[CAUT] Steinway or Forgery?

[Fred Sturm]

On Apr 17, 2009, at 8:17 PM, David Love wrote:

> Silence is complicity.  I wouldn't call what was going on as a  
> frenzy of
> Steinway bashing.  That seems a bit exaggerated.  It's simply  
> holding a
> company (we're not making personal attacks on an individual after  
> all) that
> represents itself as being at the top of the heap accountable for  
> what they
> produce and sell for a premium price.  It's good responsible  
> consumerism.  I
> don't think Steinway is in any danger of closing its doors for a bit  
> of
> criticism from a bunch of techienerds who like to talk shop.   
> Hopefully,
> they take the criticism coming from those who are out in the field  
> servicing
> their pianos everyday as an opportunity to improve their product.  I  
> would.

	You are right, I was exaggerating in this particular instance - it  
was a mild bashing party, comparatively speaking. And I have no  
objection to specific, honest criticism that is merited, or  
disagreement with particular design decisions (soundboard crowning,  
placement of sostenuto rod, whatever). What I object to is gross  
characterization, along the lines of stating that a company has done  
nothing but shoddy workmanship for the last 60 years, that it owes  
everything to marketing and coasting on an out of date (by decades?)  
reputation.
	BTW, Steinway does take criticism seriously, and, indeed, solicits  
it. This is a bit of a change in attitude <G> and a fairly recent one,  
in terms of actively reaching out to dealers and techs and asking. No,  
they aren't going to change to rib crowned boards because Ron N tells  
them C C is crap <G>. But certainly when it comes to production  
quality, they listen very seriously and make changes, as evidenced by  
many things over the past ten years.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu