Not A Blog™

8th of August, 1874
two and one-half cents

Morgan Staves, inventor and scientist of all things music-related, has been summoned to court by the lawfirm of Pendergrass & Steu, representing the Pianist Performers Society. They seek damages in excess of two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars over three years for Mr. Staves’ invention of the auto-matic “player” piano.

The contraption requires no human operator, but plays itself with a mechanism which is patent-pending. Across this land, the “player” piano has done away with the necessity for competent musicians. Indeed, the “player” piano is capable of being played by human hand, yet the hand is not required.

“This monstrosity is taking rightfully earned and dreadfully needed pennies out of the pockets of simple musicians,” says Arthur Pendergrass, one of the two principal partners of the lawfirm of Pendergrass & Steu. “Pianists already need to learn to perform on two—even three—additional instruments in order to keep pace with more affluent musicians, such as trombonists, who can make do knowing but a single clef. Eliminating their craft altogether borders on criminal and we aim to make it so.”

The president of the Pianist Society, Professor Hammond Higgenbothem, echoed Mr. Pendergrass’ thoughts. “It is not simply a matter of putting us on the dole, but of the transfer of profits from musicians. Monies which previously went to professors of music go now forthwith to Mr. Staves, a man, they say, who knows not how to plink out the most simple of tunes.”

The Pianist Society laments the dis-appearance of performances with musicians present. There may come an age when all instruments—even the mighty trombone—are replaced by automatons, and no more shall any man pay to watch a performance by another man. According to Prof. Higgenbothem, the fee proffered to attend the theatre and harken said performance is simply for that hearing alone. If one wishes to hear the melodies again, one must pay another fee. Yet Mr. Staves’ invention allows one to pay but a single time for a performance and listen to it many times over, as he pleases. This does a disservice to the musician who labored to make the original reproduction, and—so argues Prof. Higgenbothem—such action should be unlawful.

Esquire Pendergrass: “Today, the musician disappears from the music. Tomorrow, the paper-printed renderings of music may be passed around freely with no monies changing rightful hands.”

Despite their cries, tavern proprietors have sided with Mr. Staves, proclaiming an increase of profit while free from the ravages of hired pianists who show up drunk, or not at all. Mr. Prosser, owner of King’s Pub on 58th and Main, had this to say. “One would be surprised to learn the persistence and regularity with which so-called professional players exhibit less than desirable behavior. Hired to entertain for an evening, they will play the ladies as oft their instrument. If such a device as Mr. Staves’ allows me to dispense with their ill-company, so be it!” When it was pointed out to Mr. Prosser that he may be in violation of the law, he replied that perhaps it is the performers—by way of dis-respecting their customers—who are at fault.

In the mean-time, pianists are devising methods of subverting Mr. Staves’ “player” piano. Only some days previously the Society has passed a bylaw expelling from their numbers any who would make re-cordings on behalf of Mr. Staves. Then there is the concern of a typical piano being so modified as to surreptitiously create a re-cording, without the knowledge of a performing musician.

Thoughts have been proffered to circumvent this practice which, while not unlawful, would be made so by Pendergrass & Steu’s legal actions. They include such contrivances as lightly tapping other keys inbetween the prescribed notes, not with force sufficient enough to produce a tone, but just so to confuse the re-cording mechanism, thus rendering the copy useless. While Mr. Staves was not available to respond in kind, he is on record as stating such actions are foolish and serve to accomplish nothing but frustrate the listener due to the pianists resulting poor performance, which the mechanism would not fail to obtain. Furthermore, machinists who lathed works for Mr. Staves have reported the mechanism to be industriously robust, and that its functioning would not easily be subverted by any known means.

The circumstances do not bode well for the Pianists Society, hence their decision to take action via the courts. It remains to be seen whether their actions will have an effect on the whole of musicians, specific to pianists. Mr. Staves has to this day, made the impressive sum of two hundred, forty-seven thousand dollars on his “player” pianos. If halted by Pendergrass & Steu, the entirety of this money could be returned to the coffers of the Pianist Performers Society, as damages due for unlawfully playing music without a player.

If unsuccessful in defending the suit, Mr. Staves has hinted that he has in the works, a device immeasurably more improved than the “player” piano. Working with a young man by the name of Thomas Edison, he claims to be able to re-cord any sound—including the intricacies of the human voice—with such precision that it sounds indistinguishable from the actual instrument. Scientists have rejected his claims as but mere speculation. After all, it is one thing to manipulate a piano—the real instrument in all its trappings—as if played, only by clockwork; it is entirely another thing to reproduce naught but the audible sound of a piano when no piano is present. Nevertheless, if this claim holds merit, the Pianists Performers Society may cease to exist altogether, demand for their services rendered practically non-existent.

It seems we must exercise patience, in order that we might watch the pianists’ fate play out.