[CAUT] .. Those "new" S&S Hammers.

[David Ilvedson]

But how do you really feel?....;-]   

I remember those days well.   I also remember how little we knew and how in 10 years everything started opening up and the lightbulbs starting going off.   Let's remember those technicians who shared their ideas with us all and changed everything...

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044

----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Scott E. Thile" <scott.thile at murraystate.edu>
To: "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org>
Received: 9/19/2007 7:08:06 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] .. Those "new" S&S Hammers.


>Dennis brings up an excellent point! I approach this issue with fear and
>trepidation every time I consider the options when rebuilding Steinways.... 

>Keep in mind that regardless of how you feel about the current situation
>with hammers, Steinway parts have not ALWAYS been the best option. When I
>first started rebuilding in the late '70s. Steinway was just starting to
>sell parts again at all (apparently they would not sell parts before at one
>point?), but they were sending out junk factory rejects to technicians on a
>regular basis. Even when they were not rejects, they still required tons of
>extra work, and were twice as much money as the other options. Not to
>mention that if you wanted to use NY parts back then, they were Teflon, and
>at one point had solid felt knuckles (no buckskin covering). I even had one
>set of those on a D in my clientele!

>So, in the late '70s our choices for action parts were getting the crap
>Steinway was turning out of NY, modifying Pratt Reed parts by cutting
>scallops into the flanges with a special home made router jig, or smuggling
>in parts from Germany and adjusting action frames until the geometry worked.
>It was a mess! This was before Reineer USA, but if you had connections in
>Germany with either Steinway there, or Renner, you could get those parts.
>And of course this was also before George Defabaugh started importing the
>Japanese parts and had Tokiwa build them to fit Steinways.

>Most competent rebuilders at that time up till the late '80s that were not
>directly affiliated with NY or a dealer considered the OEM parts completely
>sub-standard, and most pianists and venue managers were pushing hard for
>using the alternatives. Many of us specialized in, and even built
>reputations on being able to fix the junk that NY was sending out for pianos
>(it was more of a piano kit, and one where not even all the parts worked!). 

>I'm convinced that it was technicians providing pressure by building or
>using alternative parts, Renner and Tokiwa providing good parts options for
>us, and competition from gray market Hamburg pianos that finally got NY to
>re-evaluate their arrogance, drop the Teflon, and start fixing their
>horrendous quality issues. In other words, if it weren't for the pressure of
>those of us willing to press the issue and use non-OEM parts, you might not
>be near so happy with your current OEM parts, or current Steinway
>production.

>So at least at one point, sticking with OEM parts was not a responsible
>choice. Is it now? Sure, thankfully it can be, but I think it depends on the
>technician, the client, the piano, and the room or hall it's in. One thing
>is for sure--if we opt to recommend going with anything but OEM parts, the
>client should be informed about the possible ramifications in terms of
>re-sale, and it should be their decision once they understand the various
>options and issues.

>I learned a long time ago not to second guess what lead a technician to make
>the choices they did in any given situation at any given time. Clients have
>a way of "forgetting" what ever it was that they said or did that may have
>contributed to the problems, and it's very possible the technician did their
>very best given the various challenges.

>I would also argue that it is far more possible to destroy any benefit to
>the name on the fallboard with poor workmanship, regardless of the parts
>used than what the parts actually are. If it's the reputation of Steinway
>that is the issue, or keeping it a Steinway when replacing parts, then
>everything should be sent to Steinway! That's just not a valid argument for
>OEM parts. All of us have seen Steinway parts used so poorly as to make any
>benefit from same completely null and void. 

>Look at this way, a 1964 Steinway rebuilt up to that years standards with
>OEM parts for that period would mean we would all be trying to find some of
>those wonderful early Teflon parts with the wonderful felt knuckles they
>were so proud of back then, and maybe find a nice vintage set of crap lumpy
>lifeless hammers, and all so as not jeopardize Steinway's perfect intentions
>for that instrument....

>Two more cents from a crotchety old timer.....

>Scott

>Scott E. Thile, RPT
>Piano/Instrument Technician
>---------------------------
>Dept. of Music, Murray State University
>504 Fine Arts Building, Murray, KY 42071
>Office Phone: 270-809-4396 
>http://campus.murraystate.edu/staff/scott.thile/index.html


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On 
>> Behalf Of johnsond
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:41 AM
>> To: College and University Technicians
>> Subject: Re: [CAUT] .. Those "new" S&S Hammers.
>> 
>> 
>> wow.............,
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> With respect to everybody-- I think that inside there is 
>> another issue 
>> going on that is seldom talked about.  Evidently this area 
>> may not be a 
>> fair example of the whole market, but here it is the case that every 
>> concert tech in each of the "commercial" concert venues uses 
>> exclusively 
>> New York factory parts both on and off the stage. Anyone who does not 
>> conform to this expectation runs the risk of aggressive verbal back 
>> stabbing from those with a powerful, and non-technical, 
>> retail concern.  
>> One of things that attracted me and likely most of us to 
>> academia is the 
>> relative independence we enjoy from that scene.  It is however, still 
>> there. That is what it is, and enough said.
>> 
>> Having said that however, naturally this has been done. Always and 
>> purely from the desire to do only the best we can for a given piano, 
>> judging from our experience and what is currently available.  Renner, 
>> Issac, Ronsen, Able....., but in these past few years I've 
>> also decided 
>> to go back to stock hammers.  We've had good results and I 
>> know how to 
>> work with them.  A person does get tired of the fight over time, but 
>> those stock parts are definitely much improved and we should 
>> be able to 
>> feel good about using them, right?  I'm not so sure I care 
>> for this new 
>> "process improvement" of pre-soaking, as it takes too much of 
>> the tone 
>> building process out of my control (in this last case, all of 
>> it) but we 
>> can deal with it if necessary.  The faculty member I reported 
>> initially 
>> in my frustration is just fine now, and amazed at the 
>> improvement, but 
>> the core issue is still the same. That particular set of 
>> hammers was not 
>> ideal for that particular piano.
>> 
>> Somewhere between making us responsible for the player 
>> falling in love 
>> with their piano given the materials we have to work with from the 
>> manufacturer, and the real pressure to be limited in that same way, 
>> falls another unrealistic expectation. No shortage of those..... 
>> Actually, the players I see and work for are not so prejudice or 
>> opinionated as the retailers, manufacturers and technicians.  
>> The better 
>> the player, the more that is the case. 
>> 
>> 
>> that's my 2 cents of whatever~
>> 
>> thanks,
>> 
>> Dennis Johnson
>> St. Olaf College
>> 
>>