(no subject): Response to David A.

[David Love]

I can only give you my personal interpretation of the things I've read and
I think what you've said is a bit strong ("essentially flawed and
essentially marketing hype").  My own experience tells me (as it does you
and many others) that Steinway pianos can play and sound very beautiful but
sometimes they don't.  The issues are complicated by the fact that each of
the models has different characteristics.  The model M, that we are talking
about, has some problems in the transition through the tenor, for example. 
I'm not telling you this from a designers perspective, as I am not a
designer, but from a technician's point of view.  Anybody who has worked on
them knows that it takes some voicing skill to mask the awkwardness of that
transition.  I have found that small changes in the scaling through that
section can make for a smoother transition without compromise to the
integrity of the piano.  Does that mean that the piano is flawed?  Flawed
is too loaded a word to be able to use easily.  But you can draw your own
conclusion, as I have, about how to treat that section when restringing.   

One of my interests with respect to design has to do with predictability of
outcomes (at least to the extent that it's possible) and control.  The wide
variation in Steinway pianos that come out of the factory (and anyone who
has sat down to test for a customer a row of pianos of a certain model on
the showroom floor knows this) suggests to me that there are problems with
control and predictability.  My experience with older Steinways (even those
that have resided in the relatively benign California environment) suggests
that soundboard failure is also not uncommon.  If modified designs can help
with more consistent outcomes and lower failure rate, then I'm all for
considering design changes.  If, for the sake of consistency, those changes
compromise the essential quality of the sound, then I would probably
reconsider.  That is not to say that many older Steinway pianos with
failing soundboards don't still sound better than a lot of pianos out
there.  But that doesn't mean that one should be satisfied with a bar that
is lower than it could be.   I think where Steinway has been very clever in
their marketing is in playing up the "individual personality" of each
piano.  To me, this is a euphemistic way of saying sometimes they come out
well and sometimes they don't.   While differences in tonal quality may, in
fact, appeal to people with varying tastes, I would prefer to achieve those
differences through judicious voicing rather than variations in soundboard
performance.   

The practical point of this discussion is that when you have a piano in the
shop--yours or someone else's-- you have a one time opportunity to adhere
rigidly to the original design, or implement changes small or large to
improve the performance of the instrument as you see it.  The more
information you have, the better off you are to make an intelligent
decision about what, if any, changes you will make.  That information will
always have to be combined with a personal aesthetic choice that we may not
agree on.  But just because we may not agree doesn't mean we shouldn't have
the courage to make a choice.  Neither should we condemn those because they
do or do not.  I hope that people can take the high road on this discussion
and openly share their information and opinions.  Self-indulgent, verbose
and insulting tirades are really not in keeping with the spirit of the list
and the sharing of ideas for our mutual benefit.     

David Love
davidlovepianos@earthlink.net


> [Original Message]
> From: David Andersen <bigda@gte.net>
> To: davidlovepianos@earthlink.net, Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Date: 9/9/2003 9:04:46 AM
> Subject: Re: (no subject)
>
> on 9/8/03 5:45 PM, David Love at davidlovepianos@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > I don't think anybody said anything remotely resembling this in this
> > thread. 
> > 
> > David Love
> > davidlovepianos@earthlink.net
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> [Original Message]
> >> From: Calin Thomason <calint@operamail.com>
>
> >> 
> >> To deny this, or attribute Steinways success entirely to something as
> > banal as marketing skills is simply ludicrous.
>
> No one said it directly, but the implication from a few people ever since
> I've been reading this list is that Steinways are essentially flawed, and
> essentially a marketing hype.  Please correct me if I'm completely off
base
> here, David, but this is what my sense has been.
>
> David A.
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives