---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
In a message dated 5/11/2002 5:05:24 PM Pacific Standard Time,
hufford1@airmail.net writes:
> Subj:Re: 1969 Steinway L CBS?
> Date:5/11/2002 5:05:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
> From:<A HREF="mailto:hufford1@airmail.net">hufford1@airmail.net</A>
> Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> To:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> Sent from the Internet
>
> Robin
I just wanted to say that I really appreciate your ability to
communicat fairly and logically in written form. This post is no exception
and I too found the comments about Terry condescending. Of all list
contributers Terry is as honest and self effacing as any and he's not trying
to pretend to know something he doesn't and asks. And look how much he's
learned from that approach. His progress in the business exceeds many whom
progress I've followed over the years.I see it in his posts.
I also appreciate your comments on S&S from your largely impartial and
introspective point of view. I hope the company doesn't cook there own goose
with the objections I'm hearing from many.
I'd love to see some real risks taken with substantive changes such as a
reintroduction of the Long S&S model A. I understand their resistance to
change based on the success of the company but as a wise person once said
failure isn't fatal and success isn't final.
When a person or company has succes they must continue to make the honest
choices ,well thought out,that made them successful and throw off the ones
with potential to harm over time.
As you know many business decsisions can be honest but ill concieved such
as teflon. A failure to my mind,coupled with geometry problems. Or vertigris.
You know I wonder, what did they know and when did they know it. Some things
we are left to second guess but we all still are left to repair problems all
the same and fortunately a whole industry has sprung up and developed to
treat these very maladys.
Two edged sword, good for us ,not so good for the client often times.
>>>>>>>>>Best>>>>>>>>>>Dale
>
> Isaac,
> Actually, I think it is rather uncharitable and patronizing of you
> to make the comments you post here, as regards Terry's experience and
> such and the consequent relevance and worthiness of his criticism. In
> minimizing the pertinence of his comments, perhaps you do the same for
> yourself. Terry is giving us the results of his own experience taken
> from the view of an both an owner and a technician. In general, the
> deficiencies he ascribes to the new verticals, in my opinion, will be
> confirmed by any person who has but a few examples of these pianos
> serviced and under his belt. The new Steinways, grands and
> verticals, of the last 30 or 35 years have had a series of
> characteristic, numerous, serious problems of various kinds. These are
> extensive, and to my mind, essentially inexcusable.
> The fundamental sound of the instruments, for the most part, once
> these problems have been addressed as best they can, is, to my ear,
> very,very good, leaving the instrument a worthy one, inspite of these
> inadequacies. However, on a piano that purports to be the best in the
> world, exhibiting unique, "hand-made quality", etc.etc., it seems
> inexcusable to me that the numerous defects in parts and workmanship
> that have existed in this period could be allowed to persist, yet they
> do. The point could be made, however, given the marketing success of
> the last ten or twelve years, that they would be foolish to change much,
> something I don't agree with but which I can see the logic of as it
> could be said as regards sales, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
> I remember, many years ago, as a young technician, the intense,
> profound sense of disappointment, and also astonishment, that
> progressively came over me as I perceived the ridiculous failure of
> quality control I began to encounter when working on new Steinways.
> Working then with a Steinway dealer, which is among several I have
> worked for, and experiencing the deceptive, perfunctory approach to
> these problems, at even the most basic of levels on the part of the
> factory which, to this day, continues to minimize their existence,
> ignore their implications and, makes the attempt to overcome through PR
> any negative effect on sales, long ago convinced me that the real
> purpose of the service department was the same as the rest of the
> factory and that is SELL, SELL, SELL. Yes, any business must do this,
> but is should look to, and master its own inadequacies of product as an
> internal matter and not confuse quality control, again an internal
> matter, with marketing per se, which, of course, is a public one. The
> market franchise, persona and mystique of a Steinway piano, created over
> a hundred years ago by the marketing genius of William Steinway, whether
> deserved or not, and I think it was at one time, continues its
> effectiveness, something which in business, is, perhaps, unprecedented
> in the period since the Industrial Revolution.
> The pianos, in my opinion, have improved since the late sixties,
> although there is a lot yet to be done. A voluminous book, I think,
> could be written on this. These comments are made viz.a viz. the North
> American model. The Hamburg version is a different animal and I think
> generalizations can be made only in a limited fashion from one to the
> other. I believe Terry is right as to the variable plate placement for
> the reason he stated and for others but this is just the tip of the
> iceberg as regards problems in these pianos.
> Because of the fundamental strength of the designs, even if flawed
> from a modern perspective, and the superior quality of material used in
> the instruments, particularly the rim, and, above all the resulting
> sound, they continue to persist, now for several generations and inspite
> of these inadequacies, as first rate musical instruments, or, at least,
> in being perceived as such.
> Demographic changes undergone by the economy as a result of WWII
> and the disruption of continuity at the factory at the same time
> during which at, one point, I believe the company had to devote the
> major part of its efforts at making gliders, following close on the
> heels of the traumatic times of the thirties, is, and this is just one
> man's opinion, the most important factor in the great decline of quality
> control in the period since. There are many other relevant factors.
> This being said, this disruption, in a particular point of criticism,
> has lead to the use of the overly soft, lacquered, and now heavy
> hammer used at present, its being patented, and its presentation to the
> world as a worthy innovation, a view, I think, which is believed by
> many, including technicians who, in my mind, should know better.
> It is necessary only to give attention to the parts and quality
> control of their pianos produced prior to WWII, to the function of the
> hammers in particular, and, also, to the nature and quality of the
> actions used in this period, although this is a complicated subject,
> from about 1870 to 1985 or so, to conclude that there was, in fact, a
> better way to build actions and, in particular hammers, and that this
> company did do it better at this time, along with, practically, every
> other part of the manufacture of their piano. I am sure some would
> accuse me of being an antiquarian, which I am not, but I do believe,
> that, at least in this case, "they don't build them like they used
> to". All that is necessary to reach this conclusion, in my opinion, is
> to be familar with the general characteristics of older Steinways and to
> contrast those with the new production.
> I think David Koelzer's term "Steinway posse" is most apt for
> those who, for whatever reason and I by no means wish to impugn the
> motives or rationality of this decision, have thrown their lot in with
> the company, it's reputation and commercial success, as I have, during
> certain periods, done myself. This decision is a matter of business.
> Steinway's success, though, is capable of enforcing upon the technical
> community decisions which may be contrary to decisions taken were purely
> technical considerations paramount and does so on a regular basis, yet
> we, as technicians, should not be confused or taken in by the hype and
> marketing rationale which, essentially, in this day an age, is the basis
> for this success.
> I think Terry has hit it right on the nail in his commentary as to
> what one should expect from a new piano and the contrast between
> expectation and event he experienced when acquiring a 1098. He is
> unusual, as we all are, in point of comparison as regards the buying
> public, as he is technically informed and can take note of deficiencies
> the marketing power of the company has been capable of overcoming on a
> non-technical basis, and, you may, but I would not. gainsay him for
> that.
> Regards, Robin Hufford
>
> Isaac OLEG SIMANOT wrote:
>
> > Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> > Encoding
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/b3/10/06/8b/attachment.htm
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC