Hi Sarah- (Amazing...in less than 1 day, the thread seems old) As I had no thought that you felt any animosity towards Steinway (unless it was anonymously or anomalously), I don't think I misunderstood your intent. Perhaps my own intent is a bit more subversive. Unlike a car or a computer, I don't think the question of the manufacturer's customer service record should have that much to do with a piano purchase. At a given price range, a customer should be able to buy a piano for the way it sounds and feels (and looks, I guess). If those pianos have a history of falling apart, then, of course, customers should be able to discover that, but there is Larry Fine's series of publications, (frequently updated) and there are consultants available to customers. Where I differ with you, maybe, is in your belief that the changes in "design & manufacture", (by which I assume you include quality control), would or should be generated, or, as you say, "driven", by sales. I am not, in the present context, particularly interested in the leverage that sales might have on the company's motivation to establish and maintain quality. I AM interested in the leverage that our little community here could, conceivably bring to bear. Here are some statistics: There are, currently 441 direct subscribers and 218 digest subscribers. Total 659. There are about 92 heavy contributors and around 175 medium to light contributors. The remainder, I assume, are "read-only". This may not seem like a huge number, but it is more than enough to begin a process, though the outcome of such processes, once initiated, are not always predictable. I'm not looking for much. All I want is to separate the excrement from technical fact (or, at least, what stands as the body of accepted technical fact), and I'd like to be able to count on ANYONE's warrantee to mean what it says, and say what it means. If statements like what David Renaud quoted are allowed to stand unchallenged, they quickly gain currency as "accepted technical fact", as though accompanied by that stalwart of all reassurance, "As seen on TV". On the other hand, if all other builders offer the same disclaimers, should we expect anything different from this one? David Skolnik At 03:43 PM 7/10/2005 -0400, you 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
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC