<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body>Hi Israel<div>Really good post. Quite a journey you,ve been on. Fwiw Hamburg rims or some have been made of maple acquired from the N.Y factory. In 1996 I was on a tour with Michael mohr at the factory and he pointed to stacks of maple being readied to ship to Hamburg. Never the less the two factories produce very different instruments.</div><div>Dale Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 </div> Israel Stein <custos3@comcast.net> wrote: Hi, William Lest this post be misconstrued, I do believe - like you - that Steinway still makes a pretty darn good  - occasionally great - piano, but improvements in quality control would be very welcome... And your well thought out remarks remind me of something I heard Eric Schandall say on several occasions, back when - besides being a Steinway C & A technician in New York - he was running the Steinway Academy and doing lots of presentations on behalf of Steinway all over the country. One of his points was that it would be a tremendous loss for the world's musical culture if every piano sounded like a Steinway. According to him, it is precisely the variety of sonorities of different manufacturers' pianos that enriches the music world, and he was proud of working for one of those manufacturers. He would also make the point that Europe and North America have very different ideas of constitutes the ideal piano sound - and trying to compare the two in terms of which is "better" is nonsense. In North America the richer, deeper darker and fuller sound - like of a good New York Steinway (at least what it used to be - many pianists complain that it is hard to find these days) - prevails, while in Europe the ideal is a crisper, brighter, more transparent tone. The Hamburg Steinway, by the way (according to Eric) was built to suit the European taste, so any claim that the Hamburg Steinway is an "American" piano is based on ignorance. The Hamburg rims are made from local woods - hornbeam - and not rock maple, which only grows in North America. And the hammers are the much denser European style hammers. And as far as quality and workmanship is concerned, I can cite numerous instances of substandard Steinways - both New York and Hamburg - from my years of prepping them, first at the Boston dealership, then at three different stores of the San Francisco Bay area dealership. Heck, in my first year at Boston's Steinert store, we sent back 6 Steinway grands of various sizes. The president of the company had me document some of the problems photographically - at one point he got really upset and said something like "what are they doing - trying to put me out of business?" Some of the problems I remember were: horrendous bridgepin positions (really sloppy - no side bearing in some cases), downbearing issues, poor choice of soundboard panels (really poor grain), horrendous action geometry - this on a Steinway D!!!  Harvard University purchased that D - it really was a nice sounding piano - but their technician insisted on extensive modifications to the action (which we did in the store shop - and billed Steinway for the time). Right around that time, Boston's Symphony Hall had for a house Steinway a Hamburg "D" - which was not able to project over an orchestra. I remember Daniel Barenboim in a performance of the two Brahms concerti trying his best to pull some more sound out of that dog - with Seji Ozawa really trying to hush the orchestra as much as possible - and the piano was still inaudible! Some artists refused to play on it - Emmanuel Ax and Alfred Brendel come to mind - and brought in a Steinway C & A instrument instead (we had them at the store) paying for transport and tuning out of their own funds. Then, in my 3-4 years at the San Francisco dealership, I came across numerous B's with dead trebles (it seemed to be epidemic about 10 years ago) and there was a horrendous sounding "M" that sat at the Walnut Creek store for three years (no amount of voicing made much difference) before someone - probably an interior decorator (it was a "fancy case" model) - bought it... Currently at San Francisco State University we have a Hamburg D with a dead bass (some knucklehead department chair ordered it sight unseen and untried - after all, it's a Hamburg Steinway, so anything we get has to be great - right?) According to the records left by the previous technician, he struggled for years trying to get more sound out of that bass. We (there's two of us working here) replaced the hammers on it a few years ago, and even had a Hamburg factory-trained consultant help with the voicing. Bass is still dead. So a performer either has to tone down everything - or bash away at the bass trying to make it match a "full throttle" performance, and listen to it "blow up on a FFF" (yes, I heard it myself - so here goes another specious claim, Steinways do "blow up on a FFF"). So as William writes, Steinway does make a possibly great instrument - but it often takes an awful lot of work to get it to its full potential. And way too often, even with lots of work, the result leaves a lot to be desired... And, by the way, Larry Fine does not make his claims on the basis of his own observations - he gets feedback from a large number of skilled technicians all over the US and Canada, who report to him their observations. And if all the people who are having apoplexy over what Larry was quoted on in the Times re-read his words carefully, they might see that he was describing the mindset of potential piano buyers that is contributing to the destruction of old pianos - not making a recommendation. There is no point hiding your heads in the sand, folks - that is the reality in the low end of today's piano marketplace. Those buyers who would be happy with a cheap, mediocre acoustic piano would very often be just as happy with an electronic. The acoustic piano business is migrating up-market - where users can actually appreciate the difference between acoustic and electronic. So if you want to stay in business, do whatever it takes to get yourself into that sector. And personally, I wouldn't mind seeing all those old Wurlitzers and Aeolians and Kimballs and spinets of every ilk go off the end of a mover's truck - they are the everlasting shame of the American piano industry and, according to many, in a large part responsible for its demise. And as far as our original poster's judgement of piano quality - well, besides sounding an awful lot like a sales pitch, it presumes that "bigger is better". Not every performance is given in and Avery Fisher sized hall, and in many musical contexts what is desirable is the ability to blend into an ensemble - not to project. Then again, only a small minority of pianos sold are meant for performance - and many of those meant for performance will be used in intimate surroundings where the "ability to project" is not really a consideration (as it isn't in most home and studio pianos.) So our original poster seems to be suffering from a bit of tunnel vision here... I really hope that his judgement as a baseball coach is a lot better than his judgement of pianos - or his team is in for a very rough season... Well, William, nice reading your clear and well thought out prose again. We all missed you in Seattle... Israel Stein > > > Hi Brent, > > All due respect, but this comment you've made outlines exactly why Steinway > is so successful, and other equal (or better) instruments are given the > nose to the air treatment.  You wrote: > > "My doubt stems from knowing that > Steinway rim construction, utilizing rock maple, is the > standard for instrument projection." > > The only people who "know" this to be true are those who "know" Steinway is > the best, or who "know" anything else in this world.  This "knowing" is > nothing more than prejudicial hyperbole.  It makes honest comparison > impossible.  I certainly don't "know" that maple is the best rim material. >   Perhaps I'm a fool.  I would also agree that as Mr Anderson states,  "personal > preference should determine your choice here." > > If you want your pianos to sound like a NY Steinway, then by all means > choose one.  However, if you have differing tonal ideas, your choice > doesn't instantly become lesser by virtue of it not being a Steinway. >   Neither does it mean that any of the long held Steinway marketing myths > are anything more than that. > > You wrote, " because there is simply no mistakes made in Steinway joinery, > including boards and bridges."  My experience is different here.  I've seen > plenty of mistakes on S&S boards and bridges (and braces).  It's not > perfect.  Don't get me wrong.  It doesn't make it awful, it just means it's > not always "the best."  There is room. > > You wrote, "Steinway makes the only piano that doesn't blow up on "FFF" and > selective artists know the difference and the sound. ."  And again, I would > say my experience is very different.  I've known many instrument makes > apart from Steinway whose pianos can go above and beyond Steinway.  And > while it may be true that artists "recognize" a particular tonal spectrum > associated with Steinway, it doesn't have to mean that palette is the only > desirable one.  Just because it has the name Steinway on it, I don't > personally feel that makes everything that it is desirable, or even OK in > some cases. > > Take Steinway's notorious duplex segments.  Zingers abound.  Some at S&S > will tell you how the artists actually like that.  When I was in NY at > Steinway, there was an interesting discussion involving Ron Connors and the > current folks in the Selection Room, whereby when the issue came up, the > pregnant pause spoke volumes about what SOME at S&S felt about that > particular "desirable" trait. > > Again, I would emphasize that I have nothing particularly against S&S.  I > like most of the S&S pianos I see.  But, I don't view them as the world > standard.  I view them as one of the available "Tier 1" pianos.  If an > artist truly desires what Steinway produces in tone and touch, then by all > means that should be the choice.  But if the decision to choose Steinway is > simply because, "well, it's a Steinway," I think that is a great tragedy. > > William R. Monroe > > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Brent Fischer <brent.fischer@yahoo.com>wrote: > >> hey Mr. Anderson,  I appreciate your civil discourse.  Mr. >> Erwin must have hit his head prior to his foolish  reply. >> >>     I'm a baseball coach so this has to be my final response >> for a little while.  I'm not discounting the merit of your >> ability to discern power differences,  I would just have to >> hear it for myself.  My doubt stems from knowing that >> Steinway rim construction, utilizing rock maple, is the >> standard for instrument projection.  If you're saying the Sauter >> utilizes a rim species of wood that is superior to maple I >> have difficulty believing it. If Sauter utilizes a keybed >> that accelerates resonance to the pianist without quartered >> spruce slats then I have to question how. >> >>     I was able to find a pic of the lyre you mentioned >> and although the assembly pieces appear to be of acceptable >> diameters the comment I made about Julliard has to do with >> the support system.  A steel rod bracing will always flex >> more due to the torque applied to the outer corners of the >> lyre box.  This is the main reason Steinway braces with birch >> sticks that are fit into the keybed.  Under rigorous demands >> the flexing becomes an issue and over time only worsens  and the >> pianist feels a sense of disconnection.  This is for the very same >> reason I use carbon fiber soles when cycling,  the rigidity of >> the shoe is critical when standing up on the pedals when engaging >> twelve percent climbs. >> >>     Last comment on Fine,  why would you imply on a national stage >> that digitals have the added advantage of not needing to be tuned. >> As if the trade wasn't suffering enough already, there just went thousands >> across the world including the technician's business card in their >> shredding >> pile for re-cycling.  At least we're going green on the way out. >> >>     Sincerely, >> >>     Brent Fischer >> >> >> >> >> >>    I went on an extended hunt for the specs on the >> Omega and turned up little besides equilibrium formulas. >> Resonance projection starts with a maple rim, it's the code. >> It's hard to comment without that much, and then I my >> travels I'm I will search one out. >> >>    I did see a picture of the lyre.  The base looks stout, however >> all lyres with >> >> >> >>    ------------------------------ >> *From:* Andrew Anderson <andrew@andersonmusic.com> >> *To:* Brent Fischer <brent.fischer@yahoo.com> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 1, 2012 8:50 PM >> >> *Subject:* Re: [CAUT] The demise of the American piano industry >> >> Interlined below >> On Aug 1, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Brent Fischer wrote: >> >> yes, I agree if NY would utilize Hamburg plates and a workforce that >> thought like Hamburg employees the conversation would be over.  It's >> important to quantify "quality construction " because there is simply >> no mistakes made in Steinway joinery, including boards and bridges. >>       Above all else, Steinway makes the only piano that doesn't blow >> up on "FFF",  and selective artists know the difference and the sound. >> >> Here is where I have the opposite experience.  Sauter Omegas are more >> powerful sonically and have a much broader dynamic range than any Steinway >> I've encountered, and that is the semi-concert grand.  Back to back on >> stage there is no doubt as to which is the more musical piano and that is >> how we shut Steinway out of institutional purchases. One Omega against one >> D: put them together and the difference is obvious.  Steinways distort at >> FFF, Sauters get louder. >> >> Now people do identify with that distortion and you can get a little from >> a Sauter, eventually, if you are brutal.  If you need to have it easily and >> can live with a smaller dynamic envelope, you should choose Steinway. >>   Again, personal preference should determine your choice here.  If you need >> to power up a hall though, the sound meter confirms what the ear hears: >> Sauters do FFF louder by wasting much less sonic energy on distortion. >>   They carry very well. >> >> The quality of the best Euro piano made is only designed to function >> musically up to and never above " FF ".  Mason and Hamlin has the >> tonal substructure to support tenacious pianists however when they >> designed hardened steel front duplex bars they compromised the treble tone. >>       Quality 101: >>           a.  No one but Steinway makes a lyre to withstand the rigors of >> Julliard >> >> Have you seen the Sauter lyre system? >> >> >>           b.  only Steinway uses quartered-sawn poplar in lid construction, >>                like a carbon-fiber bike frame; light and strong >> Andrew, the argument has to finish with which piano can withstand >> the rigors of a changing upswing in the strength of modern pianists, >> playing >> to crowds that come to hear " piano Olympics ".  Steinway sets the bar at >> "FFF" and >> you have the little F's following behind. >>     You wouldn't give Albert Pujols a plastic bat to hit a homer no more >> than you >> would give Lang Lang a Bosendorfor to play Lizt. >> >> Actually a lot of what Liszt wrote sounds really good on a Bosie.  I would >> tend to reserve a Bosie for music of a more Austrian style, Mozart, Haydn >> and some Beethovan.  There are any number of fine piano makes that are >> interesting in their own right and some might be preferred for certain >> types of music.  Steinway's aggressive (admirably successful) marketing has >> positioned it where it is dominant in venues here in North American but >> that dominance has many factors involved that aren't necessarily about >> music-making. >> >> YMMV, >> Andrew Anderson >> >> >> >>    Sincerely, >>    Brent Fischer >> >> >> >> >>    ------------------------------ >> *From:* Andrew Anderson <andrew@andersonmusic.com> >> *To:* Brent Fischer <brent.fischer@yahoo.com>; caut@ptg.org >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 1, 2012 5:22 PM >> >> *Subject:* Re: [CAUT] The demise of the American piano industry >> >> Mr. Fischer >> When you are dealing with fine pianos you will find that they are quite >> individual in their characteristics and the choice of a piano becomes a >> personal one of preference.  Teir-1 piano makers are not copying each other >> and don't have the same goals when it comes to sound and playing >> characteristics. >> >> If you are comparing quality and consistency of manufacture Steinway NY >> loses, hands down.  If the German can't get past union senority issues in >> NY, Steinway will completely undermine its iconic reputation--self >> destruct.  I, for one, hope it does get control of its QC issues.  It would >> be a shame to lose another American manufacturer. >> >> That said, I don't like any of the Steinways I work with.  They are >> getting better but they are all compromised instruments which will not be >> stellar until re-bellied they way they should be.  Quality control was >> definitely out to lunch on these Ds an Bs. >> >> In my store I carry a teir-one German brand and these pianos are obviously >> better then any NY Steinway I work on.  Every performing artist I've had >> over has fallen in-love with them, some of them under contractual >> obligation to demand another instrument at performance venues. >> >> Unless the only Steinways you encouter are C&A stock, you have missed out >> on a lot of other fine brands. >> >> As to Chinese made pianos, the strides being made there are rapid, much >> more rapid than the progress that was made by Japanese piano makers.  There >> is a least one brand coming out of China today that is very serious >> competition for the Japanese makes at their better levels. >> >> The world does not stand still.  Things do change over time.  Keeping >> track of that is an invaluable service.  I do disagree with Fine on >> occasion but as yet he has no credible competition for the service he >> provides and I do recommend his service to everyone who asks. >> >> Sincerely, >> Andrew Anderson >> >> On Aug 1, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Brent Fischer wrote: >> >> Mr. Bousel, >>     With all due respect Aaron I don't consider my opinion a minority one. >> Secondly, who made Mr. Fine's instrument acumen the " last word " or >> his analysis the " bible " of the industry.  As the last of the greatest >> American made pianos fade into the sunset there will be even the >> occasional Mason and Hamlin growing daises in  your local dump. The >> comparison that Fine makes with the Chinese industry would leave the >> laymen believing that they are just as well made as the original specs >> of pianos that were light years ahead of anything made in China. >> >>      It all starts with the carcass, just have to compare and contrast with >> specs that have been historically superior.  There has never been a >> foreign >> made piano anywhere that could hold it's own on stage with a Baldwin or >> Mason much less a Steinway. I don't categorize the Hamburg as foreign. >> >>      Final comment:  The last time I drove over Fine's book with my truck >> was when he made his biblical judgement that European instruments >> are as good as our currently US made Steinways. >> Like I said, he's not our spokesman. >> >>    ------------------------------ >> *From:* Aaron Bousel <abousel@comcast.net> >> *To:* caut@ptg.org >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 1, 2012 3:24 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [CAUT] The demise of the American piano industry >> >>   Here's a link to the whole article, including a video. >> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/arts/music/for-more-pianos-last-note-is-thud-in-the-dump.html?pagewanted=all >> >> First: Larry is hardly responsible for the juxtaposition of his comment >> and the photo of an old Knabe grand. >> Second: You don't know the context of his remarks, that is, what question >> was asked by the reporter that elicited the quote that was used. In the >> context of 80 to 100+ year old verticals it certainly fits and his comment >> doesn't endorse the purchase of a digital piano, it just states the reality >> of the marketplace. >> Third: You've "always said" that Larry Fine doesn't know what he's talking >> about? OK, you're entitled to your opinion (albeit a minority one within >> the industry), but don't base it on one out of context quote from a >> newspaper article. >> >> Aaron >> >> At 07:25 AM 8/1/2012, you wrote: >> >> NY Times  7-30-12.....Music Article >> >>    On the front page of the digital NY Times  " For More Pianos, Last Note >> is the Thud in the Dump" >> >>   " Instead of spending hundreds or thousands to repair an old piano, you >> can buy a new one made in China that's just as good, or you can buy a >> digital >> one that doesn't need need tuning and has all kinds of bells and >> whistles," said >> Larry Fine, the editor and publisher of Acoustic & Digital Buyer " the >> industry bible. >> >> The picture seen around the world is of a vintage Knabe grand being >> trashed. >> Confirms what I've always said, he doesn't know what he is talking about. >> >> Brent Fischer >> 30 yr. member of the PTG / Registered Craftsman / retired >> >> >>   ------------------------------------------ >> Aaron Bousel >> Registered Piano Technician, Piano Technicians Guild >>   info@bouselpiano.com >> (413) 253-3846 (voice & fax) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > </body>