Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum New Owner of Steinway, John Paulson

A great value for everyone....except Steinway!

OK, nevermind. I guess I'll just buy a mutual fund at T.Rowe Price.

It's odd that Steinway's primary pitch is investment and prestige value, and not as a musical instrument.

That comment was no doubt in jest, but in fact it is highly debatable. One could argue convincingly that the demand for new Steinways would fall if there were no ready market for used ones.

Ian,

I'm not so sure it was in jest. Steve has taken shots at S&S in a number of previous threads, most notably the use of the term "All Steinway School." I read the exclamation point to be an expression of 'Goody, Steinway won't benefit.'

The thing that concerns me is his position with "Piano Buyer" and that he often makes statements as facts, or personal opinion which runs contrary to the purpose of "PB". Everything he states carries the weight of the publication unless he states a disclaimer. Such a disclaimer is not contained in his signature line, as I pointed out. In fact, it is prominently omitted.

Mr. Fine works to provide information which is fair and balanced. For that reason, his publication is consistently recommended to piano shoppers and piano lovers alike. The statements of Mr. Cohen often are of a very different tone or viewpoint than that of the publication. It is the juxtaposition of opinion which, I believe, is not clear to the readers of Piano Forum.

It is easy for those of us who are regulars to react with, "Oh, that's just Steve ... " However, to the new member, and new members show up daily with questions, a contradiction often arises. "Piano Buyer" is recommended, yet its most prominent representative on this forum publically opines in very different directions.

I hold a great deal of respect for Steve. He is well respected in the industry and has a wealth of experience. However, it is often unclear if his viewpoint is personal opinion, or if he is making statements as an employee and representative of the publication. The implication of his association with "Piano Buyer" is always a factor in any of his postings.

The owner of Piano World is very clear in the requirement that professionals in the industry clearly state their affiliation and/or position. This allows all readers to make their own assessment, and draw their own conclusions, about what, and how, information and opinion is presented. When there is a dual affiliation, a unique situation is created and that situation raises questions of conflict of interest. Clarity of viewpoint becomes important.

Sincerely,

You do display your association with PB and it is quite prominent. Your disclaimer covers you and your clients, and you are not a client of PB, you are an employee or affiliate. The lack of PB in your disclaimer of opinion makes the inference that you are always speaking on behalf of PB, as opposed to your other professional entities with which you are affiliated.

PLU,

"Using the services of" indicates the engagement of an independent contractor. I certainly don't know Mr. Cohen's contractual agreement with Mr. Fine, but by all appearances he is not an independent contractor, but rather a full time employee and representative.

He would be in the position, I surmise, to select and engage an independent contractor to submit and article to the publication. This is not at all uncommon at PW, however those authors are independent contractors and their work product is not categorized as employment. They act as consultants to the publication.

Mr. Cohen is not a "client of" PW, he is "part of" PW. This is exactly the ambiguity contained within his disclaimer.

Hi Ian,

I would suggest to Mr. Paulson to stress manufacturing consistency and insure that all pianos are produced to fall within very narrow mechanical tolerances. Even through the use of "hand built" there is a wide range from sloppy to immaculate. Steinway needs to always be as close to perfection as is possible in its craftsmanship.

Craftsmanship leads to artistry. Steinway does this very well. The "Steinway Sound" needs to be retained and promoted. It is the sound of the Steinway which is the biggest selling point, as long as manufacturing standards are at the very highest level.

I believe that best thing that Mr. Paulson can do is to listen to his builders and staff, of all instrument lines, to put quality and excellence first. He knows how to develop and grow the SMI companies from a marketing standpoint, and he has the resources to accomplish his goals. He should not, however, meddle with the concept of what makes a Steinway a Steinway. He should insist that all products under his purview be of the highest quality in any given price range.

I have had the chance to play several new S&S-O and put them through their paces. They were exceptional instruments and at least from my inspection, they were as carefully built, fit and finish, as any on the market. The tonal structure of these instruments was exceptional. Each with their own voice, yet all sounding like a Steinway.

Something that I would personally like to see would be the re-introduction of the 'C' built in Astoria. To my ear, it has the tonal structure and personality of the 'D,' but does not have the sheer power needed for concerto performance. For the serious pianist, it is a remarkable instrument and is very different than the 'B.' From what I have been told, the action geometry is identical to the 'D' and I sense that from my own experience.

There is a marked tonal difference between Hamburg and Astoria. That difference should be maintained but the NY versions need to be at the same level, with regard to fit and finish, as their German cousins. From what I have played recently, they are well on their way.