Phil: The pianos you speak of used to belong to the Steinway, Bechstein, etc...... companies. When they were finished with them they accepted money in exchange for the pianos, and now they belong to the current owners. If the current owners want them "improved" - whatever that may mean to you, me or them - it is their right to have the "best" piano it can be regardless of the "heritage." I own a 1912 "B" that I am about to finish rebuilding. It is my piano. Steinway gave up title to that piano 89 years ago. I have put in the action parts I have chosen (Renner) a sounding board made in Atlanta, GA, strings made by Mapes etc. It's my piano not Steinway's. When I finish it I will sell it to someone who appreciates it for what it is now, not what it used to be. I don't really think I have desecrated it. I think I have improved it. People who don't think that I've improved it can decline the opportunity to buy it. It's a piano, not a Temple. If I thought that the right to innovate, experiment, improve (in our personal view), and modify things in our work was only allowed by early 20th century workers, I'd not be able to get out of bed in the morning. "What can I improve today" is the only thing that makes the "ding, ding, ding" of tuning bearable. Reading about the things Ron, Del, and others are doing to further our craft is some of the best reading I do each day. I hope our craft keeps going ahead! dave *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 7/4/01 at 4:13 AM Phillip L Ford wrote: >Bob, >It's not about brand names it's about makers with integrity. I probably >should have known better than to use a Steinway as an example. I'm not >trying to say that Steinway pianos are 'best' or that they should be >preserved as they are because they are some sort of religious icon. I >believe that the intent of any piano maker with integrity should be >respected. The best way I know of to pay that respect is to leave their >designs alone, whether its Steinway, Bechstein, Boesendorfer, Chickering - >pick your 'brand'. If I designed and built a piano it would represent my >idea of what a piano should be. I wouldn't want someone 'improving' that >after the fact no matter how good a rebuilder he thought himself. > >Phil Ford >-- > >On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 15:18:21 > Robert A. Anderson wrote: >>About Phil's comments: I personally would like to make the pianos I >>service sound and play as well as possible. I don't see why I would want >>to make sure that a piano remained a "Steinway" or any other brand name >>just for the sake of a supposed authenticity. If I were manufacturing >>pianos, I can see how I might be inclined in that direction for the sake >>of marketing. But I'm not, so the notion that changing anything about a >>piano is bad because it would no longer be what it started out as is not >>a useful notion to me. >> >>Beyond the original design of the piano, which may or may not call for >>improvement, the actual manufacture of the piano is another thing. It >>would be a mistake to confuse the plan for a piano with the execution of >>that plan. I have observed executions (no pun intended) of designs that >>are pretty grotesque(the executions, I mean). This includes Steinways. >>This doesn't single out Steinways, but their factory workers are human >>just like factory workers everywhere. Henry Steinway characterized his >>factory workers this way (during a strike threat): "Fire them and hire >>400 other swine." >> >>Anyway, as I see it, the bottom line in fine piano restoration shouldn't >>have anything to do with emotional attachments to "brand names." We all >>have our institutional prejudices, but they shouldn't interfere with the >>work we do. >> >>Bob Anderson >>Tucson, AZ >> >> > > >Get 250 color business cards for FREE! >http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/ David M. Porritt dporritt@swbell.net Meadows School of the Arts Southern Methodist University Dallas, TX 75275
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC