Steinway M

[Erwinspiano@aol.com]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
 

           Hi  Ron
            All good points as well from another perspective which I respect. 
However if a client likes the sound and touch of a good sounding and prepared 
S&S M regardless of its bass break being where it is, I doubt that my 
argument to swing them in another direction will be seen as helpful but rather 
something like a conflict of interest. If the piano isn't rebuilt well or has a weak 
board or killer region that's a diiferent story. I've often tried to get the  
client thinking bigger S&S or whatever  but if I'm competeing with whats for 
sale by someone else as opposed to what I myself  have for sale it's an 
ethical sticky wicket. Usually my services are engaged by clients knowing I rebuild 
and sell Stwys so the subject is all ready on the table before I ever see the 
piano I was originally asked to evaluate.
     Regards--Dale
    
           

> >> Tom,
>> 
>> I would advise that you not comment to your client on the design of the 
>> piano, but stick to what your client wants - an evaluation of the instrument 
>> itself, the condition, and whether it seems to be priced properly.
>  
> 
> What on earth is wrong with a technician commenting on the design of any 
> instrument? Last time I checked I didn't notice that any of the manufacturing 
> fraternity were any closer to deity status than the rest of us.
>  
> 
> >> There are lots and lots of opinions expressed here and other places about 
>> what is good or bad in a piano design, but all of these are really 
>> meaningless when it comes to personal choice in a piano.
>  
> 
> That just depends. I have no doubt that certain pianos have superior design 
> when compared to others (and the design superiority will not necessarily be 
> linked to the price of the instrument). In many cases, an instrument with 
> inferior design will give inferior performance, regardless of how pristine the 
> particular example may or may not be. Take the Model M and the Yamaha G2, to 
> take two examples of status quo 5 and a half foot grands. When the humidity and 
> temperature swings, neither of these pianos will have 'a snow ball's chance 
> in hell' of staying in tune at B27, because the tension is just too low as a 
> consequence of the 'hockey stick' lower treble scale. B27 will go sharp if 
> the humidity rises and vice versa.
>  
> 
> I've had the experience of being recalled to a piano a few days after tuning 
> it, only to find that the break had gone out of tune thanks to a change in 
> the weather and a lousy scale design. On one occasion, when I tried to explain 
> that the piano in question had an inferior scale design which was causing 
> the tuning instability, I was accused of making excuses for my inability to 
> achieve a stable tuning. I didn't appreciate taking the wrap for a major 
> manufacturer's design incompetence.
>  
> 
> >>  I have played and rebuilt many Steinway Ms, and have had good and bad 
>> ones just like any other model.  I am not a fan of "compression crowning" of 
>> soundboards, but how many fantastic pianos have been made with this system in 
>> mind?
>  
> 
> But the further question this begs, is how much better might these alleged 
> great instruments have been, had they been bellied using an alternative RC 
> process?
>  
> 
> >> The temptation is to feel the need to direct the client towards a piano 
>> that is your choice.
>  
> 
> Well I don't think this will ever change. We can't help making choices - I 
> hope. But it would seem that some folks might prefer that we don't ever 
> question anything.
>  
> 
> >>  If the client calls and asks for that advice, then you should give it of 
>> course.  When evaluating an instrument for someone, though, it will keep 
>> things simpler for you and your client if you stick to evaluating that 
>> instrument, and not editorializing too much.
>  
> 
> It might indeed keep things simpler, as you say, but it might also 
> constitute a case of glossing over a few home truths which have come to light in 
> recent times.
>  
> 
> At 6:46 PM -0400 6/9/03, John Hartman wrote:
>  
> >> Tom,
>> 
>> It sounds like you think there is something wrong with the design of the M. 
>> I couldn't disagree more strongly. I have rebuilt at least 20 Ms and have 
>> found the basic design to be very solid and reliable. While any design can be 
>> improved the M is one of the best small grands available to musicians. Of 
>> course I have seen many disappointing Ms but it is failings in execution and 
>> craftsmanship that are to blame not design.
>  
> 
> What about the scale design John? I have no doubt that you have the skills 
> necessary to make an M into something that it might not have been, but you 
> will still be stuck with a scale which is ordinary. No small piano should cross 
> at Bfl26/B27, but most do.
>  
> 
> This endemic problem of not making waves is killing the potential that we 
> have to move forward in our industry. I find it frustrating when I hear 
> comments from talented people who seem to be resistant to the idea of progress 
> unless it comes from one of the hallowed manufacturers.
>  
> 
> I am looking forward to hearing the fruits of uncle Del's latest contract to 
> design a small grand for Walter. I'll wager that the break on Del's grand 
> won't be placed at the incredibly impractical Bfl26/B27.
>  
> 
> Ron O.
> -- 
>  
> OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY
>      Grand Piano Manufacturers
>     _______________________
> 


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/55/ba/0c/07/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--