I don't think I'd be courting legal problems, anyway, as I would not be personally commenting on any manufacturer's product. ( And I'm not sure THAT's illegal anyway ). I would merely be letting the inquirer read what has been stated by others. In fact, that is the whole point: not to get personally involved. Still, Sarah's suggestion about compiling complaints on everyone, not just one manufacturer, is eminently fair. Thump P.S. The other side of this ethical question is: do we let dewey-eyed, uninformed piano purchasers romantically walk into a very costly possible mistake ? My populist sensibilities say "No". We are more spiritually obligated to the person standing before us seeking advice, than a manufacturing enterprise elsewhere. "Love thy neighbor" just "Do not bear false witness. " By letting the purchaser read the comments of others without rendering our own opoinion, I feel we are being as fair and unbiased as is humanly possible. --- Sarah Fox <sarah@graphic-fusion.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > Perhaps you misunderstand my intent. Personally, I > don't have the same hate > issues with Steinway as many on this list, and I > would not like to see > Steinway's reputation suffer. I view the maker as a > a bit of an American > icon, like Rolls Royce to the Brits, and so I admit > to a few nationalistic > feelings there. (They may be overpriced a tad and > marketed with lots of BS, > but...) My suggestion was merely that it would be > nice if there were some > sort of "consumer guide" for would-be piano buyers. > There is no liability > involved, as long as the information is objective, > not subjective, and as > long as it isn't presented in a format intented to > harm any particular > manufacturer. I'm not saying that the PTG or a > chapter of the PTG or any > particular individual *should* do this. I'm merely > suggesting how it might > be done *if* someone is interested. > > I do agree with the premise that refinements in > design and manufacture are > driven by sales, which are driven by consumer > education. Any good, > *objective*, popularly accessed source of data > comparing different models > and makers will result in (1) happier consumers, (2) > happier technicians > (who won't be asked to make customers' cheapo models > sound like concert > instruments), and (3) improvement in the industry. > To the extent that piano > sales are governed by BS, the pianos likewise will > be of an excremental > quality. > > FAIW... > > Peace, > Sarah > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Skolnik" <davidskolnik@optonline.net> > To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org> > Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 2:23 PM > Subject: Re: Steinway quality control problems---a > possible solution ! > > > > Sarah & all - > > > > First, I think we frequently loose sight of what > this list is, and what it > > is not. Or maybe it's just me. While we tend to > treat it as an exclusive > > technician / PTG site, it is, of course, neither. > We tend to discuss > > matters related to the Guild, or business matters > as if every business or > > profession conducted similar sorts of discourse, > in a public forum. I > > doubt any others do. Perhaps some clarification > needs to be proffered as > > to the liability for what is posted. Now that the > list is hosted by the > > PTG, is there, in fact, some legal exposure for > "complaint" type comments > > that identify specific parties? > > > > I tend to think that neither Thump's nor Sarah's > approach is necessarily > > appropriate, or practical. Why should any of us, > individually or as part > > of the PTG devote time and expense (including > possibly legal) getting > > involved in warrantee surveys. The point of an > open discussion on this > > list is its very informal nature. Why should any > of us feel fearful of > > openly discussing our experiences? Nobody, or > virtually nobody, has any > > interest in harming a company or individual. The > pressure to do the right > > thing should be organic, either from the company > itself, or in the > > uncertainty, and ultimately the uncontrollability, > of bad press. > > > > If this issue gets resolved successfully, all > parties should be commended. > > What remains is for us to press for a technically > unequivocal statement of > > what constitutes acceptable design specifications > and parameters. On > > this, I would have no problem seeking a > manufacturer-wide compendium. > > Certainly, not another convention should go by > without, once and for all, > > establishing some minimum structural standards and > consistent terminology, > > whether for builders or rebuilders. We've spent > years listening and > > learning the principals of construction. Now, it > seems, they're not > > really rules, "they're more like guidelines" :X > > > > > > David Skolnik > > > > > > > > At 10:23 AM 7/10/2005 -0400, you wrote: > >>Hi Thump, > >> > >>I think you wouldn't be courting legal troubles if > you include all the > >>manufacturers, or at least the major ones, in your > service problems list. > >>If anyone is interested in doing this, the > archives cna be mined for this > >>info. For each new thread that introduces a new > service problem on a new > >>or newish piano (e.g. no older than 5 years), > record what the service > >>problem was and on what piano. Of course the data > will not be a *good* > >>reflection of rate of service problems, because > the purchaser of an S&S D > >>is going to be a bit pickier than the purchaser of > a Samick spinet and is > >>going to complain louder if it isn't delivering > the sound that it should. > >>Of course it would be a relatively good indication > of reliability issues > >>as perceived by the average owner of each type of > piano. > >> > >>A better way for this to be done would be for some > technician (or better > >>still, for some ptg chapter) to put together a > database from old service > >>records. > >> > >>Anyway, my point is that you could do this for ALL > manufacturers and > >>therefore not be picking on any particular one. > You would be handling the > >>matter like Consumer Reports would. A summary of > common problems by > >>manufacturer and model would indeed be and > excellent tool for consumers, > >>and I agree that it would probably force some > corrective change in the > >>industry. > >> > >>Peace, > >>Sarah > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- From: "gordon > stelter" <lclgcnp@yahoo.com> > >>To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org> > >>Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 2:08 PM > >>Subject: Steinway quality control problems---a > possible solution ! > >> > >> > >>>I suggest we all keep a folder in our emails, > derived > >>>from these discussions, called "Steinway > complaints", > >>>or some such. Then, the next time a naive citizen > >>>( or potential buyer ) says "But aren't Steinways > the > >>>best pianos in the WORLD ?!?!" ( which happens to > me > >>>frequently ) we say absolutely nothing. Just > request > >>>that person's email, and downlaod the whole > folder to > >>>them ! > >>> When S&S gets wind of this, they'll clean up > >>>their quality control PDQ, I'll bet, and start > making > >>>great, more-or-less uniform pianos once again! > >>>Thump > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>--- David Renaud <drjazzca@yahoo.ca> wrote: > >>> > >>>>You wrote: > >>>>David R has made this public. Assuming his > >>>>assessment > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC