Baldwin's last gasps?

[Delwin D Fandrich]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment

  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Wimblees@AOL.COM=20
  To: pianotech@ptg.org=20
  Sent: April 24, 2001 4:30 PM
  Subject: Re: Baldwin's last gasps?


  In a message dated 4/24/01 3:48:30 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
  rbrekne@broadpark.no writes:=20



    Hey... maybe we all should pool together and put up the necessary=20
    $49.95 and get Del to turn the company around.... what do ya'll say=20
    ?? I can see it now... "PTG techs save One time Piano Giant from=20
    demise ...."=20





  I'm afraid it will take a little more than $49.95 to buy Baldwin. Last =
year I=20
  heard that the company is worth about $33 million. If all PTG members =
(about=20
  4000 of us). each put up about $8500, we'd have ourselves a piano =
company to=20
  call our own.=20

  Then all we have to do is figure out a way to pay Del.=20

  Willem=20

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----


Under the circumstances, I'll take it in cash up front, thank you... I =
feel duty bound to point out, of course, that I'm not at all equipped to =
function as a company CEO. A piano designer, yes, but I do know my =
place.

And Willem is right, of course. It will take considerably more than =
$49.95 to purchase Baldwin. Even the past 25 plus years of somewhat less =
than enlightened management has not managed to wreck that much havoc.

Still, much opportunity has been lost and as to whether there is enough =
time and enough resources to turn the company around at this point, only =
time itself will tell. It the company is able to bring someone in soon =
enough to start putting the pieces back together again -- who knows.=20

Several have mentioned that Baldwin has the capability to build great =
pianos. Well, let's just say that they have the potential to build =
rather nice pianos when everything goes well. That means they have the =
potential to build pianos that are -- with one or two notable exceptions =
-- the equal of most anything being built in this country today. But it =
won't happen. No matter how hard they work on 'quality.' Because it's no =
longer a quality issue. It's a design and manufacturing issue.

Baldwin made the decision to transition itself out of the high-end piano =
market when it left Cincinnati. Not that there is anything at all wrong =
with the workers in Arkansas -- properly trained and supervised they are =
quite capable workers. But the company left behind a long-term and very =
experienced work force that was used to turning out first rate =
instruments at a moderate, but steady and dependable pace, and attempted =
-- with a new and inexperienced workforce -- to speed up the production =
of a fundamental design that simply does not lend itself well to fast =
production. It was like Steinway's experience during the 1970s when it =
was owned by CBS: there was a directive to increase production from =
something like 2,500 pianos a year to 5,000 per year without adding =
appreciably to their facility or their workforce. Couldn't be done =
without great damage to the product. Those designs also were not =
amenable to rushing, something Steinway's current management seems to =
understand quite well and is capitalizing on.

Baldwin has five grand piano designs that were intended to be built =
relatively slowly by workers who were highly skilled and experienced at =
what they were doing. When everything works properly most of these =
designs yield pianos that sound and perform as well as any other =
similar, traditional design. The problem, of course, is that if anything =
goes wrong along the way none of them are going to sound all that great. =
Unfortunately, the way they are being built today, things go wrong more =
often than they go right.=20

Which is, of course, a complex way of saying that all of Baldwin's first =
line of pianos are obsolete. As are most of their vertical designs. =
Their 43" (109 cm), or whatever, console piano is a joke. It was =
originally designed as a 40" (101.6 cm) scale and stretched to whatever =
it is today by adding a 2" (5.1 cm) flange to the bottom of the plate =
and whatever to the casework and casters. The 243 Hamilton (what is it =
now, 46"?) was originally designed in the 1930s, if memory serves, and =
given a superficial redesign in the late 1980s. It should have been =
replaced. The 248 is the only relatively new design in their vertical =
lineup. Except, of course, for the rather eclectic Model 6000 which is =
very much a love it/hate it sort of piano.

No one wants to listen to my solution. Which is to start over one by one =
with state of the art designs that are planned from the start to be =
built using simple, but sturdy tooling operated by semi-skilled to =
skilled workers. Designs in which most any task or process can be =
learned by any reasonably intelligent worker in just a couple of weeks. =
Designs which can be built with precision because they are designed to =
be simple. Designs in which there is a sufficient margin of error built =
into the materials selection and assembly process so that even if =
perfection is not always attained -- and it won't be -- the resulting =
instruments are still going to perform up there with the best =
instruments of the world.=20

Is this just daydreaming? No. Not really. A lot has been learned about =
both piano design and piano building during the last seventy-five to one =
hundred years. And it's been about that long since most of these pianos =
were designed. We can do much better now. Such designs are now possible. =


'But new piano design is problematic and uncertain, isn't it? I =
mean...how do you know if it will 'come out all right.' Easy. By =
understanding the basics of piano design. How does an architect know =
that the building she is designing is going to stand up through the next =
earthquake? Through study and experience. It's not rocket science. =
(Well, designing buildings for earthquakes might be -- piano design is =
not.)

'But this would really take a long time, wouldn't it?' The company =
doesn't have much time. No, Not really. With a suitable, though not =
large, staff, a company committed to the project the whole line could be =
done in a couple of years.

'But such a program would be extremely expensive, wouldn't it?' Again, =
no not really. At least not for a company already in business. At least =
it wouldn't have been in Baldwin's case since one of the more expensive =
components of a new design is the plate pattern and they were already =
investing in quite a bit of pattern work when they switched foundries. =
New vertical designs can be incorporated into ongoing production =
processes. And air operated rim presses are not all that complicated or =
expensive to make. Good grief, if we can make one in our small workshop =
surely a company the size of Baldwin can do it as well. Work tables and =
assembly fixtures can be modified from stuff already on hand. Pinblock =
fitting is still pinblock fitting. Stringing is still stringing. Except =
for spacing actions aren't going to change much. Keys are keys. Well, =
you get the idea.

But none of this is going to happen. This scenario would require a =
considerable amount of courage and long-range thinking on the part of =
the companies top management. An understanding of things like long-range =
product planning and an understanding market trends early enough to deal =
with them pro-actively rather than trying to react to them after the =
fact.

Bob Hoff wrote in the latest Journal that the U.S. manufacturers could =
not compete against the imports. I pretty much reject statements like =
this out of hand: American piano manufacturers simply chose not to =
compete out of -- depending on the company -- a combination of greed, =
arrogance, lethargy, fear and ignorance. They had a solid head start, =
but instead of reinvesting in their company's future the various =
managers allowed their plants to run down and their products to become =
obsolete while in other countries other managers were investing heavily =
in production equipment and new designs (albeit designs often patterned =
closely after old U.S. or European designs). No, we didn't lose an =
industry -- we deliberately threw one away.

So, there. This seems to have been another of my nights for ranting and =
raving. I think I've gotten it out of my system now. At least for a =
while.

Regards,

Del

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/14/f7/d8/a5/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--