Hi Jeff. I have to admit I agree with very much of your thinking, and will go a long ways down that road. I give the pianist quite a bit of credit for knowing what they have purchased and why. I do not, especially now after giving at least 10 years benefit of the doubt to those who make the most of the marketing argument for the success of some piano manufactures, in the end conclude that pianists are so fickle as to be completely unaware of the response picture they are after and who supplies that for them. True enough there is a fair share of irrationality involved... but just so. I find quite the opposite that despite the <<its not a Steinway>> syndrome in all its many variances... pianists by and large have a clear and concise (if largely intuitive based) conception of what response they want from an instrument for any given touch. When their fingers engage the keys they know on some level or another quite precisely what they want/expect to come back at them from the piano. There should be no doubt in anyones mind that different manufacturers have their own sound. That accepted... it should be no suprise that pianists themselves display distinct preferences for different piano types exactly because of these differences and their own expectations. Taken one step further... sensitive pianists will have a clear idea of what a <<good>> Steinway or a <<good>> Yamaha or any other make is when they select an instrument. All this said... I do not believe we should be afraid of changing hammer types, altering touch weights or enacting any other basic changes. Sometimes this is exactly what an instrument needs to fully live up to exactly those same expectations the pianist has for the instrument. When I stated earlier I believe we should all first and foremost learn to become very proficient at our own voicing style... I was referring more to how one voices a hammer rather then the end result. I'll grant the two are somewhat intertwined... but a long ways from fully so. As far as Draconian design changes are concerned... well my position on that is well documented :) I really have no problem with that as long as such changes are made in accordance with standard practices of making fully obvious on the instrument that it is a custom design no longer representative of a stock issue whatever. I do agree completely that passing off an instrument as a Steinway, Yamaha, Bechstein... or whatever else when its basic design parameters are so altered as to render the original character of the instrument totally erased is tantamount to fraud... and that is as kind a way to put it as I can. Where that border goes is a bit dubious. I can state however that David Stanwood requires that his logo be attached on any Stanwood-ized instrument.... and I expect it is out of respect for this ethic.... and because its downright good advertising as well. Cheers RicB Dave, With all due respect, I think you may misunderstand what Mrs. Customer believes she owns. If it says Steinway on the fallboard, she expects it to be as authentically Steinway as possible - that it is not just a replica, but a clone of the instruments the artists play. She also expects her technician to speak and understand Steinway. Once it has lost any of that authenticity, she accepts that it is no longer what it once was. Whether or not we want to admit it, if it is no longer authentic, it loses value in her mind. If a potential buyer were to learn that it is not authentic, it loses value in his mind as well. There is indeed more at issue here than our own artistry and pride. Yes, there is a large variance in what is possible with touch weight, response and tone. But changing the hammers changes the complete character. It will never be capable of that sound that is authentically Steinway (or Yamaha or whoever). That is what it loses. And I completely disagree with the assertion that the manufacturer no longer owns it. They own every patent, every design and every process which has earned the reputation sought by buyers of the name on the fallboard. That name on the fallboard is definitely their property. It is the identity on which their future business is built. If we profit by changing any part of the product wearing that name, well, some industries would consider that fraudulent. Were you the purchaser of a prescription drug or a food that someone had altered after it was stamped ready for market you would quickly disagree with your philosophy. If it is discovered that drugs are tampered with after they leave the manufacturer, it is that manufacturer that suffers the losses incurred, even if the perpetrator is caught and put in jail. Let's say we own a small business which makes paint, but can't afford our own cans and labels to store it in, and so we collect empty paint cans with other manufacturer's names on the can - maybe we make interior paint and put it in an old Sherwin Williams exterior paint can and sell it as Sherwin Williams exterior paint. We are misrepresenting the product in the can and taking advantage of the established name to profit. The customer thinks he is buying Sherwin Williams exterior paint. It is the same. > Neither, btw, should you be concerned about manufacturer identity. > No matter what you do, you will not turn a Yamaha into a Steinway > or a Steinway into a Yamaha. I'm sorry. I completely disagree. My experience is that Mrs. customer was quite concerned about manufacturer identity when she bought her piano. One may not be able to turn a Yamaha into a Steinway or vice versa, but one can definitely turn it into something that is no longer represented by the name on the fallboard. It becomes a rebuilt, generic instrument with a false identity. Something like me claiming to a business degree from Yale, when it is actually from the University of Georgia. While UGA patterned itself very much after Yale, Yale it is not. I'm just not comfortable wearing that hat. Jeff Tanner, RPT University of South Carolina
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC