>Delivered-To: philbondi.com-MPT@philbondi.com >From: "Les Smith" <lessmith@buffnet.net> >To: "MPT" <MPT@philbondi.com> >Subject: HISTORY LESSON >Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 03:59:09 -0000 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 >X-MailScanner: Found to be clean > > > > > > > > >HISTORY LESSON >by >Les Smith > > >To "Gina" Carter > >For naught escapes the wares time has to vend, >And all that has a start must have an end. > > >****** > > >Some time ago, I challenged list members to identify "the most influential >man in the history of the American piano". No one was able to do so. I >wasn't surprised. First of all, it was something of a trick question >because its answer consisted of two names, not just one. Secondly, I knew >full well that 99% of the techs out there had never even heard of these >two men, and thus didn't have the slightest idea who they were, or what it >was that made them so important. In fact, that's why I asked the question >in the first place! > >(If a person's a moron, it's an accident of birth and genetics. OTOH, if >he's an ignoramus, the fault's entirely his own; he can't blame anyone else.) > >And now I'll answer my own question: The two most influential and >important men in the history of the American piano were William B. >Tremaine and his son, Harry! > >'What? I've never even heard of those two bozos! Is this some sort of Joke?" > >Hardly, William and Harry Tremain were two sides of the of the same coin, >both cut from the same bolt of cloth, and they shared a common goal: More >than a hundred years ago, their ambition was to as completely dominate the >piano industry as Bill Gates and Microsoft dominate the computer software >industry today. And the thing about the Tremaines is that they almost made >it. Almost. Ultimately, they were tripped up by events over which they had >no control and which they couldn't possibly have foreseen. Nevertheless, >this doesn't dim in the slightest their positively brilliant insights into >the marketing possibilities of a self-playing piano. That's why, whenever >great men and their ideas are discussed, the names of William and Harry >Tremaine deserve to be mentioned. > >To illustrate what I mean, I'm going to take you into the mind of William >Tremaine for a moment. FIRST PRINCIPLE: To whom does one sell a piano? >"Well. duh, that's an easy one. Pianos are sold to pianists and >pianist-wannabes." Okay, but now consider this: To whom does one sell a >_self-playing_ piano? The answer is EVERYONE! In other words, William >Tremaine expanded his market to include every single household in the >country! Being able to play the piano was no longer a prerequsite for >owning one!That's just the beginnng; there's more. SECOND PRINCIPLE: The >advent of the self-playing piano rendered EVERY SINGLE HAND-PLAYED >INSTRUMENT _EVER_ PRODUCED as obsolete and made it a candidate for >replacement! Such was William's objective. Indeed, one of Tremaine's most >famous pieces of sales literature depicted a new self-playing piano being >delivered to a customer's home while at the same time, his old, >now-obsolete, hand-played instrument was being taken away. > >There was, of course, much more to theTremaine's Grand Strategy than just >this, (for example. one of their original takeover targets was the firm of >Steinway, itself!), but these two principles by themselves give you an >idea of the scope of the their ambitions: Total domination of the piano >industry. > >"Okay, Les, you've got my attention, but who _were_ these guys?" > >William Tremaine was a rare and gifted visionary . In the 19th Century -- >long before the days of the radio, the phonograph, or even electricity! -- >William looked into his crystal ball and accurately foresaw the future >of the piano. He was not content, however, merely to watch it happen, he >was determined to make it happen, and so he did. > >William began by quietly buying up patent rights -- and sometimes, entire >companies -- relating to self-playing pianos (and organs). Finally, in >1887, the ground-work had been laid and he was ready to found his company. >Uncharacteristically, however, he did NOT name it after himself , or even >a piano, but after a self-playing organ. William Tremaine called his >company AEOLIAN. He was its founder and first president. His son, Harry, >was his hand-picked successor. Between them, they set into motion forces >that would change the world. > >The lives and times of the Tremaines; the reasons behind the founding of >Aeolian; and a detailed accounting of that firm's first half century of >operations make a fascinating story. It reads like an adventure novel -- >albeit a tragic one -- and illustrates that then, as now, it's the lust >for wealth, power and glory that spurs men on to greatness. (This story >also puts into perspective Aeolian's final years.) > >Even when great men miss the mark, their failures can sometimes be >spectacular. So it was with the Tremaines. Athough they just barely missed >grapsing the brass ring, that failure touched off an industry-wide >meltdown of epic proportions. This is the story of what happened. > > >****** > >Although William Tremaine was the first to recognize the marketing >possibilities of a self-playing piano, he was not alone for very long. >Money makes the world go around, and as soon as the other piano >manufacturers grasped the huge profits to be made, they were quick to jump >on the Tremaine juggernaut. This had one immediate and far-reaching >consequence. > >The coming of age of the self-playing piano coincides precisely with the >disappearance of high- quality, hand played instruments. This is not >happenstance. The two are mutually exclusive. First of all, the piano was >now only one half of a whole, the other half being its self-playing >mechanism. Secondly, these instruments were now being aggressively >marketed to musically-ignorant, non-pianists. Consequently, many of these >instruments would _never_ be hand played. (One of the long standing jokes >to come out of the era was that a person no longer needed a good ear to >play the piano, just a good foot!) Manufacturers were quick to take >advantage of this fact by cutting piano construction costs where ever >possible. After all, every dollar saved was another dollar in their >pockets, and no one would ever know, right? Thus, when the whole era came >to an abrupt end, manufacturers not only lacked the financial wherewithall >to return to making high-quality, hand-played pianos, they had forgotten how! > >Because of this, the majority of the highest quality, American-built, >hand-played pianos date from within a very narrow time frame. It runs from >the Great Philadelphia Exhibition of 1876 to 1906 -- a period of only >thirty years! This latter date is not arbitrarily chosen. 1906 marks the >founding of the American Piano Company -- certainly the beginning of the >End. If one views William Tremaine's formation of Aeolian as the opening >move in a chess game for domination of the American Piano Industry, then >the creation of the American Piano Company may be seen as a countering, >defensive move in that same game. The founding of Aeolian and the APC >would ultimately prove to be to the American piano what hitting the >iceberg was to the ocean liner Titanic. A thorough development of this >theme would take an entire book by itself. I'll leave that task for >someone else. The fact remains, however, that with the exception of >Steinways, Richard Gertz's Mason and Hamlins, and some early Baldwins, the >vast majority of hand-played pianos built during the 20th Century were >litle more than embarrassments to the names on their fallboards. That's >part of the Tremaine legacy. > >****** > > >Self-playing pianos were expensive. Even an average quality, >run-of-the-mill "note-knocker" cost twice as much as its hand-played-only >counterpart. Higher quality, more sophisticated and complex instruments >cost even more, sometimes a lot more. For example: only the wealthy could >afford a nine-foot Steinway concert grand outfitted with Aeolian's >top-of-the-line Dou-Art reproducing mechanism and connected to their >Concertola twelve station automatic roll changer! No wonder Aeolian's >advertising literature for this product depicted a man in his tuxedo and a >woman in her evening gown, seated in the mahogany-paneled drawing room of >their mansion, listening to this magnificient instrument! > >Even today, the faultlessly performing, highly complicated preumatic >technology involved invites both wonder and increddulity. Imagine how it >must have seemed 3/4's of a century ago! > >****** > >(Footnote: Because of the great expense of doing so, only the largest >manufacturers -- like Aeolian -- were able to tool up for and produce >their own self- playing mechanisms. Most piano manufacturers out-sourced >their self-playing mechanisms, buying them from firms like the Standard >Aciton Company which built nothing else. In this way, even the smallest >manu-facturers were able to participate in the revolution,,and the debacle >that ended it.) > >****** > >Aeolian -- as well as all the many copycat manufacturers who had jumped >onto the self-playing piano band-wagon -- needed a gimmick to help them >sell these high-priced instruments, and they found one: they would sell >them on credit! Thus, for only a small downpayment and the promise to make >regular installment payments on the remaining balance due, a person could >take immediate delivery of his purchase. (Less-expensive, hand-played-only >pianos were also sold this way.) The idea went over like free booze at a >piano tuner's convention! Consequently, as the 1920's roared, the piano >indistry roared right along with them. Everything was proceed-ing exactly >as William Tremaine had foreseen. The brass ring was almost within reach. >What could possibly go wrong? (When things are going exceptionally well, >_never_ ask yourself this question!) > >It would be a mistake to assume that pianos were the only consumer goods >being sold on credit during the 1920's. They weren't. The idea of "buying >now and paying later" permeated every aspect of the economy. One could buy >virtually anything on credit -- even stocks. > >****** > >The stockmarket, like an individual stock, is governed by the law of >supply and demand. If there are more buyers than sellers, it moves up; in >there are more sellers than buyers, it moves down; and if everyone is >selling and no one is buying, it drops like a piano falling out of a 10th >story window! > >The stockmarket of the 1920's was a highly speculative one -- it defied >rational analysis. A steady influx of new investors sent the market >soaring. It was not uncommon to see prices of individual stocks double, >triple or even quadruple in a span of less than a year. This kind of >performance, of course, attracted even more investors, pushing the market >ever higher. Stock prices bore no correlation to the financial realities >of the underlying companies. Even if the company was a scam, had no >financial assets, never turned a profit and its entire board of directors >was on the FBI's "Most Wanted List", as long as there were more buyers >than sellers, its stock would continue to rise. Such as market was a very >dangerous place for unwary investors, and during the 1920's, they >abounded. Nevertheless, for a long time it seemed as though the bubble >might never burst. Seemed. Then, like a perverse game of "Musical Cairs", >the music suddenly stopped and when investors looked around, they >discovered someone had hidden all the chairs, there were no seats to be >had, and that they were all losers. > >****** > > >When a person invested in stocks during the 1920's, he only had to put up >15% of their purchase price and the brokerage house would "loan" him the >other 85%. ( this is known as "buying on margin", a very dangerous >practice for the uninformed.) Thus, on a $2000 purchase, the investor only >had to put up $300 and the brokerage house would front him the remaining >$1700. Assume now that the stock doubled in price. The position was now >worth $4000. When the investor sold, he would pay the brokerage house back >the $1700 it had loaned him, and be left with $2300. He had his $300 back >and $2000 of pure profit! The dream of making big bucks on a small >investment lured droves of financially-unsophisticated people of modest >means to invest in the stockmarket. When they signed their account >agreements, they had no idea they were committing financial suicide. They >would soon learn the truth , but like all of Shake-speare's tragic heroes, >that understanding would come too late to save them. Way too late. > >It always pays to read the fine print. Unfortunately, the hordes of >neophyte investors who flooded the stockmarket during the '20's in search >of '"easy money" neglected to do so. That was a fatal mistake. When the >clueless investor bought some stock and put up his 15%, he naively assumed >that the brokerage firm was loaning him 85% of the stock's PURCHASE PRICE. >It wasn't. It was loaning him 85% of the stock's CURRENT VALUE. There's a >huge difference. 85% of current value meant that as the price of the stock >in the investor's account fluctuated, the amount of the loan it would >collateralize fluctuated, too. In other words, the size of the loan was >not fixed. It varied. As long as the market was rising, everything was >fine. As soon as the market started to decline, however, the entire >country was given a "crash" course in " Stock Brokerage Realities 101". > >Let's return to our original example. The investor had purchased $2000 of >stock, put up his $300 (15%) and borrowed the other $1700 (85% of the >stock's CURRENT VALUE) from his brokerage firm. Now assume that the stock >moved down in price by 50%. The account was now worth $1000. This dollar >amount of stock would only collateralize a loan of $850. (85% of its >current value). Therefore, the investor would receive a demand from the >brokerage company to immediately pay back half of the $1700 it had >originally loaned him (based on the stock's then current value of $2000.) >This is called a "Margin Call". If the investor couldn't meet this demand >for more money, he was in for another nasty surprise. The brokerage >company would sell sufficient stock in his account to cover the amount >owed. This is called a "Sellout" In this particular case, the firm would >sell all the stock in the account because the investor owed it a total of >$1700. When the smoke cleared, this is the situation in which the investor >found himselff: He had lost his $300 investnment; his stock had been sold >out from under him; and he still owed the brokerage firm $700! If his >stock a dropped in price to zero, his situation would be even worse. He'd >be out his $300 inveastment; his stock was worthless; and he still owed >the brokerage firm the $1700 it had originally loaned him! > >At this point, Aunt Zerelda's habit of saving her money by putting it into >an old sock tucked away in the back of a dresser drawer didn't seem quite >so foolish! > >****** > >The stockmarket crash off '29 started out as a modest decline -- just >enough to trigger the first round of margin calls. When these calls >weren't met -- and most of them weren't -- the stocks in the investor's >accounts were sold out. This selling, coming into an already declining >market, pushed it even lower. This triggered another round of margin calls >and sellouts; they triggered another and they triggered another, etc. In >short, the declining market fed on itself and what started out as a modest >decline turned into a rout. When the smoke cleared, stocks had lost more >than 80% of their value, an amount measured in the tens of billions of >1929 dollars. > >****** > >We remember best those lessons that cost us money and the more expensive >they are, the better we remember them. After the crash of '29, people >stayed away from the market for decades, convinced that stockbrokers were >little more than crooks, thieves and con men. >However true that might be, it's not the complete story. The investors, >themselves, were partly to blame, too. In their rush to make a quick >killing in the market, they had let greed get in the way of good >judgement. There's an old Wall Sreet adage worth remembering: "Bulls and >Bears can make money in the market; Pigs can't." > >It's unfortunate that a bull is the mascot of the country's largest >brokerage firm. While many people believe that it symbolizes the firm's >investment philosophy, others hold that it merely represents "truth in >advertising"! :) > >****** > > >It's commonly assumed that the maket crash of 1929 was the cause of the >Great Depression. It wasn't. It was only a contributing factor. For >example, not all people were dumb enough to allow themselves to get sucked >into investing in the stockmarket. These were prudent people who worked >hard for their money, knew the value of a dollar, and put it where it >would be safe: into a bank. So imagine their surprise when one day after >the stockmarket crash, they went to their bank to withdraw some money from >their account and discovered that its doors were padlocked shut because it >had gone bust! Although the idea of depositer's insurance would arise from >the ashes of the banking system's colllapse, it would come far too late to >be of any help to the crowd of angry people milling around on the sidewalk >outside their bank, shaking their fists -- or at least one finger! -- at >the institution that had betrayed their trust. Their money was gone just >as surely as if they had taken a market flyer on Consolidated Buggy Whips! > >****** > >The strockmarket crash followed by the collapse of the nation's banking >system (some 5000 banks failed) dealt the economy a devastating one-two >punch, American's credit driven economy of the 1920's was essentially a >huge pyramid scheme. Its sustainabilty was predicated upon the necessity >that consumers keep making regular payments on their installment loans. >Suddenly, they were unable to do so. Moreover, they didn't have any money >to purchase new goods either. This brought the whole house of cards >tumbling down. The economy came to a standstill. Massive layoffs ensued >and many factories closed their doors forever. The unthinkable had happened, > >All throughout the decade, the people had been payiing for the present by >mortgaging their tomorrows and had thought the note would never come due. >They were wrong. When the dust from the economic collapse had settled, >they discovered Snidely Whiplash standing amidst the ruins of their lives, >mortgage note in hand, demanding his money, and the people had no way of >paying him. No way at all.. At that moment, the world changed forever. >The past was irretrievably lost and the future was an impenetrable enigma. >What would become of the people now? What would they do? No one had the >answers the people sought, but some lied and said that they did. Chief >among those liars was a man named Franklin Delano Roosevelt... (Ralph >Martin would have loved this part!) > >****** > > >During the 1920's, one could buy a self-playing piano for as lttle as 10% >down and finance the remaining 90%. For a while, this certainly moved the >goods. Unfortunately, no one ever gave any thought to what would happen if >all the purchasers defaulted on their loans at the same time and they (the >loans) suddenly became uncollectable. That's exactly what happened. The >effect was the same as if the manufacturers had been holding >a decade-long going-out-of-business- sale, liquidating their instruments >for 10 cents on the dollar: i.e. selling a $600 oiano for $60. a $1500 >piano for $150; etc. The financial losses were staggering and their >effect, catastrophic. Like a herd of stampeeding cattle blindly following >its leader over the edge of a cliff to certain death, the entire piano >industry followed Aeolian over the brink of a bottomless abyss. > >Although no one was aware of it at the time, the entire piano industry had >suffered a mortal blow. It would take another fifty years to finish >driving all the nails into the lid of its coffin, but by the time that >happened, they were merely burying a decades-old corpse and there were no >mourners at its funeral. The industry's epitaph? Rust In Peace. That is >William and Harry Tremaine's ultimate legacy and the reason why they are >so important to the history of the American piano. > >(Footnote: A few players have been made in modern times, but they were >merely echoes of a long-distant past. The Tremaines did it first, and no >one ever did it any better. Not ever.) > > >****** > >"After the economic collapse, why didn't manufacturers just return to >making regular, hand- >played instruments?" > >They couldn't. The financial devastation was just too great. Leaf through >the pages of your piano atlas and you can read the death notices of all >the firms that didn't make it. Some companies did survive, of course, >chief among them, Aeolian, itself, but it was only a ghost of its former >self. Its glory days were gone forever. Aeolian (and the other survivors) >would spend the next five decades building increasingly inferior pianos. >The reason for this is not difficult to understand: there were few buyers, >not even for poor quality, cheaply made instruments. > >The Great Depression lasted all throughout the 1930's and into the early >'40's. All this time, the people were waiting for Roosevelt to make good >on his promises to revive the economy and to bring about full employment, >but he never did, He had lied. The New Deal turned out to be The Raw Deal. >Consequently, although the people had plenty of time on their hands, they >had no money in their pockets to buy pianos. > >The Nation's entry in World War ll did for the economy what Roosevelt, >hinself, could not: it got it going again.. The men all went off to fight >the war and the women entered the work force, taking over those jobs in >industry that had traditionally had held by men. With everyone involved in >the war effort, however, no one had time for pianos. > >When the men came home after winning the war, they discovered America had >changed. The Depression was finally over; the economy was humming along >and jobs were plentiful. Most importantly for our purposes, however, there >was soon to be a vast array of dazzling new consumer goods competing for >their dollars. Pianos weren't even on the list. > >Radio had come into its own during the '30's and 40's, but would soon be >upstaged by a new kid on the block. Late in the decade, RCA introduced an >invention that would transform the world: television. Sales boomed all >throughout the '50's and then, just when it seemed the saturation point >was being reached, color television was introduced in 1960. This rekindled >the buying frenzy as everyone scrambled to replace their now-obsolete >Black & White sets with color ones. > >The war now over, new cars were once again in production. At the same >time, the Federal Government built an elaborate system of modern highways >crisscrossing and unifying the entire nation. Because of these two >factors, we were now a highly mobile and interconnected society. > >In the 1950's, the big band sound of the '30's and '40's was replaced with >something new: >Rock n Roll. Soon the music of performers like Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, >Flvis Presley, Fats Domino, Johnny Cash, Jerry Lee Lewis and Carl Perkins >was blaring from the speakers of radios, juke boxes and 45 rpm record >players all across the country. Hi-Fi was introduced in the '50's, >stereo, several years later. > >And then, in the 1960's, America suffered two notable foreign invasions: >the first was by a British music group called "The Beatles"; the second >was by a Japanese piano with a strange sounding name: Yamaha. (Properly >pronounced, the enphasis is on he second syllable: >ya-MA-ha.) Japan had lost one war, but it would win this one. > >During the post war era, although the people had both the time and the >money for pianos, they had little desire for them. Once such an important >part of America's economy and culture, as the 20th Century progressed, the >piano became increasing irrelevant to both. What had happened? Simply put: >the World had changed. Again. > >****** > >'What about Steinway? It Still exists." > >The "Instrument of the Immortals" is just as dead as they all are, and has >been for some time. If you're reading this essay, I assume you can >"connect the dots" for yourself, but I'll give you an example of what I >mean. Early Steinways were so good that even Franz Liszt, himself, -- he >died in 1886 --had an American-built Steinway upright in his teaching >studio at Weimar. He got this piano (as well as a second one!) courtesy of >Richard Gertz's father who was a supplier of fine-quality pianos to the >European concert tarde (Brahms, Wagner, etc). That was a long time ago. >Things have changed. > >Take a modern Steinway upright, remove its top board and look inside. Do >you notice anything missing? You know, like its entire action!!!!! What's >happened to those vaunted, tubular metal action rails; those snazzy, >"signature" flanges; and all those other proprietary action parts that >once made a Steinway a Steinway and could be found on no other piano in >the world? That's just the beginning. Try playing even a moderately >difficult Lisztian composition -- like the Concert Etude in Db (Un >Suspiro), or the first movement of the Sixth Hungarian Rhapsody -- on this >instrument and you'll quickly discover why if Franz Liszt were alive >today, it's an _absolute certainty_ that he would NOT have a modern >Steinway upright in his Studio! > >If you're unable to understand any of this, reread the second paragraph of >this essay. > > >****** > >And what of Today's piano technician? He, himself, is little more than a >gray-bearded anachronism, a cob-webbed relic from the distant past. For >all his relevancy to the modern world, he might just as well be working on >Model-T automobiles; crystal radios; clockwork mechanism, Victrola record >players; vacuum-tube, black & white television sets; or hula-hoops. >It turns out that Barney isn't the last surviving dinosaur. He has plenty >of company. > > >CONCLUSION > >There is a lesson to be learned in all this and it's an important one: The >one constant in life is change. The world is in a perpetual state of flux >and no matter how permanent something may appear to be, the sad truth is >that nothing lasts. Nothing. > >Expressing this a little more poetically: > >For everything there is a time, but once that time has passed -- however >much you might wish otherwise -- it's gone forever. > > > >To put this all into perspective for you, I'll conclude by posing a >heart-breaking question Newton Hunt asked me not long before he died: > >'Whatever happened to Yesterday, Les? Where did it go?" > >Lately, I've been wondering the same thing. > >Les Smith > > >copyright 2003 >Les Smith > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The people were paying for the present by mortgaging their tomorrows, and >they thought the note would never come due. They were wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conrad Hoffsommer - Music Technician Luther College, 700 College Dr., Decorah, Iowa 52101-1045 Vox-(563)-387-1204 // Fax (563)-387-1076 - Education is what you get from reading the small print. Experience is what you get from not reading it.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC