surface and thus improving the tensile qualities
of the whole plate. All these methods of construction, however, have failed
to avoid that breaking up of the scale which is made necessary by the
interposition, between the string groups, of bars and bracings. It has
appeared impossible to obtain the requisite resisting power without the
assistance of a number of heavy iron braces cast into the plate and designed
to increase the tensile strength, which is weakened by the gap at the striking
points of the hammers.

ARRANGEMENT OF IRON PLATE, BRACES AND SCALE OF
PARLOR SIZE GRAND PIANOFORTE.

There has, however, appeared an invention which would seem to overcome,
in an effective manner, the objections to a multiplication of bracings. The
inventor is a member of the celebrated house of Broadwood, and his device
is called the “Barless” or “open scale” grand pianoforte. By this invention
the barred iron frame is replaced by a plate of mild steel, which is entirely
free from bracings, is constructed with a continuous turned-up flange and is

bolted in the usual manner into the bottom framing. This flange provides
the necessary tensile strength and apparently sustains the tension of the
strings in a perfectly satisfactory manner. The advantages presented by a
method of construction that avoids the breaking up of the string groups into
three or four divisions are obvious and need not be explained in detail.
It may be stated, however, that the principal and conspicuous advantage
presented by this method of construction is found in the fact that the
absence of the usual barring and bracing tends to subdue the metallic and
tinkling quality of tone that is so often found to be induced by the presence
of heavy masses of cast iron. At the same time, the material employed is so
much more elastic than iron that there is no perceptible loss of resonance,
nor is the tensile strength lessened to any appreciable degree. No one who
has tested the pianofortes thus constructed has failed to be delighted with
the singularly beautiful tone-quality and remarkable evenness that is shown
throughout the whole compass. It is indeed a most difficult task to
overcome the tendency to production of unduly prominent dissonant
partials in those parts of the scale where the bracing is especially heavy,
particularly in the lower portions, and consequently we must regard with
admiration so successful an attempt to do away with these difficulties by
removing their cause.
It may be noted at this point that the eminent firm referred to before as
having introduced the “cupola” form of construction, also employ steel in
the making of their metal frames, and it seems curious that this example has
not been more generally followed.
The two types thus described are the most radical exceptions to the
common style of metal framing. It is a matter of regret that manufacturers
in general have been content to follow so closely in the footsteps of the
pioneers, and have not experimented more energetically with a view to
effecting other improvements in the accepted methods. The problem of
sustaining the necessary tensions would undoubtedly be simplified by the
adoption, at least in part, of the ideas of the eminent firms who have already
been mentioned.
In order thoroughly to understand the actual advantages and disadvantages
of the various styles of framing that have been described, we must consider
how great are the tensions that they are compelled to bear. A concert grand

pianoforte of a standard American make is so constructed that it bears a
total strain, when tuned at concert pitch, of not less than 30 tons. The
requirements of increased tone and the weight and bulk of strings tend
constantly to augment rather than to decrease these tremendous strains, and
at the same time more and more to induce the production of those dissonant
partials that have such a maleficent influence upon tone-quality. Obviously,
then, if we are to satisfy the popular demand for greater volume, and at the
same time to maintain the highest standards of quality, we must seek for
some method that will obviate the employment of yet heavier masses of
cast iron and at the same time preserve the necessary strength and rigidity.
The methods of construction that have been noticed at some length above
seem to present manifold advantages over the older styles. Steel has greater
tensile strength than iron, and consequently a smaller bulk of it is required.
Again, its elasticity is higher and the vibrations impressed upon it traverse
its surface with greater facility and in a shorter period of time. Whether,
therefore, we prefer the barless or the cupola style of construction, we must
recognize the fact that steel is a better material than iron in any form.
Foremost among the requirements of a successful framing system are that it
shall sustain its burden with such rigidity that the strings shall stand in tune
and the wooden case of the instrument shall not be twisted out of shape.
Even if the material be the best possible, a faulty method of securing the
metal frame to the case will not only prevent the consummation of these
desires, but will tend to weaken the sound-board and hasten its splitting. It
is essential, in fact, that the board should be relieved of strain, and great
care must therefore be exercised in fitting the framing. The approved
method is as follows: The framing is connected with the system of wooden
posts that extend below the sound-board and bind together the sides of the
case. The latter connection is made by means of long bolts that extend
through the bracings of the frame and are sunk into the posts at convenient
places. The sound-board is secured to the sides of the case by means of its
ribs, which are continued beyond its edges and pocketed into the sides and
the posts, and also by being glued to the bottom surface of the case and to
the system of posts. Lastly, the frame is connected both with the board and
the posts, by a series of heavy screws that pass through the board and into
the posts at regular intervals along its outer edges.

This method of securing the frame and sound-board to the case ensures that
the former shall be incorporated within the body of the instrument as rigidly
as is possible, and that the latter shall have the fullest protection against
those twisting strains that the metal frame alone ought to bear.
With such a method as has been described we can find no great fault. It
should be noted, however, that in the barless or open scale construction the
bolts that were described as passing through the braces into the posts below
are omitted, and the whole frame is supported within the case by a series of
bolts driven through the turned-up steel flange at equal intervals in its
surface.
Having thus considered the forms of framing that are employed by various
makers we may turn our attention to the matter of suspending the strings
across the frame and over the sound-board. The upward stroke of the
hammer of the grand pianoforte tends to drive the string away from its
bridge and thus to lessen the energy with which the vibrations imparted to
the string are impressed upon the latter. We may note that all makers are
agreed in giving to the strings of a grand pianoforte an upward thrust or
“bearing” in order that the blow of the hammer may throw the strings
against the upper surface of the bearing-bridge instead of away from it.
There are two devices that are generally employed for this purpose. They
are known as the “agraffe” and the “capo d’astro bar.”
The first of these was the invention of the celebrated Erard of Paris. It
consists of a brass stud screwed into the iron framing (or into the wrest-
plank where the plate does not extend over the latter), at the beginning of
the speaking length of each string or group of strings. This stud is bored
with the required number of holes—one for each string in the group. These
holes are bored at such an angle that the ends nearest to the tuning-pins are
higher than the other ends, while the pins are placed at a higher elevation
than the agraffes. In this manner the string is given an upward thrust as it
proceeds toward the tuning-pin, and the blows of the hammer force it
against the upper surface of the agraffe, which, being solid, conveys the
impressed vibrations through the medium of its own surface to the framing.
The “capo d’astro bar” performs the same functions in a slightly different
manner. It is practically a continuous “agraffe,” and consists of a metal bar
which is cast into the metal frame at the beginning of the speaking length of

the strings. It is fitted, according to the best practice, with an under edge of
tool steel, and the strings are caused to pass underneath it on their way
toward the tuning-pins, which are higher than the bar, as before. The up-
bearing is thus imparted to the strings in a manner similar to that which is
followed in the case of the agraffes.
As to the advantages of the two systems, it may be said that the “capo
d’astro” undoubtedly overcomes those objections to agraffes which are
based upon their tendency to pull out from their places. It provides an
absolutely rigid resistance, and is therefore stronger and more reliable.
On the other hand, however, the mass of metal employed is considerably
greater than in the “agraffe” method, and the resultant influences upon tone-
quality are clearly disadvantageous.
Further, the work of tuning is rendered more difficult by reason of the fact
that the strings cannot so readily and correctly be pulled through the space
intervening between the bar and the tuning-pin. It is debatable whether the
greater rigidity and resonance offered by the “capo d’astro” method are not
too dearly bought at the cost of inconvenience in tuning and deterioration of
tone-quality. It is noteworthy that most manufacturers confine the “capo
d’astro” bar to the high treble register of their instruments, where brilliancy
and a somewhat metallic quality of tone are a desideratum.
The iron framing of an upright piano follows the same general lines of
construction as have already been noted in the previous discussion of the
grand. The functions of the frame are precisely the same and its
construction differs outwardly but little. There are, however, certain
divergencies from the grand forms that must be noted carefully. For
example, it will be remembered that the form of the upright pianoforte is
such that the framing has no direct and positive connection with the outside
case. It is thus impracticable to consider the sides of the iron plate as
homogeneous with the sides of the case, nor is it possible to give to it that
consistency of form that, in the grand, results from the shaping of the plate
to correspond with the curved outline of the case. This, however, is no
reason why the upright iron plate should not be as strong and secure as that
of the grand.

IRON PLATE FOR UPRIGHT PIANOFORTE FITTED WITH CAPO
D’ASTRO BAR.

Among the various differences of detail that we observe to exist between
these two forms of plate is the device adopted to secure the bearing and
rigidity of the strings at their upper end deserves notice. The practice is
entirely different in this respect as regards the upright, and we are therefore
introduced to a new feature: the “pressure bar.” This device has superseded
both the old-fashioned pinned bearing bridge and the later agraffe forms. It
consists, essentially, of a bar of heavy metal that is screwed into the wrest-
plank through the metal plate and is placed so that the strings pass under it
on the way to the tuning pins. In fact it occupies the same position as do the
agraffes or capo d’astro bar on the grand. Its function is also similar;
namely, accurately to delimit the speaking lengths of the strings at the upper
end and to assist in the formation of a thrust or bearing whereby the latter
may more advantageously be secured.

IRON PLATE FOR UPRIGHT PIANOFORTE WITH AGRAFFES
(MEHLIN PATENTS).

This form of building the bearing bridge possesses important advantages. It
does not require to be cast into the plate, nor is it weakened, as in the
agraffe system, by being broken up into a large number of units. Moreover,
the bearing for the strings is formed much more smoothly and easily
between the pressure bar and its attendant ribs on the plate than is possible
when either the agraffes or the capo d’astro bar are used. This is an
important point, for such construction tends to make the task of tuning
much more rapid and correct.
There are, however, several points to be considered in the designing of
pressure bars. As a general thing, it is impracticable to apply this form to
the bass strings on account of the fact that the overstringing requires of

them a slanting direction. On this account the pressure bar cannot be made
properly to maintain the obliquely-running strings in their respective places.
It is therefore usual to build the bass bridge after the old pinned type and
thus to secure the bass strings by much the same device as is employed in
the belly bridges.
As far as the designing of pressure bars is concerned, it will be found that
care should be exercised in arranging the space that the bar must occupy
and its position with regard to the scale ribs that are placed on each side of
it and that support the strings before and after their passage under it. In
general it may be said that the pressure bar must be screwed in such a
position that its lower curved surface is lower than the upper surfaces of the
scale ribs by about one-half of the height of the latter. It must also describe
a curve that corresponds to the dip or angle of the scale and must be secured
by enough screws (one between each three string-groups is usual), to ensure
that the pull of the strings will have no injurious effect upon its rigidity. It is
also essential that the curve into which the string is bent during its passage
under the pressure-bar and over the scale-ribs be not too deep or sudden.
The bearing surface of the bar should be gently rounded until very near its
middle point where the string exercises its greatest pulling strain. Here the
surface must be curved a little more sharply.
The iron plate of the upright is the chief supporter of the strains imposed
upon the structure by the strings. It is necessary, as in the grand, that it
should be built so as to have absolute rigidity under these strains, and that it
should be always capable of withstanding any others that may by any
chance be imposed upon it. Remembering this, what shall we say of the
designs that we sometimes see where the iron is cut and shaved away at
every possible point in order to save a few pounds of weight? There are
pianofortes in existence where the iron framing is so much cut down that
the treble can never be depended upon to stay in tune for a reasonable
length of time, and where the unevenness of the distribution of metal
throughout the body of the frame has caused a warping of the whole
instrument out of its proper shape. All this is unnecessary, but it will
continue so long as manufacturers are willing to effect small savings at the
expense of the future reliability of their product.
It is certainly much better to have the plate of the upright pianoforte so
arranged that the total volume of iron, if it is to be decreased, may have this

process applied evenly and all through. The most correct design would
consider a moderately heavy plate of iron, or better, of steel. This plate
would be so arranged that the hitch-pin plate (the portion which carries the
hitch-pins) covers the entire surface of the instrument at its bottom end and
is bolted into the back with as many and as heavy bolts as are employed at
the other end. The upper portion of the proposed plate need not extend over
the surface of the wrest-plank, for such a construction can add little to the
resisting power of the frame, while it inevitably tends, for reasons that have
already been described, to the production of dissonant partials and the
consequent emission of a metallic tone. If it is desirable, for any reason, to
cut down the weight of a frame, it can better be done at the upper end than
at the lower, where diminution of the resisting power of the frame is most
severely felt.
We may, then, contemplate a form of iron frame which covers that portion
of the back-framing whereon the edges of the sound-board are glued, and
that is not continued up and over the wrest-plank. It will be cut away in the
centre, as in the grand, and will thus expose a large part of the sound-board
to view. It will be provided with a certain number of bracings for the
purpose of taking up the strains that are imposed upon the structure at the
points of greatest resistance, such as those where the over-stringing begins
and ends, and those around the middle registers of the scale. There must not
be more of these bracings, however, than is necessary, as it is very
important that the scale should be broken up into the least possible number
of divisions. The bracings will be so designed that no one of them interferes
with the true curve of the belly-bridge. The whole structure will be solidly
bolted into the back-framing through the sound-board by a series of long
and heavy screws and bolts that will be inserted at frequent intervals along
the edges.
We cannot conclude this survey of plate-construction without taking note of
a property that is common to all cast-iron structures. We refer to shrinkage.
The calculations of the designer, no matter how carefully worked out, must
take into consideration the fact that cast-iron shrinks largely in the cooling.
It must be noted that the design for the iron plate is the chief portion of the
work of scale draughting. As will be explained later on, this work is first
done on paper and then transferred to a wooden pattern. From this pattern
the casting is made. After the first casting is thus completed it is taken in

hand by the designer, who marks and punches it for the boring and pinning
and corrects it where necessary. The corrected casting is then used as a
model for the future plates that are to be turned out for the same scale. But
these also shrink; so that we are compelled to take into account both
shrinkages, and allow for each. Fortunately, however, there is no difficulty
in arranging this.
The method is as follows: After the string-lengths have been calculated and
the size of the iron plate thus determined, a complete drawing is made,
showing the exact dimensions, shape, and other features of the proposed
plate. This is to be used as the guide for the wooden templet. But this
difference exists between the two paper drawings; namely, that the second
is multiplied as to every dimension of the plate by a quantity that represents
the amount of shrinkage that is known to occur in the two castings.
The average shrinkage of cast-iron in the form of pianoforte plates is
estimated at about one per cent. Consequently to account for the double
shrinkage it becomes necessary to multiply by the square of 101⁄100; that is
approximately 51⁄50.
A great deal of trouble will be avoided if the shrinkage is carefully worked
out in this manner. Every dimension of the plate is affected, and the greatest
care must be taken to ensure that the corrected calculations are accurate.
Only thus will it be possible for the ideas of the designer to be brought out
in the completed instrument as he expects to see them.

CHAPTER XI.
THE MECHANISM OF PERCUSSION.
The pianoforte hammer is perhaps the most striking of the many and
various features of that instrument. Although it is a comparatively simple
device, its historical and musical interest is supreme. For while the strings,
the framing, and even the action that we see in the instruments of today are
but the modern developments of their clavichord and harpsichord ancestors,
the hammer, on the contrary, is the one revolutionary device that, at a single
step, separated the pianoforte from all other stringed instruments and
endowed it with its own peculiar and powerful attributes.
It was the hammer, in fact, that made the pianoforte. As soon as it was fitted
into a harpsichord, the pianoforte was born, and no refinement of stringing
or framing could have effected the fundamental nature of key-board
instruments in the same manner. For we must recognize the fact, sometimes
overlooked, that the pianoforte is essentially an instrument of percussion. It
is necessary that there be a more or less violent blow from the hammer to
excite the sound-producing vibrations of the strings. The tone of the
instrument, under the most favorable circumstances, cannot fail to partake
of the character peculiar to sounds produced in this manner. The importance
of the hammer as a tone-producer cannot, then, be underestimated. It stands
upon a plane of importance equal to that occupied by the scale-designing,
the stringing and the resonance apparatus. We are therefore justified in
devoting space to consideration of the construction of this essential feature.
We cannot say with absolute surety what was the nature of the material with
which the hammers of Cristofori’s original invention were covered. But we
may presume that it was leather. We know that the hammers were
exceedingly small and apparently all of the same size. Neither Silbermann
nor Zumpe can be said to have perfected any special improvements in the
form of hammer construction, and we find that the revolutionary genius,
John Broadwood the First, and also Sebastian Erard, were the pioneers in
the work of adapting the hammers to the more strenuous styles of playing

that the improved touch mechanism invented by them permitted and
encouraged.
Broadwood, who first perceived the necessity of adopting a scientifically
correct striking point, likewise began to fit his pianofortes with hammers
graduated in size, and under him the leather-covered hammer arrived at its
full development.
But leather as a covering material soon began to be decried. It was
discovered that the kind of tone demanded by the rising pianoforte masters
could not be obtained from such material. After much experiment on the
part of pianoforte makers, the German-Frenchman, Pape, of Paris, tried the
use of felt. His success was immediate and conspicuous, and it was
discovered that not only did this kind of covering produce finer tone quality,
but there was little difficulty in regulating that quality through the hammers
within certain well-defined limits. Nevertheless, we find square pianofortes
to-day in which the felt covering upon the higher hammers is overlaid with
strips of buckskin. This practice, however, represented the last dying
struggles of the leather-covered hammer, and now we use it no longer.
It is true that the use of felt is not unattended with conspicuous
disadvantages. It wears out rapidly, and unless constantly kept in good
condition by use of the felt-needles, the iron, and the sand-paper file, soon
comes to produce a harsh and unpleasant tone-quality. This defect arises
from the fact that as usually constructed, the continual pounding of the
hammer head upon the strings causes the felt on the crown of the hammer
head to become tightly packed and compressed, and the shaping of the head
to be lost. As will be explained later, this change in the manner in which the
head is originally made up causes a modification in the nature of the
vibrations set up in the strings, and, as we have already learned, this change
in the nature of the produced excitement is the cause of unpleasant tone-
quality. Nevertheless, and in spite of these real disadvantages, the use of felt
as a covering material for pianoforte hammers is now universal. Nor does it
seem at present that we are very likely to find a superior substitute. As we
shall shortly see, however, a simple change in the manner of securing the
felt to the wooden foundation of the hammer-head may be depended upon
to add largely to the durability and efficiency of the whole structure, both as
a tone-producing medium and as a mechanical device.

As will be surmised by the reader, early covering of pianoforte hammers
with felt was a tedious operation. The material was cut up separately for
each hammer, and glued on to the wooden head by hand. But this method
suffered under the grave disadvantage of affording no correct guide to the
true thicknesses and no means other than furnished by hand-cutting, of
graduating these thicknesses with exact evenness. It remained for an
American (or Americanized German) inventor to devise a machine that
should glue up and finish an entire set of hammers from one continuous
sheet of felt, of which the thickness was graduated in the making and which
could be relied upon to contain the correct amount of felt, of any desired
total weight, the whole graduated with great evenness. Not merely was this
so, but the methods of manufacturing felt for other special purposes
connected with the manufacture of pianofortes has been entirely
revolutionized, so that today we have dampers, punchings, and many other
parts of the mechanism of pianofortes successfully manufactured out of
various kinds of felt, which vary greatly in consistency, thickness, and other
properties.
To return, however, to the special case of hammer-felt. We find that the
original methods of working together the layers of carded wool has been
much improved, chiefly through the efforts of the inventor mentioned
above. It is now a matter of slight difficulty to turn out sheets of felt for the
making of piano hammers that shall have any desired weight, size and
graduation of thickness.
The weight of the sheets of felt varies largely according to the nature of the
hammers that are to be produced. Thus it is customary, as may be guessed,
to provide full-size concert grands with hammers of greater thickness, while
the smaller styles of instrument have progressively smaller hammers. The
actual weights vary according to the caprice or calculation of manufacturers
and designers. An average weight of felt for hammers suitable to be placed
in a nine-foot concert grand is from 16 to 18 lbs. per sheet. This does not
include the “underfelt,” which is glued directly to the wooden head of the
hammer and is used to give greater resiliency to the lower hammers. It is
generally omitted at the higher treble end.
Upright pianofortes frequently are hammered with felt weighing not more
than 8 lbs. to the sheet, but this seems to be too light for really efficient
results. 10 lbs. is quite light enough in most cases.

As has already been indicated, the foundation of the hammer is a wooden
molding. Over this is glued, in the machine, a strip of “underfelt,” which is
long enough to cover about five and a half or six octaves of hammers,
counting from the bass end upwards. The main felting is then laid over this,
the thickest end being at the lowest bass. By means of the machines, now so
generally used, it is possible to glue the entire underfelt and also the
topäfelt, in one piece. The moldings are then separated and the operation is
complete. It is customary to insert a small piece of wire, doubled over in a
loop, through each hammer, in order to ensure further strength to the
fastening.
As may well be imagined, the details of manufacture, of the quality of the
felting, and of the dimensions of the completed hammers, require much care
in their execution. Long practice, study, and experience have combined to
render the specialists, who devote themselves to the preparation of hammers
and hammer-felt, most excellently fitted to place upon the market the very
finest productions of this kind.
There have been attempts made at various times to provide a hammer head,
and a method of felting it, that would obviate the somewhat rapid
deterioration caused by the pounding of the glued and compressed felt
against the stiff steel wire strings. The felt, which requires to be compressed
before it is glued on to the wooden molding, rapidly becomes altogether too
hard. Moreover, the fastening of the felt to the molding is by no means
really permanent. It has been suggested that the felt might properly be
contained within a wooden shell which would extend as far along the sides
of the felt as the wooden molding now reaches within it. The compressed
sheet of felt would be forced into this shell and fastened therein so that it
would always be protected by an outer wooden covering. Thus, not only
would the fastening of the felt to the wood be reduced more secure, but the
pounding upon the strings would not so rapidly assure the undue hardening
of the felt. For there would not be the hard wooden base between which the
strings and the felt is continually subjected to compression. The idea is
good and undoubtedly will yet be recognized.
Details of the adjustment of the hammers to the rest of the action and of the
preparation of them by the tone-regulator, for the better production of good
and even tone, will be dealt with in the chapters upon action-and tone-
regulating.

CHAPTER XII.
THE TOUCH MECHANISM.
As the hammer-idea evolved itself in the mind of Cristofori and the other
experimenters who were contemporaneously bending their efforts towards
the improvement of the dynamic possibilities of keyed instruments, we may
be certain that much perplexity was caused them by the problem of
providing some mechanism that should form the connecting link between
the hammer and the key. We may understand how the ingenious Italian must
have labored, with the picture of the dulcimer and its player continually in
his mind, to obtain an efficient mechanical substitute for the uncertain
stroke of the hand operated dulcimer-hammer, as well as the dynamically
incapable harpsichord jack and quill. It is surprising to note, indeed, how
early the present ruling principles of action-mechanism were elaborated by
these pioneer workers. Cristofori, as we have already mentioned, obtained,
ere he died, a complete check to the rebound of the hammer and a form of
escapement that may be seen unaltered in essentials in surviving square
pianofortes of the “English action” variety. We may further reflect that the
invention of Backers, as improved by John Broadwood the First, remains
today the approved mechanism of many English and other European
grands. Not only is this so, but until the general adoption of the Steinway
overstrung model, there existed German makers who were content to fit
their moderate priced grands with a slightly modified form of the Viennese
action invented by that remarkable woman Nanette Stein, afterwards
Madame Streicher, the conspicuous feature of which was the mobility of the
hammer-butt and the stationary condition of the jack. The fact that these
early mechanisms remained satisfactory to performers until recent years is
the best proof of the thorough and sure mechanical basis upon which they
were designed.
It is not necessary to go into elaborate detail in describing these early
actions. Reference to the accompanying cuts will be sufficient to lay bare
their actuating principles. We may, however, observe that the radical
difference of touch between the Viennese (Streicher) models and those of

Broadwood (known as the English grand action) continued to be a source of
annoyance to performers until the increasing technical demands of the
modern virtuoso school and the improvements in wire-drawing and iron
casting made inevitable the supersession of the very light Streicher action
by the heavier, more durable and more efficient Broadwood English model,
which continued in favor until within recent years.

CRISTOFORI’S ACTION IN ITS FINAL FORM.
1. Key.
2. Jack. 10. Check.
3. Jack-operating spring. 11. Damper-lifter.
4. Cushion limiting rebound of jack. 12. Damper-head.
5. Under-hammer. 13. Action-beam.
6. Hammer-butt. 14. Wrest-plank.
7. Hinge of hammer-butt. 15. Tuning pins.
8. Hammer-shank. 16. Bearing-bridge.
9. Hammer head. 17. String.

ACTION BY ANDREAS AND NANETTE (STEIN), STREICHER
VIENNESE ESCAPEMENT (1794).
1. Key.
2. Jack.
3. Jack-operating spring.
4. Cushion limiting rebound of jack.
5. Button and screw regulating escapement of hammer.
6. Hammer-butt and operating face.
7. Hammer-butt pivot.
8. Hammer-shank.
9. Hammer-head.
10. Check.
11. Damper-lifter.
12. Damper-head.
13. Action-rails.

ENGLISH DIRECT LEVER GRAND ACTION, DEVELOPED BY
BROADWOOD FROM BACKERS (1884).
1. Key.
2. Jack.
3. Jack operating spring.
4. Rail and cushion limiting travel of jack.
5. Button and screw regulating escapement of hammer.
6. Hammer-butt with operating notch.
7. Hammer-butt flange.
8. Hammer-shank.
9. Hammer-head.
10. Check.
13. Action-rails.

DOUBLE REPETITION ACTION OF SEBASTIAN ERARD AS
USED BY S. & P. ERARD, PARIS.
1. Key.
2. Wippen.
3. Jack.
4. Escapement lever.
5. Hammer-shank.
6. Roller.
7. Hammer-head.
8. Jack regulating button.
9. Regulating button to limit rise of escapement lever.
10. Hammer-butt.
11. Check.
12. Felt cushion to engage with check.
13. Sticker connecting key and wippen.
14. Action-rails.
15. Damper-head.
16. Damper operating device.
17. Device to limit travel of jack.
18. String.
19. Spring (v-shaped) for escapement lever and jack.

Shortly before the general adoption of the Broadwood model, however,
there was brought forward a new type of grand action, which was destined
in its turn entirely to supersede the then favorite English type. This was the
invention of Sebastian Erard, of Paris, founder of the still existing house of
S. & P. Erard. His new action was termed the “double repetition action,”
and it fully deserves the name. By the use of this device the leverage that
exists between the hammer and the key is so manipulated that the very
slightest touch upon the keys is sufficient to cause the hammer to deliver a
blow. It will be observed by reference to the cut that the Erard action differs
very largely from that of Broadwood. In the first place, we observe that the
hammer heel is no longer provided with a notch in which the jack works,
but that this heel is reduced to the smallest dimensions and acts merely as a
pivot. Upon the shank of the hammer is fastened a felt-covered roller. The
jack acts upon this roller. Between the jack and the roller, however, we
observe a long lever, one end of which has a slot through which the jack
passes, while the other end is pivoted on to a rail projecting from the
wippen. This is the “escapement” or repetition lever, and forms the main
improvement of Erard. It will be observed that the repetition lever bears
against the roller, and indeed lifts it before the jack can come into
engagement with it. The jack, working through the slotted portion of the
lever, is not brought into play until the lever has raised the hammer a little
way. The long, double spring that acts both upon the lever and the jack
gives them their motions, and the result of the depression of the key is that
the repetition lever is always in engagement, and when the angular key-
motion is not sufficient to bring the jack into play, the work will be done by
aid of the lever. Furthermore, the lever operates to maintain the hammer-
shank in precisely the proper position for striking, at all times, and without
reference to the angular position of the key.
It can easily be understood that such a vital change in action mechanism did
not become popular at once. Many pianists objected to double escapement.
Notable among these were Chopin and Kalkbrenner; these two being the
greatest pianists of their day in Paris. Chopin preferred pianofortes fitted
with the Broadwood action.

THE ERARD GRAND ACTION MODIFIED BY HERZ.
1. Key.
2. Wippen.
3. Jack.
4. Escapement lever.
5. Hammer-shank.
6. Hammer-butt notch.
7. Hammer-head.
8. Jack regulating button.
9. Regulating button to limit rise of escapement lever.
10. Hammer-butt.
11. Check.
12. Molded tail of hammer-head to engage with check.
13. Capstan-screw connecting key and wippen.
14. Action-rails.
15. Damper-head.
16. Damper-operating device.
17. Device to limit travel of jack.
18. Regulating device for escapement lever.
19. Springs (2) for escapement lever and jack.
20. String.
21. Flange.

Nevertheless, the merits of Erard’s invention continued to impress
themselves upon the musical world, although Pierre Erard, who had
patented his uncle’s invention in 1821, was obliged to obtain an extension
of the English patent in 1835, on the ground of the loss occasioned in
working it. It did not become generally adopted, even after the expiration of
the extended patent, until modified and simplified by Henri Herz, the
famous pianist and pianoforte manufacturer. Then its merits, in the modified
form, were so generally recognized that it is now in use by Steinway,
Chickering, Knabe and all manufacturers of grand pianofortes in the United
States; by Broadwood, Collard & Collard, Brinsmead, and others in
England; by Bechstein & Bluthner in Germany, and by most French makers
of eminence with the sole exception of the house of Erard itself. This
eminent firm continues to employ the pure and original form of action as
patented in 1821, with improvements only in details of workmanship and
material.
Whatever we may say as to the general adoption of the Erard action only
after it had been considerably modified, we must not withhold admiration
from the Erards, whose genius and courage gave to us the enduring double-
escapement principle that has never yet been superseded.
The main features of the Herz-Erard mechanism may be seen at a glance.
The roller is replaced by the notch, once more restored to favor, and the
repetition lever is made more effective by being pivoted centrally with two
free ends, and by having means provided to limit its up and down motion.
Moreover, the wippen is shortened and made straight, the single spring is
replaced by two, and the damper is once more permitted to fall down on the
strings by its own weight without recourse to artificial springs.
The Herz-Erard action has been taken up by American makers, but we find
that they have modified it again, after their own ideas. For example, if we
look at the accompanying cut showing a modern American grand action of
the highest class, we shall observe that the original roller of Erard is
restored, the damper mechanism simplified and additional means of
controlling the movements of the jack introduced. These two latter
improvements combine to make the present American grand action most
perfect, and the achievements of the specialist action makers must ever
command our respectful admiration.

The reader has now been able to take a comparatively complete survey of
the progress of invention in grand pianoforte action mechanism. We shall
therefore turn to a critical examination of the modern standard grand action
here illustrated, in order that the adjustment of it within the instrument may
be understood.

STANDARD MODERN AMERICAN GRAND ACTION.

1. Key.
2. Wippen.
3. Jack.
4. Escapement lever.
5. Hammer-shank.
6. Roller.
7. Hammer-head.
8. Jack-regulating button.
9. Regulating button to limit rise of escapement lever.
10. Hammer-butt.
11. Check.
12. Molded tail of hammer-head to engage with check.
13. Key-rocker and sticker connecting wippen and key.
14. Action-rails.
15. Damper-head.
16. Damper operating device.
17. Device to limit travel of jack.
18. Regulating device for escapement lever.
19. Separate springs for jack and escapement lever.
20. String.
21. Flanges.

It will be observed that the key (1) is supported upon a key-frame, part of
which is clearly shown in the drawing. This frame is provided with a cloth
strip at its rear end, also shown, and with a “balance rail” upon which the
key is pivoted by means of a pin. The position of this balance rail must be
such that the divisions of the key thus made are to one another as 3:2. The
part nearest to the player’s finger is the longer. But such a proportion as this
holds good only for the actual operative lengths of the keys from the front
to the point where the sticker, or capstan screw is placed. For otherwise we
have a distinct change in the mechanical relations of the parts of the lever-
system, and this, of course, entails a corresponding change in the forces that
are brought into operation. It is therefore necessary to have a standard
length of key, as between the points mentioned, and this length is placed at
15 3⁄4 inches. But, in order to maintain the mechanical relations between the
dimensions of the lever we must also consider the depth to which the key
sinks in front, and also the height to which it rises at the back. If, then, we

arrange that the depth in front shall be 3⁄8-inch full and the rise in the rear 1⁄4-
inch full, we shall be able to maintain the position of the balance pin as
already calculated. Such a proportion supplies the very best arrangement. In
order to fix the proportions in the reader’s mind we repeat them in tabular
form, as follows:
Inches
Length between front of key and balance pin 9 9⁄20
Length between balance pin and capstan or sticker 6 3⁄10
Total length of key between front and capstan or sticker 15 3⁄4
3
Depth of fall of front portion of key ⁄8 full
1
Height of rise of back portion of key ⁄4 full
The front portion of the key is mounted upon a rail of the key-frame which
is provided with a pin. This pin works in a mortise cut in the bottom of the
front portion of the key and bushed with cloth. The pin is oval in form and
adapted to be turned so as partially to increase the amount of space
occupied by it whenever wear or age tend unduly to enlarge the size of the
mortise.
The exact size of all the various action parts that are mounted above and in
connection with the keys depends largely upon the exact interior
dimensions of the grand pianoforte case. So that it becomes necessary
carefully to measure the height from the key-bed to the level of the strings,
and also the distance from the front of the keys to the line of damper lifter
wires, and from there to the extreme rear end of the key-bed. Likewise the
exact position of the middle string of each three-string group, the middle
point of each two-string group and the position of each single string must be
marked upon a stick for the guidance of the action-maker. The latter will
then be able to effect the correct alignment of the hammers, the rise of the
escapement lever and jack, and the exact position, in reference to these, of
the other parts of the action. It will, of course, be understood that the
proportionate dimensions of all the action parts depend upon the
measurements that we mentioned just now, as well as upon the dimensions
of the keys. The greatest care is therefore necessary in making these
measurements.

GRAND PIANOFORTE ACTION WITH METALLIC ACTION AND
DAMPER FRAMES, SOSTENUTO PEDAL DEVICE AND
HAMMER SWINGING SOFT PEDAL ATTACHMENT.
22. Sostenuto pedal-rod.
23. Attachment to damper-lever engaging with sostenuto pedal-
rod.
24. Metallic action and damper-brackets.
25. Hammer swing-rail and cushion.
26. Hammer swing-rail rod.
27. Hammer swing-rail lifter.
28. Lifter-rod.
29. Lost motion compensating levers.
30. Lost motion compensating levers.

The junction of these parts with the damper mechanism lies within the
province of the action finisher and regulator and will therefore be treated in
the chapter on action regulation.
It will be observed then, to return to the consideration of the action in its
actual movements, that the depression of the key causes the wippen to rise
at its forward end. This brings the escapement lever (4) to bear upon the
roller (6), with which it is in continual contact, and raises the hammer-shank

and hammer-head (5) and (7). At the same time the jack (3) is raised and its
tail end is brought nearer to the button (8), which it finally touches. As soon
as this happens the jack is tripped up and its head comes out of contact with
the roller. The latter in the meantime, having been raised away from the
escapement lever by the action of the jack, falls back into contact with the
former and is then borne up on the lever so that the hammer is maintained
in position near to the strings. The result of this is that so long as the finger
is held on the front of the key, the whole action is continually in proper
position to actuate the hammer. The jack is not permitted to fall away, for
the roller is maintained in the right place by the escapement lever and it
thus happens that a very small angular motion of the key obtained by
slightly raising and depressing the finger, is sufficient to cause the whole
action to be set in motion, and the operation of actuating the hammer to be
gone through as often and as rapidly as required.
The pedal motions of the grand action are simple. The whole action and
keys, as we know, are mounted upon the key-frame together, and thus form
a homogeneous structure. The “piano” pedal is caused to shift this frame so
that the hammers each strike only two of the members of each three-string
group and only one of each two-string group. This is effected by the use of
a heavy spring that is set in the side of the interior case and bears against
the key-frame, and by a lever that operates from a hole cut in the bottom of
the key-bed and engages with one of the bars of the key-frame. The pedal is
connected with this iron lever so as to shift the key-frame, and the spring
operates to push the key-frame back into place whenever the foot-pressure
is removed from the pedal.
The “forte” pedal simply pushes up the whole line of damper levers (16)
each of which is pivoted on flanges (21) for that purpose. The lifting is
effected by means of a rod connecting with the pedal which is projected
through the bottom of the key-bed and engages with a rail set under the line
of damper levers and adapted to raise them when operated by the pedal-rod.
There are, however, two variations to the pedal mechanism of grand
pianofortes that require some attention on account of their mechanical
interest. These are clearly illustrated and described in the cut and
specifications shown on adjoining page.

The working of the sostenuto pedal and of the new soft pedal device will be
readily comprehended by reference to the cut.
It will be noted, in the first place, that the metallic action brackets which
were omitted in the previous drawing for the sake of exhibiting the working
parts more clearly, are now shown.
The “sostenuto pedal” is devised to permit the sustaining of a chord while
the fingers of the performer, for the purpose of continuing the melody, are
withdrawn from the keys. It will be observed that the action is provided
with a rod (22) which is connected with a pedal and is adapted to be
brought into contact with an additional damper-lever (23). This additional
lever is provided with a tongue of felt, and when the rod is turned on its
axis, this tongue engages with a similar metallic device on the rod, thus
holding the damper up as long as the rod is kept in the position of contact.
When the key is pressed down, the damper rises to clear the string, and
brings the additional lever up with it, so that, if the rod is now caused to
revolve, the tongues on each engage one with another and the damper is
held up as long as the pedal is pressed down and irrespective of the position
of the key. Provided that the keys are first depressed, the pedal will always
hold up as many of the dampers as are thus raised. The result is to sustain
the sound of the strings after the hand has been removed from the key. This
gives a more permanent character to the harmonization of a melody, without
the dissonance that comes from the releasing of all the dampers by the
ordinary “forte” pedal. The “sostenuto pedal” is generally situated between
the others in the lyre or pedal case at the level of the player’s feet.
The second device is also most interesting. It consists of a method for
softening the sound of the string, by a method similar to that which is
employed in the upright. It is claimed, and with some justice, that the use of
the shifting key-frame is attended with various complications, and that the
motion tends to hinder the adjustment of the action to the strings. Moreover
the hammers become unevenly worn by being continually caused to strike
two, instead of three, strings and this operates to cause loss of directness in
the hammer-strokes.
In this new device, the hammer is provided with a swing-rail (25), having a
cushion for the hammer-rebound similar to the ordinary cushion that is
supported upon the wippen in most actions, and a rod (26) for pivoting it to

the metallic action frame (24). The swing-rail also is fitted with a lifter (27),
which is operated by the soft pedal through a lifter-rod (28). So far the
process is simple. The effect of the motion of the swing-rail is to bring the
hammer closer to the string and to soften the tone. But this is only
accomplished at the cost of lost motion between the capstan-screw and the
key. To avoid the loss of touch thus brought about, the lifter-rod is
connected with two compensating levers (29) and (30), which are so
adjusted that they form a continuous link between the parts where the lost
motion would occur, and thus preserve the continuity of touch and the
weight that is lost by the different actuating positions of the hammer. The
ingenuity of this device commends it to the student of pianoforte
mechanism, and the makers are entitled to great praise for the successful
achievement of this important modification.
We may conclude our survey by giving a list of the materials of which
grand actions are constructed.
Various Woods—
Pear tree Damper heads.
Holly Jacks and other small parts.
Sycamore Jacks and other small parts.
Ebony Tops of black keys.
Maple Hammer moldings and shanks.
Mahogany Hammer moldings, buttons, etc.
White pine Key-frames.
Felts and Cloths—
Baize On key-frames, hammer-rails, etc.
Baize Punchings.
Flannel cloth Bushing centre pin holes, damper lifter holes, etc.
Tone felt Upper and under felt for hammer.
Hard felt Bass damper wedges.
Soft felt Treble dampers, etc.
Flannel Sundry action parts.
Leathers and Skins
—
Doeskin Various parts of action, operating faces of
Buckskin hammer-butts, etc.

Elkskin
Ivory Tops of white keys.
Celluloid Fronts of white keys.
Graphite Lubrication of working parts.
Iron Action frames, screws, etc.
Brass Centre pins, springs, pedal-feet, etc.

STANDARD AMERICAN UPRIGHT ACTION.
1. Key-rocker. 12. Tip of bridle-tape.
2. Abstract. 13. Bridle-tape.
3. Abstract-lever. 14. Back-stop.
4. Flange. 15. Regulating rail.
5. Action-rail. 16. Regulating button.
6. Wippen. 17. Regulating screw.
7. Jack. 18. Hammer-butt.
8. Jack-spring. 19. Hammer-shank.
9. Check. 20. Hammer-molding.
10. Check-wire. 21. Hammer-head.
11. Bridle-wire. 22. Hammer-rail.
23. Hammer-butt spring.
24. Hammer-spring rail.
25. Damper-spoon.
26. Damper-lifting rod.
27. Damper-lever.
28. Damper-lever spring.
29. Damper-wire.
30. Damper-block.
31. Damper-head.
32. String.
33. Continuous brass hammer-butt flange.

We are now able to turn our attention to the action mechanism of the
upright pianoforte. The historical chapter of this work contains a short
description of the early history of the upright form. Of course, it will at
once be seen that the only real mechanical difficulty in designing a vertical
type of pianoforte was to be found in the department of touch-mechanism.
The problem was indeed primarily of the action. As such it is interesting to
note the efforts of Hawkins, Southwell and Loud, to produce an action that
would approach in efficiency that of the grand. It was Robert Wornum,
however, who found the solution, though not until nearly the end of the first
quarter of the nineteenth century. The principle applied by Wornum
possessed such value that it has never been superseded, and remains today
the distinguishing feature of the upright action.

We refer, of course, to the tape. As applied to the action of uprights, this
device has become universal, and all upright actions in consequence have
for years been everywhere similar as to general design. Thus we do not find
those radical differences of actuating principle that to this day distinguish
American from certain European grand pianofortes. This is partly due to the
fact that the great battles had already been fought out when the first
successful upright actions were made. At present, the only remaining types
of the ancient “sticker” leather-hinged action are to be found in old-
fashioned and obsolete European pianofortes of the cheaper grade. None are
made now, however, except in the case of a very few worthless commercial
English instruments. In the United States the “sticker” action has hardly
been heard of.
Thus it seems unnecessary to give detailed drawings of any but the accepted
type of upright action. The reader’s attention is immediately called,
therefore, to the drawing herewith given.
The method of operation may be seen very clearly. Depression of the key, to
which is screwed the key-rocker (1), causes the Abstract (2) and the Wippen
(6) to rise. This brings the Jack (7) to bear against the butt (18), which is
raised, forcing the hammer (20) and (21) through the shank (19) against the
string (32). As the hammer strikes, the rise of the jack has brought its tail
against the regulating-button (16), which trips it up so that it falls towards
the back-stop (14). The butt, being thus left free, drops back, assisted by the
pull of the tape (13), until the back-stop is caught and held by the check (9),
thus leaving time for the jack to get back under the hammer butt through the
aid of the spring (8). Repetition of the hammer is thus assured, and while
the rapidity of stroke cannot be so great as that of the grand, it is sufficiently
so to satisfy ordinary users. Sometimes a spring is fastened to the front of
the jack in connection with a silk loop and cord which stretches back and
engages with the hammer spring (23). The latter is then fastened to the
hammer butt instead of to a rail (24). This arrangement gives a far more
rapid repetition to the action and causes it to approach the delicacy of the
double escapement of the grand.

UPRIGHT ACTION SHOWING LOST-MOTION DEVICE,
METALLIC REGULATING RAIL SUPPORT, CAPSTAN SCREW,
JACK REGULATING RAIL AND METALLIC ACTION
BRACKETS.
34. Hammer-rail lifter-wire.
35. Hammer-rail swing-lever.
36. Hammer-rail lifter rod.
37. Lifter-rod lever.
38. Compensation-lever.
39. Capstan-screw.
40. Rail for limiting return movement of jack.
41. Metallic regulating rail support.

The pedal mechanism is the same as in the grand. The “piano” effect is
obtained by pushing forward the hammer-rail (22), so that the hammers
approach nearer to the strings. The “forte” pedal effect is obtained by use of
the damper lifting rod (26) which is turned rearwards and forces back the
whole line of damper heads so that they leave the strings.
The lost motion that occurs in the action when the “piano” pedal is used has
been overcome in a most ingenious manner, and by means similar to those
already described in the discussion of the grand action. The trouble to be
overcome is the same, namely the lifting up of the abstract from the rocker
or capstan screw caused by the forcing of the hammers towards the strings.
This causes loss of touch and is very irritating to the performer.
The drawing given herewith also shows the metallic action bracket for
supporting the action and the capstan screw that is used as an alternate to
the key-rocker.
The lost motion attachment operates through the rod (36) which lifts the
hammer rail and at the same time brings into play the compensation lever
(38), which takes up the space between the abstract and the key that would
otherwise intervene. Thus the touch remains true irrespective of the position
of the hammer.
The materials that are required for the manufacture of the upright action do
not differ from those, which we have already classified as pertaining to the

grand.
The adjustment of the upright action requires that the same precautions be
taken in the measurement of the key-bed, of the height of the action
between the keys and striking-point of hammers, the distance of hammer
from strings when at rest and so on. All these assist the action maker to
adjust the alignment of the hammers and the height of the abstracts. The
size of the pianoforte sometimes requires the omission of the abstracts, in
which case the bottom of the wippen is felted and brought into contact with
the capstan or rocker direct. All these details are attended to by the action
maker when the proper measurements are given. The marking on a stick of
the run of the strings is done just as was suggested for the grand scale.
In conclusion, it may be mentioned that much similarity exists between
certain parts of the action of both types of instrument. It has become
customary to make the length of the hammer shank and hammer butt, when
fitted together, about five inches, counting from the center pin of the butt to
the middle of the hammer molding. This measurement will be found correct
for both grands and uprights.
The length of the hammer blow is always as nearly as possible 1 24⁄25 inches
for the bass end, graduating to 1 9⁄10 scant in the treble. These dimensions
should be maintained at all costs. The key lengths that we gave before are
applicable to all forms of uprights. When provided with these data the
action maker will be able to put out a mechanism that will fulfill the
individual requirements of each kind of instrument.

CHAPTER XIII.
REGULATION OF PIANOFORTE TOUCH
MECHANISM.
We may presume that the reader is by this time quite familiar with the
appearance and use of the various parts of the grand and upright pianoforte
action, both as assembled and detached. We may therefore proceed to give
general instructions for the adjustment of these within the instrument and
the regulation of the various working parts into proper harmony with one
another.
We say “general instructions” advisedly; for it is quite out of the question to
teach action finishing and regulating by means of written directions.
Experience and the practical routine of the shop must be gone through by
anyone who hopes to be able to do this kind of work well. For there are few
departments of mechanical endeavor that demand such skill, care, and
patience as the regulation of pianoforte mechanism.
Nevertheless the directions that we shall give in this chapter will be
sufficient to make him who reads and digests them a very efficient critic. It
is much to the employer to be able to estimate correctly the value of each
practical detail of the construction, and the correctness of the manner in
which it is executed. This chapter is intended to provide as much of this
knowledge as may be imparted by means of written words.
We shall begin with the grand action, following the method that has been
pursued throughout this work.
The first step in the regulating and adjustment of the grand action is taken
by the “action-finisher.” He receives the action and keys separately. The
former is without hammers or dampers and the latter without rockers or
capstan screws. The action has to be placed within the space destined for it
in the instrument and the proper position for it noted. If the action has been
well made there should be no difficulty in seeing that it fits its place
correctly. The action is screwed on to the key-frame through its metallic
brackets and the capstan screws are put into the keys at the proper points so

that they engage with the cushions on the bottom of the wippens. When this
has been done the weight of the action upon any one of the keys should be
noted and the action may then be removed. A piece of lead should then be
taken and fastened to the back of each key. This lead must have the same
weight as the action has upon each key. The keys will then remain in their
proper positions when the action is removed, and the work of leveling them
may then be begun. Remembering the depth of touch that was prescribed in
the last chapter, let the extreme bass and treble keys be adjusted to an
equivalent height by wooden blocks through their front rail pins. Then run a
straight edge over the keys and proceed to adjust their levels by means of
the thin paper punchings that are provided for the purpose. These come in
various thicknesses and are laid over the balance rail pins and under the
cloth punchings that must first have been placed in position both on the
balance rail and the front rail. When the leveling is accomplished let the
action be screwed on again. Then let the hammers be glued on. The striking
point of the hammers must be carefully measured and the directions already
given as to the striking of the highest hammer must be observed. It will be
remembered that one-tenth of the string was recommended for the highest
hammers, graduating down to the ideal one-ninth and one-eighth. The scale
draughtsman will prepare a marking stick showing the true hammer line.
The hammers are glued on absolutely at right angles to the plane of the
strings. After they are dry, they must be adjusted to the proper position by
the capstan screws or rockers. They must lie just over and not quite
touching the wippen cushions. Let them also be aligned to each other,
horizontally, with great exactness. Be sure that the keys work easily and
that the depth of touch is roughly adjusted as already provided for.
It next becomes necessary to fix the damper mechanism. This is chiefly
situated in the back of the action and the damper levers are to be so adjusted
that they rest a little above the backs of the keys, ready to be engaged with
them when the fronts of the keys are depressed. The dampers must fit on to
the strings straight and must drop with sufficient force to effect an
instantaneous damping. The damper levers are leaded for this purpose.
The instrument is then taken in hand by the action regulator. His work is
most important. He first sees that the level of the keys is perfect and that
they are properly balanced when suspended without the action. If any
defects are found here they are remedied by changes in the leading. The

keys should be so leaded that they balance when tested on a scale and the
weight of touch with the action fitted must not be more than two and one-
quarter ounces.
The alignment of the hammers is then corrected and the length of the
hammer stroke, as laid down in Chapter XII, is adjusted by means of the
capstan screw or rocker. The jack is so regulated by its button and screw
that the trip up of the jack occurs when the hammer is 5⁄32 of an inch from
the string. The checks must catch the hammers when they have fallen three-
quarters of an inch away from the strings. The tails of the hammer-moldings
must be roughened and the checks be so slanted that the catch is sure and
tight.
The escapement lever is then considered. The spring that governs it requires
adjustment. It must be sufficiently strong to cause the hammer to dance and
jump a little on the lever when the key is released. The escapement lever
must also be regulated by means of the hook that is found at its rear end.
There must be space enough between the hook and the lever to ensure that
the catch of the hammer by the check is at all times free. The screw that
regulates the rise of the escapement lever must also be attended to. It is
necessary that the movement of the lever be arrested before the hammer has
quite risen to the point of the trip up of the jack.
The after-touch under the front of the keys is regulated by means of paper
punchings. If enough punchings are placed under the keys to make very
hard pressure necessary to force a release of the hammer, then punchings of
1
⁄32 of an inch in thickness must be removed to make the after touch correct.
The keys must also be made to descend evenly as judged from the top.
Unevenness is corrected also by the judicious use of punchings. In
regulating the dampers there are many small details to be watched. The
lifter-wires must work freely in the bushings and the heads must lie straight
upon the strings. This is especially important as regards the bass wedge-
dampers. There must be a small space between the damper levers and the
felted backs of the keys and the rise of the damper heads when the levers
are lifted must be even and facile. The height of ascent of the damper heads
must not exceed one-fifth of an inch, and a little more when the whole of
them are lifted by the pedal-rod. The sostenuto rod must also be adjusted so
that the damper lever tongues are caught when the rod is revolved. Care

must be taken that the rod does not catch the tongues when the pedal is not
in use.
The pedal mechanism is simple. It is essential to see that the feet work in
the lyre without scraping; hence lubrication with graphite and tallow is
necessary. The rods that connect with the action levers must so engage as to
be just in contact without bearing too much. The soft “piano” pedal must
engage with the shifting lever so as to allow a small space between it and
the point of contact with the key-frame. The strength of the reaction spring
in the case must be arranged so that the key-board is pushed back with
promptness upon the release of the pedal. The “forte” pedal must be
adjusted so that its connecting rod is in contact with the damper lever lifting
rail, but not enough to operate without the depression of the pedal. The
sostenuto pedal requires to be arranged to revolve the sostenuto rod
instantly. Here the rod has to be revolved its entire distance before it
operates and the adjustment may therefore be made quite close.
These directions will enable one at least to be sure that the regulation of a
grand pianoforte action has been properly done; although it is not to be
expected that the innumerable small details of practical work are to be
learned other than practically. It must especially be borne in mind that the
use of tools and facility in handling them and making definite adjustments
with them is a matter of long and patient practice. The above instructions
are intended merely to set the routine method before the reader, so that he
may approach the subject with a correct knowledge of principles.
The regulation and adjustment of the upright action is precisely similar as to
principles. The differences occur through the somewhat dissimilar method
whereby repetition is attained and the great variation in the general position
of the parts with reference to the strings.
The action of the upright is fastened, by means of the metallic brackets, to
iron bolts which are set up in the key-bed. The height of these bolts depends
upon the dimensions of the instrument and the striking point of the strings.
In setting the action in place great care must be exercised in seeing that the
hammer line lies truly in regard to the run of the strings. Errors in the
casting of the plate often lead to a distortion of the true string-line and the
action finisher must take care to set the action with due regard to these
matters. When the action, which is minus hammers and dampers, is thus set

in, the keys may be placed under it for the purpose of marking the points
where the capstan screws or rockers must be set. The hammers and dampers
are then glued in and adjusted for position with regard to the strings. If the
action and keys are truly proportioned, it is always possible to make the
length of the key just as recommended in the last chapter. Sometimes the
size of the pianoforte makes impossible the employment of capstans or
rockers with abstracts. In this case it is customary either to use a dowel prop
or to lay the wippen directly upon the key. When the dowel prop is used it is
driven firmly into the key, and its upper end, which is a wooden rod into
which the lower spike is screwed, impinges against the wippen. In laying
the place for the dowel to be driven, it must be remembered that it is
necessary for the head of the dowel to hit the bottom of the wippen
squarely. But the dowel describes a curve at its head when the key is
moving, and the wippen has to be provided with a felted foot, curved so as
to accommodate this circular motion of the dowel. This motion must be
observed carefully, so that the dowel does not lay too far forward or back of
the wippen foot when the key is at either of its extreme positions. The
regulation proper now begins.
Abstracts, or dowels, are always regulated by a screw. This is either in the
form of a capstan or of a rocker, or of the movable part of the dowel itself.
The adjustment must be made with reference to the position of the jack
under the hammer butt. It is necessary that the jack be just in contact with
the notched heel of the butt. After the hammers and dampers have been put
in and their positions with reference to the keys adjusted, it becomes
necessary to regulate the escape of the hammer by means of the regulating
buttons and the jacks. The directions given for grands apply here. The
hammer springs must be put in place and the fall of the hammers noted. If
they stick, the bushings are too tight or some cognate trouble exists which
can be easily remedied with a drop of oil on the affected part.
The checks must be adjusted to the back-stops and made to stand square to
them and they must also be arranged to catch the back-stops when the
hammer has recovered about two-thirds of an inch from the string. We
know that the length of the hammer blow should be from 1 24⁄25 of an inch in
the bass to 1 9⁄10 of an inch in the treble.
The tapes must be adjusted so that they begin to exercise their pull when the
hammer is started away from the strings. They must not be strained too

tight, but should be left just a little loose, so that when the soft pedal pushes
the hammers towards the strings the abstracts or dowels do not at once
leave the keys.
The dampers are adjusted, as to position, like those of the grand—that is,
they must lie square on the strings and be in a straight line with one another.
Their movements are directed by the spoons and these must be so bent that
the damper begins to move when about one-third of the angular motion of
the key has taken place. When actuated by the pedal, they must fall against
the back of the hammer spring rail, which is felted for the purpose, and their
motion must be instantaneous when the pedal is depressed. The pedal
mechanism is concealed behind the bottom frame of the case and will be
found to be precisely similar to that of the grand, except as regards the
mounting and pivoting of the levers. These must be kept lubricated with
graphite and tallow to prevent squeaking. The connection of the soft pedal
with the hammer rail must be close so that instantaneous action results
when the pedal is operated. The motion of the pedal may push the hammers
one-half of their stroke length towards the strings, not more.
The leveling of the keys and the regulation of touch have already been
described; nothing further need be said except that these operations are
more easily performed in the upright owing to the open way in which
everything is set in.
It is unnecessary to go further into detail in regard to the regulation of
actions. Enough has been said to lay bare the general principles, and, as was
stated before, the rest comes from experience only. A text-book can never
replace an apprenticeship, but we cannot deny its value in laying down
correct principles for the man who wants to know how things should be
done.
As a fitting conclusion to the present discussion, we may now note the
order of the various processes which combine to make up the manufacture
of a pianoforte, from the cutting of the lumber to the final tuning in the
wareroom.
The various kinds of lumber that are to be used are exposed, after cutting
and rough dressing, in a lumber-yard. Here they remain from three to ten
years according to the kind of wood and the degree of care that is taken by

the manufacturer. The best makers take the greatest care in seasoning their
lumber.
The first operations to be considered are those of the saw-mill. Here the
rough work for the case-making is done, and the moldings for actions and
cases are turned out. The rough cases are then sent to the case department
and made up into shape. The bent rims are there glued together for the
grands, and the sides and frames of the uprights are shaped. The back
framing, wrest-planks and other parts of the case and back construction are
also put together in the case department.
In the meantime, the machine work has gone in the rough from the saw-mill
to the “action department,” where it is cut, shaped and made up into the
delicate action parts. These have to be leathered, felted, provided with
brackets, springs and the other accessories and assembled. The hammers are
covered, dampers, prepared, and the whole of the action work is thus made
ready against the time when the case shall be in condition to receive it. This
action and hammer work is generally done by specialists, who supply many
different makers with actions according to their particular scales and
patterns.
Meanwhile the cases have been sent to the varnish room and are here
prepared with filler and stain to receive the varnish finish. The best
instruments have their cases left about four months in the varnish room,
receiving eight or ten coats at intervals of ten days or more.
While this is going on, the sound-board department is occupied in preparing
the sheets of spruce for manufacture into sound-boards. Here great care and
skill are necessary to obtain the proper gradation of thickness at all parts of
the board’s surface. When the boards are finished, they are put into drying
rooms, to remain until wanted for ribbing, bridging and insertion within the
instruments.
The first operation in the assembling of the parts is performed by the
“bellyman.” He takes the sound-board, ribs it and affixes the bridges
according to pattern, bores the tuning pin holes in the wrest-plank, and
fastens on the iron plate, which was cast to pattern in the iron foundry, to
the back, upon which the completed sound-board has by this time been
glued.

Then the “stringer” receives the bellied back, puts on the strings and
pressure bar (if the latter is used instead of agraffes). The first rough
approximation to pitch is then made by the “chipper,” who pulls the strings
up roughly two or three times in succession at intervals of about twenty-
four hours.
The case is then turned over to the “side-gluer,” if the instrument be an
upright. The case of the grand is incorporated with the back and is put
together before the bellying. The side-gluer affixes the sides and key-bed of
the upright and also the bottom-board, which contains the trap-work for the
pedal mechanism. If the instrument be a grand this department confines
itself to the fitting and adjustment of the lyre. After the sides are thus
affixed the case is returned to the “flowing-room,” where the final coat of
“flowing” varnish is carefully applied. This requires ten days to dry hard.
The case is now ready for the “action finisher.” His work of setting in the
action and keys and putting the instrument into rough playing condition has
been described in detail.
The pianoforte is then given its first rough tuning by the “rough-tuner,” who
surrenders it in turn to the “fly-finisher.” In this department the top and
bottom frames, fall-board, panels, key-blocks, name-board, key-slip,
hinges, music desk and other parts of the cabinet work are adjusted and
fitted. After fitting they are removed from the case and sent to the
“polishing department” to be made ready for the final setting up.
The next operation is performed by the “action regulator.” His work, which
includes the finishing touches to the adjustments made by the action-
finisher and side-gluer, has already been gone over in detail.
The instrument is by this time ready for another and somewhat more careful
tuning. Here appears the “second tuner.” The instrument then is permitted to
remain in its existing condition until two more tunings have been given at
intervals of a week.
The “fine-regulator” next takes the instrument and proceeds to review the
work of the action-regulator and correct any deficiencies in touch or
repetition that may have been effected by the pounding of the rough tuners.
The “tone-regulator” is next called upon, and his delicate work is needed to
give to the pianoforte evenness of tone throughout and an agreeable quality.

Then the polishers rub down the sides, the smaller parts being already
polished as noted before, and give to the instrument its glossy and mirror-
like finish. The “setter-up” then puts the various cabinet work parts together
and the “fine-tuner” gives the final tuning. Lastly, the superintendent looks
over the whole work, and woe betide the unlucky wight who has slurred or
skimped his part.
The details listed above are, of course, subject to variations in the order in
which they are performed. The variations are according to the practice of
individual shops. Of course, it may at any time be required to give more
tunings, especially if the pianoforte is left on the floor of the factory very
long. But there should never be less than four or five.
When the instrument is sent to the wareroom or shipped to the dealer extra
tunings are given according to the caprice or knowledge of both.

CHAPTER XIV.
TUNING AND TONE REGULATION OF THE
PIANOFORTE.
The art of tuning the pianoforte is one of considerable complexity and
obscurity. During all the time that has elapsed since the key-board
instrument first came into being, controversies innumerable have raged over
the multifarious questions that the practice of the art implies. This
distressing state of affairs is primarily due to the fact that a system of
“tempering” the sounds produced by key-board instruments is necessary, in
order that playing in more than one key may be possible.
The whole matter of musical intonation was treated with some
completeness in the early part of this work, and the reader may be expected
to comprehend the principles of the Equal Temperament upon which the
tuning of the pianoforte and of all other fixed tone instruments is now
universally based. It is not within our province, in the course of a treatise
upon the principles of pianoforte construction, to venture too deeply into
the quagmires that surround the aspirant for the honors of the tuner. The
discussion of musical intonation and the Equal Temperament was made for
the principal purpose of acquainting the student with the reason for the
peculiar construction of scales, as to their string lengths, and to make clear
the raison d’etre of the frequent divergences from theoretical proportions of
strings and tones that we have been obliged to note.
The scale designer is better equipped for his task, however, if he possess a
working knowledge of the principles upon which the science and art of
tuning are based. This is the justification for the space and time devoted to
the exhibition of certain of these principles in the earlier portion of this
book. As a further contribution to this useful body of knowledge, we shall
point out here the general scheme whereby the tuner proceeds to the
execution of his important, indeed essential, portion of the whole work.
The practical work of tuning is performed by the aid of certain acoustical
phenomena which enable the tuner to distinguish between sounds that are

very nearly in unison. As the Equal Temperament requires the slight
roughening of all the intervals with the exception of the unison and octave,
it is clear that there is great value in a method of estimating, not only the
unisonal or non-unisonal condition of two sounds, but also the exact
amount of difference that may occur between them. The phenomena
mentioned are called “beats,” and it is well that their physical basis should
be described here.
From what has been said before, it is clear that musical sounds, generated as
they are by the periodic agitation of the air according to fixed laws, are but
the audible manifestations of a peculiar form of air-motion. The particular
form of air-motion can best be described as a wave. Whenever a sonorous
body is excited into vibration it causes the surrounding atmosphere to make
motions that correspond to its own. A vibrating body such as we have
described (together with the segments thereof) partakes of a motion that
may be compared to that of a pendulum. There is a rhythmic swinging back
and forth of the body and its segments, with the result that the immediately
adjacent layers of air are excited into alternate states of compression and
expansion; or, more correctly, of condensation and rarefaction. This
rhythmic motion is imparted by the layers of air adjacent to the sonorous
body to the next adjacent layers, and so on. The result of this is that a wave
is formed, the length of which varies inversely as the number of vibrations
performed by the sonorous body. This wave is called a sonorous wave.
Now we know that sounds are at the same pitch when they are generated by
sonorous bodies having the same speed of vibration, and it is easy to
perceive that, if two such bodies are sounding together, the condensations
and rarefactions of the layers of air will synchronize with each other, so that
both will be exciting condensations at the same instant and likewise will
generate rarefactions simultaneously. And even if the two bodies have not
exactly the same speed, the result will be equally simple as long as their
speeds bear simple ratios to each other. Thus two bodies which are emitting
sounds at the interval of an octave or of a fifth or fourth will generate
condensations and rarefactions in such a manner that they will not interfere
one with another. But the case is different where two sounds are separated
by differences in pitch that cannot be expressed by simple ratios. For
example, if one sound be one vibration per second higher than another, it is
clear that by the time that the first sounding body has completed its given

number of vibrations in one second, the other will be one vibration behind.
When, therefore, the vibrations of the first body are continued into the next
second the condensation of one wave will be completely synchronous with
neither the condensation nor the rarefaction of the other. The obvious result
is that at a certain point the condensations of each wave concur while at
another point the condensation of one crosses the rarefaction of the other. In
the first case we have a considerable augmentation of sound and in the other
case a complete silence. As the waves thus approach and recede there is a
gradual diminution of sound followed by a complete cessation for a small
fraction of a second, and then a gradual increase until the point of greatest
augmentation occurs. This latter happens when the two condensations
concur, and the gradual rise and fall of the sound correspond to the gradual
approach of this concurrence in the first case and to the similar advance of
the point of crossing in the second. This phenomenon of alternate
augmentation and diminution of sound separated by an almost inappreciable
interval of silence occurs whenever two sounds of nearly the same pitch are
heard simultaneously. These peculiar changes in the intensity of a sound are
denominated “beats.”
This description of the physical nature of “beats” will be sufficient to make
clear to us how a recognition of them is of value to the tuner. From what we
have just said, it will be observed that the number of beats that may be set
up between any two sounds depends upon the difference in the frequency of
the two sonorous bodies. So that the number of beats form a true guide to
the exact amount of difference between sounds that are nearly in
consonance. Thus, if it becomes a matter of tuning a certain interval a little
flat or sharp, in order to comply with the requirements of Equal
Temperament, the operation may be readily performed by observing the
number of beats that are heard between the two sounds when one of them is
sharpened or flattened. So that all schemes of tuning must necessarily be
founded upon a recognition of this important phenomenon.
At this point it will be well to reiterate the fact that the Equal Temperament
owes its popularity and long prevalence to the wonderful facility of
modulation which it possesses. While it certainly involves discords and
disharmonics that the mesotonic system, for instance, avoided, yet the fact
that it does not limit the expression of musical ideas to a few scales, but
permits the composer to roam at will through the whole field of tonalities,

has given to it a deeply founded popularity that has not yet been seriously
challenged. We must bear in mind that the Equal Temperament is the first
fact, the “prius,” the “proton hemin,” as it were, of musical performance.
Obviously, therefore, the importance of a proper and close adherence to this
system in the tuning of fixed-tone instruments cannot be insisted upon too
strongly. The reader has already had occasion to examine a comparative
table which showed the pitches of a true and of a corresponding tempered
scale. He will have noted that the tempered scale errs very greatly in respect
to certain intervals. The task of equalizing the thirteen sounds which a
fixed-tone instrument allows to the octave, involves in each interval a
greater or less divergence from purity, according to the ratio of such
interval. Thus we find that the error of a tempered third is greater than that
of a fifth, and so on. Now, if the four minor thirds within the compass of an
octave be considered, it will be found that the octave to the tonic which is
produced from the last of these is a good deal sharper than the octave taken
direct from the tonic. Again the octave produced from the building up of the
three major thirds within the same compass is very much flatter than the
octave taken direct from the tonic. Again, it will be remembered that there
are twelve fifths within the compass of seven octaves. The last sound in this
progression of fifths is considerably sharper than the sound that is produced
by taking a series of seven octaves from the tonic. Without going into
figures, we may give the differences thus noted concisely as follows:
In the cases above considered the octaves obtained by building up intervals
differ from the straight octave in the following proportions:
The octave produced from minor thirds is sharper in the ratio
1296:1250.
The octave produced from major thirds is flatter in the ratio 125:128.
The octave produced from fifths is sharper in the ratio
531441:524288.
Obviously, therefore, it will be necessary to tune all the minor thirds, within
an octave, flat by one-fourth each of the ratio given for them. It will also be
necessary to tune each of the major thirds sharp by one-third of the ratio
proper to those intervals. Likewise each of the perfect fifths must be made
flat by one-twelfth of the ratio given above for fifths.

We are thus able to understand just how great divergencies from purity are
involved in the Equal Temperament of major thirds, minor thirds and fifths.
As far as the other intervals are concerned, it is obvious that if the thirds
and fifths are equally tempered and the octaves tuned quite purely, the other
intervals will be subjected simultaneously and automatically to a similar
process of temper.
Now from what we learned of the phenomena of beats, we must conclude
that the tempering process when applied to these intervals will generate
beats between the sounds that compose each interval. We know that beats
must occur when the sounds that form any consonant interval are not quite
in tune with one another. We also know that the frequency of the beats
depends upon the difference in frequency of the generating sounds. We can,
therefore, easily see that those intervals that are subjected to the greatest
amount of tempering will produce the greatest number of beats. And further,
as the actual frequencies of the sounds increase according to their pitch, it is
equally obvious that the tempering will result in greater differences as to
actual frequency between the true and the corresponding tempered
intervals. Therefore the number of beats that any tempered interval
generates varies directly as the pitch of the sounds that form the interval.
The higher the pitch, the greater the number of beats. Conversely, the lower
the pitch, the smaller the number of beats.
Now we have already noted that the phenomena of beats afford an
absolutely precise test for the consonance or otherwise of an interval. If we
can estimate the number of beats that should occur between the sounds of
any given equally tempered interval, we can always tune such an interval in
the Equal Temperament by noting the number of beats and adjusting this to
the theoretical number in the calculations. It is not possible accurately to
follow the number of beats that are supposed to be between any given
intervals in Equal Temperament even when the pitch of the tonic of the
interval that is being tuned is precisely similar to the corresponding sound
in the calculations. It is not possible, therefore, in practice, to tune with such
accuracy as theory would demand, but an approximation may be obtained.
If we could secure an absolute standardization of pitch for the pianoforte it
would be possible to construct tables that would show the exact number of
beats that ought to occur between all the equally tempered sounds within
the whole compass. In default of such a method, it is necessary to resort to a

variety of tests and to prove the correctness of the tempering of each
interval by comparison of the different intervals of various kinds that to
which each sound, as it is completed, gives rise. If, for example, we find
that any given sound, when tuned, gives the same number of beats with the
tenth below as it does with the third below, which is one octave above the
tenth, then we have some assurance that the sound in question is properly
tempered. If this assurance is confirmed by a complete absence of beats
between the given sound and its octave, above or below, then we have an
almost absolute assurance as to the correctness of the work.
It is then upon the phenomena of beats that the tuner depends for a guide to
the correctness of the work in which he is engaged. By noting the frequency
of the beats at some places, or their absence at others, he is able to judge
most accurately whether any interval is tuned too sharp or too flat, or
whether any octave is tuned purely or the reverse. All good tuning depends
entirely upon such estimation of the beats, and the greatest difficulty that
the tuner encounters lies in the fact that he must try to equalize the
frequencies of the beats between all the intervals of the same kind within
the compass of each octave. If this work is well and truly done it properly
deserves the name of art, and, indeed, fine tuning is a fine art, one to be
acquired by the painful and slow processes of manual practice and mental
application. He who overcomes all obstacles to success and masters
thoroughly the principles and practice of tuning is an artist in the truest
sense.
In applying these principles to the tuning of the pianoforte, the problem that
confronts us is to devise a rapid and simple means of tempering each sound
within the seven odd octaves of the instrument, and to do this in such a
manner that the deviation from purity shall be the same for all similar
intervals within the compass of each octave.
Now it follows, from what has gone before, that the tempering of each
separate interval, by itself, and without reference to any other, would be a
very tedious and inaccurate process. It would, in fact, be quite impracticable
to employ such means for intervals that require relatively large deviations
from purity, especially in the higher pitched registers. There is, however, a
method that largely obviates these difficulties. The middle octave of the
instrument, which runs from F below middle C to F above it, is chosen, and
the intervals within this octave are so tuned that the thirteen semitones

which it contains become equally tempered sounds. The sounds within the
next octave above or below are thereupon tuned from the former, each to its
octave above or below, and this process is continued until all the sounds
upon the key-board have been tuned.
It is easy to see that such a method possesses many and great advantages.
All the difficult tempering of intervals that require large deviations from
purity is confined to that portion of the piano where beats are most easily
estimated; while the rest of the instrument is tuned by means of octave
intervals, in which the test of purity is absence of beats, rather than the
estimation of any number of them.
The tempering of the intervals in the middle octave is called “laying the
bearings” and is the most difficult, as it is the most important, of the various
processes incident to the practice of pianoforte tuning. The “accumulation
of insensible into almost intolerable errors,” as Mr. Ellis aptly terms it,
continually besets the path of the tuner, especially if his preliminary
knowledge be imperfect. The true estimation of beats, as generated by
various intervals, is an art that is but slowly and painfully acquired, by long
practice and training of the ear.
Examination of the pianoforte key-board shows us thirteen sounds within
the compass of an octave. In proceeding to the conversion of these into
equally tempered sounds, we have more than one method presented to us.
We shall, of course, choose the octave which, as stated above, runs from F
below middle C to F above it, and shall use, for our purposes, such adjacent
sounds as we may consider necessary.
It is usual to take from a tuning-fork the pitch of the sound from which the
tuning is begun. These instruments are tuned either to C, or A next above
middle C. It is usual, in this country, to tune from C, and we shall, therefore,
adopt that method.
Now there are various ways of setting about the “laying of the bearings.”
Some tuners work by thirds, others by fourths and fifths; others again use a
series or circle of fifths joined by octaves. Whatever intervals are tuned, the
idea is to include all the thirteen sounds within the octave and to use, as far
as possible, only one or two kinds of intervals.

Of all these methods, the shortest, easiest and most accurate is that which
employs fourths and fifths only. It is used in such a manner that, by tuning a
circle of fifths and fourths, the last sound tuned provides the octave to the
first, thus completing the circle and the octave of tempered sounds.

[Listen]

In this method we proceed as follows:
1. Pitch C is tuned by the tuning fork.
2. F below pitch C is tuned, being a tempered fifth.
3. G below pitch C is tuned, being a tempered fourth.
4. D above G is tuned, being a tempered fifth.
5. A below D is tuned, being a tempered fourth.
6. E above A is tuned, being a tempered fifth.
7. B below E is tuned, being a tempered fourth.
8. F sharp below B is tuned, being a tempered fourth.
9. C sharp above F sharp is tuned, being a tempered fifth.
10. G sharp below C sharp is tuned, being a tempered fourth.
11. D sharp above G sharp is tuned, being a tempered fifth.
12. A sharp below D sharp is tuned, being a tempered fourth.
13. F above A sharp is tuned, being a tempered fourth.

This last F is the octave to the first F tuned, and should coincide exactly
with the latter.
The reader will, of course, realize that the tempering of these various
intervals must be tested by means of the generated beats. Helmholtz, in
“Die Lehre der Tonempfindungen,” calculates that the tempered fifths
should average .6 of a beat per second at standard pitch within the octave
that we are treating. This is equivalent to three beats in five seconds. But it
is impracticable to measure the generated beats upon the pianoforte in this
manner. The tone of the instrument is too evanescent and fleeting. We may,
however, attain to a very fair approximation. If, for example, each fifth be
tuned so that two distinct beats are heard before the sound dies away, it will
be found that the beat-rate is a near approximation to the calculated
average. The two beats that we speak of occur in about three seconds, while
the Helmholtz rate is three and one-third seconds for two beats.
Again Helmholtz gives an average beat-rate for tempered fourths in the
same octave; namely, one per second. If we tune the fourths so that we hear
three distinct beats we shall likewise obtain a very fair approximation to the
calculated beat-rate.
We showed above that the last sound produced by the building up of a
progression of twelve fifths is sharper than the sound produced by the piling
up of seven octaves from the same tonic. The two sounds thus produced
ought to coincide, for the compass of twelve fifths and of seven octaves is
the same. We concluded, therefore, that the Equal Temperament required
the flattening of all the fifths.
The meaning of the discussion is, therefore, that the fifths within the octave
where the “bearings” are being laid must each be tuned flat by two beats.
Or, rather, that the higher sound of every fifth must be flatter by two beats
than if it were in consonance with the lower sound.
Again, if we tune the F below middle C two beats sharp of the latter (which
is equivalent to tuning the fixed pitch sound C two beats flat of F) we shall
obtain a properly tempered fifth. Now, if the octave above this F be taken it
will be found to form a sharp fourth with middle C. For example, if the
pitch of middle C be 264, then the pitch of F below it, in pure intonation, is
two-thirds or 176. Assuming that the F be then tempered so as to be sharp
by two vibrations, it will have a frequency of 178. The octave to this is 356

But this latter is a fourth above C 264 and should, therefore, be 352
Consequently we see that the fourths in Equal Temperament are to be tuned
sharp ascending, or conversely, flat descending. As already explained, the
beat-rate in the “bearings” should be nearly one per second or three beats,
while the sound of the interval remains audible.
When the deviations from purity are as slight as in the cases that we have
been considering, it is by no means easy to determine, at all times, whether
the note that is being tuned is sharp or flat of its tonic. For the beats occur
similarly in either case and few ears can determine the relative sharping or
flatting without some extraneous aid. Fortunately, however, we have a
variety of tests open to us, which for completeness and accuracy leave
nothing to be desired.
To take a concrete example, during the “laying of the bearings” we first
tune the F below middle C, then the G below middle C, and then the D
above G. When we reach this last note, we find that a sixth has been
obtained; namely, F—D. Now if the notes already tuned have been
tempered, so as to be too flat, the resultant sixth will beat too slowly, and,
conversely, if the tuned notes be too sharp the sixth will beat too fast.
This test may be amplified when we proceed to the next interval, D—A.
When this latter note has been tuned, we have the triad F—A—C. F—A is a
major third, and by referring to previous calculation we see that as such it
must, when properly tempered, be considerably sharp. By noting the beats
of the major third and likewise the beats of the sixth we may correct the
tuning of all the sounds with which we have hitherto dealt. The same
process is, of course, carried on throughout the whole process of “laying the
bearings.” The major thirds and sixths are tested continually as the tuning
proceeds, and thus is provided a sure guide to the correctness of the fourths
and fifths.
The correct beat-rates for the major thirds may be stated as about eight per
second, while that for the major sixths is approximately eleven in the same
period. Of course, as already stated, these rates per second cannot be
measured with accuracy, but with practice one soon discovers by ear the
proper roughness in each case, and is thus enabled to estimate the beat rates
without much trouble. Every opportunity of examining the work of good
tuners should be taken by the observer, who should note carefully the beat-

rates which they assign to each kind of interval. In this way he will provide
himself with practical examples of tempering of intervals which will be of
great value to him.
Having thus determined the proper beat-rates for each of the intervals that
are used in the “laying of the bearings,” we may proceed to the further
consideration of that convenient method for tuning the middle octave that
has already been demonstrated.
In order to facilitate comprehension of the argument, the following table is
given, showing graphically the sounds that are tuned in laying the bearings
and the tests and trial chords—
The white notes are those to be tuned. The black notes are those already
tuned.
The kind of deviation from purity of interval and the beat-rates are as
follows:
Upper notes of fifths must be tuned flat so as to give two distinct
beats.
Lower notes of fourths must be tuned flat so as to give three distinct
beats.
Upper notes of major thirds must be sharp so as to give
approximately eight beats per second.
Upper notes of major sixths must be sharp so as to give
approximately eleven beats per second.
If the laying of the bearings has been accurately performed, the chords that
are produced by the combination of the various sounds will be found to
have very nearly the same roughness and to generate approximately the
same number of beats. The best work is that which most closely approaches
this standard.
After the bearings have thus been laid, it is necessary to continue the tuning
of the instrument above and below the octave already treated. Now, since
the octave to any given sound has exactly double the frequency of the
former, and since octaves are to be tuned purely, it follows that we need
only tune the remainder of the instrument by octaves up and down from the
“bearings.” The consonance of an octave is determined by the absence of
beats, and, consequently, we have only to follow this rule to reproduce, in

all parts of the piano, deviations from purity relatively the same as those
which we have been at such pains to secure.
Of course, the actual number of beats in any given interval varies as the
frequencies, and, consequently, the frequency of the beats increases
regularly in the higher registers, while it similarly decreases in the lower
portions. Thus the deviations from purity become much greater in the
higher portions of the compass and incorrect laying of the bearings is,
therefore, productive of more and more disagreeable results as the scale
ascends. On the contrary, in the lower register these inaccuracies are less
productive of irritation, as the frequencies of the beats become continually
less.
Such, then, is the process of tuning the pianoforte in Equal Temperament.
We have made no attempt to go into those practical details that are
concerned with the ear-training, the manipulation of the hammer, or other
cognate matters. These are entirely “ex provincia” of this work.
Nevertheless the person who digests the foregoing statement of the laws
and methods of the art will be well equipped to pass upon the correctness of
tuning, and this is sufficient for our purpose.
The work of tone-regulation opens up varying but not entirely dissimilar
fields of research. The material of which the pianoforte hammer is
constructed has an important influence upon the coloring of the sound that
it draws from the string. In order that the influence of the pianoforte
hammer in tone-coloring may be understood clearly, we shall investigate
the matter with some completeness.
We have already investigated the compound nature of the sounds excited by
the pianoforte strings. We know that the nature of these sounds varies as the
method of excitement and as the nature of the resonance apparatus that
surrounds the strings. Now the pianoforte strings are excited by being
struck, and we have already noted that the point of striking must be
carefully chosen. Further, we know that the amount of metal framing, the
manner of adjusting the bridges, the nature of the sound-board and
innumerable other details must be taken into consideration.
But by the time that the pianoforte comes into the hands of the tone-
regulator, it is out of his power to affect the construction in any fundamental

points. He is able to change only two things. These are the striking point
and the condition of the hammer-heads. Even the former cannot be changed
to any great extent. In the highest treble, however, it often becomes
necessary to bend the hammer-shanks slightly in order that a more correct
striking point may be obtained. But this must be done with great discretion
and caution.
The object of tone-regulation is to ensure an agreeable tone and perfect
evenness of quality throughout.
Obviously, this is so intimately bound up with the whole construction that it
may be said that the tone-regulation begins with the drawing of the scale
and is never finished until the pianoforte itself is completed. This would be
a perfectly proper statement, but we have here to consider the final touches,
as it were, that the tone-regulator may give to the tonal equipment.
When the instrument comes into his hands the hammers are still covered
with the hard outer skin of the felt head. This must be removed with a sand-
paper file. It then is necessary to sound each tone slowly and carefully, first
loudly, and then less so. It will be found that some of the hammers produce
a harsh and disagreeable timbre, while others may be too soft and mushy.
Under all circumstances it is far better to endow the instrument, as far as is
possible, with a quality that shall be comparatively mellow and round.
Brilliancy cannot be forced artificially without spoiling the whole quality
and imparting a thinness and roughness that is most disagreeable.
If the hammers are too hard at the crown, they have the acoustical effect
upon the strings of exciting the upper dissonant partials to undue
prominence. This occurs from the fact that when the head is hard it
rebounds instantly from the string, and thus does not damp any of the
dissonant partials. On the other hand, if the head be soft, the felt clings for a
fraction of a second longer to the strings and effects the damping to a
greater or less degree, according to the relative softness or hardness of the
head.
It is thus possible, by discreet manipulation of the felt, to influence the
character of the sounds to no small degree. The method is to pick up the
felt, when it is to be softened, with a set of felt needles mounted in a handle
for the purpose. It is essential to note whether the sound is the same when
the hammer strikes with great force as it is when it strikes gently. If, for

example, a gentle pressure on the key gives an agreeable quality, but harder
strokes on the key destroy this, then we see that the crown of the hammer
head is soft enough, but the felt cushion underneath is too hard. Fine
needles are, therefore, employed to dig into the lower cushion of felt, while
disturbing the consistency of the upper crown as little as possible. On the
other hand, when the quality of sound is hard under all conditions, the upper
surface of the hammer-head must be treated by picking it with heavier
needles. Hardening of the felt may also be undertaken by covering the
hammer-head with a damp cloth and then applying a hot iron.
The whole work is primarily one of practice and experience. No directions
can do more than give an outline of the processes and the physical reasons
for them. It is well, however, to lay down the laws that underly these
processes, in order that practice may be supplemented and improved with
theory.

CHAPTER XV.
THE DRAUGHTING OF THE PIANOFORTE
SCALE.
Although, for obvious reasons, we speak of it thus late, yet it is true that the
first and most important step in the designing of a pianoforte is the
draughting of the scale. This process includes a complete planning of the
iron plate and of the bridges, in fact of the whole arrangements for
stretching the strings and maintaining their tension. This plan must indicate
very clearly the exact length both of the vibratory portion and of the waste
ends of each string; it must show the place on each string where the stroke
of the hammer is to be directed, while the exact positions of each tuning-pin
and hitch-pin must be laid down with equal certitude. Further, the place of
the belly-bridges, their dimensions and manner of pinning, have to be
shown on the drawing. Lastly, the fastening of the iron plate by screws and
bolts must be indicated; together with the precise position of each
individual screw, bolt and pin.
When this plan is in all respects complete, it has to be transferred to a
wooden pattern. The inevitable shrinkage of paper always makes the
retention of the proper measurements a matter of difficulty. This may be
overcome by making the first drawing upon a sheet of wood, varnished to
give a clear surface. If the drawing be made with India ink instead of with
pencil, we shall have a complete and permanent record obtained in a
superior manner.
When the wooden templet is to be made from such a drawing, it will not be
found that there has been the shrinking or swelling caused by the use of
paper, and the first drawing, if made after the method described, may be
laid aside for any length of time.
Let us suppose that it is desired to draught the scale of an upright
pianoforte. Having selected the size of pianoforte that is to be designed and
the wooden “table” which is to serve for the drawing surface, we proceed as
follows:

First lay down the line whereon all the hammers are to strike the strings.
From this line as base we plot out the string lengths and the direction in
which each runs; also the distance of each group from the immediately
adjacent groups.
Having laid down the striking point line, we next proceed to indicate upon
it, by suitable lines, the middle string of each three-string group. For the
two-string groups a line is taken in the middle of the two strings. We call
these lines “running lines.” Then the string dimensions must be taken into
consideration and calculated according to the rules laid down already. The
highest treble strings run at right angles to the striking point line, and the
running lines indicating the positions of the groups are to be placed
accordingly. The distance between the running lines should be a shade more
than one-half of an inch at the highest portions of the scale. It is found
necessary to draw the running lines with increasing obliquity as their length
increases, until at the end of the treble sections they are running at an angle
of about 110 degrees counting from the treble end or 70 degrees counting
from the bass end of the striking point line.
The lengths of the strings as determined by previous calculations mark the
line of the belly-bridge. The bars that are to be cast in the plate must be
allowed for in plotting the string plan. It is usual to place one of these at
about F2 and another at C, where the over-stringing customarily begins. The
variations of individual scales and the requirements of particular sizes of
instruments sometimes cause changes in this regard. This is one of the
points that the designer must decide for himself.
The space between the running lines increases gradually as the length of
them, on account of their oblique direction and the necessity for providing
sufficient space for the dampers and hammers. The actual length of the
strings as calculated must be laid down with reference to the striking point
line. As has been pointed out, it is found better in practice to have the
hammers strike the very high strings a little above the theoretical place. A
good average would contemplate one-tenth of the length for the six highest
strings, graduating down to one-ninth for the rest of the highest octave and
the next below it. Before the lowest string of this last-named octave (C3) is
reached, the striking point is gradually lowered and two or three strings
below C3 it becomes one-eighth.

If we follow out this scheme we obtain the place where the scale rib
intervenes at the pressure bar by taking one-tenth, one-ninth or one-eighth,
as the case may be, of the length of each string. The remaining fraction of
the length represents the correct distance between the striking point line and
the nearest pin on the belly-bridge. Thus the belly-bridge and pressure bar
lines are automatically formed as we go along.

METHOD OF PLOTTING STRING PLAN BY MEANS OF
STRIKING POINT LINE AND RUNNING LINES.
The sketch is intended merely as a general guide to the method outlined
above, and only a few of the running lines are shown. The dark lines
show the direction and position of the bars.

When the scale rib and pressure bar line has been obtained, it is necessary
to make provision for the tuning pins, and particular care must be taken that
the strings shall not rub against each other owing to incorrect placing of the
pins.
When the drawing has thus been completed, we may take up the design of
the iron plate. It will be remembered that we calculated a compensation

factor for the shrinkage. This factor is 51⁄50, and all dimensions where
shrinkage may have effect must be multiplied by this amount.
Such dimensions are those of the height and width of the plate. Hence the
lengths of the bars, the distances between them, and the positions of the
bolts and screws as well as the string lengths must all be modified
according to the shrinkage factor.
The wooden templet may be taken directly from the wooden table drawing
by filling in the outlines and details of the iron plate on the latter and then
copying these on to the templet subject to the shrinkage modifications
required. It is well to regard one top side and also that at the treble as
immovable, and to consider the shrinkage as coming from the bottom to the
top and from the bass to the treble.
When the dimensions of the proposed plate are thus laid out on the surface
of the templet, the bars, screw-sockets and bolt holes must be copied in
wood and laid on the templet in the exact places that they will occupy in the
finished plate. Thus we gradually evolve a complete wooden model of the
iron plate, so that the iron founders may readily obtain a correct casting.
When the first casting comes back from the foundry, it should be carefully
punched for the tuning-pin, bolt and screw holes. The first casting must be
considered in reference to the fact that it represents only one shrinkage.
After the second casting is made from the first, the correctness of the
calculations may be judged. But not until the first pianoforte is turned out
according to the new scale can the designer find out how well his efforts
have been rewarded.
Of course, the foregoing directions are but outlines of the method. The true
inwardness of scale draughting cannot be explained here, or, indeed,
otherwise than by practical experience. A certain facility in mechanical
draughtsmanship is essential, and also close attention to the methods that
have been laid down in regard to striking points, number of covered strings,
number and place of bars, compensation for shrinkage, and the various
other points that have been mentioned.
For the convenience of the plate-finisher, wooden patterns are provided,
showing the position of hitch-pins, tuning-pin holes, screw-holes and bolt
holes, corrected for shrinkage.

The belly-man must have patterns for the position of the bridges and for the
bridge-pin boring. A wooden pattern is also required for the pressure bar.
When these details are completed, the draughtsman must possess himself in
patience until his completed instrument is turned out.
If the rules so carefully demonstrated throughout this treatise are fully
digested, the designer will be far on the way towards correct scale
draughting. His native cunning, however, must be relied upon to carry him
through when written directions fail.

CHAPTER XVI.
CONCLUSION.
If the present treatise has convinced the reader that the making of
pianofortes is a very serious matter, and one not to be attacked in a spirit of
levity, then one of its immediate objects has been attained.
Indeed there has been an abiding fear in the breast of the author that he
might presently be charged with piling on the agony too strongly and
searching with excessive zeal for scientific causes and rules when the
shortest solutions may be found by empirical methods. This is not really the
case, however, for the whole problem of the construction of pianofortes is
naturally acoustical. While it is doubtless true that many pianofortes have
been and are continually made, not merely with indifference to, but in
defiance of, every law that has been expounded in these pages, it
nevertheless remains that none of these have been good pianofortes. Of the
making of thump-boxes there is no end. Unfortunately for the public,
musical ignorance is well-nigh universal, and the impostor finds it easy to
palm off shoddy in place of the real article. Of course, it is quite true that
bad pianofortes are soon found out, but when the inevitable discovery
comes, the mischief has been done and the purchaser is, as usual, the
victim. A student of the construction of good instruments cannot fail to be
astonished that anyone should wish to turn out anything but the best. For, as
one continues to investigate the multifarious problems that are continually
suggested, the desire to overcome them and to produce perfect instruments
becomes almost irresistible. Perhaps this is why the clever designer, if left
to himself, often develops into a crank. And, indeed, there is not an industry
on the face of the globe that has produced more cranks.
The files of the patent office are full of the ideas of unrewarded genius that
has spent its time, its money and its enthusiasm in the unenviable task of
producing innovations in pianofortes. No feature of construction has been
left unimproved; yet how many of these inventions ever see the light? Few,
indeed; and the fact is a sad commentary on the unpractical nature of genius
in general.

These reflections lead one to the feeling that a fitting conclusion to a
treatise on pianoforte construction may be made by giving particulars of
some of the most famous and revolutionary inventions that at one time and
another have been launched upon the unfeeling world of piano-making. Not
all of these by any means can be denominated freaks; indeed there are the
germs of most valuable developments in many of them. We shall consider a
few of the really valuable ideas at least.
Among these primacy must be given to the screw-stringing device of
Mason & Hamlin. This invention was intended to substitute a positive
mechanical fastening for the tuning-pin, in place of the wooden wrest-
plank. It consisted of a screw, threaded vertically in a socket, which was cut
in a projecting shoulder on the iron-plate. As it extended below its socket, it
was provided with an universal joint which ended in a hook. On this hook
the string was wound, and was then free to pass on to the agraffe. A small T-
hammer sufficed to turn the screw and the string was tightened or slackened
as the screw turned in the threaded socket. The action was slow but sure,
and the strings had the curious property of sharping under a test blow
instead of the opposite, as is usual. The method of tuning was the same
except that the screw turned in the opposite direction to the ordinary style
and required much more turning to bring the string to the desired point. On
the other hand, however, setting the pin was unnecessary, and the evils
engendered by bad wrest-planks and sticking or twisting pins were
unknown. Moreover, the turning of the screw involved very slight effort.
With all these advantages, however, the reverse motion and the slowness of
action were fatal; and after several years of effort Mason & Hamlin gave up
the attempt to popularize their invention, and let it drop. It is, indeed,
unfortunate that this device did not become more popular, as in that case its
many inherent advantages would doubtless have been emphasized and the
bad points in it eliminated. Prejudice and the tuners, however, were against
it, and it died.
The well-known house of Brinsmead in London has also experimented with
a similar device, but it is not known with what success. One of the
advantages held out by the makers of such string devices was the supposed
facilitation of the work of tuning—that is to say, it was alleged that every
musician could become his own tuner as soon as he had learned the

theoretical principles of the Equal Temperament. The hope was delusive,
however. Perhaps the professional tuners attended to this point.
Another similar but more successful device is being manufactured by the
Wegman Piano Co. This is in the form of a fastening for the pin in the iron
plate. The appearance of the plate and pin is not different from the usual
design, but the tapered end is done away with and the pin, instead of being
driven into the wooden wrest-plank, is fastened in the plate by means of the
friction set up between the peculiarly bored hole and the back of the pin. A
special twist is needed to fasten the pin when a string is drawn up to pitch,
but otherwise the method of operation is not unusual. The device appears to
be of value.
The sound-board has ever afforded a fertile field for inventive genius. It has
been altered in every conceivable manner, but the old style continues to
flourish with all its pristine activity. This is not to say that it is ideal and
insusceptible of improvement. On the contrary, one cannot deny that many
praiseworthy ideas have been patented for the purpose of improving it. The
ribbing has been the subject of much attention from inventors. It is true that
this method of giving strength and tension to the board is by no means
perfect. Yet we find that the various devices proposed for the abolition of
ribbing have almost uniformly failed. A large number of these failures owe
their conditions to the lack of acoustical knowledge of the inventors. It has
often been supposed that the enormous relative resonance power of the
violin belly was connected in some way with the duplicate nature of the
resonance table and the consequent hollow shape of the resonating body.
This has been conclusively disproved, however, for it has been shown that
the violin’s special shape is given to it merely for the purpose of bearing the
strain of its strings. Moreover, the tone and resonance of a violin have been
reproduced by means of a vibrating diaphragm and a horn. This device,
known after its inventor as the Stroh violin, satisfactorily disproves many
cherished theories in regard to violin resonance. In spite of these facts we
find that several patents have been taken out for pianoforte sound-boards, of
which the guiding principles have been ingenious applications of the violin
idea. The “equilibre” pianoforte of Frederic Mathushek was an example of
this type. It seems passing strange that experimenters have not all become
aware long ago of the essential differences between the resonance apparatus
required for struck and for bowed strings.

There have been other and saner variations of sound-board construction. It
has been suggested that the use of a double board composed of two cross-
grained thicknesses glued to each other would obviate the necessity of
ribbing and increase the power of resonance. There seems to be little doubt
that there is the germ of a valuable idea in this, and if the notion is properly
worked out, it will very likely produce valuable additions to our knowledge
of the phenomena of resonance.
Unusual ideas have been less frequent in the domain of action-making.
There have been several praiseworthy attempts to get rid of the
troublesome, but hitherto necessary, tape in the upright action. The patent of
Leo Battalia is one of these. He abolishes the tape and bridle wire, and
substitutes a two-branched spring fork projecting from the jack. One branch
works in a slot cut in the hammer butt and the other bears against the back
check. The back stop is done away with and excellent repetition is assured,
superior to that which is obtained by ordinary methods.
In the domain of pure scale design, we note the ever present and perennial
notion of sympathetic strings. This idea has taken various forms. The most
conventional development is, of course, the “duplex scale” of Steinway and
others. This utilizes the waste ends of the strings and scales off lengths of
them that correspond to aliquot parts of the vibrating length of each string,
thus obtaining the advantage of sympathetic partial tones. Most of the ideas
in this direction have gone further than this, however. Some makers have
gone so far as to have a fourth string tuned to the octave of every three-
string group. But this is surely unnecessary when we consider that the
octave is, on the pianoforte, the strongest partial tone of any musical sound,
and least of all needs adventitious aid.
There are many other similar devices used and unused that we should waste
our time in considering. In any case the true test of the utility of an
invention is use, and each one of these unusual notions that have been put
on the market would have been universal long ago had they been uniformly
practical and valuable.
We cannot close this hasty survey without mention of the remarkable
innovation in action mechanism devised by Mr. Morris Steinert. Here the
forcible hammer-blow is superseded by a gradual push on the hammer at
the strings, executed through the interposition of an articulated double lever

between the hammer and the jack. The result is to produce a different form
of hammer attack and a noticeable modification in the coloring of the tone
produced from the string. While the claims of the inventor are somewhat
exaggerated, there is no doubt that Mr. Steinert has hit upon a valuable
variation in the method of actuating the hammer, and his invention opens up
new prospects of pleasure to the pianist.
If all these and the innumerable others have no other value, they at least
teach that inventive genius and the hunger for improvement do not entirely
sleep; that the pianoforte is continually being improved, and that many are
spending their time in finding new ways of improvement. It shows that the
value of the pianoforte to the community is sufficiently great to cause the
expenditure of much valuable thought upon its mechanical and musical
betterment. The fact that these things happen should console anyone who
has ever thought that the limit of mechanical excellence had been reached.
The designing of a pianoforte is art with a big A. It demands of its
practitioners the temperament of an artist and the skill of an excellent
mechanic. There is no greater pleasure and no nobler work than the
construction of an instrument equipped to give forth lovely tone and to
interpret the inspired works of the masters of music. May the advancing
years bring the pianoforte as much more of mechanical and musical
excellence as the last two centuries have so richly imparted.
And now our task is done. It has been a labor of love to place the results of
long study and much practical experience before those to whom this
exposition of the principles of pianoforte construction might be expected to
appeal. It has been far from easy to put into really intelligible and concise
English an explanation of certain of these laws; and if the reader finds here
aught of vagueness or obscurity, may he blame the subject rather than the
author. The latter has, as best he might, laid down the principles that
underly the right building of the noblest musical instrument that man has
yet devised. And in the contemplation of these principles he may properly
be content to leave his patient readers.

THEORY AND PRACTICE OF
PIANOFORTE BUILDING.

APPENDIX A.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAYER-
PIANO.
Events are moving quickly in these latter days, and the conservative
pianoforte trade is feeling the effect of the extraordinarily active spirit of
constructive commercialism that is so pronounced a feature of the
contemporary industrial movement. When the first chapters of the present
work were in course of preparation, some two years ago, the pianoforte
equipped with an interior playing mechanism was just beginning to be
heard of; to-day its manufacture and marketing are recognized features in
the policy of nearly all pianoforte houses. It would therefore be unwise to
conclude the present treatise without certain observations on the player-
piano question, although a truly philosophic temper would probably prefer
that some further time elapse before any feature of the player-piano
problem be considered in a work of the same scope and character as this.
Abandoning the strict scientific view of our duty in this matter, however, we
may better adopt a more popular point d’appui and round off this work with
a few observations on the more important and essential underlying
problems connected with this new and remarkable movement in the
pianoforte world.
Had the exterior type of pianoforte playing device—the so-called cabinet-
player, in fact—remained alone and supreme in the territory that it first

opened to exploration and development, this work would contain no notice
of any mechanism of the kind. But since the movement has spread until it
comprehends the pianoforte itself, since, in the nature of things, such a
development must profoundly affect the solution of the problems that
confront the pianoforte maker in the construction of his instrument, it seems
to be not only natural, but imperative, that we should devote some space to
certain notes on the player-piano problem and its relation to the application
of such acoustical and mechanical principles as are germane to the theory of
pianoforte construction.
We are under no obligation to delve into the history of these ingenious
devices. The plan of this work requires nothing of the sort. We may say,
however, that the first impetus towards the production of a piano playing
mechanism came about through the success of the self-playing organ which
began to appear about fifteen years ago. Meanwhile various inventors had
experimented with electrical devices and had succeeded in producing a
mechanism that could be placed within the case of the instrument without
entailing any great distortion of form. Such devices, however, were, with
some exceptions, exceedingly mechanical in effect, and did little to show
the possibility of adequately rendering pianoforte music through artificial
means.
It was, however, through the successful development of mechanism for the
automatic operation of organs that the true principles for piano-player
construction began to come to light. Two leading manufacturers had both
produced reed organs of a very superior kind, equipped with mechanical
playing devices. The principle was pneumatic, and was applied through the
medium of compressed air. The organs themselves were also operated on
this principle, this being a return to the old force bellows system, adopted in
the European harmonium, and always used in connection with the pipe
organ. When developed to their highest point, these pneumatic self-playing
organs produced superior musical effects, so that they became, and still are,
well known and popular. The latest styles, indeed, rival the orchestra in
their versatility and coloring, especially when operated by a skillful
musician.
The pneumatic principle thus applied, and the success of the attempts to
adapt it to the organ, led experimenters to emulate, and if possible improve
upon, the early attempts at the practical manufacture of pianoforte-playing

mechanism. Without going too much into details, it may be recorded that
the two concerns previously referred to were nearly ready in 1896 to come
out with such an instrument, and patents were granted in 1897 for a
complete piano-player of the cabinet style, attachable to any piano, and
easily detachable therefrom. Other patents soon followed, and other
manufacturers fell into line, with the result that the great piano-player
movement had soon begun in earnest. The productions of the different
firms, of course, varied in details, but only two widely separated schools
have developed, and inasmuch as both of these employ the pneumatic
principle, which has triumphed over all others, and is now adapted
unanimously by manufacturers who desire to render possible an
approximation to artistic rendition of pianoforte music, it will be
unnecessary to treat of any instruments constructed on other lines.
In the meantime it will be well to note that the above short sketch of the
preliminary skirmishing, as it were, is intended to be nothing more than an
outline, as the policy adopted throughout this entire work has been to avoid
the historical view-point, as much as possible, and to confine ourselves
strictly to the business in hand; namely, constructional principles and their
application.
The pneumatic principle has been adopted in all the piano-players that we
have occasion to survey, and its application has been in all cases essentially
similar. Indeed, the two schools of construction differ, not in the application
of the pneumatic principle, but in certain details of construction, which are
important but not vital. One general description will be quite sufficient to
acquaint the reader with the make-up of these instruments, and it will be
easy to undertake any further explanations of important variations.
The underlying idea, upon which the whole player is built, may be
described as arising from the knowledge that a bag or bellows of suitable
material will collapse whenever the air is exhausted from it, and become
inflated again when the air is permitted to rush into it, which happens as
soon as the vacuum is destroyed. Now it is obvious that here, in these two
processes, we have the possibility of producing a reciprocating motion, and
the value of this is evident when it is remembered that the process of
pianoforte playing, when reduced to its lowest terms, is essentially the
combination of the alternate manual motions required to depress and release
a key. Consequently, the matter of designing a pianoforte-playing machine

is reduced to the problem of placing a bellows over a key, or in mechanical
connection with it, in such a way that the inflation and deflation of the
bellows will operate levers to depress and release the key. Thus far, it may
be understood, we are dealing with elementary mechanical principles. But
the questions arising from consideration of the control of these bellows are
far more delicate, and require for their solution a high degree of mechanical
talent. Let us see how the problem has been worked out.
A musical composition which is to be performed on the pianoforte by
means of one of these “players,” as they are called colloquially, is first
reduced to a series of perforations on a long sheet, the perforations being of
uniform width, but varying in length according to the duration of the
musical tone for which each stands. The sheet is then wound upon a spool
and is connected with motor mechanism which is adapted to draw it across
a “tracker-board” pierced with holes, each of which corresponds to some
hole in the sheet. The latter, when so drawn across the plane of the “tracker-
board,” is wound up on another spool, and the motor mechanism of the
player is so arranged that the sheet can be re-wound on to its own spool
when the whole composition has been played, so that it may be withdrawn
from the “player,” and another substituted in its place. The actual process of
operation is as follows: The “player” is provided with foot pedals, which
operate exhaust bellows, and thus maintain a reservoir bellows in a state of
exhaust, on the same principle as in the reed organ. As long as the exhaust
bellows are operated, and the reservoir is kept in a state of vacuum, it is
possible to maintain an “exhaust chamber” within the “player” also in a
state of vacuum. This exhaust chamber communicates with a “diaphragm
chamber,” in connection with the “tracker-board” hole, and with an
“inflation and deflation channel” in connection with the striking pneumatic
or bellows which depresses the pianoforte key. The connection with the
“diaphragm chamber” is by means of a very small hole pierced in a leather
diaphragm which is stretched between the “exhaust chamber” and the
“diaphragm chamber,” so that the latter will be in a state of partial vacuum.
Resting on the leather diaphragm is a button, attached to an upright spindle
which stretches through an orifice into the inflation and deflation chamber,
and there operates a poppett valve which, in one position of the spindle, will
close the chamber against the exhaust chest, while opening itself and
therefore also the pneumatic to the outer air, and in another position will
reverse the process, opening the chamber to the power of the vacuum in the

exhaust and simultaneously closing itself and therefore the pneumatic to the
vacuum, which will cause the latter to collapse, and thus bring down the
key. Now, when a hole in the perforated sheet comes opposite a hole in the
“tracker-board,” an atmospheric communication is opened with the
“diaphragm chamber,” and air will immediately rush down into the
“diaphragm chamber” and at once destroy the partial vacuum which existed
there. As a consequence of this, the leather diaphragm will immediately rise
to its fullest extent, influenced by the vacuum in the chamber above it, and
will therefore push up the poppett valve. This action will open
communication between the exhaust and inflation and deflation chambers
and will expose the latter to the vacuum, while shutting off the outer air
which has kept the pneumatic inflated. Thus the pneumatic will collapse,
and the piano key will be held down until the closing of the “tracker-board”
hole once more restores the partial vacuum in the “diaphragm chamber,”
thus permitting the poppett valve to sink, and reopening the connection
between the pneumatic and the outer air, which re-inflates it and releases
the key.
As will have been anticipated, there are endless small variations of detail in
the construction of different “players,” but they all work on the same
principle, and the above description will be sufficient to give an idea of
what goes on inside the “player” when the perforated sheet is put into
position and drawn over the “tracker-board.” Variations on the mechanical
carrying out of these principles are dependent upon the ideas of the different
makers. It can easily be understood that there is plenty of room for endless
changes in details, and that every maker of “players” has his own special
notions on the subject.
We have spoken above of the motor mechanism designed to move the
perforated sheet across the “tracker-board,” and to rewind it when required.
It is clear that such a motor device must be very sensitive to changes in
speed control, very light and very easily operated. In the search for the ideal
device manufacturers have gradually separated themselves into two schools
of practice, each being champions of one particular type of motor. These
two schools of opinion and practice have adopted respectively the
pneumatic and the clock-work motors. Both have virtues; neither are free
from vices. It is no part of our plan to enter into didactic discussion of the
relative merits and demerits of the two styles, but we shall confine

ourselves to an exposition of the method whereby each is adapted to its
required work, and shall point out the more obvious of the good and bad
features of both.
The pneumatic motor has the initial advantage of simplicity and lightness. It
consists of a number of bellows, usually three or five, which are arranged in
series on a board and connected by passages with the exhaust chest. They
are adapted to be collapsed and inflated alternately by means of the exhaust
from the bellows of the “player,” and are governed by valves so arranged as
to cause one bellows to be open to the atmospheric air, and therefore
inflated, while the next to it is simultaneously closed to the atmospheric air
and exposed to the vacuum from the wind-chest, and therefore collapsed.
This alternate process produces a motion which can, of course, easily be
transferred by means of connecting rods to a crank-shaft, which by
reciprocation produces a rotary motion, and also permits the take-up spool
of the “player” to be connected with it by suitable gearing. The controlling
valves are generally connected with the crank-shaft somewhat after the
manner of the valves of a steam cylinder, and are operated by the motion of
the shaft through suitable connecting rods. The reverse motion of the spool,
for rewinding, is accomplished by gearing between the motor and spool,
and the reversing lever, while operating this gear, also closes the valve
between the exhaust reservoir bellows and exhaust chamber so as to permit
the full power of the exhaust to be exercised on the motor when the
rewinding is required. The speed control of the pneumatic motor is
governed by another finger lever adapted to operate a valve which can
entirely close the passage between the exhaust chest and motor board, the
gradual opening or closing of which increases or diminishes the power of
the exhaust upon the motor bellows and hence the rapidity with which they
collapse and reinflate. This speed control combines simplicity and
effectiveness.
In considering the less agreeable qualities of the pneumatic motor we have
to note that a great deal of the alleged deficiency of the type arises from the
fact that its operation depends upon the same agency as is employed for the
striking pneumatics; namely, the exhaustion of air from the exhaust bellows
reservoir. This means, of course, that the striking pneumatics and the motor
are artificially brought into relations which would never naturally subsist
between them. In consequence, there is a continual tendency on the part of

one of the elements to monopolize the power reserve, to the detriment of
the other. Thus, a fortissimo passage will tend to use up so much power that
the motor will be slowed down; while, contrariwise, the latter, when driven
at its highest speed, will take too much power from the pneumatics and
prevent the expression of their highest dynamic forces. Here we touch upon
the most serious defect of the pneumatic motor, and while we find the
practical workings of these devices quite excellent, there is no doubt that
they would be far more responsive and far lighter in operation if these
fundamental defects did not exist.
The clock-work motor, on the other hand, is entirely separated from the
striking mechanism, except as far as it is sometimes connected with the
pedals for the purpose of winding the spring. Even this, however, is not a
real interference with the striking pneumatics. The chief advantages of the
clock-work motor are that it is built of steel and brass, instead of wood and
leather; that it is independent of the rest of the player, and therefore always
self-contained and free from extraneous influences; that rewinding is
effected by the reserve power of the spring, and that the use of the pedals as
in the pneumatic motor, is therefore not necessary.
Its disadvantages, as alleged by its critics, may be considered as follows:
That it requires oiling and cleaning frequently, and that if neglected will
rapidly become impaired; that it is sometimes slow in acceleration and
retarding; that it is heavy and complicated, and that the winding, when done
by pedals, is wasteful, and when effected by a handle, is tiresome.
The above tables of vices inherent in both types are by no means as terrible
as they look, however, and experience seems to show that many of them do
not appear in practical work. On the whole, the clock-work motor seems to
have much in its favor, although the question still remains open, and time
alone can show which is practically better.
It is neither necessary nor profitable to go into any considerable detail as to
the pianoforte pedal operating devices, the soft stops, or other details of the
sort. We may better employ the space at our command in a short discussion
of the movement which has resulted in incorporating the mechanism
described above into the case of the pianoforte itself. This movement is, of
course, a natural outcome of the successful introduction of the exterior
“player.” The public soon began to find fault with the latter on account of

the space it occupied, and also because of the annoyance incidental to its
removal from the instrument for manual playing. It was not long before the
makers of “players” were experimenting, with a view to using the waste
space in the upright pianoforte for the purpose of including the “player”
therein. The advantages of such a plan are obvious, provided that the actual
mechanical difficulties can be overcome. These difficulties proved very
stubborn at first, and it is not to be supposed that all are entirely overcome,
even now.
It has been very hard, indeed, to arrange the mechanism in such a manner as
to make all parts accessible for adjustment and repair. The results of any
neglect of this important requisite are very serious. Makers should bend
their first energies to the removal of all difficulties incidental to the
obtaining of access to the playing mechanism or to the rest of the
pianoforte, before they consider anything else. For example, it should be
possible to remove the action or keys of the pianoforte without having to
detach pipes and tubes. Nor should it be difficult to disconnect the pumping
apparatus, or some individual valve or pneumatic which may need
attention.
Again, the manner in which the pneumatics strike the keys or action is very
important. The earlier player-pianos generally had the pneumatics placed
below the key-bed, so that they operated from the rear end of the latter,
striking them upwards. This had the double disadvantage of inflicting a
hard, rigid kind of blow, and of making the pneumatics very inaccessible. A
better plan has lately been devised, which puts the pneumatics over the
keys, so that they operate at the front ends, just back of the ivories. Some
such method as this is excellent always, since it permits a considerable
concentration of the mechanism and a consequent curtailment of the
inconveniently long tubes leading from the “tracker-board” to the valve
chambers. All these matters, however, are in process of practical
development, and the future holds the key to the ultimate solution of any
such problems.
In considering the influence of the “player” mechanism upon the pianoforte
itself, we may note that the general adoption of these devices, if it occurs,
will inevitably produce certain modifications in the action mechanism, as
well as in the general design. There is no doubt that the ordinary action
mechanism of the pianoforte will not prove strong enough to endure the

furious onslaught of the “player,” and it is questionable whether pianofortes
constructed on the old plan will not more rapidly deteriorate when exposed
to this wear and tear. The precise direction in which this modification is
likely to come may not now be accurately determined, but it is probable that
a general strengthening of centres and flanges will be the first result.
As for the distortion of the pianoforte case, this, as far as it now exists, may
very easily be corrected. But it will not be easy to arrange the playing
mechanism so as to avoid interference with the acoustical or mechanical
forces of the pianoforte. For one thing, there is a great deal of machinery to
put into a very small space, and for another there are certain parts of the
pianoforte that must under no circumstances be touched. Thus the sound-
board, the strings and the iron plate must be left severely alone. But the
elimination of the Boston or double-rolling fall-board, and its replacement
by something that will take less room, will provide a sufficient space to
house the pneumatics and exhaust chamber above the keys. This is where
they ought to be, and the only possible place where they can be reached
without trouble or damage. The pumping apparatus must be kept away from
the sound-board, and placed where it will do no harm; under the key-bed,
necessarily, but not so as to interfere with the piano pedals or the resonance
apparatus. Some portion of the bottom frame can usually be eliminated with
advantage, and this will assist in providing the necessary space.
The position of the motor should be such that the minimum of waste occurs
between the crank-shaft and the take-up spool. Thus, if possible, the motor
ought to be above the key-bed. If it be of the clock-work type, it can hardly
be placed anywhere else. Lastly, the whole of the exterior apparatus, such as
levers, pedals, spool, etc., should be arranged to fold away or be covered up
out of sight when the instrument is in use for manual playing.
While it has only been possible in this appendix to give the barest outline of
the player-piano problem, the reader is besought to recollect that the
industry is still new, and that the “present state of the art” hardly admits of
any didactic assertions on principles of construction. We do not even know,
today, whether the pneumatic principle will continue to prevail, or whether
some new refinement of electric mechanism will not eventually surpass
every device now known, both in responsiveness and convenience.

APPENDIX B.
THE SMALL GRAND.
It is a curious fact, but none the less characteristic of that most curious of
industries—the pianoforte craft—that in it the development hypothesis, so
familiar to all other branches of human endeavor here, appears not to be
fully applicable. While the aim of the present treatise has been to
systematize and codify, as it were, the laws that underly all right
constructional methods, we have been forced to recognize that there is no
appearance of any accurate and uniform generalization which may be
applicable to the future guidance of pianoforte builders in their efforts to
attain to the greatest perfection in later types. Although we have succeeded
in laying down the broad and universal principles that govern intelligent
practice of the art, yet we cannot fail to note that a progressive evolution is
not yet possible. That is to say, there is no progressive synthesis in the art
which shall carry us continually further from the original types, so that the
ancient models shall become in time quite unrecognizable in the light of
modern improvement. Rather would it seem that the course of improvement
is leading us back to reversions towards the original types, and of this
tendency the rise of the small grand pianoforte is one of the most striking
illustrations.
It is not to be supposed that this reversionary movement is to be taken as
implying a dissatisfaction with the methods that have grown up in the
course of the last hundred years, and the systematization of which has been
our task in the present work; it is rather that the tendency today is in the
direction of utilizing the most modern methods in the resuscitation and
further development of the type of pianoforte that was earliest in the field.
In other words, as the reader well knows, the last few years have seen a
general tendency towards a revival of the grand, in forms suitable for
modern ways of life, and with the advantages carried by the wealth of
experience and practice on which the modern pianomaker can make
unlimited drafts. This resuscitation has not taken the form of any attempt to
bring the large-sized concert instrument into more popular use, but it has

rather been a matter of evolving a new type out of the old, and of
developing this latter along comparatively original lines. With the
commercial success of such an experiment we are not here immediately
concerned, but we have great and lively interest in the question of its
constructional value and in the possibilities that are implied in its future
development.
Without entering into wearisome detail, it may be stated that the last five
years have seen a most systematic attempt on the part of leading
manufacturers to construct and popularize a very small style of grand
pianoforte, and to endow this new instrument, as far as possible, with the
musical advantages possessed by the larger and older horizontal forms. The
dimensions of the “small grand,” as it has come to be known, range from a
length of five feet to one of six, with width in proportion, and the smallest
sizes are continually attracting greater attention on the part of experts. The
idea is to reduce the dimensions to the very lowest point compatible with
something approaching to grand pianoforte tone, and to make the general
outline as beautiful to the eye as possible. The latter of these desires is
easier of consummation than the former, and it has therefore appeared that
some of the makers of these instruments have been somewhat apt to
overlook truly musical results in deference to a public sentiment in favor of
something that is graceful, if nothing else. In fact, when considering the
small grand we are obliged to note that it has been developed, and is now
being produced rather to appeal to that portion of the pianoforte-buying
public that demands something for its homes more beautiful than the
upright and less bulky than the large parlor or concert grand than in answer
to any general cry for the better musical development of the instrument
itself.
If we bear this fact in mind, and its truth is obvious to the student of
pianoforte history, we can the more easily understand and appreciate the
essential features of this latest development.
The small grand has been produced, we repeat, to please the public, and the
public at large is not exclusively composed of musicians.
But even while acknowledging the probability of this statement, we need
not conceal from ourselves that the small grand can thus fulfill a very useful
function. Reduced to its lowest terms, it remains a grand pianoforte, with

the action and touch so essentially associated with the horizontal form, and
so immeasurably superior to anything that is found in even the best
uprights. And here the small grand has an enormous advantage, nor does it
appear that its truly musical and tonal development need be permanently
stationary, if only the limitations of the instrument be appreciated, and work
on it be directed with especial reference to its own size, and without
dependence upon the traditions that have supported the building of larger
forms.
In a word, the builders of small grands have the opportunity, if they care to
avail themselves of it, to produce a form of miniature horizontal pianoforte
that shall possess all the advantages of the large concert instruments, with
the exception of the great tonal volume peculiar to the latter, and none of
the disadvantages of bulkiness and ungracefulness. They can never hope to
obtain the same tonal results from a 5-foot as from a 9-foot instrument; but
they have the opportunity to popularize a touch and technique that is
impossible of achievement for players of the upright, and a quality of tone
that is equally unattainable on vertical instruments. Under all
circumstances, it must be borne in mind that the results of small grand
building, even when most carefully and skilfully executed, are essentially
different from anything that has yet been produced in the tonal development
of the pianoforte, and that no attempt to imitate the tonal properties of the
large grand can be successful. The action and the touch are fit subjects for
this kind of imitation, but such tonal quality as is susceptible of
development is entirely original and indigenous to the miniature grand. The
only legitimate field of inquiry along these lines, then, is that which has
reference to the development and constructional principles of the small
grand considered as a distinct type, and needing particular and definitely
differentiated principles and methods.
Assuming the correctness of these premises (and their truth would appear to
be obvious), we have to ask ourselves what is the exact nature of the
problem which is set for solution, and wherein it differs from any that we
have had to consider as yet. Bearing in mind that we are dealing with what
is known as the “small grand,” although it is marketed under various other
names selected by different manufacturers, we can state the constructional
problem in fairly definite and exact terms.

It is required to build a pianoforte in horizontal form, of which the extreme
length shall preferably not exceed five feet and six inches, and which shall
be compensated for shortening by means of extra widening; which shall
have the lines of a larger grand, refined to the highest degree, and within
which the greatest possible tonal value shall be contained.
Viewed thus, it appears that the principal factors to be considered are string-
length and sound-board area. It is obvious that the diminution of the former
and restriction of the latter are inevitable; and the net result must be seen in
a radical alteration, if not deterioration, of the tonal property of the
instrument. It remains to be seen how we shall set about to transform this
disadvantageous condition into one that shall work for us, and in
accordance with our desires. In other words, as we cannot get a sound-
board containing, say “n” square feet of superficial area into a case that
only contains 3⁄4 “n” square feet of space, we must resign ourselves to the
inevitable, and search for ways and means whereby the difficulty of putting
into a quart bottle more than it will hold may be evaded, if not explained
away.
And first, then, let it be remembered that the only line where-from we can
safely base any calculation is that which leads in the direction of a continual
refinement of the means of applying sound-board construction to the
instrument. We must utilize every inch of the superficies; we must discover
and apply methods for opening up the vibratory area to the impressions
received from the strings in a manner superior to that which has been
deemed sufficient when space has been at a discount. We must arrange
bridges and bearing-bars so that the string-lengths may be stretched to the
utmost, and, lastly, we must use such minute care in the treatment of the
hammer-striking line that the inevitable “breaks” in the tone shall be
minimized.
The intelligent reader will not fail to observe that we have put forth here a
tolerably difficult set of requirements. But he will likewise be equally quick
to note that ultimate success in small grand designing depends entirely upon
the manner in which these conditions are met. If they are slighted or slurred,
if the designer attempts to ignore them, he will find that failure will surely
follow. On the other hand, it would be too much to say that even the most
faithful and conscientious effort applied to the elucidation of the problem
will under all circumstances have the desired effect. The conditions are

unusual; in some cases they do not admit of any direct and positive
settlement. But in so far as these conditions can be met, in so far as they are
susceptible of solution, the designing of the small grand can properly be
made successful.
It must be recollected that the “striking-point” of the hammers is a vitally
important element in the success of pianoforte building. It is the one factor
that cannot be trifled with, and in treating which there must be rigid
adherence to rule. Now it is well known that the correct striking distance
has been ascertained (as shown in the body of this work) to be at a point
between one-seventh and one-ninth of the speaking length of the string, the
exact place for each string being calculated with reference to the actual
speaking length. As worked out in the best practice, the shortest and highest
pitched strings have their striking points at about one-tenth of the speaking
lengths, while the longer and lower pitched elements further down the scale
are made to conform more closely to rule. Now it is obvious that the
application of this law to the very much shortened strings of a small grand
will result in distinctly unsatisfactory quantity and quality of tone. But it
will not do for us arbitrarily to change the actual striking point, for that
would change the position of the hammer line, and experience has amply
demonstrated that no such idea will work. Inasmuch, therefore, as we are
estopped from interfering with the striking point, as far as concerns the
actual hammer line, it becomes necessary to discover some means for
obtaining a somewhat greater length of string in proportion to the
dimensions of case. Careful measurement will show that the higher strings
do not fall under the classification of “dangerous.” It is only when we
approach the point where the overstringing begins that the disadvantage of
decreased case length becomes apparent. The treble string-lengths at or near
this place will be too great, if carried out according to the well-known and
practiced laws of scale designing; while, if they are unduly shortened, the
tensions and thicknesses will require to be submitted to such radical
alteration as to make most unpleasant changes in the tonal quality and
volume.
But while an absolute solution is out of the question, there is no doubt that
we are able to find a fairly satisfactory substitute. There are two courses
open to us. We are not permitted to make any great change in the tension,
but, within certain limits, we may weight the string, and we may even

stretch out its length, if we be very careful and watch out for every inch.
The first method must always be used with caution. It is susceptible, and
very easily, too, of improper application, and when abused becomes an
enemy rather than a friend. In fact, the weighting of treble strings with iron
or copper wire should be undertaken with the greatest caution, and only
indulged in when the designer is absolutely unable in any other manner to
obtain a proper vibrating length. The last two or three strings above the
overstrung portion of the pianoforte may usually be wrapped without
troublesome complications, but under no circumstances should the highest
of these have a frequency greater than 128. On the other side, where the
bass strings begin, this condition does not apply, for it is possible by means
of suspension belly bridges, to increase the actual speaking lengths several
inches. These suspension or extension bridges, as they are called, may also
be used, though with caution, for the lowest treble strings. We have never
advocated the splitting up of bridges, but there are cases, such as these,
where unusual methods are quite unavoidable.
In the several ways thus sketched out, the designer of small grands may do
something to overcome the manifest difficulties of his task. He may
likewise take heart of grace when he approaches the matter of sound-board
area, for in treating the string-lengths there appears a partial solution of the
latter problem. In speaking of the use of suspension bridges we omitted to
note that the position of these may be modified so as to give greater length
to the speaking portions of the strings, by increasing the obliquity of the
angle of the overstringing. Of course, this would be obvious, but it is
perhaps not quite so clear that such adaptation will result in an opening out
of spaces on the sound-board that are usually left severely alone. Moreover,
if the necessary splitting up of the bridges be avoided by means of
connecting strips of the same material, it is clear that the opening up of the
sound-board may thus be carried up to the highest possible value.
Along such lines as these, it would seem, must the course of small grand
designing be laid, at least as far as concerns the vital elements of string-
length and sound-board area. There remains the question of the metal plate,
and this deserves separate treatment.
We have taken pains already to insist upon the necessity for compromise in
the building of small grands. Regarding the iron plate, we have to observe
that great care must be taken to avoid undue massiveness, for this will

entirely spoil the tone quality, as the other dimensions are not capable of
supporting a large mass of metal without tonal deterioration. On the other
hand, it is equally certain that we can afford to sacrifice nothing in the way
of strength, as we purpose to have the highest tensions and the greatest
lengths possible within the space limitations of our instrument. The
ordinary form of plate, copied from the large grand, may very
advantageously be modified by the adoption of a truss or arch construction,
which will enable a large amount of metal to be cut away from the treble
sides without sacrificing any strength.
Along such lines, as we have already said, the design of small grands must
of necessity proceed. We feel that it would not be improper to repeat our
formerly expressed opinion as to the nature and functions of the small
grand. It has come into existence in answer to a public demand for
something differentiated from the upright, possessing great beauty of
outline, and yet adapted to the confined surroundings of contemporary
domestic life. It is not and cannot be a rival of larger horizontal forms; it is
physically estopped from the realization of such ambitions. But it has a
place in the economy of the musical world, and such a place as nothing else
would satisfactorily fill. Wielding the mighty influence of the name “grand
pianoforte” and with the initial advantages over the upright that its form,
touch and action imply, it would indeed be remarkable if the production of
the small grand did not become more and more a part of the regular routine
of all pianoforte manufacturing establishments. The design of its case will
always, surely, be above criticism. It is out of our province to enlarge upon
the details of case architecture, but it may be pointed out that such details as
graceful trusses, well-designed lyre, and carefully molded curves do much
to make or mar the future of a small grand, entirely apart from the
excellence of its scale. The general effect should be that of lightness and
grace; a touch of frivolity even will not be out of place. The little instrument
is likely to find its way into homes where money is not always an object,
and where the ability to enjoy the best that life contains is usually present.
The designer will make no mistake if he keeps this in mind.

UNUSUAL METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION.

As the reader is well aware, the greater part of the present work has been
devoted to an exposition of the broad principles underlying all right
methods of pianoforte construction. We have devoted little space therefore
to the elaboration of features without this classification, or to the
consideration even of such ideas and methods as do not fall within the lines
laid down in the theoretical portion of this treatise. Busily occupied, as we
have been, with the development of acoustical and mechanical principles
and their application along the most obvious and natural lines, we have
been forced to neglect one of the most interesting studies that can be taken
up by the investigator; to wit: the ideas, inventions and devices that have
sprung from the brains of the numerous mechanical and acoustical geniuses
who have illuminated the course of pianoforte history and development.
Many of these ideas have proved impracticable under the stress of use;
others, again, have been shown to be commercially unprofitable; a still
larger number have flourished during a longer or shorter period or have
been neglected by all others than their original inventors. The true place for
a study of these neglected children of enthusiastic, if not always practical,
brains is in a history of the pianoforte rather than in a technical treatise on
construction.

[The End.]
The following corrections have been made to printer’s errors in this text:
Page Correction Location in Text
20 Handel to Händel time of Händel;
20 pianforte to pianoforte which the grand pianoforte
27 begin to begun now about to be begun.
32 closing parenthisis inserted staff in the bass clef)
32 B-sharp to B-Natural note 15 in harmonic series table
41 B double F-flat to B double flat minor sixths table
42 clasisfied to classified These sounds are thus classified:
49 of to or imply a length or height of
53 asumption to assumption made on the assumption
68 veenered to veneered turning out of such veneered cases,
77 missing comma inserted (more elaborate than the other two),
86 homogenous to homogeneous plate as homogeneous with the sides
87 is to it In fact it occupies
99 REPETITON to REPETITION DOUBLE REPETITION ACTION
109 fough to fought already been fought out
113 any one to anyone through by anyone who hopes

123 synchromize to synchronize will synchronize with each other,
124 mesontonic to mesotonic that the mesotonic system,
125 period added in the ratio 1296: 1250.
131 turned to tuned conversely, if the tuned notes
148 closing quote added vacuum in the “diaphragm chamber,”
154 Wtihout to Without Without entering into wearisome detail,
154 possesed to possessed musical advantages possessed
155 circustances to circumstances Under all circumstances,

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THEORY AND
PRACTICE OF PIANO CONSTRUCTION ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be
renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law
means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the
Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States
without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying
and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a
registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook,
except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying
royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge
anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg
eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do
practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by
U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any
other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you
agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License
available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work,
you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the
terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright)
agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement,
you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy
of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to
be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on
or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can
do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying
with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a
lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you
follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to
Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation”
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual
work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are

located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are
removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing
Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for
keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can
easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you
share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a
constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the
laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before
downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating
derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work.
The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status
of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied
or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with
this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in
the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country
where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived from
texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice
indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the
work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without
paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a
work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on
the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs
1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the
permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply
with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed
by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project
Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the
copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License
terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any
other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently
displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or
immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the
official Project Gutenberg website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no
additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of
exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work
in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format
must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph
1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing,
copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply
with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to
or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must
be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare
(or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns.
Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address
specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who
notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in
this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works
not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and
the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as,
but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription
errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that
damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except
for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to
you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you
can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you

received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund.
If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to
you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work
electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you
may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or
limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable
to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum
disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity
or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause
to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg
work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project
Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic
works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including
obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the
efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of
life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance
they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring
that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for
generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for
Project Gutenberg and future generations. To learn more about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations
can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)
(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of
Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service.
The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541.
Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s
laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and
official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the

number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment
including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are
particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort,
much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not
received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have
not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against
accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us
with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any
statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the
United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods
and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including
checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg
electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with
anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg
eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions,
all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a
copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in
compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how
to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,
how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email
newsletter to hear about new eBooks.