piano differences

[Delwin D Fandrich]

James Grebe wrote:

> Dear list,
>     One of the things that experimenters and designers like Del talk about is
> the sameness of most modern pianos and how that is a detriment to the
> trade.  I believe one reason why that is true is because of the state that
> classical music is in presently.
>     Last year at the Van Cliburn competition we were told that they were 3
> basic pianos represented, Steinway, Hamburg Steinway, and Kawai.  As I
> remember the American Steinway was the most chosen except for solo use
> where the Hamburg was used some.  Why not the Kawai.  I believe that the
> artists know that to win they have to subscribe to what they believe is the
> winning sound, the American Steinway.  It doesn't matter that another make
> might be better or different.  The critics are listening to one thing, the
> Steinway sound.  Because the participants know this they perform on the
> same.  Classical music is so narrow of a range as far as sound goes that
> it isn't funny any more.  In order to be taken seriously you have to
> perform on a B or D.  Nothing else seems to matter.  I'm sure that there
> are other pianos out there which can do a suitable job for the music.  And
> who says you have to have a 7-9' piano to always perform these works.
> There are many 6' pianos that are just as capable except for the low bass
> as the 7-9' pianos.  Why can't we hear classical works on the more popular
> size pianos that the average person can afford.
> Does anyone else have any thoughts on this.  I am curious.

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

James,

In responding to this I'm pretty much at a disadvantage, not having heard any one of the
three pianos. (Recordings don't count since recording engineers tend to want to take out
most of the qualities that make a piano a piano.)

But, probably, what you are saying reinforces what I am saying. There is a lot of sameness
in all of the pianos. Their designs are similar, certainly the two Steinways, and the
Kawai isn't all that much different. And now, with Steinway trying to emulate the
Yamaha/Kawai sound, the differences are probably even more subtle. It would seem that no
one of these pianos really stood out over the others. It has been our experience that when
one instrument clearly stands out, it makes itself known.

You are certainly right about classical music being "narrow." But I'd suggest that it has
only become that way of late. Probably since recording became common. Nowadays, to perform
some piece publicly, it has to be done exactly the way Watts played it. Or Gould. Or
whoever. I doubt it was that way when Chopin played it. Or Bach. Or Debussy. Where did the
idea of variations on a theme come from, anyway? The thing that is going to ultimately
bury classical music is the sameness of it all. (Well, that and the snobbishness of the
establishment which is well on its way to burying the orchestras that perform it.) If it
isn't played exactly the way some dead composer notated it, the performer may well be
driven off stage by flying rotten tomatoes. Or, more commonly, if it is not performed the
way some critic who is utterly unable to perform adequately himself tells us it should be
performed. How long can it remain exciting to hear something performed exactly the same
way over and over again.

You sure don't hear jazz performers getting caught in that trap. At least not many of
them. Give me "The Mozart Sessions" with Bobby McFerrin and Chick Corea and the Saint Paul
Chamber Orchestra any time. Or Dave Brubeck's To Hope -- A Celebration. There are others,
though not many. I'll leave the critique of the musicianship to others. As performances,
They are certainly a lot more interesting and surprising than hearing the same thing over
and over and over and over and over...

Who knows? If they're not careful they might just get a few enthusiastic young folks (with
money) into their audiences.

Regards,

Del