[CAUT] Steinway or Forgery?

[David Love]

Well, I think if you don't hear the variability in outcomes or see the
changes over time you aren't paying attention.  I would agree that when
things are in good order and balanced properly they do have a characteristic
type of tone and I would argue that that tone is related to their overall
design philosophy.  That overall philosophy may not have changed much but
some designs have along with, perhaps, a consistency of execution.  Two
changes are particularly noteworthy:  The diaphragmatic soundboard coupled
with the move toward a hammer with much greater mass and density.  To me,
those two elements seem at odds not only with the original iteration but
with tone building logic.  You create a much more flexible soundboard and
then when you should probably lighten the scale tensions and the hammer you
instead beef up the hammer with both mass and density by the infusion of
lacquer.  I don't view those pianos the same way that I do the earlier
iterations with limited panel thinning (only behind the bass bridge and the
treble shelf) and lightweight soft hammers.  It would appear that the
changes were made in order to push up the volume and in doing so I believe
they lost sight of the original intent.  The characteristic tone that people
fell in love with in the earlier part of the twentieth century was for the
most part lost.  

As far as the disclosure of making changes to the original designs, I agree
that customer should be aware of those changes.  However, all the people
that I know who are doing that (myself included) are very upfront, maybe
even proud, of those changes and don't hesitate to offer full disclosure and
explanation.  BTW, most of the times that I've made those changes it's come
about because somebody has heard a piano first in which various changes were
made.  Frequently I've gotten the comments that not only did they love the
sound of the Steinway, but it was as they always thought a Steinway should
sound or that they remembered it sounding from their childhood.  Now isn't
that interesting.      

David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com

-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
Richard Brekne
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 9:43 AM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway or Forgery?

Sorry bout the empty post... was trying to read from the archives and 
needed to drop the original text into a blank email to get it all on one 
side.

That said... this is a major can of worms. There are so many folks who 
mean to know better then Steinway what Steinway is, was, will be, should 
be... etc. And there is the fact that Steinway is in the business of 
producing pianos en masse in a very nasty market with all the realities 
of production problems. And there is the fact that if all the hoopalah 
about S&S on all sides of all fences wasn't about S&S then it sure as 
heck would be about some other make that establishes itself as the new 
top of the heap, king of the hill, whatever else Frankie sang about.

This said again... and despite all claims real and imagined about the 
variability found in Steinway instruments.... they have a sound of their 
own. And this basic sound has not changed nearly as much as some would 
have it through the years.  Its characterized by some basic design 
issues that nearly all others copy and by their basic approach to piano 
building in general.  Years ago there were many factories... all with 
their own approach and philosophies... and these were reflected fairly 
clearly by the tone of the instrument.  Today many such factories have 
either fallen by the wayside or given up on their own sound.... trying 
to emulate the sound of the leader of the pack.... or just plain make 
stamp instruments that look like S&S clones but are punched out by the 
dozens each day in emerging piano producing countries.

As far as who rebuilds what... and why... and what it becomes... I'll go 
a very very long ways down the road that David Porritt walks. My only 
concern in this regard is that whatever is done to modify a product is 
very visibly identified.... that is to say I have no liking for anyone 
in any sense of the word passing off one product for another.  If you 
have rebuilt a Steinway, Baldwin, or any other instrument with a 
modified scale, plate, soundboard design... whatever.. then make it very 
clear to anyone who sees the instrument that its a custom rebuild... and 
be darned proud of taking the credit for your work in the bargain.

I don't really personally like the S&S dominance.... I think it says a 
lot of less then flattering things about pianists music appreciation 
capabilities.  But thats just my opinion and I may even be off base in 
the end with it.  Regardless... its a fact of life. They are what they 
are and they are no doubt very fine instruments.  No amount of marketing 
skills could possibly account for their totally unprecedented (in any 
industry in all history) success. Not much I can do about that.... :) I 
like many instruments... fell pladask in most ways for the Nossaman 
rebuild I saw in Rochester... and was simply floored by the 
immaculateness of Overs entry.... I like variety and I appreciate 
quality.  So I like S&S as well as these others. 

Live and let live I say... but be honest about it and leave all the 
smearing of the <<other guy>> out of any discussion. 

Cheers
RicB