[CAUT] Steinway sound

[Ed Sutton]

Richard-

I understand that Helmut Abel (father & founder of Abel Co.) has a reference 
collection of hammers that go back to the late 18th century. He offers a 
well-established hammer recovering service. He recovered a set of 1870's 
Boesendorfer hammers for me, and also a set of 1880's Mathushek hammers. I 
was pleased with the results, but of course never heard those pianos when 
they were new. Neither of these pianos are expected to do heavy-duty stage 
work, they are parlor instruments.
You might consider a set of light Abel Natural hammers for your experiment. 
I have been happy with them in S & S M's.

Ed S.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <rwest1 at unl.edu>
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway sound


> Since this thread has bled over into beginning luck, I thought I'd  bring 
> it back.  Now I have some questions.  Does it make sense to go  back to 
> pre-1984 Steinway geometry, find a non-Steinway hammer maker  that makes 
> hammers like the good ole days (1900-1920) with lighter  hammers and no 
> juice.  Then install these parts in an M or L and  recreate the original 
> Steinway sound without being worried about over  the top requirements of a 
> D? (Aside:  I haven't like M's or L's very  well, and now I'm wondering if 
> they've suffered from Steinway D  designs that don't apply to the smaller 
> instruments.  The S model  seems to still sound great.  I won't start on 
> the reintroduced  models.  That's another thread.)
>
> Several issues arise.  Are there original Steinway hammers being made  out 
> there?  What effect does the older geometry have? It certainly  should 
> require lighter hammers.   What role does shank flexibility  have (I 
> understand that Steinway tapered shanks are more flexible;  how flexible 
> should a shank be).  How light a hammer are we talking  about, surely not 
> the ultra light hammers that enjoyed popularity a  couple decades ago.
>
> Richard West
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 28, 2011, at 2:29 AM, Horace Greeley wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think Brent has really hit at least one of the proverbial nails  on the 
>> head here when he writes:
>>
>> "...In the context of support I think the attitude should bend  towards 
>> how can my design work compliment the factory without  alienating the 
>> core tonal expectations that will exist on stage for  the foreseeable 
>> future."
>>
>> While I think that it is probably inevitable that musical tastes  (and, 
>> particularly those of pianists) will probably eventually  decide for 
>> something (or, more likely some things, at least for a  while) different, 
>> the simple fact of the matter is that, even after  all these decades, all 
>> the problems, and all the flirtations with  other manufacturers, the 
>> "Steinway sound" (however one chooses to  understand that) is still the 
>> sound of choice for the vast majority  of active performers.  Are there 
>> other manufacturers making  competent performance instruments?  Of course 
>> there are; and there  have been for a very long time.  Do artists choose 
>> to play other  instruments?  C'mon...verifiable history is replete with 
>> custom  built pianos, concert tours, jazz festivals, etc, etc, etc, in 
>> which artists do choose to play the pianos of other makers.   However, 
>> even after all the fights/disagreements/etc that pianists  ranging from 
>> Schnabel to Katchen to Bolet (the list does go  on...I've only noted 
>> people whose interest has passed, as it were)  have had with the company, 
>> the fact remains that most of  them...even those noted...played most of 
>> their concerts and made  most of their recordings on Steinway pianos. 
>> The change, as it  comes, will, I suspect, be driven at least as much by 
>> people's  conception of tone as they hear it reproduced through their 
>> ear- buds while they listen to mp3/mp4/etc recordings from their iPods/ 
>> Pads as by any other change that might occur.
>>
>> The point here is that, however one chooses to describe it (and, it  is, 
>> after all, a chimera...unique to each hearer), the Steinway  sound is the 
>> sound which is expected by pianists when they sit down  at a Steinway. 
>> Something which varies too dramatically from  this...and understandings 
>> of that will vary, too...should probably  have the Steinway name and 
>> logos removed before delivery.
>>
>> In any event, I very much like Brent's concept of complimenting  whatever 
>> design might exist "without alienating the core tonal  expectations..."; 
>> and working in smaller venues while new designs  are tested more 
>> thoroughly to see what does and does not stand up  to performance needs 
>> and expectations.  That is a very wide field  of tone and response to 
>> explore, with tremendous room for  variation; and, as Brent notes, no 
>> one's career or reputation winds  up on the line.
>>
>> Developing things along these kinds of lines sounds to me like  everyone 
>> wins...and that qualifies as a Very Good Thing.
>>
>> Best.
>>
>> Horace
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 09:35 PM 2/27/2011, Brent Fischer wrote:
>>> Dale, so I hit send before finishing, but I think it's time to move
>>> towards a progressive center of these discussions, about where
>>> redesign fits into the institutional setting without compromising
>>> certain Steinway tonal standards. I can't imagine any dialog  between
>>> a tech and rebuilder/re-designer that doesn't include " I will re- 
>>> design
>>> this because my science is better than their experience."  In the
>>> context of support I think the attitude should bend towards
>>> how can my design work compliment the factory without alienating
>>> the core tonal expectations that will exist on stage for the
>>> foreseeable future.  That's the model of collaboration I believe is
>>> a workable venue that will also in the end not jeopardize anyone's
>>> job, either employed tech or rebuilder trying to promote a quality 
>>> project.
>>>
>>>      What working towards the center for mutual gain means to me
>>> would be for example,  introducing a re-designed Steinway into
>>> a smaller recital setting, perhaps meant for more ensemble work that
>>> would promote clarity and projection with a palette of color not
>>> usually heard in the larger hall needing an edge. That's the
>>> disconnect I am talking about here that I have yet to read over
>>> the past weeks including the premise that your redesign should
>>> be within some tolerance of the norm without the ego that says  "this is
>>> the best I've ever heard." Ya, I would say there's some bias when
>>> it sounds like a few are linked into " A Legend in my own Mind.com."
>>> How about joining forces with tradition to improve clarity,  sustain, 
>>> and
>>> power without taking credit for re-inventing the wheel, just  improving 
>>> on it?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>> --- On Sun, 2/27/11, Dale Erwin <erwinspiano at aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Dale Erwin <erwinspiano at aol.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [CAUT] beginning luck
>>> To: caut at ptg.org
>>> Date: Sunday, February 27, 2011, 9:02 PM
>>>
>>>   Hey Brent
>>>  Disconnect? What disconnect?
>>>  I guess I missed that one . So, (this designer/re-designer of a 
>>> variety of types of board structures),..... was too busy working  at the 
>>> college.
>>>  Am I pickin up some continuous undercurrent of bias.?
>>>
>>> Dale S. Erwin
>>> www.Erwinspiano.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Brent Fischer <brent.fischer at yahoo.com>
>>> To: caut at ptg.org
>>> Sent: Sun, Feb 27, 2011 7:26 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [CAUT] beginning luck
>>>
>>> Hey Fred,
>>>
>>>    It's ironic to me that the same disconnect between "re- designers" 
>>> and
>>> institutions parallels in much the same way as the Steinway lack of
>>> technical follow up after an "All-Steinway" school has paid a million
>>> for the designation
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Sun, 2/27/11, Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu>
>>> Subject: Re: [CAUT] beginning luck
>>> To: caut at ptg.org
>>> Date: Sunday, February 27, 2011, 2:20 PM
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Brent Fischer wrote:
>>>
>>> >  secondly get to Steinway
>>> > factory sessions often and mostly get to their C&A training in
>>> the basement
>>> > and come away with their endorsement of your work, and leave your
>>> > electronic tuning aid at home when you go.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Brent,
>>>     I think the C & A training (if you mean the final of the four 
>>> regular one-week sessions) has changed quite a bit since you went.  A 
>>> couple years ago when I went, there were four of us in the usual  room, 
>>> and the only real difference between it and the "tone  regulation" 
>>> session was that we had Bs and Ds instead of smaller  pianos. No work in 
>>> the basement. I was disappointed, as I had  heard there would only be 
>>> two students, and there would be some  work with the C & A guys, maybe 
>>> in the basement. Of course, since  then Kent Webb has taken over the 
>>> "Academy" so it might have  changed again.
>>>     No need to leave the ETD behind, in fact better not to, as  tuning 
>>> was done by all four simultaneously, with only flimsy doors  dividing 
>>> us. Oh, and "their endorsement of your work" is at best  informal. It is 
>>> made clear that you are not certified by Steinway,  though I did 
>>> actually get a certificate for the last session. But  it said something 
>>> like "attended the concert prep session," not  even weak wording like 
>>> "completed." Obviously you can let people  know you did the training, 
>>> but you are not supposed to imply  anything beyond that. The world 
>>> changes.
>>> Regards,
>>> Fred Sturm
>>> University of New Mexico
>>> fssturm at unm.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>