If you have read Franz Mohrs book, every Steinway is different. According to him they are hand built. The difference in the piano Rubenstein choose was way different than Horowitz. Since every piano is hand crafted, then i would think the rebuilt one by a real craftsman instead of factory lackys on an assembly line would be in keeping with the Steinway signature. It's a good basic design to start with. Not many rebuilders vary much. Most of the variety comes in the tweaking of the action ratio to the one that most people like. Hammers are like tires. If you don't like the ones you got, change them. You are talking $50K+ instruments. Find the right hammer. Keith Roberts On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 6:49 AM, David Love <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>wrote: > You might be surprised to hear that many technicians who are eschewing > the recent Steinway model are, in fact, interested in capturing (or > recapturing) the tonal signature that characterized the early Steinways > although with techniques that produce a higher success rate, greater > consistency across the scale and a more stable product. Comparing the early > Steinways with the ones currently being produced is difficult because there > have been many changes both in production techniques and quality control: > Hammers, action parts, leverage, soundboard design (in particular > diaphragmizing) all contribute to the question of which Steinway are we > referring to. Would you have made the same argument in the 1970’s when > Teflon bushings were the action centers of choice and leverage that produced > key weighting with seven leads in the middle of the piano was the norm at > the factory? > > > > I have seen several Steinway factory rebuild jobs recently that were > extremely disappointing with problems that ranged from weak and buzzy killer > octaves, poor bridge pin spacing and alignment, inadequate bearing combined > with inadequate crown (not good on a new belly), excessively heavy > touchweight, missed strike points, pinblocks that were too tight and popping > all over the place as well as pinblocks that were too loose, the list goes > on. I have one customer who sent their piano to me to rebuild after hearing > the one belonging to a friend that came from the factory. > > > > You might also be surprised to find that the choice to reject the current > Steinway production model is not ego driven but based on the pressure that > independent rebuilders face to produce a quality product 100% of the time, > not 50%, 25% or even less. My one goal that trumps all other goals is to > stay in business. For me, then, every job is considered a performance that > must achieve the highest level possible. I can’t cruise on 150 years of > marketing success. The question of what makes a Steinway a Steinway has > been hashed over so much that it’s difficult to comment on it adequately > within the scope of this particular response. But suffice it to say that, > in my view, there is an enduring mythology about the contributing factors > that are mistakenly substituted for the end result. The proof of the > pudding is in the tasting. > > > > David Love > > www.davidlovepianos.com > > > > *From:* caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] *On Behalf Of *Sloane, > Benjamin (sloaneba) > *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2009 4:22 AM > *To:* caut at ptg.org > *Subject:* [CAUT] Steinway or Forgery? > > > > In this I would like to address a few of topics recently discussed on > the CAUT list, however related to the Re. These are: > > 1. finding the right hammers for the piano, > > 2. belly work, > > 3. The strange fact that some are more concerned whether or not the > Steinway factory is producing Steinways than rebuilders themselves > > 4. Should I replace the block > > Less recently, the Cincinnati Chapter of the PTG had a quarrel about > rebuilding, featuring primarily a feud between two characters. I am going to > refrain from employing their appellations, but many will know who I am > talking about. I was not in Cincinnati, but Oberlin at the time of the > conflict. It has led to lost friendships, bruised egos, alienation evident > to someone not even here at the time, and many unanswered questions. In the > end, a Steinway dealer got ousted from the guild, while managing to hold on > to the dealership for something like another 15 years or so after the fact. > Or was it 9? 20? My observations result from never having had a conversation > with either man, and hopefully, will not seem an imposture, but an objective > response of someone emotionally removed from the conflict. > > A number of rebuilders in Cincinnati learned bellywork from Baldwin. The > then local Steinway dealer, a rebuilder, tuner, and editor of the PTG > Journal as well decided one of the Baldwin disciples didn’t know what he was > doing, and said so, dare I suggest, inferred that he Baldwinized pianos. Now > we should all understand that permeating the piano industry is the > distinction between what the factory does, and what piano technicians do. We > have to deal with what the factory made in the first place, whether or not > the factory achieved stated goals, and beyond that, in every area of piano > maintenance. The factory itself deviates from specs. That is another > subject. > > Though experiencing a lot as a shop monkey at Oberlin, I decided to > leave for Cincinnati in order to familiarize myself with fieldwork, focusing > on tuning. At the time, shopwork bored me. Some people actually got the > impression in Cincinnati all I do is tune in the process. Whatever. I had > the opportunity to evaluate the work of both these Technicians right down to > the bellywork; I found both to be doing some very impressive work, > notwithstanding the eggs these men laid in the process. My piano degree > affords me the opportunity at a sonic evaluation, most of all. Nevertheless, > I am not convinced all the chickens came home to roost in the final > analysis. > > The observations of Sturm, Mannino, and others about the peculiarities > of different pianos, actions, and hammers bring us vis-à-vis the decision > making process of belly and action work, and begs the question, > > Is it still a Steinway? Is it still a Baldwin? Is it still a Mason & > Hamlin? Is it still a Kawai? > > I’ve worked at both the oldest Steinway school in the world, and now, > the newest one. Steinway takes a lot of flack in spite of their success. The > last national convention I went to as I recall, one European teacher called > Steinway the piano mafia and a monopoly. Again, people seem more disposed to > question whether or not the Steinway factory is producing Steinways more > than rebuilders themselves. This, is absolutely, ridiculous. > > Partly out of deference to Steinway, and also, due to time constraints, > at Oberlin, we decided to plug, or what others call shim, many soundboards, > and not only leave the original block in, but use different size pins to > accommodate wear, not re-drill. What, cracked? Some criticized this > approach, even from within, but we never found it necessary to oust anyone > from the Cleveland chapter as a result. For quite a few years, we managed to > get 15 or 20 action jobs a year done with 3 people and a sizable inventory > subjected to the heaviest use imaginable because of the time and budget we > created by this approach, not to mention the re-stringing, plugging, bridge > pin glue-sizing, and everything else that went with this I was too young to > realize happened also. And we coughed up the money for Steinway hammers! I > know this, from experience at other institutions, including others besides > Oberlin and Cincinnati, was a lot. It was a balancing act to this day I > think under the circumstances was the ideal response in that situation, a > type of situational ethics technicians both in business for themselves and > at institutions scoff at. You rebuild 15-20 actions a year, re-string a few, > tune for the greatest musicians, and still, you don’t understand what a > piano is. > > Steinway does not even have a monopoly over his own name. Steinway > didn’t need to start a restoration program. I am not sure any other belly > worker could say they restore Steinways but Steinway. The name Steinway is > used so loosely now. Why do some Boston pianos come with a stretcher bar > that is mounted with screws? How on earth do we even begin to suggest the > Steinway factory stopped producing Steinways many years ago? I find this > outrageous when considering what people are doing with the Steinway name > now, and how little concern Steinway was allowed to express about this. > > I must unequivocally reject the idea that the Steinway factory is not > producing Steinways, from the hammer to the belly to the action to the > action ratio to the etc. The notion that we suggest this in light of what > rebuilders are doing to Steinways today, is preposterous. > > For the, “Is it a Steinway?” query, the ball must be put squarely in the > court, of the rebuilders, not the Steinway factory. Kick me out if you want, > but I want to reassure all of you as someone, again, with experience at the > first and the last Steinway school in the world. The Steinway factory, > believe it or not, is still making Steinways, and they are as Steinway as > Steinway can get. > > News flash! The Steinway factory did not stop producing Steinways years > ago. The Steinway factory still makes Steinways, and on the other hand, it > is no lucky coincidence when a rebuilder restores a Steinway, or does > not. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090417/1f2eb418/attachment.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC