Well, Jim , that would be a good Journal article of interest to all of us with those pianos... David Ilvedson, RPT Pacifica, CA 94044 Original message From: "Jim Busby" To: "College and University Technicians" Received: 2/15/2007 3:31:54 PM Subject: Re: [CAUT] New Upright Pianos Ted, If anyone can say this with authority, you can. Good post. FYI Vince Mrykalo and I took a 1098 (c.1954) here at BYU removed the ”bump” at the top, moved the bass bridge, rescaled using Pure Sound stainless wire and did a couple other things to it. Now it sounds and tunes like a good piano. False beats went away, as well as the tuning nonsense that technicians often complain about. I’d not hesitate to do this to any and all older 1098s. Highest regards, Jim Busby BYU From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Ted Sambell Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:43 PM To: College and University Technicians Subject: Re: [CAUT] New Upright Pianos Barbara, I would urge you on no account to recommend Sreinway 1098's; they are simply bad pianos. Back in 1970 the university I worked for underwent rapid expansion of their faculty of music and purchased a number of these, principally for the offices of non performance professors, such as musicologists, composers, and historians, whose demands for a piano were fairly low, and in fact were not necessarily pianists at all. Aside from poor tone and excessive false beats, and generally mediocre workmanship the touch quality was slow and stodgy feeling. But far more serious was that EVERY ONE of them had the pinblock in the bass separate.Other technicians I knew had similar experiences Admittedly, I am sure that this design flaw has been corrected in more recent years. But the few I have seen since then have been less than impressive. One had action geometry problems which resulted in sticking keys, despite all the centers and key bushings being free. I was able to correct this, but why did it get out of the factory like this in the first place?And I don't know if they still do this, but the fallboards were held in by screws from underneath the keybeds, which simply defies commonsense. I have seen the recent K's, and find them anything but impressive. They are not really reproductions of the old K's, which were truly noble instruments (despte their quirky actions) so much as an interpretation of them. My feeling about Steinways is that their hearts are really not in it where uprights are concerned. I have attended many of their classes, and cannot recollect one mention of uprights. On one occasion I heard Franz Mohr say he hated them. I know of one horror story of a K which had sticking key problems, perhaps similar to the one I had worked on, but the dealer technicians had been unable to correct them. The whole situation escalated out of hand and ultimately resulted in the customer being without a piano and still owing the bank $8000. I feel both parties handled things badly of course. The customer is so angry he has circulated the whole story on the Internet, and says he will do anything he can to hurt Steinway. This is very sad. When it comes to choosing practise room pianos, I would very strongly consider Kawais. I have worked on some which were from ten to thirty years old, and found them in near mint condition. These had ABS actions, now superseded by carbon fibre which are even more reliable. I love wooden actions, but honesty compels me to acknowledge the superior durability and stability of the Kawai actions.Should the piano endure, it is obvious that this is where the future lies.If pure beauty of tone is more important, I would consider some of the fine German makers, especially Bluthner, Pfeiffer, Sauter, Seiler, Ibach , Steingraber, Fuerich, Schimmel and others.I have not seen recent examples of Bechstein uprights, only grands, or Hamburg Steinway uprights so can have no opinion on them.-On the whole, I think that with few exceptions most pianomakers are not interested in developing the upright, which actually has more potential as a musical instrument than appears to be recognized. For instance, Edwin Good is quite properly critical of the somewhat inferior repetition of the upright action, but recognizs Del and Darrell Fandrich's designs and makes the observation that it remains to be seen if the Fandrich action will become generally accepted. But it goes much farther; we know that the only valid middle pedal is the sostenuto, yet there are a minority of uprights with this despite a perfectly reliable design. Instead we have in general, three useless possibilities for the middle pedal, viz; the bass damper lift, duplicating the regular soft pedal, and the so-called 'practice rail'. The latter was likened by Tobias Matthay, a world renowned music educator, to a 'dog trying to bark with its head in a sack'. If it is used much, it wears through quickly, and if it doesn't, which is more often than not, it is worthless. I believe it to be a vestigial remnant of the supernumary pedal effects from the late 18th. Century Viennise pianos and has no legitimate place in a piano. If iit did, then it should be in grands too. Further, the regular soft pedal in an upright merely messes up the touch quality with an excess of lost motion. A Japanese company, Toyo successfully made uprights (called the Apollo piano) with una corda they termed the Slide Shift System. I have also seen this (rarely) on a few old German uprights. To achieve this , the dampers would need to be mounted separately from the rest of the action, which in turn would have to be fastened to the keyframe, which would be installed like that in a grand.This would also be a boon to us, as the dampers would be much more accessible for maintenance and repair.Other attempts to improve repetition have been made, in fact fairly successfully, variants of spring and loops for instance, and the old Mason and Hamlin screw stringers had a leaf spring riveted to the front of the jacks which engaged against a felt block on the inside of the catcher. And to prove I have lost my reason, dare I put in a word for the much maligned "birdcage'?I am not for a moment suggesting these should be revived, but the term is insulting. They were the true forerunners of the modern upright action and are entitled to some respect. The proper mane is 'overdamper actions'. In fact, they are simple and in the right climatic conditions, very reliable. The touch quality can be very clean; in my younger days many years ago, running round London (UK) doing five tunings daily, I might tune four and then an 'underdamper'. This, with its three springs instead of one as in the overdampers would feel springy and rubbery in comparison. The Bluthner piano company clung to the overdamper design long after most makers had abandoned it, perhaps for these very reasons, and their uprights were magnificant by any criteria. It is not true that overdampers are more difficult to tune. One simply has to adopt suitable muting techniques. Their besetting problem is adapting to our climatic conditions and the fact that only the best built ones damped efficiently.But I woul like to own one of those Bluthners. Incidentally, they had hammer and wippen flanges made of brass with adjustble centerpin bushings. These were blatantly copied from the earlier Erard grands, but were beautifully machined. They looked like a wood flange, only thinner, and were slit up to the bushing hole. A tightening screw held the two parts together. I believe the hammer flanges on the large American square pianos were slit the same way. Well anyway, these are some of the possibilities which could do much for the upright, if the will existed to do so. Realistically, I am not hopeful, the money angle is undeniable. I could go on and on, but have tried everyone's patince enough, I am sure. My best to all, Ted Sambell - Original Message ----- From: Paul Chick (Earthlink) To: 'College and University Technicians' Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:58 PM Subject: Re: [CAUT] New Upright Pianos Subject: Re: [CAUT] New Upright Pianos On Feb 10, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Barbara Richmond wrote: Greetings all: While we're on the subject, a friend asked me to compare Yamaha U-3s with Steinway URs. Uh, I don't even know what a Steinway UR is, just that I usually try to avoid Steinway uprights in general (but maybe they've improved lately!). I cut my teeth on Steinway 45s (or 1098s or whatever they are). Once you learn how to work with them, or at least accept them, they're much easier to appreciate. But avoiding them simply because you'd rather tune a Yamaha because it's easier isn't giving the Steinway much of a chance out of the starting gate. And don't expect it to be like tuning a Yamaha or a Kawai, or a Boston or a Walter, or a Baldwin, because any of those, it isn't. You have to accept the instrument for what it is and work with it. Yes. Steinway verticals can be aggravating to tune. Some, more so than others, and especially when they're new. But once you put that front board back on, take off your technician's hat and put on your musician's hat, it is a much different story. All that noise somehow turns into a reliable, very stable, and pretty decent sounding musical instrument. And I'm sorry, what David Porritt wrote, quoting Ron N, is just completely off base. The people who own 1098s love them. It doesn't matter why. They just do. And those people tend to find Yamaha verticals leave much to be desired. I especially don't get the big hoopla over the U3. It is very creamy. In fact, all cream. No coffee. No tea. No peaches. No cookies. Just... ...plain... ...cream. The argument against the Yamahas (given by the Steinway dealer) is the Steinways will last a lot longer. These pianos would be used in a university, but I'm not sure if they are for practice rooms or studios. Anyway, I think it's hard to beat Yamaha in consistency and I wonder (and what I would be concerned about is) what the condition the Steinway hammers are in regarding lacquering--and then there are those center pin bushings... I can't in good conscience responsibly agree with much of anything that has been said on this thread. When I look at the P2s and P202s in my client base and compare them to the 1098/45s from the same time and even years older, there is no way I could ever come to a sober conclusion that the Steinway doesn't hold up better over time than the Yamaha. The same would have to be said for G1's, G2s, G3s, and C3's versus Steinway S, M and L, even with teflon. Sure, the atoms will all still be there years from now on both pianos, but give me a practice room beaten 40 year old 1098 over a P2 that's been used a couple hours a week in a church any day. Folks, we're talking about mass produced pianos built for the lower priced market by a company accustomed to its customers throwing pianos away after 25 or 30 years, versus artist grade instruments built with superior materials, and built to be rebuilt again and again by a company that has been building pianos for world class artists since 1854. Steinway marketing myth my behind. I don't see people lining up to pay 5 times the original selling price for 35-40 (or 80 to 100) year old Yamaha pianos and then investing more money to get us to rebuild them. And I definitely don't see how that can be blamed on Steinway's marketing department. Yamaha's main market niche is for disposable pianos, and they are priced accordingly. I have nothing against the Yamaha product or the company. But we're not talking about apples and apples here. If we were talking about Yamaha's artist series instruments, you might have a good debate. But Yamaha has shot itself in the foot for not marketing them more diligently. Or perhaps it can't sell them. For Yamaha to make a piano in Steinway's quality range, they have to charge 30%-40% more. Unless, of course, you're looking at a used one. You've actually got to hand it to Steinway. The Steinway factory is located in one of the most expensive cities in the world, with one of the highest costs of living anywhere. And despite labor unions, and difficult hazardous materials restrictions, they manage to build a world class piano which sells for a lower cost than any of the Asians can do it. And it has survived the American economy for over 150 years. That is no easy feat considering it survived a civil war, two world wars and a dozen or more year long economic depression that wiped out almost every American piano manufacturer. I'm tired of hearing them berated the way they are. Our customers like Steinway. Performing artists like Steinway. Our university faculties prefer Steinway. Steinway doesn't have to loan their pianos for free for a year to get universities to use them, and they don't have to pay artists for endorsements. This is not Steinway marketing. I really don't see how anyone could come to any different conclusion, unless that someone truly can't appreciate the difference. Then, I suppose, it doesn't matter. Jeff Tanner, RPT University of South Carolina Thanks for your comments, Jeff. I tune and tech for a local dealer that carries Steinway, a line of nice Japanese pianos, and a price point Chinese product. 2%-the Steinway inventory-creates as much attention as the 98%. The attention is not the advertising, prep work, etc. It is the awe of the consumer walking into the store and up to a world class instrument whose name does not include “piano.” Just say “Steinway” to anyone in music. They know it’s a piano. Paul C -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070215/281a17d0/attachment-0001.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC