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

[Porritt, David]

David M. Porritt, RPT

dporritt at smu.edu

 

From: Porritt, David 
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:53 AM
To: 'Jeff Tanner'
Subject: RE: [CAUT] My take on them, (was The "new" S&S Hammers).

 

Jeff:

 

This is an interesting subject and I appreciate both the candor and
non-adversarial nature of the discussion.

 

There are things that must be preserved.  The Mona Lisa is a singular
item with artistic value and historic value.  ANY change (even if it
would improve that smile) cannot be done!  At the other end of the
spectrum is my Ford that in spite of the fact that Ford's logo is still
on it, has Mobil 1 oil in it.  That's OK.  

 

In between are a lot of things from works of art to consumer products.
In Dallas there is but one house designed by famed architect Frank Lloyd
Wright.  It is his work of art.  I'm sure the owner has the right to
make substantive changes in it if he chooses, but will probably keep the
Wright design for its value.  I don't think he would be unethical to
update this work of art (it was built in the 1950s I believe) nor do I
think it foolish to keep it exactly the same.

 

Pianos are someplace in the middle - between Mona Lisa's and Fords.
They are a consumer products produced in a factory that makes 4,000 -
5,000 units a year.  They are not one-of-a-kind.  I think we each have
to decide what we'll do and what we won't do for a customer's piano.  I
have always left that choice up to the owner.  I have felt comfortable
using all Steinway parts, (though that isn't usually my preference) and
comfortable using whatever parts I felt were best for the instrument.  

 

We must all do what will let us sleep at night.

 

dave

 

David M. Porritt, RPT

dporritt at smu.edu

 

From: Jeff Tanner [mailto:jtanner at mozart.sc.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:07 AM
To: Porritt, David; 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/d4ab550f/attachment.html