Talk:Steinway & Sons/Archive 4

Steinway on a submarine

I think it would be interesting to add a "Trivia" section to include information such as being a Steinway the only piano known to be onboard a submarine, which is interesting, but does not add anything really relevant to the article. Karljoos (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Trivia sections are usually ones to be avoided, per WP:TRIVIA, with rare exceptions. I see no need for a trivia section, and I don't see a need for the submarine trivia at all. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"[ A piano ] designed to be carried aboard ships or dropped by parachute from an airplane, in order to bring music to the soldiers (...)" is also WP:TRIVIA and doesn't seem neccesary.--Karljoos (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The book "Tradition, Innovation, Perfection – From Instrument No. 1 to Today"

I see no evidence of a book being published under this name. From the title, it appears to be promotional literature. Being offline and off the radar, it is not a reliable, verifiable source. I am trimming back its global, sweeping statements such as "making Steinway a household name" and "biggest piano company in the world." Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of the sources are still very vague (they don't include publishers, ISBN, recording labels), some are promotional material which are not easy to get, and some are not verifiable. Some examples of poor sourcing, poor sourcing style or incomplete source information: 1- Ratcliffe, Ronald V. Steinway. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, p. 39. 2- Lieberman: Steinway & Sons. pp. 14-15. 3- Goldenberg: Steinway. p. 20. 4- Tradition, Innovation, Perfection – From Instrument No. 1 to Today, p. 13. 5- Piano Buyer's Guide, p. 14. 6-James Barron: Piano – The Making of a Steinway Concert Grand, p. 105. 7-According to the back of the CD's cover of Sergej Rachmaninov – Piano Recital: "Piano: Steinway & Sons Concert Grand". Whoever added these references could give complete information? Thank you --Karljoos (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that some of the info is given in a different section at the end. I would be good if the complete info is given at the main references section. --Karljoos (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sound examples: "Music" section

There're no references here. Please provide a reference indicating that both music examples are played on Steinway instruments by the performers mentioned. Thank you --Karljoos (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the youtube source, Fanoftheworld. Could you provide some specific for the Rachmaninov recording? At least the label so it can be verified. Thank you --Karljoos (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture section

I just tagged the pop culture section. How many people showing up to play how many pieces on how many pianos will be enough? This list adds very little, if anything, to the article. Influential events should be discussed in terms of their effect, not simply listed as having happened. Everything else should be deleted as trivial. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

[1]. Fanoftheworld (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That is no argument, per Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF. Sorry. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

– LOL, your argument "That is no argument..." is clearly showing that you have problems about finding an argument against User:Athaenara's revision.

– Your link is about articles, not about sections.

– Let me say it othervise: "not WP:TRIVIA"[2].

– You can also discuss with e.g. the administrator User:Athaenara, so I don't have to spend time on telling you about trivia. Fanoftheworld (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

About this edit, the text should have been: "Restoring the page to a standard an administrator has wanted, see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B%C3%B6sendorfer&action=historysubmit&diff=349106144&oldid=349028021.". Fanoftheworld (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Restoring maintenance template again. Do not edit war over this issue, fix the indicated problems instead. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no problems to fix as written above. Please, accept that you made a mistake. (TW). Fanoftheworld (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because an editor removes a template on one page doesn't mean it should be removed on another page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

One again, "Let me say it othervise: "not WP:TRIVIA"[3]".

Yes, if the "problem" is similar then it must be removed. All articles shall and must be judge similar. Fanoftheworld (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

By that standard, every article here should be deleted. Can you see any issues with that line of thought? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, not "...every article here should be deleted.", because my edit is the standard of an administrator, which must be considered a very acceptable standard. Fanoftheworld (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good. Glad to hear you agree with all my edits, and won't be restoring any of the trivial mentions I deleted from the "in popular culture" section.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a very old principle from law, and as I know, we are not all in jail right now. Fanoftheworld (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither are we in a courtroom. This is an encyclopedia, last time I checked....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The law applies also to the internet and Wikipedia, last time I checked... Fanoftheworld (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You do not see the important differences between yours revisions and User:Athaenara's revision on the Bösendorfer page? Fanoftheworld (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Bösendorfer section shows a list of recordings made with Bösendorfer pianos. It is tightly focused, per WP:TRIVIA recommendations. The list of pop culture here was random, unconnected stuff. User:TJRC deleted the whole section as promotional, but perhaps some of the bits could be integrated into the article, if they are given context. Binksternet (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Model listing

Currently, the model listing is just a bare listing of grand and vertical pianos which gives model names but no information. I propose to put this into a table which would list the model name, dimensions, and available finishes. But I want to gain consensus before making this change.THD3 (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for copying information from the Steinway webpage to Wikipedia. There are already 5 links to 2 Steinway webpages in the section. Rerumirf (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Video

I've added a video to the Expansion part. If there is anything about the video then contact me, I've made the video by myself and I can change it and upload a new one if requested. In my opinion, I think the video is better than just a picture. Rerumirf (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The words "Steinway Artist"

In the section "Steinway Artists" I think it is ok and good to have "Steinway Artist" added in front of the pianists names under the images. Otherwise it is difficult for other readers and editors to know why the images is in the section. I am re-adding "Steinway Artist", but only under the images in the section about Steinway Artists. I hope that is ok...? Rerumirf (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Your logic for re-adding the Steinway Artist designation to photos in this section seems reasonable.Sandcherry (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The number of patents

• I see that User:82.129.20.131 and User:SarekOfVulcan don't agree about the number of patents.[4] Therefore, I've been looking for the exactly number of patents. It is very difficult to find it: The official german website says: more than 120 patents and has a list of - what I think is - 122 patents.[5] The official American website says: 127 patents.[6] Furthermore, independant articles about Steinway has many different numbers from 120 to 130. I think that User:SarekOfVulcan's "around 130 patents" is a good way of saying it.
• The other edits by User:82.129.20.131 were probably removed by mistake. I am adding User:82.129.20.131's other edits. Rerumirf (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User 173.68.126.209's sentence

User 173.68.126.209's sentence: "In 1997, Steinway artist Jeffrey Biegel, performed the first live audio/video recitals on the internet from New York's Steinway Hall rotunda playing the 500,000th piano.[7]"

If the recital was performed on the 500,000th Steinway piano, someone must provide that information with a reference. A user has removed the 500,000th from the sentence[8], probably because the article[9] doesn't say anything about the piano that was played. I have removed the whole sentence from the Steinway article, because without the mention of the 500,000th piano, the sentence is only about Steinway Hall in New York City. Therefore, the sentence is now in the article Steinway Hall.

The sentence can be written in the article Steinway & Sons in the section about Steinway's 500,000th piano, when there is a reference that verifys, that Jeffrey Biegel played the Steinway 500,000th piano. --Siliciustheone (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the bit about the 500,000th piano because it was not present in the source. However, that bit does not determine the sentence's unsuitability for this article since the piano used was a Steinway. The sentence could appear in the Steinway Hall article just as much as this one, or in an article about streaming on the internet, or all of the above. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

- The sentence was written the same place, that the article talks about the 500,000th piano. When the bit about the 500,000th piano is removed, the sentence can not be the same place, bacause the history about Steinway is written chronological. You can never mention what happened in 1997 between 1987 and 1993, because that is not chronological correct.
- I did not move the sentence to the section "Steinway Halls / Steinway Häuser" in the article, because the sentence is about a not very notable episode in the Steinway history, and because there are so most more notable to write in the section "Steinway Halls / Steinway Häuser" like New York Philharmonic, Charles Dickens readings and so on. (I moved the sentence to the article Steinway Hall, but I actually don't think it is notable enough to be mentioned in that article - but that was my way to try to satisfy all). --Siliciustheone (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The place of the American headquarter of Steinway

Please notice, that this article two times (and maybe more) has had wrong edits about the place of the American headquarter of Steinway. One edit about Steinway being in Wisconsin (as I remember) and another edit about Steinway being in Connecticut.

The place of the American headquarter of Steinway is and has always been (that will be for more than 150 years) in New York City. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc. is a Delaware corporation whose principal executive offices (i.e., headquarters) are at 800 South Street, Suite 305, Waltham, Massachusetts, 02453. See its most recent quarterly report filed with the US SEC, [10]. TJRC (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc., is another company.
Wisconsin and Connecticut are still wrong. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

So-called Steinway Hall in Boston

The image: File:Charles Dickens Readings at Steinway Hall, Boston, Mass., 1867.jpg:

I have edited the image that purports to depict Steinway Hall in Boston, which is in reality an engraving of Steinway Hall on East 14th Street in New York City. The image in at present incorrectly titled on Wikimedia, although I have edited the description on that site. The picture comes from Harpers Weekly, and was digitised by the Library of Congress, where someone did not take sufficient care when it came to describing the illustration. There was no Steinway Hall in Boston, as a trawl through the Music Trades Journal, now available online, will confirm. The Harpers Weekly article concerns readings by Charles Dickens in December 1867, in Boston, at the Tremont Temple, and at Steinway Hall in New York, where a significant crowd of people queued all night for tickets - hence the illustration.

Dickens' diary for 1867 is held at the New York Public Library, with the pages for November and December available online, so the dates of his talks are therefore verifiable. This is one of those occasions when Wikipedia takes on the aura of the Emperor's new clothes. One only has to look at the photograph of Steinway Hall at East 14th Street currently on the left of this article's page, and to compare it with what was incorrectly described as Boston, to see that the buildings are one and the same. It doesn't take a annotated source from an approved publication to do that! --Pianola (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Samick Takeover?

I remember a press announcement anytime in April 2011 that trustees of the Samick group of Korea, piano builders, now are members of the supervisory board of Steinway & Sons. Samick was known for keeping aorund 30% of the Steinway shares but it was long speculated in the piano market that this financial engagement of Samick might be followed by a share expansion and subsequently an industrial takeover, eventually substituting Dana Messina and Kyle Kirkland, main owners since the mid 1990ies. -- 80.145.152.152 (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just checked. The key people written in the infobox at the top of the article are still Dana D. Messina (CEO, since 1996), Thomas Kurrer (President Worldwide, since 2008), and Kyle R. Kirkland (Chairman of the Board, since 1996).

Samick has some of the shares, but Samick has not overtaken Steinway. (Maybe you're thinking of Bösendorfer, that was overtaken by Yamaha in 2008). --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Samick in article

I just returned a bit of Samick information to the article. I think the information is perfectly appropriate here in addition to being shown at Steinway Musical Instruments. At 33% controlling interest, Samick is the largest stockholder of SMI and so, of course, the largest owner of Steinway. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To avoid any issues of crystal-balling, I have added a source that describes the merger from June 6, four days after the sale took place. It should be noted for the above conversation that the stock involved was that of the former heads of the company who will be stepping aside.--Rwberndt (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Right! The former heads yield their controlling percentage to Samick, making Samick very relevant relative to the business of Steinway & Sons—this article. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Details about ownership, like that Samick Musical Instruments Co, Ltd. owns under 50% of the shares of Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc., should be moved to the article about Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc.. Details about other companies than Steinway & Sons should be written in their own articles.

The ownership of under 50% of the shares of Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc. should not be written in all articles about the approx 20 brand names that are owned by Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc. – should we also write about Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc. and Samick Musical Instruments Co, Ltd. in the articles Vito (saxophone), The Selmer Company, Yanagisawa Wind Instruments, Vincent Bach Corporation, Martin Band Instrument Company and more?

Furthermore, what difference does it make for the company "Steinway & Sons", that the parent company "Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc." has "Samick Musical Instruments Co, Ltd.", "ValueAct SmallCap Partners" and other investors as shareholders? If it doesn't make any difference to Steinway & Sons and the Steinway pianos, the information is irrelevant in the article Steinway & Sons. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

But it does make a difference! Samick is the largest shareholder, the largest controller of Steinway stock. It is relevant to the piano maker. Binksternet (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You do not answer the questions above and I think I know why – the information you are trying to add is trivia! Samick (who can not control Steinway Musical Instruments and Steinway & Sons because Samick owns under 50% of the shares) is the largest investor of Steinway Musical Instruments – what difference does it make to Steinway & Sons?? --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not answer your questions because you set up a straw man argument. You set 50% as an arbitrary level of notability; you said less than 50% is not worth writing in the article. However, there is no stockholder with that much stock. The largest stockholder has 33%. Thus, the most significant holder of stock, the most significant controller of Steinway & Sons, is Samick. This information is foundational to the piano maker and it fits very well into the business dealings paragraph which discusses the ownership of Steinway & Sons. Binksternet (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"You set 50% as an arbitrary level of notability" – no I did not. I said that "Details about other companies than Steinway & Sons should be written in their own articles". It's pretty natural to me. I asked you: "Furthermore, what difference does it make for the company 'Steinway & Sons', that the parent company 'Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc.' has 'Samick Musical Instruments Co, Ltd.', 'ValueAct SmallCap Partners' and other investors as shareholders?". I asked you to tell why you think the information has notability for an article about Steinway & Sons (and for articles about Vito (saxophone), The Selmer Company, Yanagisawa Wind Instruments, Vincent Bach Corporation, Martin Band Instrument Company and more).

What difference does it make to Steinway & Sons, that the parent company has Samick as the largest investor (and ValueAct SmallCap Partners as the second largest investor)?? You just keep saying it is relevant, and not why it is relevant. Peoplefromarizona (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Befoe going too much further with the technical argument, let's consider a few things. First, a 1/3 stake can easily be a controlling interest - take Fiat's control of Chrysler last year for example. Second, the two gentlemen stepping aside are musicians who had a very public agenda of prerserving the traditional instrument makers and building product as close to that of prior decades as possible while the new largest shareholder is purely a money-man and has a track record 180 degrees from that of the two departing with regard to the balance between profit and product quality (and no contextual understanding of the product as a musician). Third, context is the key to the appropriateness of some inclusion of this matter in the article in its present form - by that I mean to point out that the section is titled "Acquisitions" and is entirely about the business affairs of Steinway Musical Instruments (in its various forms), not the subsidiary that is the topic. This transaction is no more nor less significant than the sale to CBS, the purchase of Emerson or the merger with Selmer, though all relate to the holding company not Steinway pianos.Finally, User:Peoplefromarizona cites WP trivia policy that essentially defends the inclusion of the material that is deleted under that defense (which leaves me bewildered).

If the section on Steinway Musical Istruments business/ownership titled "Acquisitions" is a fitting portion of the article (and I am not saying that it is or is not), then this transaction should be mentioned, as it is a very significant change in corporate direction. I would also point out 3RR and suggest that maybe a formal resolution is called for if some agreement cannot be shortly reached to either be complete in this section, or perhaps streamline this article by simply refering to the parent and not having the section.--Rwberndt (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

While not bearing on Steinway, I asserted Fiat's control of Chrysler as demonstrating the significance of being the largest shareholder at 1/3 of shares in control of a company and an hour ago, Fiat increased its share to 53.5%. I think the analogy has proven more fitting at demonstrating the significance of such than I had first thought.--Rwberndt (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet said above that "... there is no stockholder with that much [50% or more] stock. The largest stockholder has 33%.". How did Fiat buy 53.5% of the Chrysler shares? --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There are protections in place restricting Samick from grabbing greater control of Steinway Corp, but with Kim on the board anything goes. He is not above an end run of some sort, a flanking maneuver. I expect that we will soon hear of a change affecting the brand, such as Samick bringing out a top level piano line, or Steinway performing some of the lowest level fabrication in Korea.

The immediate concern of the article is that, to be considered complete, it should have a paragraph about recent changes to corporate ownership including the largest shareholder Samick. The paragraph should be the next step in the history of Steinway & Sons, the next step in the manner of the paragraph which starts "In 1972, after a long-running financial struggle..." The updating of corporate ownership should also discuss recent business problems such as the very low sales in the last few years. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Samick is not a shareholder of Steinway & Sons, but Samick is a shareholder of Steinway Musical Instruments. The paragraph, which starts "In 1972, after a long-running financial struggle...", ends with "These investors founded the musical conglomerate Steinway Musical Properties (later Steinway Musical Instruments), which became the parent company of Steinway.". The history about the ownership of Steinway & Sons stops with Steinway Musical Instruments. What happens to Steinway Musical Instruments shall of course be written in the article named Steinway Musical Instruments.

To my opinion Binksternet's comments just above is largely his very own speculations about the future. Not relevant for an encyclopedic article or a talk page of an encyclopedic article. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Mention of Samick is necessary to a complete article at Steinway Musical Instruments, as it is a significant change in ownership and influence involving two competitors merging. However, the point regarding the holding company vs the piano subsidiary is well made. Also such mention should only be the minimal facts as currently is the case. WP:CRYSTALBALL is quite clear that only the facts should be included, not supposition. The potential for something dramatic is worthy of note ONLY in its substance, let the reader divine what he or she may about what it means for the future. It would be both appropriate and more informative if the lead identified Steinway and Sons as a subsidiary of a publicly traded conglomerate Steinway Musical Instruments. I have made similar tweaks to the 1972 paragraph that I hope you will both agree are measured and NPOV.--Rwberndt (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Split or merge ?

The above discussion prompted a more thorough reading of this article. The lead section confuses the scope by blurring between Steinway and Sons, the piano company, and Steinway Musical Instruments, the holding company, when it moves from describing the piano maker to saying that Conn-Selmer is a subsidiary of Steinway. This confusion continues with the entire "acquisitions" section and also is apparent in the insertion of a paragraph on ArkivMusic, the online recorded music venture, in the midst of "Recent history" - although it has nothing to do with piano making. Finally, the infobox seems to contain a sigificant amount of information on the holding company (subsidiaries, officers & statistics), but still quite a bit about the piano maker (pianos built, locations, dealers), rendering it unreliable as a refernce tool.

It seems that two options to resolve this are open: To extract this information from this article and clean it up as a piece on purely Steinway & Sons, a division of Steinway Musical Instruments, or, to merge Steinway Musical Instruments into this article.

The proposed future changes described at http://www.steinwaymusical.com/images/newsfiles/152678Steinway%20Announces%20Unsolicited%20Offer%20New%20Chairman.pdf may, of course, have significant bearing on such a move. If Conn-Selmer, ArkivMusic, Ludwig & Musser are split-off, Seinway Musical Instruments will effectively become Steinway & Sons again, or will perhaps be integrated into another company - that is unknown. However, whatever changes happen in the future, adapting Wikipedia to them at that time will be easier if there is a resolution to the current confusion.--Rwberndt (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Done :-) --ANCJensen (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Luxury Marketing Council

I deleted any reference to the Luxury Marketing Council because all of the sources were primary ones. I could find none of the desired WP:SECONDARY sources to support this bit. All I found were sources that come from Council members or interested parties. No neutral accounts from third party observers.

Peoplefromarizona returned the bit to the article with an edit summary promising secondary sources. Here's what was introduced:

• "CEO Talk: Greg Furman, Founder and Chairman, Luxury Marketing Council" published in The Business of Fashion. This source only mentions Steinway once in passing—it's a discussion about the poor state of the economy and what that does to sales of luxury goods. Nothing about Steinway's piano sales or their membership in the Council is described.
• "THG USA Joins the Florida Luxury Marketing Council" from THG Paris. This PR news release from a commercial sales site does not qualify as a secondary source. Even if it did, Steinway is only mentioned in passing.

Without non-trivial coverage in secondary sources, there is nothing to support the mention that Steinway is part of the Luxury Marketing Council. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• The two secondary sources you write above was added only because you removed the Luxury Marketing Council from the article. It's a way of trying to satisfy you when the reference (that has been there for several months or some years) is "undergoing a facelift".
• Why don't you write anything above about the reference "<ref>[http://luxurycouncil.com/community Members], ''The Luxury Marketing Council Official Website''. {{dead link|date=July 2011}} Observation: The website http://luxurycouncil.com "... is currently undergoing a facelift"!</ref>" – "{{dead link|date=July 2011}} Observation: The website http://luxurycouncil.com "... is currently undergoing a facelift"!"?
• Why don't you be serious and wait until http://luxurycouncil.com is running again? I don't think, that Wikipedia doesn't accept primary sources. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia, according to the policy linked above, does allow primary sources. It does not, however, allow original research and cautions that in the use of primary sources, interpretive statements must be backed by secondary sources. That Steinway is a member is established by the secondary sources (which state it quite clearly) and presumably was by the primary and thus is a fitting and notable inclusion in my opinion. That Steinway is the only piano maker to be a member may be true, but check WP:NOTTRUTH - Unless it is clearly stated in a reliable source, drawing that conclusion (say, by reading the complete list once the primary source is online and seeing no others) could be seen as OR.

Might I suggest that the membership be stated, as it is notable, but that the conclusion about exclusivity be removed and left to the knowledgable reader to understand and appreciate ?--Rwberndt (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

As well, none of the secondary sources say that Steinway joined in 1994. Binksternet (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As Rwberndt said above "Wikipedia, according to the policy linked above, does allow primary sources". Use of secondary sources only are not a demand to Wikipedia. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of secondary sources helps to establish that the cited text represents something worth putting in an encyclopedia, something that reporters or authors have commented on. It helps fight the accusation of having undue emphasis on something relatively unimportant. The Luxury Marketing Council does not have a very high public profile, and so there should not be very much emphasis on this aspect of the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of only secondary sources is not a demand to Wikipedia. That "Use of secondary sources helps to establish that the cited text represents something worth putting in an encyclopedia..." is fine, but it doesn't mean, that cited text shall be deleted just because there is no secondary source added. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Undergoing a facelift

The incomplete state of the Luxury Marketing Council's website is of no relevance to this article about Steinway & Sons. Please stop adding that bit. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The short and harmless info for other editors – "{{dead link|date=July 2011}} Observation: The website http://luxurycouncil.com '... is currently undergoing a facelift'" – was added because you removed the sentence "Steinway is the only piano manufacturer which is a member." that had that website as reference. The info about Steinway being the only piano company, which is a member of the organization for the world's most prestigious brands, could in that way easily be re-added when the website is running again. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Dead links can be revived by searching www.archive.org.

If you are referring to this archived version of the Council's webpage from 2008, the notion that Steinway & Sons is the only piano manufacturer is not supported. Steinway is listed as a member, and no other piano maker is listed, but the list is offered as a representative one, not necessarily an exhaustive one. It also fails to say that there has never been another piano manufacturer in the Council. The archived link is not needed in this Wikipedia article because the secondary sources are good enough to confirm membership. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I am refering to a complete list of all members of the Luxury Marketing Council.

"It also fails to say that there has never been another piano manufacturer in the Council" – yes, and that is why it said "Steinway is the only piano manufacturer which is a member". Is is now and not what has been. "Steinway is the only piano manufacturer which is a member" tells about the situation now and not about other possible previous members. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I am interested in seeing an archived version of that complete list, if you can find it. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I prefer waiting until the new website (that maybe contains new information) is running. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing tag

I noticed that the most recent addition was a too-close paraphrasing of text found on page 50 of German New York City by Richard Panchyk. Because this text is nearly exactly copied, what other text in the article suffers from the same problem? The whole thing will need to be inspected. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are the two sentences. The first one is from the article's lead section, the second one is from page 50 of German New York City:

• "The company quickly grew to become one of the world's most respected and renowned piano makers."
• "The firm quickly grew to become one of the most respected and renowned piano manufacturers in the world."

I will start looking at other sources to see if the problem is larger than this one instance. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The only reason that User:Binksternet "... noticed that the most recent addition was a too-close paraphrasing of text found on page 50 of German New York City by Richard Panchyk" is because the reference – {{cite book |first=Richard |last=Panchyk |title=German New York City |location= |publisher=Arcadia Publishing |year=2008 |isbn=9780738556802 |page=50}} – is written immediately after the sentence.[11] But some people like to sound smart and like to pretend that a problem with one sentence is a general problem with the whole article. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, yeah, I noticed the close paraphrasing because I looked up the cite immediately following the text. I will be doing more of the same in due course. Binksternet (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Or just made an easy source on Google Books – the reference is very well written with details so it is extremely easy to find the book's page 50 on Google Books.

PS: Sorry, that you didn't get Samick in this article. It seems to have annoyed you. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Annoyance doesn't figure into it. Non-neutral edits do, and I see you are generally putting in positive items and taking out negative ones, in violation of WP:NPOV. I would like the article to be less rah-rah cheerleader and more encyclopedic and complete.

Yes, I will be checking Google Books and other sources for any further close paraphrasing. Typically, if an editor does it once, they have done it before. Copyright violations are not taken lightly at Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"... you are generally putting in positive items and taking out negative ones..." – to write only positive about a subject is not forbidden. And what negative items that are related to Steinway & Sons are being removed?

"Typically, if an editor does it once, they have done it before." – seems you like guessing and to look in that crystal ball, that User:Rwberndt has written about above.

By the way, are you a lawyer, who are qualified to decide whether the sentence is breaking the copyright or not – or are you just a layman who are guessing? --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

When the big copyvio door slams down on an article it is no longer up to the editors to decide—it is up to people from Wikipedia's legal department. In this article about Steinway pianos we are not there yet but I am taking a look to see if there is any copyright violation basis for shutting the article down until it can be cleared. Binksternet (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"... you are generally putting in positive items and taking out negative ones..." – to write only positive about a subject is not forbidden. And what negative items that are related to Steinway & Sons are being removed?

Exactly, it is not up to the editors to decide whether a sentence or an article is breaking the copyright or not. I hope, that you will take a look to see if there is any copyright violation basis for shutting the article down, instead of just keep taking about it. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Update:
"I am taking a look to see if there is any copyright violation basis for shutting the article down until it can be cleared. Binksternet (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)." – More than a month has passed and nothing happened. Seems that it was just another failed attempt to criticize the article. Hope other editors will participate much more seriously in the Wikipedia articles. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Take a deep breath . . .

Contention does not benefit either the artice or Wikipedia as a whole. Perhaps some mutual recognition of differing POV, and both the strengths and weaknesses of this article as it currently exists would benefit all.

There are parts of the article that read as promotional and could be improved. At the same time, it is the world's greatest piano maker, so a fair amount of positive material seems appropriate to a representative description of the topic. There are many places where peaock words and assumptions based on the actual cited facts make the article more readable, but violate the prohibition on OR (such as "known", which presumes, perhaps correctly, that people in general are aware of the awards won by Steinway just because they have been awarded and covered). Some of this is normal, and, per break-all-the-rules, not harmful to the article in itself - its just a matter of degree and, given Steinway's long history of excellence, the question is why does it need any hype?

Any copyvio issues should, of course, be attributed and/or rephrased, but lets not start trying to look for more controversy and wikilawering.

I fear that I am at fault for starting this, as I brought Samick up. As part of the parent company article now, and limited to facts, not supposition, it is key information and needs to be kept current. Will Steinway fall victim to a brilliant businessman who made profit at the expense of quality in his past accomplishments ? or is he looking now to add quality to a portfolio lacking therein, having learned the value of diverse product offerings ? We cannot, and must not try to, say.

As it now applies more broadly to the issues most recently expressed regarding accusations of editors seeking to promote or impugn the Steinway name, it would likewise be best to just stick to the facts. Cover all of the facts, and have confidence that a complete and well-written article will convey the truth and that Steinway will be seen as what it is, now and as it evolves.--Rwberndt (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

All marketing hype

Seeing comments here that violate Wikipedia policy and aren't about the article. Anyone who believes Steinway is the "World's Greatest Piano Maker" when it's an acknowledged fact that Fazioli and Bosenderfer are superior, should be very careful about adding marketing hype. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.160.235 (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That "... it's an acknowledged fact that Fazioli and Bosenderfer are superior..." than Steinway, is a very personal opinion. Such statements shall never be a part of an encyclopedia. The Steinway article includes many secondary searches. --RexBiede (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, come on, at least get it right: Bösendorfer - and some would say it's pronounced "Yamaha" (which by no means diminishes the image of quality, as Yamaha is a world leader in quality keyboard instruments) Anyone who can play at the level that this makes a difference will choose the instrument that best suits them.--Rwberndt (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

John Lennon's Steinway

From the article:

"The world's most expensive upright piano was built by Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany, in 1970. The piano was bought by John Lennon for $1,500;[162] Lennon composed and recorded Imagine and other songs on it. In 2000, it was sold at auction by a private British collector. Pop musician George Michael made the winning bid of £1.67 million.[163] The piano can be seen in the 1971 film footage that features Lennon performing Imagine for his wife Yoko Ono at his home in England.[164]"

Except the piano in the Imagine video is not the upright Steinway that the articles in the footnotes are referring to. It's the white Steinway grand that Lennon gave to Ono for her birthday in 1971.

Imagine video: Steinway on the white grand piano:

Arturner (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you are right. There must be some mistakes in the references:

• Antiques and the Arts article says: "It can be seen in 1971 film footage that features Lennon performing Imagine at his home in England."[12] (this reference is now removed from the article).
• BBC article says: "He composed and recorded Imagine on it, and was filmed playing the song on it for the first time to wife Yoko Ono and the Plastic Ono band."[13]

--Peoplefromarizona (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Minute Waltz, by Chopin - Performed by Sergej Rachmaninoff.ogg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Minute Waltz, by Chopin - Performed by Sergej Rachmaninoff.ogg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This image is no longer in the article. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Steinway company type

Why is "Private" changed to "Subsidiary" in the article Steinway & Sons?[14] Steinway & Sons is a privately held company[15] owned by Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc.

The page Template:Infobox company gives this explanation of what to write in the field "Type":
"type
Type of company, Public, Private, Joint Venture or similar. (See ownership to list ownership percentages for private companies and joint ventures, if applicable.)
Example: [[Public company|Public]]
Example: [[Privately held company|Private]] (subsidiary of [[Berkshire Hathaway]])"

I wrote a link to the page Template:Infobox company in the field for summery.[16]

It gives no meaning to write "Type: Subsidiary" in the infobox, because "Parent: Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc." is already written in the infobox. If Steinway & Sons has a parent company, it means that Steinway & Sons is a subsidiary. Therefore is gives no meaning to insist on writing "Type: Subsidiary". Furthermore, the Template:Infobox company gives examples of what to write in the field "Type" in the infobox. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The word subsidiary is allowed in the infobox template parameter "company type"... There is no prohibition against the word "subsidiary". Your jigsaw link is not reliable because the information is entered by company agents, not by independent observers. Reliable sources say that the company is a subsidiary:

• Steinway, by Ronald V. Ratcliffe, Stuart Isacoff
• A Romance on Three Legs: Glenn Gould's Obsessive Quest for the Perfect Piano, by Katie Hafner
• Pierce piano atlas (1977), page 262
• Steinway from glory to controversy: the family, the business, the piano (1996), page 155
• Bloomberg Businessweek
• Reuters lists two relevant subsidiaries to Steinway Musical Instruments: Steinway & Sons Worldwide and Steinway & Sons Americas.

It's clear that any other terminology is incorrect. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Technically, a subsidiary that is not publicly traded in itself is private. That is, both of you are correct: both "private" and "subsidiary" are true. I've taken a middle road, which is supported by the example in the infobox document, calling it " Private (subsidiary of Steinway Musical Instruments)", which is pretty much the same as the example for the Berkshire Hathaway sub. TJRC (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A subsidiary has characteristics of both public and private companies, and so is neither. Its reporting requirements are the same as a private company but its assets, liabilities and activities are included in the reports of publicly traded Steinway Musical Instruments, as required by the SEC. The most descriptive word is subsidiary. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

To User:TJRC, I agree with you. Steinway & Sons is both "private" and "subsidiary". The reason why I wrote just "Private" and not "Private (subsidiary of Steinway Musical Instruments)" is because the infobox already says that Steinway & Sons is a subsidiary of Steinway Musical Instruments: "Parent: Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc.". --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The actual word "subsidiary" should be in the infobox, as it is crucial to the understanding of the company type. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It is indeed a subsidiary, and should be documented as such. The fact that its parent is also noted does not take away from that TJRC (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TJRC, that it was correct to change Binksternet's edit. --RexBiede (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Excess verbiage

Is it necessary to have a section on how Steinway grand pedals work? They're no different from most other brands (except Fazioli). Shall we also put a section on how Honda Accord pedals work?THD3 (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No need for pedals. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the part about pedals is in a section about how Steinway pianos are made.

The sustenuto pedal should be an invention by Steinway (Patent No. 156,388 of October 27, 1874). --RexBiede (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced material removed from article

In November 2011, Steinway Hall piano tuners and technicians will get laid off and the company will close its retail piano technical service department.

Consistency

I think the following from the Steinway & Sons article should be written in another way. The current version is this one:

"In 1972, after a long-running financial struggle, legal issues with the Grotrian-Steinweg brand, and a lack of business interest among some of the Steinway family members, the firm was sold to CBS. At that time CBS owned many enterprises in the entertainment industry, including guitar maker Fender, electro-mechanical piano maker Rhodes, and the baseball team New York Yankees. CBS had plans to form a musical conglomerate that made and sold music in all forms and through all outlets, including records, radio, television, and musical instruments. This new conglomerate was evidently not as successful as CBS had expected, and Steinway was sold in 1985, along with classical and church organ maker Rodgers and flute and piccolo maker Gemeinhardt, to a group of Boston-area investors. These investors founded the musical conglomerate Steinway Musical Properties (later Steinway Musical Instruments, a publicly traded company (NYSE: LVB)), which is the parent company of Steinway.

In 1995, Steinway Musical Properties, parent company of Steinway, merged with the Selmer Company to form Steinway Musical Instruments, which acquired the flute manufacturer Emerson in 1997, then piano keyboard maker Kluge in 1998, and the Steinway Hall in 1999. The conglomerate made more acquisitions in the following years. Since 1996, Steinway Musical Instruments has been traded at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the abbreviation LVB, for Ludwig van Beethoven. The Korean piano and guitar maker Samick Music Corporation is the largest shareholder, controlling 33% of Steinway stock; Samick Chairman Jong Sup Kim has been a member of the Steinway board of directors since November 2009."

• It states twice that Steinway Musical Properties changed its name to Steinway Musical Instruments.

• It states twice that Steinway Musical Instruments is traded at the New York Stock Exchange (LVB).

• It states that Steinway Musical Instruments acquired the Steinway Hall in 1999. But there exist more than one Steinway Hall.

• It has an inconsistent use of reference style: <ref>[http://www.steinwaymusical.com/About.html "About the company"], ''Steinway Musical Instruments Website''. Retrieved January 31, 2009.</ref> is not written with a template like the rest of the references are.

• It states in what country Samick Music Corporation is located. But it doesn't state in which countries all the other companies (Grotrian-Steinweg, Fender, Rhodes, Rodgers, Emerson, Kluge etc.) are located. It is much more correct and professionel if it is consistent about how it describes/introduces the companies.

• It states that "... Samick Music Corporation is the largest shareholder, controlling 33% of Steinway stock...". But the reference talks about ownership. Why is "ownership" changed to "controlling"? Are somebody trying to colour the truth? When writing an encyclopedia it is the best to be as precise as possible: Samick Music Corporation is the largest shareholder, owning 33% of (the) Steinway stock.

• It states that "Samick Chairman Jong Sup Kim has been a member of the Steinway board of directors since November 2009". Why is this notable to the article? There isn't even an article about the person Jong Sup Kim and he has been a member of the board for just two years. Maybe Kyle Kirkland and Dana Messina (directors, chairman of the board and CEO for Steinway Musical Instruments for many years) would be notable to mention because they have made many important changes in the company.

• I don't see why the part above beginning with "In 1995, Steinway Musical Properties, parent company of Steinway, merged with..." and ending with "... Jong Sup Kim has been a member of the Steinway board of directors since November 2009." should be included in the Steinway & Sons article. This part is about the holding company Steinway Musical Instruments and not about the subsidiary Steinway & Sons. And there already exists an article about Steinway Musical Instruments. By writing so much about the parent company of Steinway & Sons, we could also start writing a lot about what was going on in CBS when they were parent company of Steinway & Sons - and this CBS story could be included in the articles about Grotrian-Steinweg, Fender, Rhodes, Rodgers, Emerson, Kluge etc. We could also start adding information and history to the Steinway & Sons article about the approx 20 other musical instrument brands that are owned by the parent company Steinway Musical Instruments. We could also start adding information and history about General Motors to the many many car brands owned by General Motors and its subsidiaries. What makes the Steinway & Sons article good is that it is consistent; it doesn't intermix the two companies Steinway Musical Instruments and Steinway & Sons and that is extremely valuable because many other websites, articles etc. intermix the two companies and confuse the reader (for example the German Steinway & Sons article). I see that there has been a discussion before about this issue about Steinway Musical Instruments topics in the Steinway & Sons article (cf. Talk:Steinway & Sons#Split or merge ?); if the part beginning with "In 1995, Steinway Musical Properties, parent company of Steinway, merged with..." and ending with "... Jong Sup Kim has been a member of the Steinway board of directors since November 2009." should stay, the article will probably be something like what it has been before. Therefore, be consistent: Write about Steinway & Sons in the article Steinway & Sons and write about Steinway Musical Instruments in the article Steinway Musical Instruments. --195.254.169.226 (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The term "controlling" is normal for talking about stock ownership. I have a controlling interest if I own more stock than anyone else. This is common usage.

Samick and the description "Korean piano and guitar maker" should remain in the article. Same with Jong Sup Kim. Samick is the majority owner and merits more detail. Binksternet (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY DISPUTED

I added the NPOV tag because paid Steinway agent "binksternet" keeps removing any referenced critical material; for example, a reference to the well-reviewed "Piano Buyer" guide by Larry Fine. In particular, he keeps removing this referenced statement

"Some experts rate the quality of New York Steinways beneath that of Hamburg Steinways, and below that of Fazioli and Bosendorfer."

Ha! If I ever get any money from Steinway I'll take you all out to dinner on the proceeds. Your NPOV tag is based on nothing substantial, so I'm removing it. Also, do not refactor the talk page entries of anybody else as you did here. Talk page guidelines permit you to respond, but not by inserting comments. Please append your comments to the relevant discussion thread. And lay off the caps lock. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I added it back. You have no right to remove the NPOV tag before the dispute is resolved. You are a terrorist. This article is simply a marketing puff piece. I tried to balance it with a quote from a very popular commercial book on how to buy a piano:

"Some experts rate the quality of New York Steinways beneath that of Hamburg Steinways, and below that of Fazioli and Bosendorfer."

You keep removing this referenced statement. You are not mature enough for Wikipedia. Perhaps you should try 4chan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.42.52 (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What does "Some experts" mean? Is it also true that some experts do not rate New York Steinways lower than others? If so then the statement becomes useless, a vague reference to anonymous opinion. And what does "quality" refer to, the quality of sound or the quality of craftsmanship? Because though it has long been accepted that the European instruments' consistency of craftsmanship exceeds that of the New York Steinway, it is not so clear we're when considering the instruments' sound. Garrick Ohlsson observed to me that youthful players prefer the brighter Hamburg instrument, but as they mature they gravitate to the warmer and darker New York instrument. So you see? It's not so easy as just quoting Larry Fine. Joelthesecond (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Anon IP editor: Please remain WP:CIVIL in your statements here and elsewhere. Wikipedia welcomes all good faith contributions, however, there are some rules and guidelines. In addition to remaining civil, wikipedians are required to refrain from personal attacks (see WP:NPA) such as the unfounded and inappropriate accusation extended against user:Binksternet above, or the mis-informed edit to my talk page claiming I am a paid agent of Steinway (actually, I have played and promoted Yamaha brass for some 35 years - which if anything biases me towards their Bosendorfer brand). The statement "some experts" is also an issue- please see WP:WEASEL where that is specifically called out as inappropriate for encyclopedic content (use the guy's name). This article has had serious issues with POV - and user:Binksternet has actually been one of the leaders of the effort to clean it up, so you have done that user a great injustice with your false accusations. Please review the history of an article before making such assumptions about others. Lastly, please sign you posts with 4 of the little squiggle characters or the pencil logo at the top of the edit frame will even generate those for you if you click it. Thank you.--Rwberndt (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the tag once again because you have not given a valid basis for its presence. You have falsely accused me of being an agent of Steinway, and you are complaining that I am removing your "some experts" text. Perhaps you missed the part where I composed a couple of sentences based on your source: the Larry Fine book. I put your information into the article but I put it down in the relevant section where Hamburg and New York manufacturing sites are compared. In that light, your tag does not have a leg to stand on. What you wanted in the article is in the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor at 50.131.42.52 seems to have misunderstood, or chosen to ignore the advice above. A new section has been added by him/her that is nothing but POV and is arguably offensive to certain nationalities. The slam on "Asian" pianos ignores the fact that one of the editor's, or his source's favorite brands, Bosendorfer, is made by an Asian company, yamaha. The section is not constructive, and also not relevant to the topic. The themes could perhaps serve pages for the respective brands, but not here. Finally, it is unreasonable to give section level importance to "pianobuyer.com" (whatever that is), unless there is abundant proof that on a topic as broadly covered as piano, this is somehow the one and only recognized definitive opinion. This section does not belong here, Binksternet has provided arguably excessive weight to this one opinion already, and this is a waste of everyone's time.--Rwberndt (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any valid basis for the neutrality tag. I suspect it is motivated by competition rather than submitted in good faith. The IP editor re-added the tag after all of the issues were addressed. I am removing the tag. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

IMPORTANCE has been INVERTED

STEINWAY sells more of its CHINESE and JAPANESE imports than the pianos it makes in NY. Hence, those pianos should be mentioned FIRST as it is Steinway's PRIMARY BUSINESS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.24.250 (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If a real estate broker is on the phone 50 times per week and sell houses 2 times per week, is his primarily business then talking in telephone? :-) Piano68john (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been doing a little research. Sales of Boston and Essex pianos account for just approximately 20% of the Steinway company's revenue. (Sales of Steinway & Sons pianos account 80%). Sales of Boston and Essex pianos is not Steinway's primarily business. Steinway's primarily business is the Steinway & Sons pianos.

Best, Piano68john (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC).

Again, Binksternet is vandalizing this article

There were references added about a prominent product placement of a Steinway piano in an episode of Kourney and Kim Take New York. It was referenced to an episode summary on a Wall Street Journal cite, certainly a very reliable source. Yet this reference was promptly removed. Why is an endorsement by the "Kardashians" any less significant than, say, Billy Joel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.26.52 (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your changes to this article are uniformly negative in nature, as if you were in competition with Steinway, selling pianos made by someone else. Your Kardashian comment was trashy and sleazy, an attempt to paint Steinway in a sleazy light. The particular nature of the Steinway was not involved in the story, only the fact that it was a piano and it was available. You also keep trying to say that the frame is bent plywood, cheapening the actual process of carefully bending individual plies of wood and then bonding them in their bent shape.

You appear to have a conflict of interest which is why I closely examine all of your edits. The fact that I revert almost all of them is a reflection of what I find in them. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of a secondary brand in a pop-culture reality show as a prop rather than as a musical instrument, the business purpose of the company about which this article is written, is no more significant than the the coincidental identity of the manufacturer of Charles Lindberg's pants when he landed in France - a trivial fact not recorded for obvious reasons. Binksternet was correct to revert this content as it simply does not contribute to the scholarly use of Wikipedia. --Rwberndt (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

New user

Hello,

I've been on Wikipedia before but it is many years ago and I can't remember my old user name. Therefore, I've created a new account. I would like to work in a very collaborate way and I hope that other users would like to comment on my edits.

Best, Piano68john. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piano68john (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Steinway's factory in New York City, polyester

Hello,

The article says that "the New York models have a satin lacquer finish and square or Sheraton corners; Hamburg models have a high gloss polyester finish and rounded corners". I've heard from a guy who knows a lot about pianos that as of 2011, the Steinway New York factory is producing high gloss polyester finish pianos in addition to black satin lacquer. Does any of you know about this? Unfortunately, Steinway's website doesn't say much about it.

Best, Piano68john (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

Use of the word PROMINENT is non-neutral

What is "prominent"? Is Pearl River pianos "prominent" because they make more pianos than anyone else? It's a weasel word — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.145 (talk • contribs)

Yes, Steinway is a prominent brand, otherwise they would not have won the Grotrian lawsuit which specifically noted Steinway's prominent good name. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What is "prominent"? Is Pearl River pianos "prominent" because they make more pianos than anyone else? It's a weasel word.

Also, the defensive language about Steinway's Chinese imports is disgusting and non-neutral. This is Wikipedia, not an advertising site.

It's not true "Like other high-end brands" Steinway imports Chinese pianos. THis is a disgusting lie.

None of the true Tier-1 manufacturers slap their name on Chinese pianos. Not Fazioli, not Bosendorfer, not Stuart and Son, not Bechstein, not Fazioli. This is unique to Steinway. Since Steinway considers these Chinese pianos to be "Steinways" for purposes of qualiying to be an "All Steinway School" ( see Steinway's own site on this http://www.steinway.com/institutions/all-steinway-schools/ ) it's fair to say that Steinway is primarily an importer of Chinese and Japanese pianos, because that's the majority of their sales. Other manufacturers are full-spectrum, like Yamaha, which makes pianos that are better than Steinways on the high-end, and pianos made for budget conscious consumers on the low end. And, unlike Steiway, they make all their pianos; they dpon't slap their name on imports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.145 (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

Briefly, Steinway is prominent because the two reliable sources say it.

It's correct that Steinway like other high-quality piano companies also markets less expensive pianos. E.g.: Bechstein co-owns a plant in China, where it makes less expensive pianos for sale in other parts of the world. And Blüthner has a Haessler line of pianos that is cheaper and of lower quality than Blüthner's brand name.

Steinway isn't primarily an importer of Japanese and Chinese pianos. Steinway is known for making pianos of the Steinway & Sons brand in their factories in New York City and Hamburg and that is very much the reason why they also can sell pianos under the brand names Boston and Essex. Boston and Essex are known and sold because they are reasonable pianos in their price range and because of the reputation of Steinway.

Sales of Boston and Essex pianos account for just approximately 20% of the Steinway company's revenue. (Sales of Steinway & Sons pianos account 80%). Sales of Boston and Essex pianos is not the majority of their sales. Steinway's primarily business is the Steinway & Sons pianos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piano68john (talk • contribs) 06:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, it seems you think that imported products are of poor quality just because they are imported. If so, that is not an objective way of judging a product. In my opinion it's non-neutral and snobbish.

Remember to read the sources in the article before you delete them or change other things. Often you'll find the answer to your question if you read the source near by.

Best, Piano68john (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC).

Individual pianos

I am surprised that no one has created articles on individual Steinway pianos. we have a whole category for notable individual instruments, Category:Individual musical instruments, including Stradivari and certain Rock guitars. I would urge the creation of articles on the 3 ones mentioned her as record breaking by price, and include Lennon's piano(s), and the Motown piano, [17], which has gotten some coverage. I may create some myself, and will definitely place them in the articles for creation section. I may not have the best ideas for article names.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It's thin pickin's for sources on your notional articles. I welcome anyone taking a stab at it, though. Hey, my mom's Steinway baby grand still has scratches on it from when Korla Pandit came to our house and played it in the 1970s—he wore rings with huge stones in them. Does that make it notable? <grin> Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Piano in my neighborhood: "1904 Steinway Model A", owned by Earl Fatha Hines. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Charlemagne Prize?

The article on the Charlemagne Prize says Edward Heath won it in 1963, not 1973. Did he wait ten years to spend 450 pounds on a piano? A Steinway cost only 450 pounds in 1973? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.72.145 (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Too promotional

The prose of this article seems way too promotional. I was reading the section on Steinway artists, and it is promotional to the point of being redundant. "Today more than 1,600 concert artists and ensembles bear the title Steinway Artist, which means that they have chosen to perform on Steinway pianos exclusively, and each owns a Steinway. None are paid to do so." or "Also piano ensembles are on the Steinway Artist list, for example Eroica Trio, Güher and Süher Pekinel, Katia and Marielle Labèque and The 5 Browns. These ensembles consist of pianists, who are all Steinway Artists." And so much of this self-serving information is sourced directly from Steinway. Verbiage like "It was a triumph for both Rubinstein and Steinway. Thus, the Steinway Artists program was born" just doesn't have a place in encyclopedia articles. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of this article was crafted by a persistent promoter of Steinway, Fanoftheworld, his confirmed sockpuppets, his suspected sockpuppets, and the IP 195.254.169.226 from Denmark traced to the Aarhus Koebmandsskole Network. This editor was very energetic in creating promotional articles about Steinway, and by inserting a promotional tone. Here's what the article looked like near the end of August 2008 just before Fanoftheworld started expanding it—you can see the "triumph for both Rubinstein and Steinway" and "bear the title" phrases are already there, so that might explain why I did not look harder at those bits. There were (and still are) strongly negative edits being made here by editors who want to slag Steinway, so I have just been serving as a referee for the most extreme stuff. That means I have probably allowed too much promotional tone to remain. I welcome any editor who can bring a more neutral tone to the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was browsing through the talk page and noticed that most of the contributors had been blocked, which struck me as odd. I'll dive in, if you don't mind, and see what I can do. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)