Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum How Would You Rate Pianos?

And this is where this agreement ends. We all like to barter, nothing wrong with this: Any sudden additions to this agreement will be viewed as favoring one side or another…...

Now here comes the rationalization:



By becoming a part owner of this book business he has a vested interest in the success and continuation of this publication.
One could not deny that this is part of his agenda.

You would like to scratch each other’s backs fine. But do not expect the entire world to go along with it or agree.

My mentions of Piano Buyer are a minority of my posts AND are usually on point to the topic.



Dealers are encouraged to uses sigs to be transparent. Currently I am consulting only Larry Fine, but occasionally I am contractually prohibited from identifying clients.



There are 280 pages of "evidence" in the current issue of Piano Buyer, and in a week or so, our Spring 2010 issue will add many more. Your slur in saying "Larry's book was well respected in times gone by", is unfounded. While I agree in totality that there is a potential for abuse, or "dilution" as you put it, so far NO ONE has pointed out where abuse has occurred. We each have the potential to be a murderer, but until one finds the dead body, you are innocent until the evidence proves you guilty. Claiming that Piano Buyer might be bias is patently unfair when the evidence doesn't support the charge.


The reason the post was pulled was because it contained FALSE information that was potentially damaging to both me and Piano Buyer, in addition to a personal attack on me. It violated Forum rules. You say "going a long way down the street of bias and favouritism." It was not a biased decision, and the post was offensive enough that it would have been pulled regardless of who posted it.


If I make a post that you judge as irrelevent, feel free to post a reply to that affect. If I have time, I usually post a link to the page in Piano Buyer where the pertinent information can be found. Your claim of "rarely if ever" is simply inaccurate. Often the OP needs general information, or would benefit from multiple articles. In those cases I simply recommend the book.



You imply that bias is creeping in. You imply that it is less independent. You imply that it is less frank in its views. I say that these positions are catagorically false.

If you have any evidence to support these claims, or if you find any in the future, please bring them to our attention.

Kind regards

Steve

Perhaps it is time that Larry Fine himself chimes in at this point and sets the record straight.

There's too much posturing going on and the issue is IMHO of crucial importance for P.B.

Ideally we can all step back a bit an give those who are indeed sincere a chance to "prove their stuff"
Let there be plenty of goodwill....

In my book, Mr Fine never had to do this before and it is indeed regretful that this appears to be necesary at this juncture.

My own basic question in all of this would be simply this:

"Is Mr. Cohen as "co-editor" of P.B. in any shape or form involved with - or 'influential' in - the present or future 'ratings' of the publication?"

If anybody here can be trusted with the answer 100% - it would be Mr. Fine himself. This I shall present as my sincere belief in things.

Norbert

Advertising has made no difference to your opinion, or mine, of the objectiveness of Piano Buyer, but to those who don't know Larry Fine from Moe Howard, the potential for bias based on ad revenues is there. That will result in a loss of credibility to the-man-in-the-street.

I'll bet that Steve C. is real glad he started this thread.

fingers

This morning I asked Larry to post. He assured me he would this evening or tomorrow.

Well, the first page or two had some good ideas on it!

Hopefully, if the man in the street reads the the intro to the PB, he will feel otherwise. If not, then since this was apparently the only viable way to continue publishing the PB, what's the point in claiming there's a potential problem on this site whose members are not in the man in the street crowd?

Further to this thought, it will damage the credibility of the publication and also the old family dealership. Think about it. Joe six-pack reads the PB and then reads this forum with what……… 10 yrs of postings by Cohen a part owner of this publication?

The optics of this is horrible. It will play like a bag of rocks.

Your friend Norbert has mis-characterized me as co-author, a misrepresentation first utter by him; now you chime in with a new claim, also false, the I am a part owner of Piano Buyer.

Do you guys coordinate your misrepresentations and the rst, or are they random falsehoods?

Turandot, the frankness I mentioned earlier was not just a product of the 80's and 90's, it was seen right up until the 2008-2009 Annual Supplement.

Steve, I don't think you can argue with Adrian that the new publication is not less frank in its views. It most definitely is and I would be glad to cite numerous examples. However, I'm not objecting to this, as I realize it is simply a thing of the past now that things are being done differently.

A kinder, gentler Piano Book is still (so far) a service to this industry. Thank You, Larry Fine. I don't know anyone who has read your publications forwards, backwards, sideways, and upside-down more than myself, and have used them to help educate customers over many years.

Hello Steve,

I own several print copies of The Piano Buyer. I've used the online version. We occasionally share them with customers, use them as references and I even enjoy the articles. I am not advertised in the book.

In The Piano Book, and certainly The Annual Supplements there are year over year changes in the different editions that I believe are evidence of this eroding frankness.

Perhaps my favorite recent example was in the description of Steinway & Sons(NY):

In the 2007-2008 Annual Supplement, in the commentary following the Group 1 rankings (page 14), "Steinway & Sons (New York), at its best, has one of the finest sounds of any piano in Group 1--and relative to the others in the group, the worst workmanship. It's a testament to the amazing piano designs of this venerable brand, and the integrity of its sound-body construction, that instruments with so little finesse in workmanship can potentially sound and play so well."

In the 2008-2009 Annual Supplement, same place (page 14), "Steinway & Sons (New York), at its best, has one of the finest sounds of any piano in Group 1, but relative to the others in the group, there is less attention to detail in a number of areas of production and musical preparation. It's a testament to the amazing piano designs of this venerable brand, and the integrity of its sound-body construction, that the instruments can potentially sound and play so well."

It is certainly fair and reasonable for Larry to modify his words, to better explain his criticisms. I'm not accusing Larry of bowing to outside pressures, but side by side, readers may fairly call this language less frank in nature. From there, the reader is free to judge for themselves why softer words were chosen.

Try not to become too defensive. You help make and promote a good product. Larry's book has helped change the industry for the better. Because of how the books are compiled, the presence of Ads, it is a business with good intentions but not above such scrutiny. I look forward to the new edition.

Sam, I believe that instance has actually already been explained by saying something to the effect of "Oops, what was I thinking?" But you make a very good point and somebody didn't like seeing that in print!

I like things like "These pianos are probably not going to win awards for anything in particular..." Or, such-and-such pianos "have a tone that neither offends nor delights".

Another thing that's much less frank than in previous years is some of the cheaper models of a particular brand not being criticized even when it would be justifiable to do so. Sort of like a 'don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all' policy.

Hi Sam,

Consider this possibility: Since 2007 Steinway has been steadily improving their workmanship and Larry's evaluations have evolved along with the improvement.

Perhaps Steinway will consider purchasing an advertisement.

Spring 2010 (out in a week or so) - Page 12

At no point have I ever claimed Mr Cohen's title to be
"co-owner" or done so to *mislead* anybody.

What would have been the point of this?

Mr. Cohen's title, according to his own signature and Piano Buyer listings on page 2, is "Advertising Director" and "Contributing Editor"

It's the "Co-editor" that carries - at least in my mind - a very special responsibility for fairness, independence and neutrality.

It's a responisbility that goes far beyond what an average guy or dealer could ever say here on the site.

It is the very mark by which Mr. Fine has earned his integrity and respect this, for many years.

What is really amazing is that this very very simple point is so hard to acknowledge or accept.

Unless "co-editor" of course is a totally meaningless position with absolutely no real or potential influence for content.

This is, what IMHO needs to be clarified here.

P.S. Silverwood Piano and our company are not 'friends' - we actually sometimes compete in same market.

Any chance to resolve this matter honestly and amicably?

Norbert

While I'm with those who wonder about conflict of interest, it looked to me like this thread was supposed to be about whether people thought any of the ratings should have been different.

Unless I missed something, there were only about 3 or 4 suggestions that any pianos should have been rated differently than they are.

If that means everything else is fine (so to speak), that would seem to suggest it's pretty fine.

I love "tangents" as much as anybody, but I always thought tangents aren't supposed to be instead of the original point. I'd love to know which other piano ratings anyone feels should have been different.

I just wondered why an 'industry consultant' needs to ask such questions, and others like it.

I don't think Sam really wants to acknowledge that possibility, as it does not serve his opportunity to spread FUD.

fingers