Yamaha vs. Kawai Baby Grand
Al Stevens
Michael Einstein wrote in message <01c00d73$f25aa200$406825d0@meinstein>...
>I am looking into purchasing a baby grand piano for my home. It will
>mainly be used for myself (some classical and jazz) and to teach my young
>children to play.
For the kind of money you seem willing to spend, you can get a used larger
grand or better quality. Of course, you should have an impartial technician
check out anything you get serious about.
Michael Einstein
mainly be used for myself (some classical and jazz) and to teach my young
children to play.
I have read the Larry Fine book and done some shopping and narrowed my
choice down to a few pianos in my price range:
1) Yamaha GH1 (5' 3"), which I can get for about $10.5K. Seems like an
excellent piano for the money. They also offer the GP1 for about $9.5K
which seems to be almost the same as the GH1 except a bit stripped-down. I
also tried the C1, which was a beautiful piano but at $13.5K was a bit out
of my price range.
vs
2) Kawai GE-1AS (5' 2""), which I can get for about $11.5K. I also tried
the Kawai RX-1 (5' 5") which seemed real nice (comparable to the Yamaha
C1?), but they were asking about $14K, which again was a bit out of my
price range.
From what I can tell:
- The Yamaha GH1 and Kawai GE-1AS seem pretty comparable, although the
Kawai has a duplex scale which seems to give it a nicer sound then the
Yamaha. If I want a duplex scale in a Yamaha, I need to move up to the C1,
which is a bit more then I wanted to spend. Is this feature worth the
extra money for the Kawai? Are there other pros / cons between these two
pianos that I should consider (quality / sound / reliability / etc.).
- Are there significant differences between the Yamaha GH1 and the GP1?
Should I save the $1K and get the GP1 or is the GH1 worth the extra money?
- Are the prices I am being quoted "reasonable", or can I do better?
Any help would be GREATLY appreciated!.
Feel free to E-mail me at mein...@qwestinternet.net
Thanks!
Michael
Mark Slater
think of the investment as something that you will have for a long time, buy
the best piano you can right now. They won't get cheaper. 5'3" is a small
piano. Play some 5'7"s, 6'1"s and some 6'4-10"s. The sound difference and the
quality of the parts is usually much higher, not to mention the sound. Dealers
will usually find some kind of financing that works for you. Good Luck!!
Mark Slater
Musica laetitiae comes medicina dolorum.
(Music is the companion of joy and the medicine of sorrow.)
ale...@my-deja.com
I personally would consider neither the GH1 nor the GP1.
A few months ago I was shopping for a Yamaha grand, only
in the used market. Result: I found a beautiful 1990 Yamaha C3
for $11,500, a figure which seems to be in your price range.
Because I'm a perfectionist, I just spent $500 on a regulation,
and now it's like a
tuned race car, better than new.
Probably only has 70 more years of life. :)
The result is that for less money I have a much better
instrument than a new C1, which is itself much better than
the GH1 you are considering.
At the very least you could find a gorgeous C2 a few years
old well within your price range with money left over to
have a complete regulation done so that it would be as good
or better than new. Probably better, since the strings
would have already settled and you wouldn't have to live
through the first year of tuning instability.
I would advise anyone to go no lower than the C2 or RX-1.
The extra money will be long forgotten if you buy new.
The used market is out there -- though it takes a little longer --
if you can't afford new. I know this isn't exact what you've
been thinking, but I bet you'll be glad if you spend either
the extra money or the extra time to go a little further
up the scale.
good luck, Alec
In article <01c00d73$f25aa200$406825d0@meinstein>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Don
<mein...@qwestinternet.net> wrote:
>I am looking into purchasing a baby grand piano for my home.
Please define "baby grand piano" and be specific.
As far as I know, neither Yamaha nor Kawai makes any piano which is
called a "baby grand." I know that neither company would ever admit
to it.
PIANO RULE #1. The shorter the length of a piano, the poorer the
sound.
Why would anyone BRAG about having a "baby grand?" It would imply
that you had a short, cheap piano rather than a REAL grand piano.
>1) Yamaha GH1 (5' 3"), which I can get for about $10.5K. Seems like an
>excellent piano for the money.
PIANO RULE #2: There is NO "excellent piano" for any price which is
only 5'3" long. It is physically impossible.
>- Are there other pros / cons between these two
>pianos that I should consider (quality / sound / reliability / etc.).
Yes! Get a real piano, not a toy.
>- Are there significant differences between the Yamaha GH1 and the GP1?
>Should I save the $1K and get the GP1 or is the GH1 worth the extra money?
No. Any keyboard instrument that short cannot be called a piano.
>Any help would be GREATLY appreciated!.
Buy a piano, not a pso. (Piano shapped object)
D*
These comments are meant to offend everyone equally. If, for some reason you are not offended, please write me with a description of
yourself including your name, race, weight, religious views, political party, strong opinions, physical disabilities and anything else that you are
touchy about, and I will try to offend you in a future comment. Complaints should be emailed to: bit...@likeiactuallycare.com
Darryl Greene
>called a "baby grand." I know that neither company would ever admit
>to it.
Baby Grand is generally accepted as any grand under 5'-8"
>PIANO RULE #1. The shorter the length of a piano, the poorer the
>sound.
>Yes! Get a real piano, not a toy.
A Yamaha or Kawai baby grand is certainly not a toy. Granted, I'd
rather play a 7-footer than a 5'-3" but I've also played some lovely
"baby grands" that are not toys.
My advice echos others here - look around and find a good used
instrument at or over 5'-10". This is the point where the sound
really opens up and the bass notes become more distinct.
- Darryl
Pete
shopping.
--
_____________________________
http://www.bcpl.net/~petecohn
_____________________________
Tim
Of course longer the better (generally speaking) but not everybody is
full loaded.....
The way I see it, a "good" small grand beats most uprights. Not all, but
most. I'd take good grand actions any time over upright's for practice.
Just in case you still what to buy new. You should try toward this
target, around 11K for C1 and 13K for C2. I can get them with even lower
prices around my area. But that's just me. Need help, let me know. Hope
this helps. :)
Tim
> A Yamaha or Kawai baby grand is certainly not a toy. Granted, I'd
> rather play a 7-footer than a 5'-3" but I've also played some lovely
> "baby grands" that are not toys.
>
> My advice echos others here - look around and find a good used
> instrument at or over 5'-10". This is the point where the sound
> really opens up and the bass notes become more distinct.
>
> - Darryl
--
remove "trythis" to send email
none
get a bigger piano if you can. There is a big difference between 5.1 -
5.3 and 6.0
Don
wrote:
>>As far as I know, neither Yamaha nor Kawai makes any piano which is
>>called a "baby grand." I know that neither company would ever admit
>>to it.
>
>Baby Grand is generally accepted as any grand under 5'-8"
By WHOM???
At one point around 100 years or so, there was a trade name called
something like "Sohmer's Baby Grand" which was given to ONE particular
piano developed for a traveling concert artist. The term was later
picked up by a song writer whose use of it led the general public to
believe there was something a bit "romantic" about a "baby grand."
The fact is that there is NO official designation of "baby grand" and
it is not "generally accepted" by anyone.
Larry Fletcher
>it is not "generally accepted" by anyone.
>
>D*
>
It may not be official, but every single manufacturer refers to all the grands
they build under about 5 1/2 feet as a "baby grand" in brochures, on wholesale
price lists, as well as in general conversation at conventions, training
sessions, and just about any other situation one could think of .
To that degree, it seems to have become a generally accepted term. As to Yamaha
or Kawai not admitting to calling their small grands "baby grands", they most
certainly do, with regularity. Public perception and their views have a
controlling affect on certain things, and it would be a foolish move for any
manufacturer to refuse to accept the terms used by the public at large.
For example, in terms of unit volume, there are far more "baby grands" sold
than there are bigger ones. The vast majority of people who buy them don't even
understand the term, and most refer to *any* grand piano as a "baby grand"
unless it is obviously a concert grand. Can you imagine what would happen to
sales if, when a customer called the dealer and asked "Do you sell baby
grands?" and the salesman responded (drippily) "Our brand _____ doesn't *build*
"baby grands". They are *all* grands." The shopper would thank him, and keep
calling dealers until one of the said "Yes! We have a whole bunch of them!"
Larry Fletcher
Pianos Inc
Atlanta GA
Doing the work of three men.........Larry, Moe, and Curly
Larry Fletcher
>get a bigger piano if you can.
Duplexing in a baby grand is nothing more than sales pitch.
Don
Fletcher) wrote:
>>The fact is that there is NO official designation of "baby grand" and
>>it is not "generally accepted" by anyone.
>>
>>D*
>>
>
>
>It may not be official, but every single manufacturer refers to all the grands
>they build under about 5 1/2 feet as a "baby grand" in brochures, on wholesale
>price lists, as well as in general conversation at conventions, training
>sessions, and just about any other situation one could think of .
>To that degree, it seems to have become a generally accepted term. As to Yamaha
>or Kawai not admitting to calling their small grands "baby grands", they most
>certainly do, with regularity.
In all the Kawai dealers I taught or performed in, I never heard the
term "baby grand" used by the owners or sales-people. I have not seen
the term in any of the Kawai materials.
>Larry Fletcher
>Pianos Inc
>Atlanta GA
>Doing the work of three men.........Larry, Moe, and Curly
Don
Dallas, Texas
Doing as little work as possible but attempting to claim the credit of
three men...any three men.
amoli...@visi-dot-com.com
Don <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2000 16:05:49 GMT, larryin...@aol.comnojunk (Larry
>Fletcher) wrote:
>
>>>The fact is that there is NO official designation of "baby grand" and
>>>it is not "generally accepted" by anyone.
>>>
>>>D*
>>>
>>
>>
>>It may not be official, but every single manufacturer refers to all the grands
>>they build under about 5 1/2 feet as a "baby grand" in brochures, on wholesale
>>price lists, as well as in general conversation at conventions, training
>>sessions, and just about any other situation one could think of .
>>To that degree, it seems to have become a generally accepted term. As to Yamaha
>>or Kawai not admitting to calling their small grands "baby grands", they most
>>certainly do, with regularity.
>
>In all the Kawai dealers I taught or performed in, I never heard the
>term "baby grand" used by the owners or sales-people. I have not seen
>the term in any of the Kawai materials.
http://www.kawaius.com/gm2.htm
http://www.kawaius.com/ge1a.htm
http://www.kawaius.com/rx1.htm
jaso...@my-deja.com
you want to come in and play a PG175. Its a 5'9" model of a new series
designed by Joe Pramberger (29 years with Steinway and Son - VP of
Manufacturing, Lead Designer, etc.). Tell them to tune, regulate and
voice it, then call you. After the work is done, you be very
pleasently surprised.
In article <20000824173347...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
larryin...@aol.comnojunk (Larry Fletcher) wrote:
> >The "Duplex scale" is not what its cracked up to be. Wait 6 months
and
> >get a bigger piano if you can.
>
> Duplexing in a baby grand is nothing more than sales pitch.
>
> Larry Fletcher
> Pianos Inc
> Atlanta GA
>
> Doing the work of three men.........Larry, Moe, and Curly
>
>
Larry Fletcher
>you want to come in and play a PG175. Its a 5'9" model of a new series
>designed by Joe Pramberger (29 years with Steinway and Son - VP of
>Manufacturing, Lead Designer, etc.). Tell them to tune, regulate and
>voice it, then call you. After the work is done, you be very
>pleasently surprised.
Lead designer at Steinway, was he? Must have been an easy job. I thought their
designs were older than that.
As for the "improvements" in the Pramberger, they don't amount to squat. If
"Joe" really wants to do something important, tell him to talk the Koreans into
buying a better grade of felt and just make what they already *have* designed
out of good materials. Buying better centerpin felt would make a more
noticeable improvement in the things than all the fancy little sales pitch crap
they've done to date. In fact, if they would do that, they could fire "Joe" for
all the good he's doing them and no one would have to regulate the action and
voice the hammers first thing out of the box ....(but then they wouldn't have
that nice German sounding name to link themselves to, would they.....)
Reminds me of a line out of the movie Christine....."You can't polish a toid"
Kensei
Michael Einstein <mein...@qwestinternet.net> wrote in message
news:01c00d73$f25aa200$406825d0@meinstein...
Michael,
I think you're worrying about the wrong things here. Any of the pianos you
are considering are well-made pianos. Technical details like duplex scale
are not important.
What is important is that you buy a piano that can be a partner with you in
making music. Buy one that has tone that makes your breath catch when you
hear what you're playing on it. Buy one that brings out nuances in your
interpretation of the music you play. Buy one that responds to you; that
lets you express yourself. Buy the piano that you love. Buy the piano that
lets you play like you've never played before. It's out there, waiting for
you.
If you don't love it, don't buy it. Try something else, rent for a while,
whatever - but don't just buy something that's "Well, it's what I could
afford, and it sounds OK, I guess." In ten years you're not going to kick
yourself for stretching a bit and waiting a bit until you found the musical
instrument you love; but you will have early and late regrets for spending
$11,000 a piece of furniture to practice on that was just a mediocre
compromise.
I'm not saying that the pianos you're considering are bad, wrong, or
mediocre. For some people, they are exactly the kind of special instrument
that I am talking about. But from your post, you don't seem to feel that way
about any of them - so that sets off warning bells to me.
Good luck on your search!
Phineas Fogg
Don <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:A57B096DFBA1D53A.1105FDA2...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:03:17 GMT, Darryl Greene <dar...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>As far as I know, neither Yamaha nor Kawai makes any piano which is
> >>called a "baby grand." I know that neither company would ever admit
> >>to it.
> >
> >Baby Grand is generally accepted as any grand under 5'-8"
>
> By WHOM???
> it is not "generally accepted" by anyone.
>
> D*
Except, possibly Billy Joel and Ray Charles :-)
Phineas Fogg
Phineas Fogg
<amoli...@visi-dot-com.com> wrote in message
news:_Tip5.7589$6E.18...@ptah.visi.com...
The whole argument here on whether or not "anyone" uses the term "baby
grand" is rather silly.
Some people use it, others don't. Certainly I, in my meager 49 years,
have heard the term used on occasion. I never really cared if it was an
"official" designation or not, but I did get the picture of a small piano
shaped like a grand. Now, whether or not the piano sounds good, that is
the real issue, and I think the general consensus is that the overall sound
of such a small grand is not of a satisfactory quality warranting purchase
by a serious buyer.
Phineas Fogg
Don
ONE: Here are three pianos which I would never buy...too short and an
obvious attempt to capitalize on the term "baby grand."
TWO: So how much satisfaction have you had by proving me wrong? Did
you receive brownie points or just have a good laugh?
D*
7
Don
wrote:
>
>
>The whole argument here on whether or not "anyone" uses the term "baby
>grand" is rather silly.
I agree.
>Some people use it, others don't. Certainly I, in my meager 49 years,
>have heard the term used on occasion. I never really cared if it was an
>"official" designation or not, but I did get the picture of a small piano
>shaped like a grand.
We usually call those instruments a PSO...Piano Shapped Object.
> Now, whether or not the piano sounds good, that is
>the real issue, and I think the general consensus is that the overall sound
>of such a small grand is not of a satisfactory quality warranting purchase
>by a serious buyer.
THAT is an understatement.
I would say, in technical terms, the sound of a "baby grand" simply
SUCKS!!!
D*
Don
wrote:
>
ONE: Both are song writers...proving my point.
TWO: Ask Billy Joel what he has in his home and I guarantee that it
is NOT a five-foot long pseudo-piano.
Now what was your point again?
Darryl Greene
authoritative and elitist. Again, I think that most of us would
rather play on a concert instrument, but there are those that really
don't have the room for a larger grand (yes, some settings truly don't
have that extra 1/2 foot) - in this case a "baby grand", or whatever
you care to call it, of good quality, is far preferable to any
vertical. To you, they suck, but to many they are wonderful
instruments.
- Darryl
Darryl Greene
Just curious - why do you take every opportunity to take a poke at
Steinway? It offends my sensitive feelings! :-)
Really, though, you make a point. My S&S B is dated 1911 and I prefer
it to the new ones in the showroom. I don't see that anything
significant has changed in piano design in the last 100 years. This
isn't a bad thing - after all, the best violins are almost 300 years
old. So - lead designer? - that must be a pretty cushy job.
- Darryl
>Lead designer at Steinway, was he? Must have been an easy job..
Larry Fletcher
>
>Just curious - why do you take every opportunity to take a poke at
>Steinway? It offends my sensitive feelings! :-)
>Really, though, you make a point. My S&S B is dated 1911 and I prefer
>it to the new ones in the showroom. I don't see that anything
>significant has changed in piano design in the last 100 years.
The poke I was taking was not at Steinways. It was at the comment about
Pramberger being their "lead designer". As you say, not a lot of work for the
man to do I would think.
Darryl Greene
Kind of makes you wonder about all the marketing hyping new scales,
innovations, etc - why can't they must make 'em like they did 75 or
100 years ago?
- Darryl
amoli...@visi-dot-com.com
Don <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> [ replying to amoli...@visi-dot-com.com ]
>ONE: Here are three pianos which I would never buy...too short and an
>obvious attempt to capitalize on the term "baby grand."
>
>TWO: So how much satisfaction have you had by proving me wrong? Did
>you receive brownie points or just have a good laugh?
Didn't mean to offend.
Larry Fletcher
>>obvious attempt to capitalize on the term "baby grand."
>>
>>TWO: So how much satisfaction have you had by proving me wrong? Did
>>you receive brownie points or just have a good laugh?
>
> Didn't mean to offend.
>
Neither did I, Don.
Al Stevens
Don wrote in message ...
>>Except, possibly Billy Joel and Ray Charles :-)
>
>ONE: Both are song writers...proving my point.
How? They are piano players, too, but what does that prove?
>Now what was your point again?
That they recorded a song together called, "Baby Grand," implying that their
stature as performers and entertainers gives credibility to the phrase. I
think Joel wrote the song.
Don
Fletcher) wrote:
>>>ONE: Here are three pianos which I would never buy...too short and an
>>>obvious attempt to capitalize on the term "baby grand."
>>>
>>>TWO: So how much satisfaction have you had by proving me wrong? Did
>>>you receive brownie points or just have a good laugh?
>>
>> Didn't mean to offend.
>>
>
>
>Neither did I, Don.
No Problem,
>Larry Fletcher
>Pianos Inc
>Atlanta GA
>
>Doing the work of three men.........Larry, Moe, and Curly
Don
Trying to take credit for the work of three men...any three men!
Don
<alst...@midifitz.com> wrote:
>
>Don wrote in message ...
>>>Except, possibly Billy Joel and Ray Charles :-)
>>
>>ONE: Both are song writers...proving my point.
>
>How? They are piano players, too, but what does that prove?
>
>>Now what was your point again?
>
>
>That they recorded a song together called, "Baby Grand," implying that their
>stature as performers and entertainers gives credibility to the phrase. I
>think Joel wrote the song.
I don't doubt that there is a phrase in the English language called
"Baby grand."
My point is that there is really no official designation of what
constitutes a "baby grand." When you hear the term "concert grand,"
you expect a 9' grand piano. There is no designation for a baby
grand.
Another catch phrase used by some piano companies is the term
"Conservatory grand." Exactly WHAT is that?
The term "baby grand" was used by Sohmer (sp) on a specific piano
called "Sohmer's Baby Grand." Then, according to the old piano tuner
who told me this story many years ago, the term was used by a
song-writer in the 1920s-era and was romanticized in music.
As someone pointed out, one reason contemporary piano companies may
use it is because of the image that the public has for the term "baby
grand" rather than the official term of "baby grand."
Ya know, if a lady came into my music store and wanted a "baby grand,"
I would probably show her something and call it anything she wanted me
to call it.
I always like it when someone tells me they own an "upright grand"
piano...as if "upright grand" made it anymore than any other plain ole
upright piano from that era.
Dwain Lee
Larry Fletcher <larryin...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20000825225306...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
> >I always like it when someone tells me they own an "upright grand"
> >piano...as if "upright grand" made it anymore than any other plain ole
> >upright piano from that era.
> >
> >
> >D*
>
words
> "Upright Grand" cast right in the plate, obviously nothing more than a
> marketing ploy by the builder.
My 1911 upright includes the words "Upright Grand" in its fallboard decal. I
have read that this distinction originated to distinguish the first uprights
to have three strings per note in the treble range, similar to a grand, from
earlier upright models that only had two strings per note in this region.
I'm not sure where I read that explanation, but it seems that I've seen it
several places.
Dwain Lee
Larry Fletcher
>piano...as if "upright grand" made it anymore than any other plain ole
>upright piano from that era.
>
>
>D*
I get tickled at that one too. Yet I have seen many old uprights with the words
"Upright Grand" cast right in the plate, obviously nothing more than a
marketing ploy by the builder. As to the use of the term "conservatory", I
agree with you here as well, yet Yamaha has made a pretty penny off of the C3
"Conservatory", this word being cast into the plate to indicate its
"superiority" over the "regular" one.
I think you are right about the Sohmer story, and you are also correct that in
reality a grand is a grand. But over the years manufacturers have used many
terms that ended up being picked up by other manufacturers and some have found
their way into common usage. Most piano manufacturers use the term "baby grand"
for example. Another thing that may help promote this tendency is the fact that
we seem to also have a different term for every one inch change in height when
referring to verticals.
In grands, I have seen (in print ) manufacturers use the terms: Mini grand,
Petite, baby, studio, parlor, drawing room, conservatory, demi, semi, (I can't
spell it but phonetically - "boodwah"), half, full, classic, artist, (funny how
none of them ever built an "amateur" grand ;-) ), opera, operetta, and a few
others I may have forgotten. Thank goodness only a few of them stuck.
Yogi Panda
> innovations, etc - why can't they must make 'em like they did 75 or
> 100 years ago?
Hi Darryl,
There are little improvements continually made all the time, I asked the
same question long time ago, and Frank W came up with a mile long list,
mentioning all kinds of glue, all kinds of fasteners, etc, can't
possibly remember what not is on that list.
Occasionally, there is something bigger, although still incremental
IMHO, e.g. the improvement of the scale of the Steinway B that is
mentioned in Larry Fine's book that must have happened in the early 90's
or late 80's, to counteract 'a number of small defects that sometimes
affected the tone' ... 'the B3 is superb' ...
The recent Shigeru Kawai models 2, 3, and 5 have improved scale designs
as well, compared to the corresponding RX-2, RX-3, and RX-5 models,
respectively, and we heard recently that Kawai is using the same tooling
for the manufacture of each of those pairs of scale models.
Schimmel used to have a 5'10" model, it became a 6' model because of a
'more professional action', and I wonder whether they simply installed
the same action as the one in the 6'10" model that resulted in a 2"
longer piano. But it is apparently one of those bigger, yet still
incremental improvements.
Yogi
Don
Fletcher) wrote:
Well, after much consideration (and reviewing your additional names
above) I have decided that I would like to be the owner of...
...a full, classic, artist, professional, concert grand piano...
To me, THAT sounds like the best on the market.
AMEN!
D*
Trying to claim credit for even ONE man...living.
Don
wrote:
>> Kind of makes you wonder about all the marketing hyping new scales,
>> innovations, etc - why can't they must make 'em like they did 75 or
>> 100 years ago?
>
>Hi Darryl,
>
>There are little improvements continually made all the time, I asked the
>same question long time ago, and Frank W came up with a mile long list,
>mentioning all kinds of glue, all kinds of fasteners, etc, can't
>possibly remember what not is on that list.
>
>Occasionally, there is something bigger, although still incremental
>IMHO, e.g. the improvement of the scale of the Steinway B that is
>mentioned in Larry Fine's book that must have happened in the early 90's
>or late 80's, to counteract 'a number of small defects that sometimes
>affected the tone' ... 'the B3 is superb' ...
I have played a Hammond B3 for decades. Can't beat it with a good
Leslie speaker!!!
D*
Yogi Panda
> >IMHO, e.g. the improvement of the scale of the Steinway B that is
> >mentioned in Larry Fine's book that must have happened in the early 90's
> >or late 80's, to counteract 'a number of small defects that sometimes
> >affected the tone' ... 'the B3 is superb' ...
>
> Leslie speaker!!!
Hi Don, try the YC Vpro, you won't need speakers ... Yogi :8)
VOCE88
>same question long time ago, and Frank W came up with a mile long list,
>mentioning all kinds of glue, all kinds of fasteners, etc, can't
>possibly remember what not is on that list.
Hi Yogi -
Frank was exactly right. Engineering is a job that never goes away. Even in a
product that NEVER changes (e.g. - Campbell's Tomato Soup) there are staff
engineers that improve its production.
However, having said all of this, if the raw materials and craftsmanship in a
product decline, "many little improvements" mean very little.
(Remind me to tell you my Campbell's Tomato Soup story sometime - It is made
in Camden, NJ. Very close to me)
In closing, if an 1893 Steinway "B" was good enough for Franz Liszt, I think I
can deal with it to.
Richard Galassini
Cunningham Piano Co
Phila,. Pa.
1 (800) 394-1117
URL:http://www.hometown.aol.com/voce88/cunn.html
Yogi Panda
> Frank was exactly right. Engineering is a job that never goes away. Even in a
> product that NEVER changes (e.g. - Campbell's Tomato Soup) there are staff
> engineers that improve its production.
That's correct even if there are no technical reasons for making a
change. If nothing else, human boredom will dictate a change or else
slide into a "don't care anymore" production abyss.
> However, having said all of this, if the raw materials and craftsmanship in a
> product decline, "many little improvements" mean very little.
I may be wrong, but I believe, that beyond a certain quality level of
the raw materials, there is little to be gained for improving the
quality of the end product, one faces a diminishing returns kind of
thing, this applies to both pianos and tomato soups.
However, skilled craftsmanship seems to yield almost unlimited returns
in terms of quality of the end product (although perhaps not in terms of
dollars invested from a manufacturer point of view), and that applies to
both pianos and tomato soups as well.
> (Remind me to tell you my Campbell's Tomato Soup story sometime - It is made
> in Camden, NJ. Very close to me)
Well, in the above, I told my story about cooks being more important
than tomatos, so tell us yours.
> In closing, if an 1893 Steinway "B" was good enough for Franz Liszt, I think I
> can deal with it to.
That must have been Franz Liszt's ghost who played the piano, I just
looked up to make sure, Franz died in 1886. I feel eerie about piano
playing ghosts, although I myself hope to reincarnate and have an
artcase Fazioli in my living room at that time.
Yogi
Dave Zappa
Larry Fletcher wrote in message
<20000825225306...@ng-cd1.aol.com>...
>(I can't
>spell it but phonetically - "boodwah)
boudoir....
I've always catagorized the "size" classification for grands following this
line (and there is certainly some overlap)
Petite Grands (around 5' & designed for home use only) ie: Kawai GM/GE,
Yamaha GH1/GP1, YC G150/152
Parlor Grands (5-6' approx & a more "perfromance" based design) ie: Yamaha
C1/2, YC G175/185, Kawai RX1/2
Studio Grands (6-7' & designed more as a "pure performance" piano) ie:
Yamaha C3+, Kawai GS (whatever it is now)
Semi-concert or "Conservatory" (7'+) B, SF10, C7, etc..
Concert (anything that's around 9' long and not made in Korea or
China.....:-)
other suggestions for grand piano size classification:
The smaller ones could be:
diminutive grands
peewee grands
Lilliputian grands
bantam grands
The bigger ones could be:
capacious grands
voluminous grands
colossal grands
copious grands
I can see the ad copy now "Why settle for a batam when you can buy the all
new Young Samaha COLOSSEL grand piano for the same price?!!"
Darryl Greene
I'm sure that there are little improvements being constantly made, but
I wonder if they're offset by the decline in craftsmanship.
I think that I'm probably prejudiced when I think that my 1911 B
sounds better than a new one - but really, all these "little
improvements" made in the last 90 years don't seem to add up to much
of anything.
My old hide glue is still holding strong after 90 years!
- Darryl
>There are little improvements continually made all the time, I asked the
>same question long time ago, and Frank W came up with a mile long list,
>mentioning all kinds of glue, all kinds of fasteners, etc, can't
>possibly remember what not is on that list. ..
Eting
>diminutive grands
>peewee grands
>Lilliputian grands
>bantam grands
My technician refers to <5' grands as "pre-natal" grands.
-Ed
Tom Shaw
decade to decade. Campbell's tomato soup, IMO, is not the same as it used
to be. Same for a lot of edible products...beer is a very prominent
example. Furthermore I dont think the differences are improvements.
Automobiles, however, have become much better (remember when you had to get
a valve job after thirty thousand miles?).
But getting back to instruments. To the extent that the quality of wood in
the soundboard is important then most pianos produced today must be worse
since we are told that good musical instrument wood is no longer available.
And, of course, ivory is illegal here in the US.
Surely excellent wool for hammers is also scarce these days. So much for
materials.
Considering the fact that we have all kinds of recordings of eminent
pianists being able to execute all kinds of dynamics, tone, and virtuosity
on older pianos which are not noticeably better produced by today's artists
you might say that there have not been any important changes in the actions
or strings etc.
Because of the subjective nature of judging the effects of "improvements" in
piano manufacture I would be very interested in the comments of some us as
to what their take is on this subject.
<voc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000826071033...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> >There are little improvements continually made all the time, I asked the
> >same question long time ago, and Frank W came up with a mile long list,
> >mentioning all kinds of glue, all kinds of fasteners, etc, can't
> >possibly remember what not is on that list.
>
>
> Frank was exactly right. Engineering is a job that never goes away. Even
in a
> product that NEVER changes (e.g. - Campbell's Tomato Soup) there are staff
> engineers that improve its production.
>
in a
> product decline, "many little improvements" mean very little.
>
made
> in Camden, NJ. Very close to me)
>
think I
> can deal with it to.
>
Rick Clark
>Because of the subjective nature of judging the effects of "improvements" in
>piano manufacture I would be very interested in the comments of some us as
>to what their take is on this subject.
The most important thing, today as in the past, is the manufacturers'
understanding of the instrument, commitment to the goal of "quality",
and the skills to accomplish it. One might use traditional materials,
or newer ones- the result you get will depend on your understanding of
those materials, their relationship to the other components of the
instrument, and how they contribute to the piano as a whole musical
instrument.
Ivory in the old days was used because that's all there was to serve
the purpose. Wool, I don't see any lack of quality today, as it seems
that good sheep are still wih us, but I have seen numerous instances
of companies trying to substitute for it or using very cheap grades
that were not dimensionally stable or rugged. Soundboard wood is
something where certain things (such as grains per inch) were assumed
to be very important, but not based on anything factual beyond
"musical instruments deserve the best wood". Now that there is better
ability to test materials objectively, arbitrary "quality" judgements
like grains-per-inch seem to actually hold no definite advantage.
In addition, I have seen quality definitely go UP at the "low end". A
bottom-of-the-line piano of the 1930's, for instance, is definitely
crappier than the modern equivalent. Not that the modern equivavlent
is a gem. But for those of us who get into the guts of pianos, there
has got to be an appreciation for the 1999 Korean piano as superior
to the 1932 Kohler & Campbell products or the later Aeolian stuff
(just to name a couple).
RC
Yogi Panda
Yes, as I pointed out the improvements are incremental, piano technology
is very mature. Also look at my posting earlier in which I said
something about cooks being more important than tomatos. I see that Rick
has now posted an article essentially saying the same thing.
Yogi
Darryl Greene wrote:
>
> Hi, Yogi -
>
> I'm sure that there are little improvements being constantly made, but
> I wonder if they're offset by the decline in craftsmanship.
>
> I think that I'm probably prejudiced when I think that my 1911 B
> sounds better than a new one - but really, all these "little
> improvements" made in the last 90 years don't seem to add up to much
> of anything.
>
> My old hide glue is still holding strong after 90 years!
>
> - Darryl
>
> >There are little improvements continually made all the time, I asked the
> >same question long time ago, and Frank W came up with a mile long list,
> >mentioning all kinds of glue, all kinds of fasteners, etc, can't
> >possibly remember what not is on that list. ..
John Brock
Eting <et...@aol.com> wrote:
>Dave:
That sounds just a little too awkward to really catch on.
How about "fetal grand"?
--
John Brock
jbr...@panix.com
Don
wrote:
>
>Larry Fletcher wrote in message
><20000825225306...@ng-cd1.aol.com>...
>>(I can't
>>spell it but phonetically - "boodwah)
>
>boudoir....
>
>
>other suggestions for grand piano size classification:
>
>The smaller ones could be:
>diminutive grands
>peewee grands
>Lilliputian grands
>bantam grands
>
>The bigger ones could be:
>capacious grands
>voluminous grands
>colossal grands
>copious grands
>
>I can see the ad copy now "Why settle for a batam when you can buy the all
>new Young Samaha COLOSSEL grand piano for the same price?!!"
Young Samaha...made in Japan to Korean specs, handcrafted by native
Mexicans especially trained in Ft. Worth.
Now which piano would Mrs. Smith want to proudly display in her living
room?
A new Young Samaha PeeWee Grand
...OR...
A new Young Samaha Baby Grand???
Sell the sizzle, not the steak...
D*
<hee hee>
Al Stevens
>terms that ended up being picked up by other manufacturers and some have
found
>their way into common usage.
Yup. Language mutates. In our lifetime, the adjective "gay" not only
completely changed meaning but became a noun in the process. You can dig up
many such examples. But I can recall hearing the term "baby grand" as far
back as the 1940s, and people then didn't seem to have any problem with its
usage or its implied meaning. Of course, being a mere child, I wasn't
talking to a lot of piano salesmen and technicians.
Just because folks in the piano profession don't like the term or can't nail
down a specific meaningful category of instrument for it to describe doesn't
mean the term itself is not valid. But that's not unusual. People who dwell
in specific esoteric domains like to preserve the sanctity of their inner
jargon and bemoan its misuse by the uninitiated. That notwithstanding, if
virtually everyone calls it a duck, it's a duck.
Common usage leads to official sanction. The American Heritage Dictionary
defines "baby grand" as, "A small grand piano approximately five feet long."
That makes it official, guys and gals, and any of you who still have
difficulty knowing what a baby grand is can refer to your dictionary for the
final authority.
Tom Shaw
most pro football and basketball players and the latter originating with our
peerless ex-president Eisenhauer and being promulgated today by candidate
Bush. And I am not bashing Republicans.
TS
Al Stevens <alst...@midifitz.com> wrote in message
news:E6Vp5.12257$Xg.2...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> >terms that ended up being picked up by other manufacturers and some have
> found
> >their way into common usage.
>
Robert Steinberg
> there has got to be an appreciation for the 1999 Korean piano as
> superior to the 1932 Kohler & Campbell products or the later Aeolian stuff
> (just to name a couple).
I like this but I could use a bit more defining of low end. Are you
saying Korean pianos being the low end in general or the low end of the
low end? And are we talking about grands or upright. If uprights, I have
no personal experience with them. I've run into plenty of rundown US
grands inpeoples houses or donated to clubhouses, churchs etc.
There is surely a grading of the Korean piano from really pretty lousy
to really pretty good - in the minds of all but a few.
Write on, RC :-)
--
Robert Steinberg
MidiOpera Co.
http://www.evcom.net/~midiopra/
http://www.tcol.net/~midiopra/
Rick Clark
>I like this but I could use a bit more defining of low end. Are you
>saying Korean pianos being the low end in general or the low end of the
>low end?
I consider them to be the "commonly bought low end". You might say,
the commoner "starter piano" of today. A Ford Escort, but not a Yugo.
Not the worst of the worst. You can most certainly do much worse today
than the Korean pianos, but by and large they seem to occupy the same
kind of market niche as those cheapie U.S. made pianos of the
early-late 20th century. ("I want a piano, but I don't want to spend
much. Hey- that one looks nice!")
And are we talking about grands or upright.
Both.
>There is surely a grading of the Korean piano from really pretty lousy
>to really pretty good - in the minds of all but a few.
I find that as the years go by, they continually improve. I remember
when the first Korean ones came over, late 1970's or so- the
"Horugels", etc. Really bad. Yet at the same time, still were an
improvement over the typical American cheapie of that day, the
Aeolians, Kimballs, etc. The Koreans have seemed to make it their
business to improve, however, (opposite the attitude of the cheapie
U.S. pianos) and after 20 years of us beta-testing their pianos on our
dimes, the current crop of "World" or "Millenium" pianos are getting
really nice. I think there is more difference in quality comparing the
older Korean pianos to the newest ones, than comparing the various
cheaper-more expensive models today.
Rick
Don
<alst...@midifitz.com> wrote:
>Common usage leads to official sanction. The American Heritage Dictionary
>defines "baby grand" as, "A small grand piano approximately five feet long."
>That makes it official, guys and gals, and any of you who still have
>difficulty knowing what a baby grand is can refer to your dictionary for the
>final authority.
So the "American Heritage Dictionary" gives in to the ignorant general
public.
At one time in the history of our country SLAVERY was also considered
mormal by the general public, as was the NON-voting of females.
I wonder how that same dictionary defines "Xerox?"
I wonder how that same dictionary defines "Kleenex?"
Hmmmmm..
D*
Larry Fletcher
>something about cooks being more important than tomatos. I see that Rick
>has now posted an article essentially saying the same thing.
>
While I agree with what Rick had to say about pianos, I don't agree that a cook
is more important than a tomato. If I'm hungry and I find myself a tomato, I
can eat. If all I find is an empty handed cook, we're both SOL.
Al Stevens
Don wrote in message
<5B028A7EEA4DC0AF.703BB879...@lp.airnews.net>...
>So the "American Heritage Dictionary" gives in to the ignorant general
>public.
While a very few stubborn, pedantic language lawyers fail to acknowledge or
even understand how common usage causes the spoken and written word to
evolve.
>At one time in the history of our country SLAVERY was also considered
>mormal by the general public, as was the NON-voting of females.
Mormal? Is that the pluperfect subjunctive of Morman?
(Comparing the usage of "baby grand" to condoning slavery and opposing
women's suffrage is a bit of a stretch, don't you agree? Is that how it gets
when you are not getting the best of an exchange?)
>I wonder how that same dictionary defines "Xerox?"
"Xer-ox ... 1. A trademark for a photocopying process or machine using
xerography. 2. A copy made on a Xerox machine. --tr
v. -oxed, -ox-ing, -ox-es. To reproduce or print by means of a Xerox
machine."
>I wonder how that same dictionary defines "Kleenex?"
"Kee-nex ... A trademark for a soft cleansing tissue."
Now you don't have to wonder any more. Do you have problems with these
definitions? Trademarked names become public domain generic terms only when
their owners fail to defend their rights. "Aspirin" is a classic example.
Would you like me to look it up for you?
amoli...@visi-dot-com.com
Larry Fletcher <larryin...@aol.comnojunk> wrote:
>>Also look at my posting earlier in which I said
>>something about cooks being more important than tomatos. I see that Rick
>>has now posted an article essentially saying the same thing.
>>
>
>While I agree with what Rick had to say about pianos, I don't agree that a cook
>is more important than a tomato. If I'm hungry and I find myself a tomato, I
>can eat. If all I find is an empty handed cook, we're both SOL.
Depends.. If it's a nice FAT cook, and you can get the drop
on him...
Yogi Panda
> on him...
And I thought I was the only cannibal on this newsgroup ... Yogi
kip...@my-deja.com
yogi...@netscape.net wrote:
> Hi Darryl,
>
> There are little improvements continually made all the time, I asked
the
> same question long time ago, and Frank W came up with a mile long
list,
> mentioning all kinds of glue, all kinds of fasteners, etc, can't
> possibly remember what not is on that list.
>
> Occasionally, there is something bigger, although still incremental
> IMHO, e.g. the improvement of the scale of the Steinway B that is
> mentioned in Larry Fine's book that must have happened in the early
90's
> or late 80's, to counteract 'a number of small defects that sometimes
> affected the tone' ... 'the B3 is superb' ...
>
>
> Yogi
>
Yogi,
The point you raise about Fine's commentary on the new Steinway B plate
is something that has interested me quite a bit since I read about it
in Fine's book (3rd ed 1994). Fine doesn't provide much explanation as
to what exactly was done to the plate of the B, but tantalizingly
writes, "The cast-iron plate of this model was recently reengineered to
correct a number of small defects that sometimes affected the tone.
The redesign was a big success; the 'B3,' as it is called in the trade,
is superb. Look for a number 3 on the plate at the tail end of the
piano near the spine."
Now, the odd thing I've found in looking at the new 2000 B's is that
when you look at the tail of these new instruments there's a number 4
clearly stamped on the plate. For the year 2000, the piano with a 3 on
the tail-end of its plate is the L. I do not know what specific
features these particular series of plates have that distinguish them
from their predecessors, but if anyone knows, I'd be curious.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Don
Yes, please.
Al Stevens
Don wrote in message ...
>>"Aspirin" is a classic example. Would you like me to look it up for you?
>
>Yes, please.
>
Okay, but after this I start charging standard research fees. At least what
a librarian makes.
"as-pi-rin ... 1. A white chrystalline compound of acetylsalicyclic acid.
CH3COOC6H4COOH [subscript the digits], commonly used in tablet form as an
antipyretic and analgesic. 2. A tablet of aspirin. [Orig. a trademark.]"
Wwing
very descriptive, unless popular context is applied. It must have originally
been "Oh my, what a GRAND piano!" and later become commonplace to refer to a
piano with a horizontal layout as a "grand" piano. I suppose then you could
actually have an "upright grand piano" if indeed it is grand.
Bill Wingstedt
Yogi Panda
to be small improvements similar to making tomato soups with tomatos
from Missouri or from Kansas. Just eat the tomato soup if you like it,
I'd say.
kip...@my-deja.com
these plates, if for no other reason because the supposed incomparable
quality of the pre-1940 Steinway plates figures into much of the
marketing done by rebuilders such as Faust Harrison and, I imagine,
others. See, for example,
http://www.faustharrisonpianos.com/Press___Reviews/Times/times.htm
Also, the vintage plates are emphasized by Sara Faust in Noah Adams'
interview of her at p. 94 of his book "Piano Lessons".
From the rebuilder's perspective, it's probably pretty effective
marketing to compliment the current pianos being made by Steinway but
then offer something that's even better (not to mention cheaper) - an
artifact from a golden era of piano building that is otherwise lost.
Of course, I realize that the proof is ultimately in the playing (and
hearing) of these instruments.
Chris Kippes
In article <39A9585D...@netscape.net>,
yogi...@netscape.net wrote:
> Someone else ought to fill us in on B4's and L3's, but they are likely
> to be small improvements similar to making tomato soups with tomatos
> from Missouri or from Kansas. Just eat the tomato soup if you like it,
> I'd say.
>
Don
I used to drive a GRAND Ford LTD. My uncle drove a GRAND Lincoln.
His Lincoln was much grander than my LTD but both got bad gas milage.
Al Stevens
>His Lincoln was much grander than my LTD but both got bad gas milage.
My GRANDfather took me to the GRAND Canyon and the Rio GRANDe in his GRAND
Cherokee. He got good gas mileage. How was our trip, BABY? GRAND!
Larry Fletcher
for no >other reason because the supposed >incomparable quality of the pre-1940
>Steinway plates figures into much of the
>marketing done by rebuilders such as Faust Harrison and, I imagine,
>others.
The "incomparable quality" being referred to in the Faust link would be
cosmetics (ie. fancier designs), whereas the reference to improvements made in
recent plates would have to do with function.
> - an artifact from a golden era of piano building that is otherwise lost.
Lots of people have a completely wrong idea of why that period of time was
dubbed "the golden era of piano building". It had nothing to do with the
quality of the pianos being built. It had everything to do with economics.
To Quote from a book called "The Piano", (New Grove Musical Instrument Series):
(By 1850), "the typical firm, distinguished or nondescript, was small and
inefficient, employing labor-intensive methods to make a few hundred
instruments each year.........used no machinery and acheived virtually no
economies of large scale production. Wherever pianos were sold, costs and
profit margins were high, turnover low, and prices therefore extravagant.....A
clerk or skilled artisan would need to save practically a year's wages to
secure an instrument. Total world output was probably fewer than 50,000 pianos
per year."
It goes on to say that the introduction of overstringing and the ensuing switch
by all piano makers worldwide to this "American system" was the starting point
of the "golden era", having "profound economic implications" to economies of
production, and that by the turn of the century an almost unlimited range of
supplies became available" , for example - actions could now be bought dirt
cheap from action makers "ready made" - and to quote " this allowed even the
smallest piano builder to assemble pianos in quantity with relatively little
outlay in capital and with a limited range of skills." And the pianos for the
most part were actually better than before.
This allowed the prices of piano to drop to levels that almost anyone could
afford, and production shot to around 5 fold or more from previous levels. This
is what prompted people to refer to this period as "the golden era", not the
one that many people present of the pianos being far superior to the pianos of
today. But it sure does sell a lot of old pianos to people who buy into
romantic notions, doesn't it?
The true "golden era", if you follow the logic that came up with the term in
the first place, is right now.
Radu
>
> Why dwell on the word "baby" when the very word "grand" does not seem to be
> very descriptive, unless popular context is applied. It must have originally
> been "Oh my, what a GRAND piano!" and later become commonplace to refer to a
> piano with a horizontal layout as a "grand" piano.
Or , in programming : "Oh my, a bug crept into my program ! I must debug
it using the debugger". Or, do younger programmers know what was the
real meaning of "Carriage return" or "Line feed" ? Where is the
carriage, on the keyboard, that must return ? 90% of the "computer"
terminology has sources long forgotten (buffers overflow - anything
spilling from the "chips" ? ).
Larry Fletcher
>spilling from the "chips" ? ).
>
>
>
I just came back from a wedding party for one of my stepdaughters. I did spill
some stuff from one of my chips, but fortunately it landed on my pants, so no
one made me get out a buffer.
LstPuritan
Mormon is not a verb. Only verbs can conjugate. Nouns decline.
>At one time in the history of our country SLAVERY was also considered
>mormal by the general public, as was the NON-voting of females.
And now, split infinitives are no longer a grammatical error. Officially.
During my Freshman year of college, an English class required the use of
gender-neutral pronouns in all essays.
The teacher of that English class denied that there exists an English
subjunctive.
In high school I had to call a lit teacher and asked to speak with the teacher.
He replied, "This is him."
...
If only that were all.
Trey Behan
>I've always catagorized the "size" classification for grands
Let's not forget another definition of a "grand piano:" the one so often
requested by a new shopper for about a grand.
Trey Behan
Radu
> Only verbs can conjugate. Nouns decline.
>
> gender-neutral pronouns in all essays.
>
> The teacher of that English class denied that there exists an English
> subjunctive.
I was not aware that there exists an English grammar. I thought grammar
exists only in Latin (dammit), Romanian (dammit dammit) and French (
ou-la-la..)
Radu
>
> > (buffers overflow - anything
> >spilling from the "chips" ? ).
> I just came back from a wedding party for one of my stepdaughters. I did spill
> some stuff from one of my chips, but fortunately it landed on my pants, so no
> one made me get out a buffer.
>
I once almost choked when reading a romanian book on computers. They
tried to translate "buffers overflow" and the result was something like
"spilling of the tampons" (in chemistry, buffer solutions are also
called "tampons")
Dwain Lee
LstPuritan <lstpu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000828021156...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
> Mormon is not a verb. Only verbs can conjugate.
I disagree, sir. Many of us, Mormons and otherwise, can also conjugate.
Dwain
Dwain Lee
> subjunctive.
>
Subjunctive voice (or is it mood?) is one of my favorite components of
English grammar. If I were you, I would have transferred out of his class.
ablative: The comment being made, he signed off.
Dwain Lee
Larry Fletcher
But do verbs get conjugate visits?
(Mormon may not be a verb, but "Lewinsky" is......)
Yogi Panda
> hearing) of these instruments.
We heard testimonials about superior results from F/H and other top
notch rebuilders (compared to S&S) just recently, my take on it is that
this superiority is based on craftmanship, e.g. the attention to detail
in a 150 pianos per year shop compared to S&S's 2000 pianos a year. The
significance of using older piano materials pales in comparison to it.
It is understandable, though, that rebuilders want the public to
perceive older piano materials (from S&S and M&H) as better than today's
piano materials, and of course, the manufacturers of new pianos want the
public to perceive things just the other way around.
Yogi
John Brock
LstPuritan <lstpu...@aol.com> wrote:
>And now, split infinitives are no longer a grammatical error. Officially.
I have a bit of an interest in linguistics, and according to what
I've read split infinitives have *always* been a normal part of
idiomatically correct spoken English. The error was on the part
of overly pedantic grammarians, who classified the split infinitive
as an error in English because it is impossible in Latin (the Latin
infinitive being a single word). Personally I find it a little
hard to believe that even the stuffiest of academics could make
such a mistake, so maybe this is one of those urban legends, but
I've read this account in too many places to dismiss it out of
hand.
--
John Brock
jbr...@panix.com
Robert Steinberg
>
> (Mormon may not be a verb, but "Lewinsky" is......)
Looks like we've been Fletchered again ;o)
rs
not a verb
--
Robert Steinberg
MidiOpera Co.
http://www.evcom.net/~midiopra/
http://www.tcol.net/~midiopra/
Sing Young
Don <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:543B248BE37A2AB8.7B92CFED...@lp.airnews.net...
> I don't doubt that there is a phrase in the English language called
> "Baby grand."
>
> My point is that there is really no official designation of what
> constitutes a "baby grand." When you hear the term "concert grand,"
> you expect a 9' grand piano. There is no designation for a baby
> grand.
>
Please tell us what exactly "official designation" is, thanks!
Don
hee hee, good one!
D*
A really grand pianist
Don
It is something which is designated officially by an official who
holds an official office or title...like the title to a car, or
something.
Who knows???
D*
Al Stevens
LstPuritan wrote in message
<20000828021156...@ng-ci1.aol.com>...
>>Mormal? Is that the pluperfect subjunctive of Morman?
>
>Mormon is not a verb. Only verbs can conjugate. Nouns decline.
You might not have heard the very old joke that I paraphrased. After
returning from a trip to Boston a fellow was asked by his friend, "Did you
get scrod while you were there?" The fellow replied, "That's the first time
I ever heard it put in the pluperfect subjunctive."
Of course, I'm assuming that you know what scrod is.
(Yes, this is on-topic. Boston, you see...)
Al Stevens
Robert Steinberg wrote in message
<200008281...@mia-tcr8-161.dyn.evcom.net>...
>Looks like we've been Fletchered again ;o)
Bring back memories! Remember Jackie Gleason's parody of late night local TV
commercials where he'd pitch some product named "Mother Fletcher's
[whatever]"
Robert Steinberg
> Bring back memories! Remember Jackie Gleason's parody of late night local TV
> commercials where he'd pitch some product named "Mother Fletcher's
> [whatever]"
And awaaayy we go.
Larry Fletcher
>Robert Steinberg wrote in message
><200008281...@mia-tcr8-161.dyn.evcom.net>...
>
>>Looks like we've been Fletchered again ;o)
>
>
>Bring back memories! Remember Jackie Gleason's parody of late night local TV
>commercials where he'd pitch some product named "Mother Fletcher's
>[whatever]"
>
>
And then someone in North Carolina opened up a restaurant which became quite
well known named Mother Fletchers. I wonder if that's where they came up with
that?
And then there's the family fortune......Castoria..........
(I got cut out of the will because I didn't give a crap......) sorry! just
acting up again!!
Dwain Lee
Robert Steinberg <midi...@evcom.net> wrote in message
news:200008281...@mia-tcr7-233.dyn.evcom.net...
> And awaaayy we go.
>
And Crazy Guggenheim: "Oh hiya Joe..Hiya Mr. Cuddahee, yee, yee, yee!"
robertandrews
>Of course, I'm assuming that you know what scrod is.
All too (pluperfectly) well.
Dwain Lee
> >ablative: The comment being made, he signed off.
>
> English doesn't have it.
That took longer than I expected!
Dwain
LstPuritan
johnw...@my-deja.com
Darryl Greene <dar...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> A Yamaha or Kawai baby grand is certainly not a toy. Granted, I'd
> rather play a 7-footer than a 5'-3" but I've also played some lovely
> "baby grands" that are not toys.
>
Darryl,
I am very interested in acquiring a lovely small grand. What make and
model of a 5'3" piano would you advise?
John
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Darryl Greene
There are quite a number that may satisfy your ear and budget - I
would only add again that if you do have the space, first consider a
5'-10" or larger good used grand. If, though, you do prefer the 5'-3"
you ought to try Yamaha, Kawai, Boston, Steinway, and others that you
come across. I have not experienced success with Korean pianos.
Sorry I don't have an easy answer for you but you want to be your own
judge on this choice.
Good luck,
- Darryl
email spammers can bite me
with you. I went to a lot of different stores, talked to a lot of piano
salespeople (some great, some not), and most importantly - played a lot of
pianos. I've owned digital synths for the last 10 years and finally have
the space for a grand so I dove in deep. I'm so glad I did :-). The rest
that follows are strictly my opinions - they are worth what you paid for
them...
1) The "entry level" Korean pianos (Young Chang and
Samick/Kohler+Campbell) are very nice for the money. But they are not
investments and you might end up taking a bath if you want to upgrade
later - especially if you pay "piano and organ" dealer prices.
2) Generally, pianos are not like wine - they do not get better with
age. They are complicated mechanical devices that wear out. Even restored
then will *never* sound or play like they did new. Notice I didn't say
"better" or "worse". Some may like the feel or sound of a 100 year old
Steinway, but to me the new one was more to my liking.
3) Your best value lies in finding a 5-10 year old "mid level" piano that
has already depreciated a lot. This would include Yamaha, Kawai, Boston,
etc. You'll get a bigger and better piano with tons of life left in it -
for the price of a new "low level" piano.
I was *this close* to buying the 5' 3" Kohler and Campbell (SKG500) from a
big dealer in Boston. They were offering it just a hair over $9k. It
played and sounded very nice to my ears - as nice as many costing a whole
lot more. But then I got on the internet and went used piano shopping and
I'm SO GLAD I did.
What I ended up with is a 1991 Yamaha C7 (7' 6"). These $40k (new) pianos
are out there for $15k if you look hard enough. I could have been
prefectly happy with the K&C, but I figured that I'd spend a little more
and get a *lot* more piano.
Well I gotta run. It's only been in my living room for about 4 hours and I
can hear it calling me again :-).
Craig Dodson (Stratus Computer)
Glad to be back in the analog world....
Darryl Greene <dar...@bigfoot.com> writes
Don
bite me) wrote:
>Having just gone through this excercise, let me share some observations
>with you. I went to a lot of different stores, talked to a lot of piano
>salespeople (some great, some not), and most importantly - played a lot of
>pianos. I've owned digital synths for the last 10 years and finally have
>the space for a grand so I dove in deep. I'm so glad I did :-). The rest
>that follows are strictly my opinions - they are worth what you paid for
>them...
>
>
>
>1) The "entry level" Korean pianos (Young Chang and
>Samick/Kohler+Campbell) are very nice for the money. But they are not
>investments and you might end up taking a bath if you want to upgrade
>later - especially if you pay "piano and organ" dealer prices.
AMEN!
>3) Your best value lies in finding a 5-10 year old "mid level" piano that
>has already depreciated a lot. This would include Yamaha, Kawai, Boston,
>etc. You'll get a bigger and better piano with tons of life left in it -
>for the price of a new "low level" piano.
The KEY term is "best value."
Having once bought a formerly-rented vehicle with only 10K miles, I
have been looking at the "HERTZ" used car lot. The Hertz lot had a
HUGE, Ford Excursion for $25K and a 6-seating, Mercury Grand Marquis
for $18K. The used cars had around 20K miles. Tonight, I stopped by
a Volkswagen lot on the way home from my evening computer class. I
couldn't believe paying $27,000 for a little, tiny, barely seating 4,
NEW Volkswagen.
Give me a 10-year old GOOD piano anytime.
>I was *this close* to buying the 5' 3" Kohler and Campbell (SKG500) from a
>big dealer in Boston. They were offering it just a hair over $9k. It
>played and sounded very nice to my ears - as nice as many costing a whole
>lot more. But then I got on the internet and went used piano shopping and
>I'm SO GLAD I did.
>
>What I ended up with is a 1991 Yamaha C7 (7' 6"). These $40k (new) pianos
>are out there for $15k if you look hard enough. I could have been
>prefectly happy with the K&C, but I figured that I'd spend a little more
>and get a *lot* more piano.
Good for you. That is a wonderful piano to play.
>Well I gotta run. It's only been in my living room for about 4 hours and I
>can hear it calling me again :-).
It probably is!
Dave Zappa
Don wrote in message ...
>Having once bought a formerly-rented vehicle with only 10K miles, I
>have been looking at the "HERTZ" used car lot. The Hertz lot had a
>HUGE, Ford Excursion for $25K and a 6-seating, Mercury Grand Marquis
>for $18K. The used cars had around 20K miles. Tonight, I stopped by
>a Volkswagen lot on the way home from my evening computer class. I
>couldn't believe paying $27,000 for a little, tiny, barely seating 4,
>NEW Volkswagen.
If 25% of the people who rent cars treat them half as bad as I do I wouldn't
buy a former rental for $10, much less 10 grand.
Larry Fletcher
>buy a former rental for $10, much less 10 grand.
>
>
>
>
Especially the Jaguar I rented in LA at the last NANN show........
Larry Fletcher
Pianos Inc
Atlanta GA
Dealer/technician
Larry Fletcher
Uh.........NAMM show.
(I just washed my hands and can't do a *thing* with them.....)