[CAUT] "All Steinway" -What does it really mean...

[Jeff Tanner]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] "All Steinway" -What does it really mean...


> Those big three bozos from Detroit will be pleased to hear that at least 
> one
> person sees that the problem with American cars can be boiled down to
> marketing and perception--though I'm not sure that will be enough to 
> wrestle
> 25 billion to help boost their overblown salaries and keep the fleet of
> corporate jets.  But that's another issue.

Yes, an entirely different issue, and is in no way what I wrote. 
Exploitation, rape and pillage of the wealth and reputation of perfectly 
good American companies and their stakeholders by the current methodologies 
of the modern crop of corporate executives is an entirely different matter 
than whether the product is actually comparable or perceived to be 
comparable to its competitors.  And it is an injustice for us to punish 
everyone else in the manufacturing, marketing and distribution chain just 
because the executives have exploited the resources for their own benefit.

I say take all American CEOs and upper level management out in front of the 
firing squad, confiscate their wealth for the preservation of the companies 
they have pillaged and promote someone who has worked their way up the 
company from the bottom to run it.

>
> I don't think Yamaha and Kawai have marketed their products as being
> superior to Steinway--at least I haven't seen that kind of advertising.

It isn't direct language.  It's slight of hand suggestion.  See my next 
email.

> Their popularity has everything to do with price and predictability.

Along with a little bait and switch, but read my next email.

>  I'm
> also not convinced that Steinway has the upper hand in terms of longevity.
> After all, if they felt that confident, why do they only offer a 5 year
> warranty?

I'll respond to question with a response I got from a sales prospect when I 
explained to him that my product had a 12 year warranty.  He asked, "why do 
I need a warranty?"

It was a darned good question and he probably saw the opossum in the 
headlights reaction in my eyes.  If there is a real reason he might need a 
warranty, I introduce doubt in his mind in the quality of my product from 
day one. The only answer that I could give him that might leave him 
satisfied would be a deceitful one, and I couldn't go in that direction.  I 
muddled through it as best I could, "same reason other manufacturers offer 
one, they're being made in such quantity, they want to make sure if they've 
made a mistake that slipped through Quality Control that the customer is 
taken care of..."  But I felt like I left just a hint of doubt in his mind 
as to the quality of our product.

I think the real answer lies in the reality that most legitimate warranty 
issues arise within 5 years.  Anything after that is probably not due to a 
defect in manufacturing, which is all the warranty covers.  That Yamaha will 
send out replacement bass strings on warranty after several years is good 
will, but its really pretty revealing.  String breakage should occur from 
overuse.  That they are replacing them is akin to conceding that the scale 
is poorly designed, and, in fact, I was sent a couple of strings that they 
had rescaled because they had a high occurrence of breakage (when, in my 
case the design problem was with the extreme angle from the coil to the 
v-bar, and the string broke where it jumped the coil.  They disagreed, but I 
digress).

  Properly maintained and in a reasonably benign environment both
> are capable of surviving well (or not).  In terms of serviceability (one
> other measure of quality), Yamaha and Kawai have it hands down.

We've debated this before, and my experience has been and remains quite the 
opposite.  In fact, we have no examples of any 80 year old Yamaha and Kawais 
in this country surviving in the superb condition we often find 80 to 100 
year old Steinways.  That is a debate for which you have no evidence to 
support.  I mean, you've seen these gray market pianos, haven't you?

  The ability
> to purchase manufactured and assembled parts which can be installed 
> directly
> into an existing instrument is a strong selling point for institutions 
> (and
> perhaps individuals) who can't necessarily afford the additional costs
> associated with custom jobs every time you need to replace a set of 
> hammers
> and shanks.

And the cost has been discussed on this list before.  The Steinway parts are 
2/3 of the cost of Yamaha parts.  (at least of the examples I have heard 
discussed, this was the case -- I haven't actually ordered Yamaha parts 
myself, other than a couple bass strings and a rubber pedal bushing, and 
they didn't want to sell it to me at all without a serial number, which goes 
back to the gray market thing)

>
> Steinway's appeal, in my view, has to do with their tonal concept that was
> captured best and produced more consistently earlier in the century.  That
> concept of low tension scales, light weight soundboards, heavy rims, light
> and soft hammer, produced a warm, slightly dark, rich tone that people
> responded to (warts, and model D--which is something quite different,
> notwithstanding).  Yamaha and Kawai (two name two) have a different 
> concept
> and a design which lends itself to a very different tonal character.  Less
> appealing to me personally but what they do, they do very well and I
> understand why some people prefer it even if I don't (though I do prefer
> Yamaha uprights to Steinway uprights which, to me, are generally very
> disappointing, not to mention expensive).

When it comes to verticals, there are many really good alternatives in the 
market right now.  And yes, the Steinways are expensive, and yes, perhaps 
frustrating for the first 30 years if what you prefer is the tuning of a 
Yamaha, but there again, I haven't seen any 50 to 60 year old Yamaha 
verticals surviving in surprisingly good condition in schools of music the 
way I have Steinways. And we technicians often compare the tone of verticals 
with the hood open, you know?  With the hood down, I'm more disappointed 
with the Yamaha -- it's like you've put in earplugs -- like Pavarotti with a 
sock in his mouth -- but maybe that's just me.  Whether or not the current 
offerings will hold up like their predecessors will be left for our 
grandchildren to discover.  But I, like most of the rest of you, service too 
many really old Steinways in original condition that are still really great 
instruments, and I've seen too many 35 year old Asian pianos that just 
didn't make it.

>  The current iteration of the
> Steinway piano seems somewhat more of a hybrid of thoughts as if they feel
> the pressure of the competition that seems to want to produce big, bright,
> loud pianos.  I think this confusion has not been to their benefit.

I think you are correct.  The Yamafication of Steinway touch and tone has 
been going on for some time now.

Tanner