ess 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.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC