Klarinet Archive - Posting 000153.txt from 2003/03

From: "Age E.Smies" <asmies@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] More corporate shenanigans in the instrument manufacturing world
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:12:07 -0500

Isn't this the American Way. One power controlling everything. Is the
President of that new super company called George Bush?
All kidding aside, it is a somewhat scary thought. Thank goodness we still
have Yamaha and Leblanc.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lacy, Edwin" <el2@-----.edu>
<klarinet@-----.org>
Subject: [kl] More corporate shenanigans in the instrument manufacturing
world

> As of a couple of months ago, there is a new mega-corporation in the music
world called "Conn-Selmer, Inc." This is true - I didn't make it up. The
unlikely merger between these two former competitors means that one
corporate entity owns and controls the brand names Armstrong, Artley, Bach,
Benge, Buescher, Conn, Emerson, Glaesel, King, Ludwig, Musser, Scherl &
Roth, and Selmer. Further, not mentioned on this list are other brand names
that previously have disappeared in earlier buy-outs and takeovers by some
of the above, including Linton, Lesher, White, and Cleveland. But, that
doesn't even tell the whole story. Amazingly, the corporate entity under
which this company operates is called "Steinway, Inc." That's right; the
so-called "parent" is the Steinway piano company. Note also that all the
names on the list of brands are also the names of formerly independent
companies, some of whom at one time competed with each other.
>
> This seems to continue the trend toward larger and larger corporations. If
the trend continues to its logical conclusion, there eventually would be
only one company in the entire musical world, and perhaps even further in
the future, only one corporation of any kind - and its name will probably be
"Walmart."
>
> A couple of things we can be certain of - this decision was not made in an
instrument manufacturing plant or by musicians, but rather in some plush
corporate offices, likely in New York City, and it has nothing to do with
trying to ensure quality in the manufacture of musical instruments or
service to musicians. What it is all about is the almighty dollar.
Decision-making in the future is not going to be based on the needs of
musicians, but on the needs of the managers and corporate executives.
>
> Competition among musical instrument manufacturers was in the best
interest of musicians. Companies used to try to improve their profitability
by making better and therefore more desirable instruments; now they try to
improve profitability by cutting costs. This has led to moving manufacturing
facilities to other countries, out-sourcing to suppliers who have no clue as
to what making a musical instrument is about, and reducing payroll costs by
laying off skilled workers, all ultimately resulting in worsening quality.
>
> There may be some good to come of all of this. This will probably ensure
the success small, specialty manufacturers, sometimes called "one-man
shops" - although they can have more than one employee, sometimes quite a
few.
>
> Except for the information about the corporate merger itself, the above
consists only of my opinions, based on my interpretation of events. Others
may disagree, and that is their right.
>
> Ed Lacy
> University of Evansville
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------