S&S retrofit rails ?

[Susan Kline]

Dale, and John ...

I think the critical question here is whether the two pianos are museum
_pieces_ or are they simply _in_ a museum? In a city where I once lived,
there was an art museum that had a 7 foot Baldwin in it. The piano was used
for concerts, not as an example of historical musical technology. It was an
_art_ museum. You know, visual arts? Paintings and sculpture?

To make the point by exaggeration, would it be improper to fix a museum
computer with updated offmarket components? Only if it is a "computer
museum." Or to replace a museum's restroom faucets with something new from
HongKong? Only if it was a museum of "hydraulic technology", and the
faucets normally lived in a glass case ...

Okay, I'll STOP!

Susan

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

>>  Then it wouldn't be a Steinway!!!!! ( I know, it would be better.)  
>
>You are correct... it wouldn't be a Steinway, whether it's better or not.
>It may LOOK like one, but it's been "altered". Check out the article in the
>Journal last year (I think) on trademark infringement. Replacing an S&S
>action with a totally different action is "significantly altering the
>product" and a permanent marker has to be fixed to the instrument in a
>prominent place indicating that it is customized and to what extent.
>Technically, even replacing action parts with Renner parts not ordered from
>S&S does that, because it means that half the piano was not made (or
>approved) by the manufacturer indicated on the fallboard and plate.
>
>>   I've been informed it's a mortal sin to mess with the mystique thing. 
>
>Not a "mortal sin", just a minor one.  B-})  Mind you, in this particular
>case it's a BIG minor one... <grin>
>
>>I know cause the local official S&S service guy has told everyone who
>>will listen that I ruined a couple at the local museum by putting those
>>S&S style Renner replacements on their  A  and B.     Worse,   I put Abel
>>hammers on to replace the Japanese rocks previously installed.  And I
>>didn't use genuine Steinway key bushing cloth to boot.  I'm a _bad_  boy.
>
>For museum pianos, yes... you were a bad boy. The original parts should
>have been rebuilt (refelted, rebushed and reps resprung) if possible and
>the hammers and knuckles replaced with S&S factory parts. If the pianos
>were almost anywhere else it would be between you and the customer, but
>"museums" are a different thing entirely. Museum pieces, even performance
>pianos, should be "restored to their original condition" and that means
>original factory parts when needed, not Renner and Abel. Oh... that
>includes the key bushings too. Why? In the interests of authenticity... of
>passing down your work to future generations. 
>
>Lest you think this is just a "Steinway snob" speaking, I would say the
>same if it were any other brand of piano in the same situation. The
>difference being mostly that Steinways are still being made, so factory
>parts are available and are of good quality if the originals are totally
>unsuitable. ALL original parts that are replaced should be preserved with
>the instrument and not discarded, either. As others will say, because of
>the situation this is a matter of conservation... of the preservation of an
>historical artifact as well as the creation of a viable musical instrument.
>I have even known restorers to look for parts from a piano of a similar age
>that have been discarded by others in order to put some semblance of
>authenticity back into "rebuilt" pianos... right down to the strings in
>some cases.
>
>>     BTW,  the people playing concerts on both have nothing but nice to
>>say about both pianos.  Too bad I ruined them, huh?
>
>You could take an old fortepiano and restring it with modern strings and
>stick in a new Renner action too and performers would love it (maybe). But
>it would no longer be "authentic" or a museum piece.While it's all very
>well to receive kudos for a nice piano,  a non-authentic piano is just
>another piano to a museum or a collector, and these instruments are no
>longer authentic because half the parts do not come from the original
>manufacturer. Unless major modifications have been done to the board and
>bridges they aren't really ruined as the instruments are still restorable
>to some semblance of authenticity.
>
>>Watch out for the slings and arrows of righteous indignation, oh  you who
>>would suggest fooling with the "MYSTIQUE".   Flames anyone?
>
>When you restore an "antique" for a museum you should strive for
>originality rather than attempting to "improve" on the original design or
>customize it in any way. I see no reason on earth why S&S parts could not
>have been put on these particular pianos in the first place, considering
>their location. For that matter, if the parts that were on them were
>original the profit from the labour involved in rebuilding them would have
>gone in your pocket rather than Renner's. 
>
>In this particular case the pianos are owned by a museum. Did you tell them
>you were putting non-standard replacement parts in their Steinways? Did you
>or they know their pianos would no longer be "authentic" (see above about
>trademark infringement) and would be devalued by Steinway because of it?
>While the pianos may be "improved" as far as their performance is concerned
>they are now "just pianos", and not "authentic" Steinways with the
>historical value they once had (if they had any)... they are "hot rods". 
>
>There's my flame... and I feel it's a valid concern. Museums are a place
>where the past is preserved, not "modernized", "updated" or "improved" in
>any manner. If an owner wants their piano "souped up" that's a different
>story all together, but if the owner is a museum or a collector,
>authenticity can be worth a thousand times what the improved performance
>might be worth.
>
>			John
>
>
>John Musselwhite, RPT  
>Calgary, Alberta Canada 
>musselj@cadvision.com 
>http://www.cadvision.com/musselj
>
>
>

Susan Kline
P.O. Box 1651
Philomath, OR 97370
skline@proaxis.com