[CAUT] New Upright Pianos

[Jeff Tanner]

On Feb 10, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Barbara Richmond wrote:

> Greetings all:
>
> While we're on the subject, a friend asked me to compare Yamaha  
> U-3s with Steinway URs.  Uh, I don't even know what a Steinway UR  
> is, just that I usually try to avoid Steinway uprights in general  
> (but maybe they've improved lately!).

I cut my teeth on Steinway 45s (or 1098s or whatever they are).  Once  
you learn how to work with them, or at least accept them, they're  
much easier to appreciate.  But avoiding them simply because you'd  
rather tune a Yamaha because it's easier isn't giving the Steinway  
much of a chance out of the starting gate.  And don't expect it to be  
like tuning a Yamaha or a Kawai, or a Boston or a Walter, or a  
Baldwin, because any of those, it isn't.  You have to accept the  
instrument for what it is and work with it.  Yes.  Steinway verticals  
can be aggravating to tune.  Some, more so than others, and  
especially when they're new.  But once you put that front board back  
on, take off your technician's hat and put on your musician's hat, it  
is a much different story.  All that noise somehow turns into a  
reliable, very stable, and pretty decent sounding musical instrument.

And I'm sorry, what David Porritt wrote, quoting Ron N, is just  
completely off base.  The people who own 1098s love them.  It doesn't  
matter why.  They just do.  And those people tend to find Yamaha  
verticals leave much to be desired.  I especially don't get the big  
hoopla over the U3.  It is very creamy.  In fact, all cream.  No  
coffee.  No tea.  No peaches.  No cookies.   
Just... ...plain... ...cream.


>   The argument against the Yamahas (given by the Steinway dealer)  
> is the Steinways will last a lot longer.   These pianos would be  
> used in a university, but I'm not sure if they are for practice  
> rooms or studios.  Anyway, I think it's hard to beat Yamaha in  
> consistency and I wonder (and what I would be concerned about is)  
> what the condition the Steinway hammers are in regarding  
> lacquering--and then there are those center pin bushings...


I can't in good conscience responsibly agree with much of anything  
that has been said on this thread.  When I look at the P2s and P202s  
in my client base and compare them to the 1098/45s from the same time  
and even years older, there is no way I could ever come to a sober  
conclusion that the Steinway doesn't hold up better over time than  
the Yamaha.  The same would have to be said for G1's, G2s, G3s, and  
C3's versus Steinway S, M and L, even with teflon.  Sure, the atoms  
will all still be there years from now on both pianos, but give me a  
practice room beaten 40 year old 1098 over a P2 that's been used a  
couple hours a week in a church any day.

Folks, we're talking about mass produced pianos built for the lower  
priced market by a company accustomed to its customers throwing  
pianos away after 25 or 30 years, versus artist grade instruments  
built with superior materials, and built to be rebuilt again and  
again by a company that has been building pianos for world class  
artists since 1854.

Steinway marketing myth my behind.  I don't see people lining up to  
pay 5 times the original selling price for 35-40 (or 80 to 100) year  
old Yamaha pianos and then investing more money to get us to rebuild  
them.  And I definitely don't see how that can be blamed on  
Steinway's marketing department.  Yamaha's main market niche is for  
disposable pianos, and they are priced accordingly.

I have nothing against the Yamaha product or the company.  But we're  
not talking about apples and apples here. If we were talking about  
Yamaha's artist series instruments, you might have a good debate.   
But Yamaha has shot itself in the foot for not marketing them more  
diligently.  Or perhaps it can't sell them.  For Yamaha to make a  
piano in Steinway's quality range, they have to charge 30%-40% more.   
Unless, of course, you're looking at a used one.

You've actually got to hand it to Steinway.  The Steinway factory is  
located in one of the most expensive cities in the world, with one of  
the highest costs of living anywhere.  And despite labor unions, and  
difficult hazardous materials restrictions, they manage to build a  
world class piano which sells for a lower cost than any of the Asians  
can do it.  And it has survived the American economy for over 150  
years.  That is no easy feat considering it survived a civil war, two  
world wars and a dozen or more year long economic depression that  
wiped out almost every American piano manufacturer.  I'm tired of  
hearing them berated the way they are.

Our customers like Steinway.  Performing artists like Steinway.  Our  
university faculties prefer Steinway.  Steinway doesn't have to loan  
their pianos for free for a year to get universities to use them, and  
they don't have to pay artists for endorsements.  This is not  
Steinway marketing.

I really don't see how anyone could come to any different conclusion,  
unless that someone truly can't appreciate the difference.  Then, I  
suppose, it doesn't matter.




Jeff Tanner, RPT
University of South Carolina



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070213/1c0b56ab/attachment.html