Steinway M

[Overs Pianos]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
At 12:11 PM -0400 6/9/03, Tom Driscoll wrote:
>List,
>
>             I have a client seeking my opinion concerning purchase 
>of a 5 year old Steinway M at a university sale @$39,000. I have not 
>seen this particular piano but have reservations about the tonal 
>production of the M. Those designers among us have commented on 
>scaling flaws and of course the compression crowned soundboards, but 
>my question is what specifically are the areas of design where the 
>shortcomings exist.
>
>             I felt like I was raining on a parade with my comments 
>about the M, and I'd like to be more specific. I've encouraged my 
>client toward a models L or B but budget may not allow them to 
>consider those models.
>
>             Thanks for your input.
>
>             Tom DriscollRPT

At 1:45 PM -0700 6/9/03, Donald Mannino wrote:
>Tom,
>
>I would advise that you not comment to your client on the design of 
>the piano, but stick to what your client wants - an evaluation of 
>the instrument itself, the condition, and whether it seems to be 
>priced properly.

What on earth is wrong with a technician commenting on the design of 
any instrument? Last time I checked I didn't notice that any of the 
manufacturing fraternity were any closer to deity status than the 
rest of us.

>There are lots and lots of opinions expressed here and other places 
>about what is good or bad in a piano design, but all of these are 
>really meaningless when it comes to personal choice in a piano.

That just depends. I have no doubt that certain pianos have superior 
design when compared to others (and the design superiority will not 
necessarily be linked to the price of the instrument). In many cases, 
an instrument with inferior design will give inferior performance, 
regardless of how pristine the particular example may or may not be. 
Take the Model M and the Yamaha G2, to take two examples of status 
quo 5 and a half foot grands. When the humidity and temperature 
swings, neither of these pianos will have 'a snow ball's chance in 
hell' of staying in tune at B27, because the tension is just too low 
as a consequence of the 'hockey stick' lower treble scale. B27 will 
go sharp if the humidity rises and vice versa.

I've had the experience of being recalled to a piano a few days after 
tuning it, only to find that the break had gone out of tune thanks to 
a change in the weather and a lousy scale design. On one occasion, 
when I tried to explain that the piano in question had an inferior 
scale design which was causing the tuning instability, I was accused 
of making excuses for my inability to achieve a stable tuning. I 
didn't appreciate taking the wrap for a major manufacturer's design 
incompetence.

>   I have played and rebuilt many Steinway Ms, and have had good and 
>bad ones just like any other model.  I am not a fan of "compression 
>crowning" of soundboards, but how many fantastic pianos have been 
>made with this system in mind?

But the further question this begs, is how much better might these 
alleged great instruments have been, had they been bellied using an 
alternative RC process?

>The temptation is to feel the need to direct the client towards a 
>piano that is your choice.

Well I don't think this will ever change. We can't help making 
choices - I hope. But it would seem that some folks might prefer that 
we don't ever question anything.

>   If the client calls and asks for that advice, then you should give 
>it of course.  When evaluating an instrument for someone, though, it 
>will keep things simpler for you and your client if you stick to 
>evaluating that instrument, and not editorializing too much.

It might indeed keep things simpler, as you say, but it might also 
constitute a case of glossing over a few home truths which have come 
to light in recent times.

At 6:46 PM -0400 6/9/03, John Hartman wrote:
>Tom,
>
>It sounds like you think there is something wrong with the design of 
>the M. I couldn't disagree more strongly. I have rebuilt at least 20 
>Ms and have found the basic design to be very solid and reliable. 
>While any design can be improved the M is one of the best small 
>grands available to musicians. Of course I have seen many 
>disappointing Ms but it is failings in execution and craftsmanship 
>that are to blame not design.

What about the scale design John? I have no doubt that you have the 
skills necessary to make an M into something that it might not have 
been, but you will still be stuck with a scale which is ordinary. No 
small piano should cross at Bfl26/B27, but most do.

This endemic problem of not making waves is killing the potential 
that we have to move forward in our industry. I find it frustrating 
when I hear comments from talented people who seem to be resistant to 
the idea of progress unless it comes from one of the hallowed 
manufacturers.

I am looking forward to hearing the fruits of uncle Del's latest 
contract to design a small grand for Walter. I'll wager that the 
break on Del's grand won't be placed at the incredibly impractical 
Bfl26/B27.

Ron O.
-- 

OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY
      Grand Piano Manufacturers
      _______________________

Web http://overspianos.com.au
mailto:ron@overspianos.com.au
      _______________________
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/4b/b1/42/25/attachment.htm

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