[CAUT] University piano replacement program

[Fred Sturm]

On Jul 3, 2008, at 6:56 AM, tony wrote:

> I asked a simple question!
>
> What would you do if you were asked to compromise.


Hi Tony,
	Actually that is an entirely different question from what you stated  
before, though I believe I have already answered it: If I needed to  
compromise and purchase lower quality (below standard?) instruments, I  
would place them not in practice rooms, but in what I consider to be  
less critical areas, areas I named in previous posts. I consider  
practice rooms very critical. Many institutions seem to think they can  
get by neglecting their practice rooms. I think they are deluded.  
Students need the best pianos in the best condition possible in order  
to make progress, whatever the budget will allow. The musicology prof  
and the band director don't need that quality or condition for their  
purposes.

	I am a little puzzled by your approach to this list. It is apparent  
to me and to others that you are a representative of a manufacturer,  
wanting to place its pianos in institutions, and developing a program  
to do so that includes loaners and other factors. That is just fine,  
but why not say so directly? Why all this dancing around? I'm sure  
readers of this list would be interested to know that your secret  
manufacturer is initiating a program. Why keep it a secret?
	I am also puzzled by your sales approach. I guess your "angle" is  
that an institution can save money by purchasing a lesser instrument  
(like the one you represent) and placing it in practice rooms, on the  
grounds that it will be "good enough" and that, furthermore, it will  
require less tuning because it will be more stable. The latter part of  
this is quite simply a bunch of hooey. Maybe salesmen and  
manufacturers' reps believe that cheaper pianos don't need tuning as  
much because they are inherently more stable, but if so that is  
because they apparently talk only to one another and not to people who  
actually deal with pianos on a daily basis in institutional settings.  
I tell you very plainly based on well over 20 years of intense field  
experience that there is no, zero, relationship between piano price,  
perceived quality level, reputation, however you want to put it,  and  
tuning stability relative to humidity change (which is an enormous  
factor in institutional piano work). If there is any difference, it  
tends sometimes to be in favor of the more expensive brand, but that  
is a very minor consideration in the whole picture. Some of the worst  
pianos from the point of view of stability are quite nice otherwise,  
others are quite nasty otherwise. There is no predicting until you  
have experience with a particular model.

	If you represent an instrument that is capable of meeting the demands  
of an institution, why not present it as such? Let it compete on its  
merits. I am lucky in having a regular budget for piano replacement,  
so I oversee purchase of pianos on an annual basis or thereabouts. I  
personally have a very open mind about piano brands and manufacturers,  
and look at all that are offered. Some are junk, others are  
surprisingly good. Among recent surprisingly good instruments (at  
least on first impression, without seeing how they hold up over time)  
have been Brodmann, Perzina, and high end SMC products like Knabe (I  
haven't been offered many of the latter, unfortunately). I find that  
they compete fairly well against brands more common in institutions.  
If a salesman approached me trying to sell me one of these  
"surprisingly good" pianos on the basis of it being inferior but good  
enough, would I be impressed by his salesmanship? I don't think so.  
The price differential is obvious. The only question in my mind is  
whether or not it is of high enough quality. If it is, I may well buy  
it (depending on the competition). If not, I won't, regardless of price.
	I return, though, to a point I made in my last post: piano service is  
where most institutions need an education, need a consultant. It  
doesn't matter whether they buy what is supposed to be the best on the  
market or the worst or somewhere in between if they don't have a  
competent tech staff with enough time to take care of them. There are  
a fair number of manufacturers making reasonably well designed and  
executed instruments. In competition over a period of years, the ones  
that are well prepped in the beginning (which includes a fair amount  
of lubrication with the right substance in the right application,  
tightening and aligning, regulation, troubleshooting, voicing, etc -  
generally a full day's work or more), and well-maintained thereafter,  
are the ones that will serve the institution well and develop a good  
reputation for the manufacturer. Far too often we see institutions  
throwing money away purchasing millions of dollars worth of inventory,  
and then treating it as if all that is needed is to order regular  
tuning. And this attitude seems to be reflected in your earliest  
posts, where your focus is on how much it is going to cost to tune the  
more expensive versus the less expensive one. Tuning is important, but  
equally if not more important is comprehensive service. The difference  
between institutions lies there far more than in the brand name on the  
fall boards.

Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20080703/c7b4daf9/attachment.html