On 8/29/07, Ron Nossaman <rnossaman at cox.net> wrote: > > > > 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. The C3 was purchased in 1986, over 20 years ago so we're comparing apples and oranges. It has had keys leveled & dipped & lost motion taken up twice, and was regulated 2 years ago. I have walked in and found the Director sawing a 2x4 on it! When it was 3 years old the County Fair wanted to use it for the Willie Nelson concert. The janitors didn't know the legs and lyre come off so they took a center door frame out of a double door and rolled it out to a stakebed truck with a power tailgate. They managed to chip a key, which I got a replacement for from Yamaha, that's when we discovered it had the uncleanable plastic keys that have the Ivory feel that Yamaha came up with. So it got a new set of naturals. I put a Dampp-Chaser in it and cover on it, it was unplugged more than it was plugged, the cord went from being 10ft long to 3 ft long! A year later when I showed the Director a new crack(first one) in the sounding board, he said "It gives it charactor". I could go on that only covers the first 10 years! My point is we aren't in disagreement, except I have found in a school environment where the students have unsupervised access to the piano, the asian pianos are more durable. No the tone quality isn't there but frankly after the first year or 2 of being pounded on several hours a day, with the debris piling up on the soundboard would the Steinway really have a superior tone quality? Remember the piano MAINTENANCE and TUNING comes out of the Director's budget, the same budget he uses to buy music and all of his other supplies. >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. One you say wasn't available 20 years ago, I stand by my 20 YO advice! >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. I stand corrected, I haven't had the need to price Steinway parts comparatively recently. >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. A little side part of the story not included. The original bid was for a straight buy of one grand and 2 studios, they were going to market the Steinway and a Chickering grand of like size themselves. The dealer got wind of the 2 grands and offered 2 more studios on the deal. So they ended up with the C3 and 4 P-22's primarily due to the trade in value of the Steinway. The instrument lockers survived a few more years and the Yamaha occasionally sat there but no dimples, I believe the harder polyester finish stood up to the instrument cases, along with the "berra" board top, better than the solid wood top of the Steinway with the lacquer finish. The problem with the Yamaha is that there have been some chips from running it into things onstage and the budget isn't there for cosmetic repair. > 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'm afraid the point I was making went right over your head, I was referring to cosmetically and to the ivory keys should he decide on them. It is a HIGH SCHOOL not a university(as if those pianos were treated reverentially)or a church, kids, teenagers with beltbuckles and Levis with rivets in them, girls with purses with buckles and clasps will be using this piano, gathering around it, pushing up against it day after day, week after week. > 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? Steingraeber's have only begun importing to this country about 18 months ago and they cost more than Steinways. 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 No Ron I'm well aware of what a capable piano rebuider can do with the modern techniques and materials available today. What I'm talking about are those who aren't, those who see or hear Steinway and it automatically invokes a sense of upper echelon quality. What happened to Steinway the company, do they even have an R&D department? I've worked for a Kawai dealer for over 20 years, as a private contractor, I see innovation, new things, chances being taken, kind of like Steinway did in the 19th century. Both Yamaha and Kawai offer a hand built piano a la Steinway but the general public is blissfully unaware of this. Mention Steinway and everybody knows it's the best, why? The artist program, 367 Steinway concert grands worldwide available to Steinway artists for moving and tech fees(which are usually written into the concert contract) so what do people see being played everywhere? Steinways! That artist program has been running for over 50 years now, that's keeping your name in front of the public. Is Steinway still the best piano made, not remade, re-manufactured, redesigned but made fresh out of the factory. I think not and Ron based on what you said above, I believe you don't think so either. Mike -- I sit down to the piano regularly at nine-o'clock in the morning and Mesdames les Muses have learned to be on time for that rendezvous. - Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky Michael Magness Magness Piano Service 608-786-4404 www.IFixPianos.com email mike at ifixpianos.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20070830/6aa43f4e/attachment-0001.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC