Dear Norman,
As one who responded to your first post on this subject, I want to
emphasize once more that my experience of the current production Steinways
is most positive--I never thought that I would see Steinway pianos of this
quality produced in my lifetime!
At the University of Texas School of Music we have about 132 Steinway
pianos, and I have many more in my private clientele. Thus, I have the
opportunity to see Steinway pianos produced both in Hamburg and New York
from about 1895 to the present (although Hamburg served very much as an
assembly plant for parts produced in New York until about 1907).
In my experience, it is a misconception to assume that all the Steinway
pianos produced prior to a certain time, say the past 20 years, were
uniformly well constructed and without problems. As with any manufactured
product, there are always variations in quality and stability due to many
factors, including the materials available, the quality of the labor force
available, the working conditions at the time, and sometimes as the result
of experimentation in new procedures and materials. I have seen pianos
from many different eras with manufacturing problems.
Nonetheless, in my experience, after about 1960 (and not entirely because
of the teflon experience), I have noted a maked decline in the quality of
the product. It seemed that Steinway & Sons weathered labor unrest, family
tragedies, shortages of materials, depressions, the collapse of financial
institutions, and wars without sacrifacing the basic quality of the
instrument--until the 1960's. For the first time in its history, the
factory was headed by an individual who was not as personally involved in
the arts and the arts community as was his predecessors; an individual
whose background was in business and who was more commited to the bottom
line, than to the quality of the product. To his credit, he did see the
company through the very difficult times of the fifties and returned the
company to a sound financial footing, just before selling it to CBS.
Under CBS the decline continued. In my opinion, stated here before, the
quality bottomed out in the early 1980's, and has been on an upswing since.
I would confidently put some of the new Steinway pianos that I have
recently prepped up against any piano from the "Golden Era", whenever that
my be.
As for the hammers, Steinway & Sons in New York, even when they switched to
German made keyboards, and briefly to Renner action parts in B's and D's,
has steadfastly maintained their preference for the hammer they produce.
This product has been improved as well over the years, and I have no
difficulty in producing a beautiful tone in the new instruments I service.
I suspect that their preference for the hammer produced in the Steinway
factory is largely cost related, all the rhetoric about "Steinway Tone
Building", etc. notwithstanding. Of all the manufacturers, Steinway
continues to treat field technicians to very much the same marketing hype
as they do the public, and still has a long way to go in building a
relationship of trust, mutuality, and support with the technicians in the
field, as has Yamaha, for instance. And, for the record, the hammers
produced at Renner for the German Steinway piano is not without its
challenges in voicing as well, although I do use the Renner Premium Blue
hammer extensively.
Norman, I would strongly recommend that you visit your local Steinway
dealer and examine the current production pianos. I hope that you will be
impressed. Things do change over time, including our opinions.
Cordially,
Charles
>Thanks to those of you who responded to my post last weekend on the
>quality of Steinway grand and baby-grand pianos. You seem to agree
>that their quality has not been the greatest the last 20 or 30 years,
>and I=92m happy to hear the view that it has now bounced back. I=92d like
>to elicit your comments on why the sound quality in particular suffered
>(see my comments below), and if you think that it has now improved along
>with the improvements in mechanical aspects. (I personally feel that
>the quality of its sound still needs improvement.)
>
>Why my interest? I feel that S&S quality is important to all our
>careers, and that it is incumbent on us to try to help them improve
>their product and thereby help ourselves. As I mentioned in my last
>post, I have customers who want to eventually move up to a Steinway -
>they are great pianos. Which should my customers buy? -- new, or used?
>In my opinion, you have to pick and choose very carefully over either a
>new model or used models made in the last 20-30 years. It would be nice
>to go back to the days of uniformly excellent quality.
>
>1) I feel that the Steinway New York hammers need improvement. Steinway
>technicians describe them in meetings I have been to as being of low
>density, and therefore needing to be juiced/hardened to build up
>adequate power and quality of sound. As I mentioned in my last post, I
>too often find the resulting treble sound to be thin, shallow, tinny,
>and/or bright - with voicing / tone regulation unable to compensate.
>Perhaps a higher density of felt would help, such as the Hamburg
>Steinway hammers (which I use for replacements) which I believe are made
>by Renner, alleviating the need for the degree of artificial hardening
>done at the factory.
>
>2) I think problems with sound quality result from the modern methods
>used for installation of the bridges and soundboard. If a copy of a
>Steinway memorandum that I received several years ago from Michael
>Yeager, Waterford, Connecticut, is correct, presumably written by Peter
>Mohr in 1987 and sent to Bill Davis, Steinway changed its method of
>achieving the bridge height and installing the soundboard in 1959. It
>sounds like the old method was far more labor intensive. A couple parts
>of the memo [again, if my copy is accurate] read: "In 1959 this method
>was changed to our current method to make the belly operation easier.
>.... By doing this there is no tension build into the soundboard. This
>causes loss of bearing and poor tone where its needed most [the
>treble]. ..." And further "In my opinion this matter is probably the
>single most important change that we can make to improve the tone. The
>experiments [conducted in 1979 and 1980] have been completed, results
>showed excellent tonal qualities with major improvement. ...". (Items
>in braces are my comments from other parts of the memo.)
>
> Norman Brickman
Charles Ball, RPT
School of Music
University of Texas at Austin
ckball@mail.utexas.edu
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC