<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial" bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2> <DIV> <DIV>In a message dated 3/31/2006 6:59:52 AM Central Standard Time, hoffsoco@luther.edu writes:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>I think we would have great latitude in the choice of instruments but<BR>>frankly the U118 has never been my favorite instrument either.  When I<BR>>think of the "All Steinway" designation the feeling I get is a confined,<BR>>cramped one.  I couldn't even fantasize about a Shigeru Kawai EX or some<BR>>piano that another manufacturer introduces next year because we'd be<BR>>contractually obligated to only the instruments of one manufacturer.  I<BR>>can't think of a reason to limit our options like that.  I might be a<BR>>little dull, but I can't figure out what we'd gain for giving away all<BR>>those options.<BR>><BR>>dp<BR>><BR>>David M. Porritt<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>DAve</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think we should look at the designation of being an all Steinway school as being beneficial to the school, rather than for our own desires. As Robin pointed out, the perception the public has, especially serious music students and their parents, is that a school that has all Steinways, or at least all Steinway products, is a little better than a school that does not have that distinction. Now, don't get me wrong, there are many excellent music schools that have a variety of pianos. But I think the perception is there. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Wim </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>