piano differences

[Delwin D Fandrich]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
                                          WARNING

The following is probably a bit longer than most of the "one-liners" will want to wade
through. It is also highly opinionated and wanders a bit. Just don't say you weren't
warned...

-- ddf
--------------------------------------------------

robert sadowski wrote:

> Del,
>     Could you elaborate on your comment about Steinway now trying to imitate
> the sound of the others? Have they changed their design philosophy?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob Sadowski
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Delwin D Fandrich <pianobuilders@olynet.com>
> To: pianotech@ptg.org <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 3:17 AM
> Subject: Re: piano differences

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Bob,

No. I don't think that their design philosophy has changed. Certainly the design of their
pianos hasn't. At least not discernibly.

What has changed is the sound. It has become increasingly bright and hard. At least in the
instruments I have heard of late. You can't do to piano hammers what they are doing to
their piano hammers without hardening up and "linearizing" the sound. The perception seems
to be, these days, (and not just with Steinway) that piano sound should be "bright" and
"powerful" at all cost. Well, power and brilliance is available, but you have to start
from the inside and work out. If you try to obtain it just from the hammers you simply end
up with a hard, linear sound. What is getting lost are the dynamics that make a piano a
pianoforte. I still maintain that the industry should get together and change the official
name of the instrument to "Forte" since the "Piano" got lost somewhere in the
Japanese/Korean invasion.

I could understand why Kimball felt it necessary to attempt to emulate that hard, bright
sound so typical of the Asian pianos. They were a mass market piano and, obviously, their
sales were suffering from the popularity of the Asian imports. (I would speculate that had
they concentrated on making their pianos better, rather than  just cheaper, they might
have been more successful in their come-back, but that was not to be.) I can even
understand why Baldwin wanted desperately for their pianos to sound like Yamaha's during
the eighties. But Steinway should remain above that. I don't say this because of any warm,
fussy feelings about the piano or the company on my part. I should think it would simply
be good business. Historically, Steinway was always the leader in establishing the piano
tone standard of the world. And it was a role they handled well through the forties and
fifties. Now it seems, they are following.

I realize that sales are important. Especially in the case of mass-market pianos. That
doesn't mean that companies like Steinway have to bow to the tone standards set by those
companies. I should think that the market is there. At least in our experience there are a
lot of folks looking for something beyond what the industry is capable of providing in
terms of piano tone. (I might add that a lot of these folks already have pianos. Many of
them have older Steinways. They would trade up in a heartbeat if there was something
available that excited them. Instead they have them rebuilt.) There is room in the world
for both.

Well, I ramble. But, at least our fire extinguishers are all in good shape...

Regards,

Del

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/01/71/10/04/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--