SQUABBLES OVER STANDARDISATION
Myth vs. Science Part 3
Express
November 2, 2000
Page 9
The
importation of entire steel orchestras for the recently
concluded World Steelband Music Festival triggered a long and highly
participatory discussion about the standardization of instruments, at the final
session of the international Conference on Science and Technology of the
Steelpan.
The
issue was not listed on the programme, but somehow sprung from the topic, “What
Constitutes a Good Pan?” and dominated the available time, as people
representing special interests leapt to the microphone to sing the praises of
their preferred styles, while the scientists examined some more complex
considerations.
Many
of the foreign orchestras that came for the festival brought all their
instruments. Sponsored by BWIA,
England’s Ebony Steelband was spared much of the problem, but for those who
attempted to ship bass pans and other bulky instruments, it was clear that
standardisation would have helped reduce both cost and worry.
But
bands have their pan styles and will incur great expense to change the
instruments to satisfy some new standard, not to mention the retraining of
scores of pannists, who will have to learn the orchestra’s repertoire afresh,
if different pans were put before them.
Witco
Desperadoes is a case in point, with its tenor pan note spread laid out in
unique fashion and opposite to that of many of the other orchestras.
“Pan
is not yet ready for standardisation,” said UWI lecturer/pan researcher Dr.
Derek Gay. “Its life so far, a mere 60
years, is a dot in the history of music.
In addition, today’s materials are not the same as those used at the
time of inception or even 25 years ago.
Perhaps we should be looking at finding the precise mix of the metal for
the various voices in the orchestra, before we attempt to ensure that all the
notes are in the same place on each pan.
“Standardisation
will mean not just the placement of the notes, but a predictable consistency in
the metal from which the instruments are made, as is the case with piano wire,
so that wherever a note of he same value is struck, the actual similarity of
sound can be guaranteed,” Gay said.
“Bear
in mind, though, that the smallest quantity of steel you can order from a
serious mill is about ten tons. You are
then left with the problems of economies of scale, which will inform the cost
of each instrument. When you look at
all that, standardisation seems to be less of a priority than previously
agreed.”
But
John Schmidt, presented the business perspective, which turned out to be a
popular view.
“It
costs a fortune to ship background pans to New York,” he said.
“If
the pans were standardized, a band could travel with only its frontline
instruments and rent basses and cellos and guitar pans in the countries where
they are required to play. The same
would have been true for bands coming to the music festival.
Dr
Uwe Hansen, professor emeritus at Indiana State University’s Department of
Physics, endorsed Gay’s position. “Pan
is a beautiful and powerful instrument,” he said, “but it is too young to start
regimenting style and attempting to confine evolution. Scientifically it is also very complex, with
all its notes located on a single surface.
When you play one note, you really play all. I think there are a number of things to be more properly
understood about the various styles before we seek to narrow design and tuning
techniques.”
Felix
Rohner, the Swiss pan innovator, argued that greater collaboration was needed
between the various people involved with pan experimentation. “The need for continuing dialogue seems more
pressing right now than standardisation,” Rohner said. “Pan is not just a Trini novelty
anymore. It is an instrument that has
been given to the world and several people have ideas about what should happen
to it next. We need to hear all those
ideas before taking any steps that might slow its progress.”
Pan
manufacturer Michael Cooper was practical.
“Technology and science can only be relevant to panmakers if it is affordable,”
he said, “or the whole body of knowledge will come to nought. The matter of standardisation may well
require scientists of different disciplines to examine it thoroughly.”