piano differences

[robert sadowski]

Del,
    Could you elaborate on your comment about Steinway now trying to imitate
the sound of the others? Have they changed their design philosophy?

Thanks,
Bob Sadowski

-----Original Message-----
From: Delwin D Fandrich <pianobuilders@olynet.com>
To: pianotech@ptg.org <pianotech@ptg.org>
Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: piano differences


>
>
>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
>