[CAUT] Steinway or Forgery?

[Fred Sturm]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 12:22 PM, A440A at aol.com wrote:

>   The discussion was originally about the reasons for the changes, ie,
> that the changes I have seen in the last 30 years were made for ease  
> of
> production, speed of production, or lower cost,  NOT improvement of  
> the piano.

	I think that is an incomplete view. Certainly some changes have  
always been made for efficiency and cost reasons to some extent, at  
any manufacturer. But there are plenty of changes that I have seen at  
Steinway which are definitely aimed exclusively at improving quality  
and with no apparent cost/speed dividend. Hammer skiving equipment,  
for instance, at considerable expense in design and execution, which  
has resulted in far more consistent hammers in the last three years.  
The 30 year figure, I guess, omits the whole teflon experiment, but  
that was a good example of an attempt to do something for quality  
(IMO) purposes, one that could possibly have succeeded except for some  
missteps (and inadequate testing of the initial design). The  
investment in action machines has resulted in a dramatic improvement  
in quality and consistency in the past ten years, at great expense (it  
may pay dividends in production over time, but was definitely done  
with quality in mind). Same with action frame production equipment and  
results.
	I could go on and on, only because I happen to have been lucky enough  
to see for myself, over the past ten years, in four one week academy  
seminars, what has been going on in that factory. I am not blind, nor  
am I particularly prone to being suggestible.
	So while I certainly have my own issues with how Steinway does  
things, some design features, some procedures, I frankly admire their  
current attitude and the direction the company is moving. There are  
many qualities in former production designs and techniques (early 20th  
century, late 19th century) that produced admirable results. I think  
it would be wonderful if pianos were made those ways as well: let any  
other manufacturer fill that gap, and it will be a welcome addition.
	At the same time, I admire lots of other piano enterprises that are  
forward-looking, like the Shigeru Kawai, M & H, Fazioli, Sauter, Roger  
Jolly's work with Samick's; the tiny crazy guys <G> like Ron Overs,  
Spreeman, Arledge; people pushing boundaries on techniques, like  
Stanwood and Wapin; the various folks working on parts, like Abel,  
Ronsen, WNG. We have a lot to admire in the current piano industry. So  
why focus on griping and carping? Where does that get us? (Other than  
satisfying a particular attribute of human nature).
	Again, I am not saying we shouldn't be critical. It is a question of  
degree and tone. It is more productive, and better for the survival of  
our fragile industry, if we make the criticism constructive rather  
than destructive.
	
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu