So the question becomes is the world better off with rebuilders who work with materials they understand and know how to control, or are original parts really the only way to maintain the genuineness of any given brand of piano? I am not talking about hotroding an instrument. If the answer is the latter, as you seem to suggest, then the only people who can rebuild a Boesendorfer are Boesendorfer people.

Also consider that manufacturers change their suppliers and implement product improvements that make today’s product very different from the one made a decade or two ago. Renner uses felt from different manufacturers to make the “genuine Hamburg Steinway” hammer. Today it’s a totally different product (with maple moldings) than it was 20 years ago (had mahogany moldings). So what hammers are ‘genuine’ when rebuilding a 1990 Hamburg? Boesendorfer went throughy at least 3 styles of whippens in recent history (Schwander to Steinway-style being most notable). Premium Blues may actually be closer to the genuine, orange underfelt hammers, than many other styles of replacement hammers (Abel, Imadegawa, Isaac, etc).

No question about it, the rebuilding work done by Boesendorfer is exceptional. But if performed to the same standards using different materials, does a rebuilding really invalidate the quality of the instrument? When it deteriorated to the point that it needed a rebuilding, the piano already changed. Do manufacturer’s current parts and materials really make the piano that much more genuine than using other, slightly different parts of the same quality?

This equation in fact works very well for the maker with a dominating reputation for quality but trouble with consistency. People want to believe in a reputation.

My problem is that maintaining the reputation takes explanations.
To the average buyer the explanations make sense. After all piano building IS hard, and a company may have indeed made a large number of good instruments.

But the result is ultimately limiting, to the buyer and to the industry because there are makers out there that don’t need explanations.

Ideally the buyer should just be asked one question: “do you like it?”. If not, then perhaps another brand is more appropriate for your individual taste and communication style. The makers I try to bring attention to all agree with this philosophy.

The more one travels the path of, “well, try another:, or “let it get broken in” or “our technician will make it right after all, 98% of….” the more one risks actually driving a round peg in a square hole.

There are makers of square pegs out there. To me, one peg does not fit all.

The last para is a little misleading though….in a way….
It isn’t as if any particular piano is being foisted on an individual purchaser….they do get to choose….and hopefully they choose one they like…one that their technician has checked over….and one the their bank balance can accommodate…
Primarily they choose one that feels good to them as an individual…
It is something that they feel they can play music on and communicate.

The variations that occur are the result of a manufacturing system that has worked for them…..and they have probably made more good pianos than anyone else…
That last line I heard from Chris Martin iv of the Martin Guitar Company when someone asked him about variable quality in their 1970′s production…

I hope you have, or soon will land, running hard in the business…good luck..

Some of the worst tunings are found on Bill Evans recordings. Yes, they were live club recordings etc but jeez, they are so bad! The reality is that the subtleties of the harmony used by people like Evans or Brubeck get lost when the tuning is so bad. This issue is especially sensitive for me since I lined up a tuner for an important recording a couple of years ago. The result is a disc of really great music I can’t listen to! Oh crap.

Peter Sumner, Concert Piano Technician.
Modern era Steinway and Sons specialist.