[CAUT] uprights

[David Love]

Our experiences, criteria and observations of some underlying realities are
clearly different.  I suppose that’s why Mr. Ilvedsen posted the question.  

 

David Love
davidlovepianos at comcast.net
www.davidlovepianos.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Jeff
Tanner
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 2:06 PM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: Re: [CAUT] uprights

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: David Love 

To: 'College and University Technicians' 

Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 3:45 PM

Subject: Re: [CAUT] uprights

 

Well, I didn’t say that exactly, although I think the U5 is a better made
piano with higher manufacturing standards than the K52 at present.  Easier
to service in an institutional setting where techs are often pressed for
time and working for discounted rates is a consideration, in my view.  I
would not want to be tuning pianos 4-5 times a year that render poorly for ½
my normal rate—call me selfish.  Poor rendering, btw, is one aspect of
quality.  Steinway uprights (and Bostons for that matter) have that problem.
Moreover, I don’t see a Steinway K52 outlasting a U5 and when time comes for
replacing parts, they are easier, faster and less expensive to replace on a
U5 as manufacturing is more consistent and service support is better.   When
you put that along side the price differential I think that choice would be
fairly easy.    

I have to admit being completely unfamiliar with the U5.  In fact, I was
unaware until today that it existed.  I've only seen the U1s, U3s,
P-whatevers and T-series Yamahas.  However, when I see 50 and 60 and 100
year old Yamahas that have held up as well as the 50, 60 and 100 year old
Steinway verticals I've cared for over the years, I'll be convinced.  But
I've seen too many Yamaha smiling keybeds, and real problems with 30 year
old pianos to allow me to think it possible.  Whatever that material is the
Yamaha cabinet is made of seems to start "failing" after a while.  Rendering
with 30 year old Yamahas is much worse in my experience than rendering with
50 year old Steinway verticals.  I really struggle with tuning older Yamaha
P verticals, and fear breaking a bass string with every nudge of the tuning
hammer.  That's just when the Steinways are getting broken in good.  I've
rarely needed to replace a string on a 45/1098.

 

You have to approach the Steinway tuning differently than you do the Yamaha.
You put what amounts to a time limit on yourself, get the tuning close, and
close it up.  You don't expect the Steinway to sound like the muffled,
clinically pure Yamaha, and as long as your octaves and unisons are stable,
its fine.  It has a lot more forgiveness for dirty tuning than does the
Yamaha, which will sound perfectly horrid when it starts coming out of tune.
In my opinion, the Yamaha requires a finer tuning to sound good than does
the Steinway.

 

When I was new to this craft, I really wanted to like the Yamaha/Kawai (or
Boston, for that matter) products.  I am from a frugal family, which
switched to Japanese autos in the 1980s and wanted to believe that the
Japanese could build something equally valuable for less than 1/2 the money.
But what I've seen happen in university practice rooms, churches and homes
alike have sold me on the life expectancy of the Steinway product. Later, I
learned that genuinely comparable Japanese pianos actually cost
prohibitively more than the Steinway. That's a tough sale here.  Likewise,
we've switched back to American autos for similar reasons (when I had to pay
$1200 to replace a headgasket, and later nearly $500 for a starter plus
nearly $200 for installation for a Japanese vehicle, that got my attention.
I used to pay $40 for the starter and install it myself in 30 minutes on
American cars.)

 

With all due respect, "Easier to service in an institutional setting where
techs are often pressed for time and working for discounted rates is a
consideration" should not be a consideration in my view.  The value the
institution gets for its invested dollars over the long term is the primary
goal, and a skilled technician should be capable of tuning pianos that
require more than a beginner's skill.  The discounted rate should reflect
little more than the difference in the number of tunings that can be
achieved without having to drive from one to the next in my view.  That
shouldn't mean 1/2 a normal rate.  If it is, let the price-beater tooner
have it, thinks me, and see if he can tune the Steinways.  

 

It isn't our responsibility to compensate for an institution's chronic
underfunding of maintenance.  Else we become enablers to chronic
mismanagement.  It is our responsibility to build a repertoire of skills,
make them available to the institution, and if they don't want to pay a
higher price for a higher repertoire of skills, let them get what they are
willing to pay for.

 

And, with respect to replacing parts on the Yamaha as being easier and less
expensive, I have little experience, except hearsay - posts to this list -
with replacing parts on Yamahas.  And that hearsay is that Yamaha hammers
are 150% of the cost of Steinway hammers.  I don't know for myself, but that
is my recollection of posts from some time back.  I can only assume that is
not uncommon with Yamaha pricing?  And we don't know whether Yamaha parts in
100 years will be available for the pianos made today.  And neither do we
know if a Yamaha made today will be worth spending any money on parts when
it comes that time.  The more commonly sold instruments are not the S4, S6,
or CFIIIS(is that the current model?), so it is impossible to compare apples
to apples.

 

Respectfully,

Jeff

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20080906/8ab9bc80/attachment-0001.html