Steinway M

[David Love]

I think the question really revolves around what kind of opinion you are
being asked for.  If the customer wants a general assessment of the
Steinway M as a particular model with it's plusses and minuses, then I
think it's fair game to give an opinion on the overall design of that piano
versus, say, a piano of similar size with a different scale design, hammer
type, action execution, soundboard construction, etc..  If the customer is
asking you to approve of their choice of a piano, then it's a slightly
different story.  If they like the piano and want you to check out the
piano for problems or flaws to affirm their decision, then offering your
opinion on design is probably beyond the scope of what you are being asked
and you should tread carefully.  

David Love
davidlovepianos@earthlink.net


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Overs Pianos 
To: Pianotech
Sent: 9/8/2003 4:35:30 AM 
Subject: Re: Steinway M


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
     _______________________