Michael~ (& All~) Thank you, for providing additional, much-needed insight on yet another facet of what "All Steinway School" can truly mean, for all involved. And thank you also, for making us aware of yet another casualty resulting from this "all-or-nothing"/"One-size-fits-all" approach to a problem. One of the obvious casualties in all this, for me, is this inordinate emphasis on "new" (regardless of the quality) at the expense of the "old" (e.g. the 1929 "D"). In the minds of many, unfortunately, new is always better. -Yet another irresponsible oversimplification, often solely for the sake of selling more new product. (And cutting down more trees, for the environmentalists among us. Eric speaks of "green" pianos, but, in the environmental sense, at least, is what's being done here really "green"?) How long will students now have to put up with "green" pianos (in Eric's words) before Eric and his staff can get them in shape and under control? How well-prepped, or under- or ill- prepped will they arrive from the factory? I have no illusions about this, nor the transition shock that the piano dept./piano technicians will be subjected to. 165 brand new pianos is a lot to manage, especially with this particular brand where so much is expected from dealer or Conservatory tech staff as part of the so-called "Steinway Partnership". Steinway is, naturally, to be commended for "providing work" for piano technicians such as Eric (and I suppose it is better to be able to get something you can work with than something you can't!); but the devil is in "how much work". (At what point would Eric be better off working for Steinway?) (But perhaps this is no longer a problem with new Steinways? Perhaps they now arrive from the factory perfectly prepped? And with touchweight and hammer density properly adjusted? So those poor kids won't get tendonitis trying to practice on them?) Perhaps some other technicians with direct personal experience with this type of huge Steinway order could provide insight into the state of adjustment in which the pianos might be expected to arrive, or into the environmental impact of such an event, -for students, faculty, and tech support. Events like this are, of course, always very exciting, (and also tend to divert people's attention from other equally significant matters, for a season) -but they exact a price, which can often be considerable. One of those liabilities may be that of putting the piano students and faculty in limbo as far as instrument availability, predictability, or reliability for quite a while. (Again, I am alluding to my personal experience at UT Austin, and the fact that things were in upheaval, and displaced, and in a semi-state of chaos for a fair interval with all those brand new Steinways, despite the best efforts of the piano tech staff to maintain order. There was a lot of disruption, as there always is with big marketing "events", where the old is being displaced by the new, in such an extreme way. Will the students themselves be enlisted to help "break in" the new pianos, prior to the tech staff's having an opportunity to adequately prep them? This could be a major issue, one that could significantly and detrimentally impact their physiology, especially if the actions start out too stiff, or unevenly regulated so far as touchweight is concerned, or the hammers too soft. (This happened at UT- -but again, this is nothing "new", so perhaps it can be considered of no significance, or consequence. The students will recover, -maybe. -Some may have to quit playing.) What about the sale or "disposal" (excuse the term) of all the older pianos that will be displaced by the new ones? How will that be handled? Will this be taken care of by some sort of "University/Conservatory Sale" -sponsored by the local Steinway dealer? What will be the implications and impact of that on students and normal activities? Or on local piano dealers? Will the goodwill of local piano dealers of other brands, previously friendly to the Music School, be undermined because of this purchase? And a key question: Was this purchase handled through the local Steinway dealer (i.e. with respect to), or direct with Steinway N.Y.? Was the local dealer circumvented in any way, or left out of the loop (as often happens with large institutional purchases?) (And what about folks like Michael Wathen or David Stanwood? How will their significant investment in CCM's pianos be affected? Will it simply be erased, in large part, by this move?) Will CCM be subject to additional disruptions, in the process of turning the school into an extension of the local Steinway dealer for the purpose of the Conservatory sale or other such promotions? Is that another requirement of this "Partnership"? (similar to programs by Yamaha or Kawai to put pianos into the Universities and other institutions, and use the institutions' facilities for their retail activities.) How will Steinway now expect to be able to use either this purchase, or the Conservatory, to further its marketing objectives, and what kind of pressure will that put on the Conservatory? What about infrastructure? Is Eric being provided the additional support and budget he needs with this huge influx of new maintenance/prep needs? Or is most of the emphasis and limelight going to be on new purchase/capital investment, as it is with many schools? (I am reminded of a case here locally where a city council decided to allow a developer to build a huge number of new homes, without also providing that there would be adequate roads or sewers to service them. The problems were not brought to light until long after the developer had moved on. ) How will CCM be able to assure that the integrity and continuity of Music School activities will not be disrupted during this period? (-by, for example, retailing/marketing/promotional efforts seeking to use the Conservatory as an adjunct?) What is the true price CCM will be paying for these pianos (not just in money)? (It is my experience that those who are set on having things their own way, and who are mesmerized with their own visions of empire, and conquest, rarely do environmental impact surveys (unless compelled to). The legal phrase "right of eminent domain" comes to mind. -All too often, simply an excuse to bulldoze one's way through all obstacles in one's path. So many times, because of the way this is carried out, neither the public, nor those who will be most affected, are consulted or informed of the true impact or consequences. The excitement of simply having "a change", or "something new" is frequently sufficient justification to go ahead with the project.) Let us be careful what we call good, until time has at least had a fighting chance to reveal the fruits thereof. ~Kendall Ross Bean PianoFinders -----Original Message----- From: Michael Wathen [mailto:michael.wathen at wapin.com] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 8:21 AM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] CCM goes "All Steinway" Hello, I would like to add my two cents to the discussion, as a former technician at CCM and inventor of the Wapin. Steinway does what it does best and that is promote itself. What happens to innovation when there is a monopoly? There is no question it will disappear. I am happy for Eric and his success at CCM but I also know that it means that the 1929 Steinway D is being mothballed. For those of you who are unaware, this stellar instrument has an incredible history that I won't go into here. This was the first Wapin concert grand and is still to this day a superior instrument but now it as well as other Wapin instruments will no longer be available at CCM for performance. I can see that the faculty's eyes are coated with $$$$$. There is no way Wapin, and for that matter Stanwood, can compete. Some will veiw this as a good thing. For my part I am deeply saddened. Michael Wathen Former Piano Tech CCM Former PTG member 29 years Presently mathematics high school teacher
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC