Eric~ Thank you so much for bringing up these valuable points (and explanations) in defense of the program/purchase, and for providing important detail about what actually transpired, and also your explanation that this wasn't necessarily the way you would have done it. I sincerely appreciate that you had to make a difficult choice. You are to be commended. I remember when I was studying to be a concert artist, back in the 70's at a certain Western University Music School. My piano professor had two 7 foot grands in his home, and would often have "workshops" there, where we piano students would perform for each other. One of his pianos was a Steinway Model B, the other was a Mason & Hamlin BB. Both were terrific pianos in their own right, but for different reasons. Each instrument had assets the other didn't. My professor really liked the Mason & Hamlin, he felt it had real character, and was able to bring out a lot of things that the Steinway simply couldn't musically, because of design decisions Steinway had made. (The same could be said of the Steinway, of course.) I myself performed on both instruments (not at the same time!), and got a great deal out of the experience. BUT... ...My teacher eventually ended up selling the Mason & Hamlin, and getting another Steinway 7', because "all the students wanted to play on the Steinway," -and the Mason just wasn't being used. -Just like you say was happening at CCM. You also may remember when Andre Watts decided to play Yamaha, and the critic "praised the pianist but panned the piano." (But what do music critics know about pianos? -A valid question. -Or donors, for that matter?) How much of this was simply unquestioned reputation, and a desire or need to for the critic to associate/align himself with what the public apparently considered "the best"? Why did Andre choose not to play the Steinway? (Or Paderewski, when a Steinway prepared for him was reregulated at the factory, unbeknownst to him, back to an extremely heavy touch, and he was temporarily crippled as a result of attempting to play on it, and stopped playing Steinways for several years. (This is in Paderewski's autobiography, by the way) -Or what about all the other artists who have become frustrated or disillusioned or disappointed with Steinway and gone to other brands? -List available on request...) There is a great deal of pressure that comes from all corners to use this certain brand of piano. It's not that it isn't, in it's own way, great piano design. It's not that it hasn't become a de facto standard, of sorts. But the question is, is this seemingly unquestioned reputation truly justified? After seeing all sorts of Steinways, in various states of repair or disrepair, (or deconstruction, originating at the factory, and you all know what I am talking about, you have seen them too) my question is, can something become accepted as the standard and become unquestioned? There is a difference between something being "unquestionably the best," on the one hand, and being "unquestioned as the best" -simply because of peer pressure. How many pianists are afraid to "associate" themselves with, or perform on other pianos because they fear their reputation will suffer? What I am wondering is whether we, as technicians, should just accept that Steinway is the "Best Choice" -all things considered. As you say, perception is an important part of the world we live in, and I agree that as a college and university technician, you have to try and give people what they perceive they want. We also know that people's perceptions can also be, at times, erroneous or really off-base. Larry Fine in his Piano Book makes a distinction between "informed value" and "ignorant value", a distinction I found to be of great utility when observing the ways pianists and significant piano-others both value, and evaluate pianos. I have seen enough Steinway pianos in the homes of accomplished pianists, in deplorable states of repair, to wonder how truly informed about piano sound and quality many pianists are. We all know the common perception - if a person of whatever piano attainments sits down at a piano and sees the name Steinway, they know it's "gotta be good." Arthur Loesser, in his epic work, Men, Women and Pianos, waxes poetic about the Steinway, but also makes the important point that when people don't know much about something, they tend to latch onto names, brands, and reputations, which, he concedes, are slippery indeed. Hence the reason many Steinbay, Shumway, Smiley, and even Steinvey pianos were sold ;-). Is Steinway great truly because of merit, or just marketing? Or is it a sort of slippery combination of both. -You tell me. I was there in 1979-80 when the University of Texas at Austin placed what they felt was one of "the largest orders of Steinway pianos ever" for their new Performing Arts School. There was literally a sea of Steinways spread across the large ballet studio floor, where they were temporarily storing them. The mirrors on the ballet studio walls made them look an even vaster number, and even more impressive, than they actually were. I practiced and performed on those new pianos (or tried to). I don't know what the original arrangement was between Steinway and the University as to how much prep the University would be responsible for, but these pianos were raw, and rough. (As you say, "green" and I had my reservations about the seasoning of the wood...) They had extremely sluggish actions, and a host of other problems; were a bear to try and play, and needed an incredible amount of work to make them remotely playable. It is a credit to Charles Ball and his excellent staff, and their consummate artistry as technicians, that they were able to make some sort of pianos of many of those PSOs that came out of the factory. (These also had teflon, incidentally.) (By the way, I do not speak for Charles. These are my own observations, as pianist and technician). Sheer weight of numbers becomes very powerful and persuasive: 97% of all concerts (according to Steinway's survey pool) are played on the Steinway... ..whether the Steinway merits it or not. As you say "The people have spoken!" After all, this is a democracy, as we all know. -Who cares whether the people are informed or not. I do not envy you. Like you said, your arm is probably going to be sore, and in more ways than one. You are a great man to accept such a challenge, and truly a service to your university community. I'm just wondering whether all this is absolutely necessary, all because someone in marketing, or some donor, decided that this was the way it was going to be done. Perhaps this will be a valuable learning experience for the students. Perhaps after being inundated with Steinways, some will start to appreciate the value of having other instrument voices... How was it when you were virtually an "All Baldwin School?" (And how is it that an "All Steinway School" can get away with still having those other nice pianos there, like the Kawai EX and the Bosendorfer Imperial grand? What! Who let that rabble in? ;-) ) Sincerely, Kendall Ross Bean PianoFinders -----Original Message----- From: Wolfley, Eric (wolfleel) [mailto:WOLFLEEL at UCMAIL.UC.EDU] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 9:18 AM To: 'caut at ptg.org' Subject: Re: [CAUT] CCM goes "All Steinway" You know Rick, I've been trying to establish a budget here for piano replacement since I started 11 years ago with no results. The fact that there wasn't a budget to begin with speaks volumes, and believe me there are a couple of scenarios I would prefer over buying a whole bunch of Steinways all at once. The reality is however, that even if we didn't buy into the program we would still be buying a boatload of Steinways because we only had 38 of them here to start out with AND THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY WANTS. Yes, it is a brilliant marketing strategy because both sides win. Steinway sells a bunch of pianos and we get a bunch of new pianos plus whatever "guise" of joining the elite such an act entails. Perception is an important factor as we attempt to market our school to the world. Calling it a "sellout" and calling it "a sad day for music" overly simplifies the matter and injects a bit of negativity which I don't think is necessary. There will still be a number of non-Steinway pianos here, but people will prefer the Steinways just as much as they do now. We have a fine Bosendorfer imperial grand and a Kawai EX on stage right now that are rarely used. Yamaha lent us a CF-III for a couple of years and even had the Yamaha concert tech team come prep it but it was almost universally passed over in favor of a 20-year old Steinway D on the same stage. It almost seems like a waste to have these pianos onstage because they are so rarely used...I'm all for piano diversity but the expense of "other" fine pianos precludes their being kept around if they are rarely used or desired. We have historically had a good diversity in our practice rooms over the years and guess what? The few Steinways we had were just being pounded into dust while the others were used only if there are no Steinways available. I don't think this would change if we put some new Yamahas, Kawais, Sauters, Schimmels or anything else in there. The people have spoken! They want Steinways because they like the sound and touch better. Who am I to force diversity upon our faculty and students? There will still be a wide range of artistic and intellectual diversity here and there will still be much discussion about what a being a good, lousy or great piano entails. In our case, the pros of maintaining diversity in the hardware were far outweighed by the vast improvement in our educational facility we will experience once all the new pianos arrive and have stabilized. I'm sure my arm is going to be sore for a year or two. Eric Eric Wolfley, RPT Director of Piano Services College-Conservatory of Music University of Cincinnati -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Rick Florence Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 10:41 AM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] CCM goes "All Steinway" I'm sure the infusion of the new Steinways will be an improvement over your present situation, but I can't help but think this is yet another sellout to a brilliant marketing campaign. I am constantly amazed at the number of educational institutions, whose very existence historically is possible because of a die-hard dedication to diversity and questioning status quo, making such a contradictory decision . Music institutions are being bought and paid for, robbing their students of the opportunity to make music on a variety of wonderful pianos, under the guise of joining the "elite." I wish more administrators had the guts to say to donors, "we would love to accept your donation and offer a complete musical education to our students by purchasing the best pianos from around the world, including Steinway." Instead, they are so excited about the money, they ignore the cornerstone of education - diversity. A sad day for music. ________________________ Rick Florence Senior Piano Technician Arizona State University School of Music -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces at ptg.org on behalf of Wolfley, Eric (wolfleel) Sent: Fri 11/21/2008 7:59 AM To: 'caut at ptg.org' Subject: [CAUT] CCM goes "All Steinway" Hi All, Some of you may have already heard the news...Tuesday, the board of trustees at the University of Cincinnati approved a deal with Steinway that will make the Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music an "All Steinway School". We will be purchasing 165 new pianos for the school all of which will be delivered before next June! This is the single largest deal in Steinway's history in terms of number of units purchased. The total price tag is 4.1 million. This deal is on the initiative of our new Dean, Douglas Knehans and is the cornerstone of a new capital campaign and just one of a plethora of sweeping moves he is making to improve CCM's global image. Here's a link for the deal...there was also a NY Times article last Tuesday, but I can't seem to make that link active. http://www.uc.edu/news/NR.asp?id=9235 I just got back from NYC where we selected the first batch of pianos, 2 D's and 8 B's and I was most happy to find the quality of the pianos in the selection room to be excellent...we had no trouble choosing our pianos. Our first shipment of 27 pianos arrives next week. While the quality of our performance pianos here at CCM has been perceived as excellent over the years, the age and quality of the pianos in the practice rooms, classrooms and studios has been a challenge. Before this deal, CCM had the largest inventory of Baldwins anywhere in the world I'm sure. The average age of our inventory here before this deal was 35 years so this will be quite an improvement for many years to come. I have no qualms or reservations about the deal...there's no question the quality level of our inventory is going way up. I am perfectly aware of the challenges that the next year will pose with all these green pianos but hey, there are worse problems to have. The nature of our jobs here will change dramatically for years to come...much less rebuilding, more tuning, voicing and regulating. I'll keep you all posted on how things go. Eric Eric Wolfley, RPT Director of Piano Services College-Conservatory of Music University of Cincinnati
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC