Forgive me but I’m not clear as to the point. I would say that rebuilders
vary quite a lot and the variety of outcomes is due to much more than the
tweaking of action ratios or hammer selection. I have read Franz Mohr’s
book (most of it anyway) but I think it should be viewed in light of his
sentiment. He is and has reasons to be very beholden to Steinway. Given
their history together I don’t blame him. And yes, there are certainly
differences in outcomes with pianos of the same make and model even when
they are using the same design. The question is why and to what degree the
standard deviation needs to be as wide as it is. There are two aspects,
design and execution. Part of my point was that even putting design aside,
there is far too much variability coming out of Steinway in terms of
execution, at least from what I’ve seen from the rebuilding department. A
more careful rebuilding job with greater attention to detail can narrow the
range of variability to the degree that the designs allow. I don’t see that
coming from the factory often enough. The design issue itself is another
question but my point there was that many rebuilders who are tweaking the
scaling (which btw almost every independent bass string maker does including
GC, Arledge, JD Grandt, Sanderson, Issac, to name a few), or embracing
alternate ways of forming crown are not necessarily rejecting the Steinway
tonal concept of low tension scale, heavy plate and rim, lightweight
soundboard assembly, lightweight and soft hammer. Rather, many are just
looking for a more reliable and consistent way to achieve those ends given
the things we have to work with.
I don’t know if that addresses your point or not but that was mine.
David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Keith
Roberts
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 8:11 AM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway or Forgery?
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 <http://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/20090417/5e23b80e/attachment-0001.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC