Twilight for an ivory covering

[Ron Nossaman]

> With all due respect to Mike from Blackstone, I will reiterate, it is in 
> a high school! I should explain, one of the school districts I tune for 
> had a Steinway 0, on my recomendation they got rid of it and now have a 
> Yamaha C3, why you may ask? In the first place I did not feel a public 
> high school with the budget crunches being forced on the music 
> departments could afford to maintain a Steinway. 

Redesigning and rebuilding the Steinway O would produce a 
better sounding piano that's at least as durable as the C3 for 
about the same money, and not be a bit more costly to maintain.


>This was an elderly 
> Steinway, purchased used, by the school from a private party, eventually 
> rebuilt and at the time it was traded in on the C3 in need of another 
> rebuild. 

Yes, a thorough one.


>I think we can all agree Yamaha and most other makers parts are 
> cheaper than Steinway parts, even if you use non Steinway parts. 

Odd, I don't find that putting high quality parts in a 
Steinway is any more expensive than putting high quality parts 
in any piano.


>In the 
> second place the piano wasn't being cared for, it sat in front of the 
> instrument lockers in the band room most of the time and had little 
> "dimples" all over the top from the corner cleats of the band instrument 
> cases. The Yamaha has fared a little better but not all that much.

Which is of no value in deciding to have bought the Yamaha 
over dumping the Steinway.


> My point is, yes it may be a Steinway but look beyond that, look at the 
> shape it's in now, that is what it will resemble in 5 to 10 years. 

Again, a reasonably well redesigned and remanufactured 
Steinway will be in as good or better shape than the Yamaha in 
5 or 10 years under similar circumstances, and will still 
sound better.


> I approach my work from a practical point of view, if it's a Steinway, 
> OK someone was willing to pay more for their piano. There are better 
> pianos. Anybody seen or heard a Steigraeber? I have. 

Why didn't you recommend they buy a Steingraeber then, if 
that's the criteria?


Remember Steinways
> haven't changed in over a hundred years, I could be wrong but I believe 
> there have been some innovations in the last hundred years.
> My point is just because it says Steinway on it, don't let that rob you 
> of your common sense!

I think you're making the fairly inevitable mistake of anyone 
who's not seen a modern redesigned Steinway rebuild, in 
assuming it will have the same equally inevitable list of 
shortcomings and maintenance annoyances as a new one. They 
don't, which is the whole point of this redesign stuff. I'll 
agree that doing a superficial stringing, hammer filing, 
soundboard "recrowning", and rodent eviction and calling it a 
rebuild wouldn't have gotten a better performing piano than 
the Yamaha, but the list of options and capabilities has 
expanded considerably in the last twenty years, whether most 
techs are aware of it or not. No, I'm neither anti-Yamaha, nor 
pro-Steinway, but the money spent sure didn't go for musical 
potential. They coulda had a V-8.

Ron N