I don't think I'd be courting legal problems, anyway,
as I would not be personally commenting on any
manufacturer's product. ( And I'm not sure THAT's
illegal anyway ). I would merely be letting the
inquirer read what has been stated by others. In fact,
that is the whole point: not to get personally
involved.
Still, Sarah's suggestion about compiling
complaints on everyone, not just one manufacturer, is
eminently fair.
Thump
P.S. The other side of this ethical question is: do we
let dewey-eyed, uninformed piano purchasers
romantically walk into a very costly possible mistake
? My populist sensibilities say "No". We are more
spiritually obligated to the person standing before us
seeking advice, than a manufacturing enterprise
elsewhere. "Love thy neighbor" just "Do not bear false
witness. "
By letting the purchaser read the comments of
others without rendering our own opoinion, I feel we
are being as fair and unbiased as is humanly possible.
--- Sarah Fox <sarah@graphic-fusion.com> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Perhaps you misunderstand my intent. Personally, I
> don't have the same hate
> issues with Steinway as many on this list, and I
> would not like to see
> Steinway's reputation suffer. I view the maker as a
> a bit of an American
> icon, like Rolls Royce to the Brits, and so I admit
> to a few nationalistic
> feelings there. (They may be overpriced a tad and
> marketed with lots of BS,
> but...) My suggestion was merely that it would be
> nice if there were some
> sort of "consumer guide" for would-be piano buyers.
> There is no liability
> involved, as long as the information is objective,
> not subjective, and as
> long as it isn't presented in a format intented to
> harm any particular
> manufacturer. I'm not saying that the PTG or a
> chapter of the PTG or any
> particular individual *should* do this. I'm merely
> suggesting how it might
> be done *if* someone is interested.
>
> I do agree with the premise that refinements in
> design and manufacture are
> driven by sales, which are driven by consumer
> education. Any good,
> *objective*, popularly accessed source of data
> comparing different models
> and makers will result in (1) happier consumers, (2)
> happier technicians
> (who won't be asked to make customers' cheapo models
> sound like concert
> instruments), and (3) improvement in the industry.
> To the extent that piano
> sales are governed by BS, the pianos likewise will
> be of an excremental
> quality.
>
> FAIW...
>
> Peace,
> Sarah
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Skolnik" <davidskolnik@optonline.net>
> To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 2:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Steinway quality control problems---a
> possible solution !
>
>
> > Sarah & all -
> >
> > First, I think we frequently loose sight of what
> this list is, and what it
> > is not. Or maybe it's just me. While we tend to
> treat it as an exclusive
> > technician / PTG site, it is, of course, neither.
> We tend to discuss
> > matters related to the Guild, or business matters
> as if every business or
> > profession conducted similar sorts of discourse,
> in a public forum. I
> > doubt any others do. Perhaps some clarification
> needs to be proffered as
> > to the liability for what is posted. Now that the
> list is hosted by the
> > PTG, is there, in fact, some legal exposure for
> "complaint" type comments
> > that identify specific parties?
> >
> > I tend to think that neither Thump's nor Sarah's
> approach is necessarily
> > appropriate, or practical. Why should any of us,
> individually or as part
> > of the PTG devote time and expense (including
> possibly legal) getting
> > involved in warrantee surveys. The point of an
> open discussion on this
> > list is its very informal nature. Why should any
> of us feel fearful of
> > openly discussing our experiences? Nobody, or
> virtually nobody, has any
> > interest in harming a company or individual. The
> pressure to do the right
> > thing should be organic, either from the company
> itself, or in the
> > uncertainty, and ultimately the uncontrollability,
> of bad press.
> >
> > If this issue gets resolved successfully, all
> parties should be commended.
> > What remains is for us to press for a technically
> unequivocal statement of
> > what constitutes acceptable design specifications
> and parameters. On
> > this, I would have no problem seeking a
> manufacturer-wide compendium.
> > Certainly, not another convention should go by
> without, once and for all,
> > establishing some minimum structural standards and
> consistent terminology,
> > whether for builders or rebuilders. We've spent
> years listening and
> > learning the principals of construction. Now, it
> seems, they're not
> > really rules, "they're more like guidelines" :X
> >
> >
> > David Skolnik
> >
> >
> >
> > At 10:23 AM 7/10/2005 -0400, you wrote:
> >>Hi Thump,
> >>
> >>I think you wouldn't be courting legal troubles if
> you include all the
> >>manufacturers, or at least the major ones, in your
> service problems list.
> >>If anyone is interested in doing this, the
> archives cna be mined for this
> >>info. For each new thread that introduces a new
> service problem on a new
> >>or newish piano (e.g. no older than 5 years),
> record what the service
> >>problem was and on what piano. Of course the data
> will not be a *good*
> >>reflection of rate of service problems, because
> the purchaser of an S&S D
> >>is going to be a bit pickier than the purchaser of
> a Samick spinet and is
> >>going to complain louder if it isn't delivering
> the sound that it should.
> >>Of course it would be a relatively good indication
> of reliability issues
> >>as perceived by the average owner of each type of
> piano.
> >>
> >>A better way for this to be done would be for some
> technician (or better
> >>still, for some ptg chapter) to put together a
> database from old service
> >>records.
> >>
> >>Anyway, my point is that you could do this for ALL
> manufacturers and
> >>therefore not be picking on any particular one.
> You would be handling the
> >>matter like Consumer Reports would. A summary of
> common problems by
> >>manufacturer and model would indeed be and
> excellent tool for consumers,
> >>and I agree that it would probably force some
> corrective change in the
> >>industry.
> >>
> >>Peace,
> >>Sarah
> >>
> >>
> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "gordon
> stelter" <lclgcnp@yahoo.com>
> >>To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
> >>Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 2:08 PM
> >>Subject: Steinway quality control problems---a
> possible solution !
> >>
> >>
> >>>I suggest we all keep a folder in our emails,
> derived
> >>>from these discussions, called "Steinway
> complaints",
> >>>or some such. Then, the next time a naive citizen
> >>>( or potential buyer ) says "But aren't Steinways
> the
> >>>best pianos in the WORLD ?!?!" ( which happens to
> me
> >>>frequently ) we say absolutely nothing. Just
> request
> >>>that person's email, and downlaod the whole
> folder to
> >>>them !
> >>> When S&S gets wind of this, they'll clean up
> >>>their quality control PDQ, I'll bet, and start
> making
> >>>great, more-or-less uniform pianos once again!
> >>>Thump
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>--- David Renaud <drjazzca@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>You wrote:
> >>>>David R has made this public. Assuming his
> >>>>assessment
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC