[CAUT] My take on them, (was The "new" S&S Hammers).

[David Love]

I'm afraid I have to disagree and so would all of my customers.  With total
disclosure I routinely change parts to Renner, put on hammers that don't
require lacquer, alter bass scaling and string suppliers, install Renner
back actions, have keysets made by non-Steinway companies, etc., etc., as do
many reputable technicians.  I go to great lengths to explain my reasons and
if someone really wants original Steinway parts I'll do that too.  I suppose
if you change the soundboard design and put Steinway's decal on it you might
have a problem.  But if changing parts represented a legal breach you can be
sure that the Steinway legal department would be on top of it.  The fact is
Steinway has changed parts configurations and manufacturing many times over
the years.  For a brief time they put Renner parts on their pianos.  The
hammers that they use now do not resemble the original hammers that were put
on Steinways from some years ago.  Replacing hammers on a 1920's piano with
new Steinway hammers changes the character of that sound, maybe more than
using a non-Steinway hammer that more closely resembles the original.  

 

Many would argue that better quality parts (Renner, in my opinion) would add
value.  Certainly there is no drop off in either value or performance.  In
fact, you often see Steinways for sale advertised as having a Renner action.
Just an interesting sidebar, I recently rebuilt an action on a B for a small
performance venue.  The hammers I removed (at their insistence) were
Steinway with plenty-o-lacquer.  The parts I used were Renner.  The hammers
were Ronsen Wurzen.  The action geometry was reconfigured and rebalanced
using Stanwood methodology.  When I came to meet with the piano committee to
discuss the work after they had had time to sample the piano I was modestly
embarrassed to receive a standing ovation.  The compliments I received both
publicly and privately were effusive.  Up until then they were actually
considering getting rid of the piano.  These are a group of knowledgeable
pianists.  I don't think one felt that the piano was lesser for what I had
done.  And, btw, I advised them of exactly what I would do, I sampled
hammers for them beforehand so they could hear what it would sound like-in
fact, though I made recommendations, they were unanimous in their agreement
about what they wanted to hear and the hammer that was producing that sound.
So I couldn't disagree more strongly with your concerns.  My experience
simply hasn't been what you suggest, in fact, quite the opposite.

 

Just to allay any concerns that I might be trying to create Yamaways or
Steinahas, I'm not.  I appreciate what Yamaha does and what they do they do
very well and with a great deal of consistency-I think much greater
consistency that Steinway.  But if somebody wants a Yamaha voiced down or if
they want to hear it with a different set of hammers I won't hesitate.  The
piano belongs to them now, not to Yamaha.  Likewise, if someone hires me to
get the optimum performance out of their Steinway, I will do what I think is
necessary to achieve that goal for them and with their knowledge.  That,
afterall, is what they are paying me for.  If anything, (if this isn't
oxymoronic) I will err on the side of what I consider to be superior
performance.  I'm not taking shortcuts to pad my wallet and I don't feel
there is anything to hide.   I know for a fact from many, if not most
rebuilders, that my approach is not new or unusual, fraudulent, devaluing,
inauthentic or inferior.  My goal is to do the best possible work period and
I use my experience and professional judgment to achieve that.  People who
call me know that and I have to say, business is good!   

 

David Love
davidlovepianos at comcast.net
www.davidlovepianos.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Jeff
Tanner
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:07 AM
To: dporritt at smu.edu; College and University Technicians
Subject: Re: [CAUT] My take on them, (was The "new" S&S Hammers).

 

 

On Sep 19, 2007, at 5:30 PM, David M. Porritt wrote:





Jeff:

 

Any manufacturer has their reputation on the line with the products they
produce.  If they want to keep them exactly as they built them, they should
just lease them rather than sell them.  When I encounter a customer's piano,
I assume they bought it and they will be the one to tell me how they want it
voiced, regulated, etc.  How the manufacturer wants it doesn't enter my
mind.  They no longer own it.  Mrs. Customer does.

 

dp

 

Dave,

With all due respect, I think you may misunderstand what Mrs. Customer
believes she owns.  If it says Steinway on the fallboard, she expects it to
be as authentically Steinway as possible - that it is not just a replica,
but a clone of the instruments the artists play.  She also expects her
technician to speak and understand Steinway.  Once it has lost any of that
authenticity, she accepts that it is no longer what it once was.  Whether or
not we want to admit it, if it is no longer authentic, it loses value in her
mind.  If a potential buyer were to learn that it is not authentic, it loses
value in his mind as well.  There is indeed more at issue here than our own
artistry and pride.

 

Yes, there is a large variance in what is possible with touch weight,
response and tone.  But changing the hammers changes the complete character.
It will never be capable of that sound that is authentically Steinway (or
Yamaha or whoever).  That is what it loses.

 

And I completely disagree with the assertion that the manufacturer no longer
owns it.  They own every patent, every design and every process which has
earned the reputation sought by buyers of the name on the fallboard.  That
name on the fallboard is definitely their property.  It is the identity on
which their future business is built.  If we profit by changing any part of
the product wearing that name, well, some industries would consider that
fraudulent.  Were you the purchaser of a prescription drug or a food that
someone had altered after it was stamped ready for market you would quickly
disagree with your philosophy.  If it is discovered that drugs are tampered
with after they leave the manufacturer, it is that manufacturer that suffers
the losses incurred, even if the perpetrator is caught and put in jail.
Let's say we own a small business which makes paint, but can't afford our
own cans and labels to store it in, and so we collect empty paint cans with
other manufacturer's names on the can - maybe we make interior paint and put
it in an old Sherwin Williams exterior paint can and sell it as Sherwin
Williams exterior paint.  We are misrepresenting the product in the can and
taking advantage of the established name to profit.

 

The customer thinks he is buying Sherwin Williams exterior paint.

 

It is the same.

 

 

On Sep 19, 2007, at 8:23 PM, David Love wrote:

Neither, btw, should you be concerned about manufacturer identity.  No
matter what you do, you will not turn a Yamaha into a Steinway or a Steinway
into a Yamaha. 

 

I'm sorry.  I completely disagree.  My experience is that Mrs. customer was
quite concerned about manufacturer identity when she bought her piano.  One
may not be able to turn a Yamaha into a Steinway or vice versa, but one can
definitely turn it into something that is no longer represented by the name
on the fallboard.  It becomes a rebuilt, generic instrument with a false
identity.  Something like me claiming to a business degree from Yale, when
it is actually from the University of Georgia.  While UGA patterned itself
very much after Yale, Yale it is not.

 

I'm just not comfortable wearing that hat.

 

 

Jeff Tanner, RPT

University of South Carolina

 





 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070920/76b870fc/attachment-0001.html