Hi Doug, I found it fascinating when I visited Steinway Hall and there were four pianos "prepared" for a visiting artist to choose from. No two were similar. When asked about this, Ron Conyers explained that they wanted to offer the widest range of selection possible. Offering 4 pianos that are almost alike would have not been the most effective approach. jeannie grassi Bainbridge Island, WA On Feb 17, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Douglas Wood wrote: > A few words from my corner of the world on selections. It seems that we mostly agree that bellies are not all the same. Nor hammers, nor prep level. This is, IMHO, all part of the Steinway thing, within certain hard-to-define limits. I've witnessed a lot of retail selections, and one of the most effective techniques in getting the selection actually made is to offer contrasting pianos. If they're too similar, then the choice is difficult. It has been interesting to note how many times the selection has gone very differently from what I expected at the outset, also. Different strokes for different folks. Note that different levels of development of touch and tone play into this in often unforeseen ways. E. g. the owner who had "looked all over the country" for than M that would have been considered unsalable at the local dealership, since it was soooooo soft. For real. Endlessly fascinating. > > This is less so for performance halls, as in that setting one often has to please (nearly) everyone with just one piano. This is where I work on the maximum range and access. The bigger the hall, the more important "bigness of sound" matters. But often the most interesting/colorful pianos are not the biggest sounding. Trade-offs again. But even the most generous piano can be very easily limited by trying to make it too "beautiful", or too anything else. Except accessible. The artists seem very sensitive to whether they can access what the piano has to offer, as well as what that is that's in there. > > FWIW. > > Doug > > > ********************************* > Doug Wood > Piano Technician > School of Music > University of Washington > dew2 at uw.edu > > doug at dougwoodpiano.com > (206) 935-5797 > ********************************* > > On Feb 15, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Horace Greeley wrote: > >> >> Hi, David, >> >> Please reread Jim's comments and my response. >> >> He was specifically asking about the relationship between two different but integrated issues; not about the totality of the design. >> >> Best. >> >> Horace >> >> >> At 01:55 AM 2/15/2011, you wrote: >>> I agree that there are differences that can be attributed to the bellies, but with respect to the subject heading, I don't know if I would say that they rise to the level of obscuring an otherwise fundamentally recognizable tonal signature. >>> >>> >>> David Love >>> www.davidlovepianos.com >>> (sent from bb) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Horace Greeley <hgreeley at sonic.net> >>> Sender: caut-bounces at ptg.org >>> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 23:39:02 >>> To: <caut at ptg.org> >>> Reply-To: caut at ptg.org >>> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway "sound" >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Definitely the belly work is core; much more >>> important in the process than tone >>> regulation. By the time an instrument gets to >>> the latter points of the process, the most the >>> tone regulator can reasonably hope to do is to >>> give the instrument as full a voice as possible >>> without overemphasizing the weak spots of the particular system/piano. >>> >>> Selections in NY can be difficult to parse, >>> too. It's never clear how much time is spent on >>> the instruments, how big the pool of technicians >>> doing the work might be, or how consistent the >>> concept of tone and touch might be between >>> them. From that standpoint, if you're working >>> with a local dealer that is large enough to host >>> a real selection, there will probably be only one >>> or two technicians working on the instruments, so >>> (for better or worse) the degree and quality of >>> prep will be much more regular between them. >>> >>> Actually, after too long a time of too much >>> unpredictability and inconsistency, I think we're >>> getting better instruments overall now than we >>> have since the later-50's/early-60's. While >>> there's still "stuff" (...there's always >>> "stuff"...), and some of it isn't small, it seems >>> as if some of the more egregious manufacturing >>> problems are gradually being worked out. With >>> Ron Losby at the helm, I suspect that the degree >>> of convergence between NY and Hamburg will >>> continue to increase. It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds. >>> >>> Best. >>> >>> Horace >>> >>> >>> >>> At 09:00 PM 2/14/2011, Jim Busby wrote: >>> >David, >>> > >>> >I think the bellies. In voicing class, and in >>> >the other 3 classes we also had 4 different >>> >pianos and got to tweak them, try different >>> >things, and they were a mixed bag. IOW, if it >>> >wasn’t the belly and just the hammers you >>> >could technically make them all sound about the >>> >same using the same voicing techniques, right? >>> >No way here, IMO. They were different beasts. I >>> >wish I had your rebuilding chops and could give a better answer. >>> > >>> >Jim Busby >>> > >>> > >>> >From: caut-bounces at ptg.org >>> >[mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Love >>> >Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 9:01 PM >>> >To: caut at ptg.org >>> >Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway "sound" >>> > >>> >Jim: >>> > >>> >The other question I meant to ask is with >>> >respect to the experiences you had at the >>> >factory. Do you think the differences in the >>> >B’s were owing to differences in the bellies >>> >themselves or just differences in the amount of >>> >prep work given to the D’s over the >>> >B’s? Recently a batch of new B’s were >>> >delivered to Stanford and before they were >>> >dispersed to the various rooms around I had >>> >chance to go through them side by side. There >>> >were a lot more similarities than differences to >>> >me. Some differences could be accounted for by >>> >hammer density alone, you could tell. And some >>> >other differences were sectional, some killer >>> >octaves were better than others and there were a >>> >few odd clunker notes here and there but they >>> >seemed to be mostly termination problems. Tenor >>> >and bass sections were very much alike. I >>> >don’t think I sat down to any one of them and >>> >said, wow now that’s different, though I had my favorites. >>> > >>> >David Love >>> >www.davidlovepianos.com >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >I’ve been in the selection room in NY and the >>> >tone was all over the place with Bs but not >>> >quite as much with Ds, in my opinion. What I was >>> >hinting at is our worn out question; don’t Ds >>> >in concert halls, as well as the Steinway C&A Ds >>> >have a certain characteristic tone that is >>> >“Steinway”? I agree with what you said below >>> >that we have the ability to reproduce it (last >>> >sentence below) but nearly all the rebuilds >>> >I’ve heard are not like Steinway. Nor do they >>> >try to be. That’s why (I think) Brent made his >>> >statements. Not in disrespect to anyone, but who >>> >might better duplicate the “Steinway sound” >>> >if there is such an animal, than Steinway? Now >>> >I’ll bow out and let all the retorts fly. <G> >>> > >>> >Best, >>> >Jim >>> > >>> > >> >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC