Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum FAQ - Tuner-Technicians Forum Myth of the best piano

Hi,
<soapbox on> The piano search has been very interesting. One troubling aspect to me has been how pianos are often characterized as the "best", "worst" or what I really dislike the "finest", which reeks of elitism. Personally I don't know how these judgements can be made from a musical basis. From a construction/finish basis, I think this is fair. You can say one piano is better constructed or worse constructed, regarding materials and labor. But once you talk about them as musical instruments (the important thing after all) it becomes a subjective value judgment. One where a strength is as much as weakness, and vice versa.

For instance, I believe a strength of the Estonia tone is it's warm forgiving nature. But that obviously means it's weak in providing a penetrating, projecting tone. The M&H strength is it's penetrating tone (via the strong overtones), which conversly means it's weak as a relaxed melodic tone. Of course this doesn't mean the Estonia can't project and the M&H can't croon, these are rather subtle differences after all! But in the spectrum of piano's, each has it's own area staked out.

Now I don't think this means we can't objectively compare pianos, I think we can, in terms of strengths and weaknesses. But talking in terms of better/worse/finest/terrible/good/bad doesn't get anywhere. Especially using piano lineage and name as an indication of anything bothers me, as very few if any modern manufactures have actually been held in continous ownership. If that matters, better to buy a car or furniture with the name, then a piano. <soapbox off>

Rant for today finished

Dan

I think I agree with the principle you're thinking through.

But to be fair, there are a few piano factories still owned by the original families, and they are among the finest, and best built. These pianos with the right care, would also be considered by anyone I've ever talked to to be among the finest and best performing.

Finest may sound elitist, but some of these pianos are elite. Some of these pianos are in a completely different class.

I know this because I work on them every day

Ah ha! I smell snobbery Just to pick on you, I also don't buy "I know this is the finest/different class/... because of XYZ." OK, so? Hey, I've soloed in Vienna and across Europe with radio broadcasts, does that mean I get to bless pianos too? I don't buy it. The "finest" piano for the concert stage may be the SS/Bosendorfer 9 footer, does that make it the "finest" piano for the musician practicing at home? I wouldn't want the damn thing in my living room, thank you very much!
With all respect, and in my own small opinion and estimation, but I disagree. I believe each piano has its niche, and I don't buy that one of them stands out as THE piano.
Dan

I agree with you completely Dan, as I mentioned

I don't think one is the best for everyone.

But I DO think that there exist pianos that are better than other pianos.

I think you could setup a test between different pianos, and show that "subjectively" people would choose one 10 times out of 10 over the other. And if they didn't, I'm sure you could show that they didn't know what they were listening to anyway! (just a joke) :p

But seriously, I think some pianos are better than others. Yes some are stronger, and weaker as you say. But fundamentally not all pianos produce "good" tone, or "even" tone, and can therefore be objectively ranked. Some of these pianos don't perform evenly, or have well designed scales/actions, etc., etc.
Surely you can make the argument that "so what if someone likes an uneven action... that's what they like, and it's all about their preferences.." or some other subjective argument, but I don't buy it.
I think there are a few absolutes left in this universe, even if nobody else sees them.
And I think some pianos can be ranked as better than others.
I am refraining from specific examples for obvious reasons, but I am thinking of real brands that are "better" in every way than other real brands. Surely people like both...
and surely people have the right to.

that doesn't mean that one piano can't be better than another though

DanM, I agree with you with regards to the (ab)use of such terms as "better/worse/finest" etc. on pianos. When I see a statement saying this piano is "better" than that, I always want to ask "better for what" ?

IMO, a piano, as with most things and activities costing more than its productive economic utility, is inherently "elitist," or at least "luxurious." I have no problem accepting piano as a snobish/elitist/luxurious item.

Preaching to the choir of course, but among those 'finest' pianos, they often get ranked by virtue of their use - and this is something that many pianists would agree about. Brahms may not sound optimal on a Yamaha or M&H BB because they might not have sufficient 'fullness' of tone, whereas jazz may be more effective on brighter-toned instruments.

And don't forget that voicing is critical. I know a technician who works in a concert hall and has to customize the voicing - for finicky artists - to match the pieces they will be performing that night. In one case, he told me, the performer wanted some touch-up during the intermission, because the 2nd half of the concert was a different style of music

You know, I don't think this is at all unreasonble, though a pianist could probably drive himself crazy if it became an obsessive thing.

Think of the tonal variation available to other instrumentalists: string players can bow toward or well away from the bridge, and angle the bow at will; good brass players, and to some degree woodwind players, too, can effect large variations in tone with their embouchures or resort to a variety of different style and keyed instruments and mouthpieces / reeds (and it is reasonable for a professionial to own and carry around several varieties of their main instrument). And singers...well, let't not even go there.

I think serious pianists have a right to be a bit fussy, given what they have to put up with. I recall many moons ago ferrying Grant Johannesen to a concert where he was to play a simple little piece called the Brahms Bb Concerto. Did he want want to at least stop and loosen up on a similiar grand at our store before going on stage with one he'd never played before? Nah, just getting his hands warmed up in the dressing room was good enough. (He played magnificently.) SOP for pianists...

Of course what pianists accomplish in dealing with variations of instruments (which is considerable) is easy compared to what organists go through with all the differnet tonal characteristics and set ups for stops and the like that vary so very widely.

As for each piano being different, they indeed are. Sometimes I envy a friend of mine who plays the guitar. He has about 7 or 8 fine classical guitars each of which has a different tonal characteristic. Oh that we pianists could keep (and afford!) a similar supply of pianos in, say, the closet to be pulled out to play--yes, this one for Brahms, Bach sounds much better on that one, or I am in the mood for the sound of that one....

Best,

Steve O.

Here's how I explain it (and it fits what's been said exactly). There are 5 areas of quality one has to judge. Three are objective: design, materials, and workmanship. Two are subjective: Touch and tone.

The three objective areas of design, materials, and workmanship are not open to much debate. Either they are or they are not of a certain quality, and they can therefore be placed in some sort of ranking. Touch and tone however, cannot, and the only person who's opinion means a thing is the person who will be playing the piano. If someone thinks a 4'7" Chinese coffee table is the best sounding and playing piano they've ever played, they have a right to that opinion.

But - before they write the check, they should weigh the objective areas into the equation heavily, because they will determine how long the piano will be around playing the way it did when they first bought it.

That's where another little fact comes into play.... It's not hard to build a piano that plays and sounds good when it is new. The hard part is building one that will still play and sound good 10 years from now - and *that*'s where those objective issues of design, materials, and workmanship prove their worth.

Pianos can be like men/women on a date.

After the initial good looks make you expect the world...you soon find out that not all that meets the eye .....will really hold true.

Perfect piano?

Definitely!

That's why I love my simple 49" Sauter upright at home,even after getting back from work where I happen to have two 9' concert grands on stage.

My home buddy piano a simple looking piano.

But exceeding my expectations the moment I sit down on it.

Each and every time!

norbert

This is a very interesting analysis. At first reading I thought it was 100% logical. But couldn't one argue that a particular design (to take your first objective area) would, I assume, be considered superior to another because the sound produced was "better" and therefore your objective and non-objective areas overlap?

Design is not just design.

When the best makers of this world 'design' they usually have a specific outcome in mind closely tight to enhanced performance at that high level.

A good example of this is the new Mason Hamlin AA

Others may 'design' and almost have the opposite in mind. Using even cheaper materials than previous models already had they B.S. temselves into the market pointing to one or two superficial details [aggraffes,etc] while making no significant changes or improvements to the overall piano.

First word in their mouth is usually - you guessed it -

......"DESIGN!!"

norbert :rolleyes:

Design, materials and workmanship -- objective? Surely you jest!

Piano design is a very subjective art. What type of sound do you want? Loud and linear? No problem, I can design a piano that can give you that. Or do you want it to be warm and melodic, with more of an emphasis on pianissimo? I can also design a piano that will give you that. In fact, I can design each of these tonal extremes so that they will fit into essentially the same rim shape and size. Now, which one will objectively be the best, undisputed design?

And materials. I happen to be of the school that likes hard maple (or some such) rims in grand pianos. Bosendorfer, however, would disagree. Which of us is right? For my purposes, I am. For their purposes, they are. Undisputed use of materials? I don’t think so.

Even workmanship is not all that clear cut. One company will do some task by the old, traditional ways of doing things, do it quite well, and swear it is the only way. Another may do the same task by machine or robot and also do it well and be quite certain machines are the only way to go. Yet a third may design the piano to eliminate the task altogether and still end up with a great piano. Again, undisputed? Surely not.

Fortunately while there may never be the “perfect” piano, there are many very good pianos and a few exceptional pianos. And, thankfully, they come in a variety of flavors. So which is really the best? I'll take Cranberry Crunch, thank you. You can have the Chocolate Swirl.

Del

Interesting.

I hear a couple things. I hear that one proposes that no one can say what piano is best, no matter what standard is used, another says yes we can based upon observables, and others contradict themselves by claiming there are no objective standards but still some pianos attain levels untouched by others....???

Now, I see modern relativism at work here surrounded by a number of skepticts... In the car world (which I know little of) we have many classes of cars, more or less accepted. In the "top" tier we have cars that for whatever objective reasons and standards, actually have reason to be in that top category... these could be some, and others exist no doubt :Ferarri, Lamborghini, Rolls Royce, Bentley..
Then there are others who are no doubt excellent, but different enough in design or materials that now personal perference lends to them a variable status : Lotus, Falcon, NSX, Viper, ....

I think pianos work similarly. We probably could agree on a grouping of the "best" pianos, based on observable, historical and tangeable standards of materials, crafstmanship and yes, even design. In doing so, we realise that certain pianos, devoid at this point of our emotional attachment, can respectively fall into the best category.

Note: because a piano is considered best, or better, does not suggest you must prefer it over a Nordiska; onl that with all due respect, it is the better piano!

Manitou - Pianist - Technician

Saying something is "better/worse" without qualifying "for what" or "why" is meaningless. The notion of "better/worse" has to be anchored in a purpose and measured against a set of criteria for it to be useful.

If you say "This piano is better because of X, Y, Z," I am cool with that. People can agree or disagree and make decisions based on how important they feel criteria X, Y, Z are to them. My problem is with unqualified blanket statements like "This piano is better, PERIOD." Then it's just an unjustified opinion that gives nobody any actionable information.

I have two pianos in the living room that sound and feel very different. That doesn't mean that one is better than another, although I may prefer one to the other.

Unless that pianist has 2 pianos, I bet those pieces aren't practiced with different voicings. It's stupid demands like that which are killing classical music.

What is your assesment of the strengths and weaknesses of the two pianos you have (S&S M&H)?

What do you think of the two pianos?

Dan

Del,

You noted that some perform a task with hand workmanship and some with robots, and both can achieve good results. I think the qualifier was that you said that they do it "well." Perhaps that is the objective part of workmanship, which someone like you can immediately identify. Was the workmanship done well?

In some areas I'll bet that good workmanship is only important in terms of cosmetics, rather than touch, tone, or longevity. For example, the finish on my Estonia (probably done by hand) has slight imperfections which I wouldn't expect to see on a Yamaha. On the other hand, there is a depth to the Estonia's glossy finish which makes it look less like plastic. If the same is true of unseen areas of the construction which affect longevity I'm in trouble, but I'm guessing not.

What would you expect to find in terms of workmanship which would indicate higher or lower quality? Where do you look first at a piano? The first thing my technician did was to grab the rim and then feel the plate, likely looking for heavy construction.

Auxtremus,

I hear what your saying.
When a person is trained and expeienced in a given field, they find meaning and perspective when thy describe a particular of their field as being the best, or not good. In pianos, there are those individuals who can begin to compare pianos and tentatively place them in a hierarchy.

The problem is the objective measuring source. Design, crafstmanship and materials are all diff and to some extent all workable. But because all are useful does not negate that some, work better. Again, to one trained in a particular field, smaller details in construction, design and materials are easier to make sense of. And yes, in theory once one has established that in the most objective measurables, a particular piano appears to rise above the others; it would only be natural to assume that all should be able to perceive this.

The problem with it being obvious is large: because of lack of training, I would not notice what a trained painter does while examining a Monet, or because I prefer Degas I might be blinded to areas I'm looking at. Next is availability. Bosendorfer or Steingraeber for example, are heard of, but for most, never seen played or heard. It becomes harder to convince one of their qualities when you are perfectly content assuming the Wellington in your basement is of the same quality and worth.
And finally, there is preference. This is rather huge and ambiguous for this area alone can easily mislead and pull astray any objectivity. Because I am a Grotrian fan, I may begin to blur edges and lines in my quality comparisons between it and Steingraeber for instance. I may superimpose my preference for Grotrian sound, dynamics, touch and look upon the design, materials and craftsmanship of another piano, unjustly.

That much of piano enjoyment is subjective is true, but it cannot negate a hierarchy within piano construction and quality. That I like my Yugo to death cannot change that it is nothing like a Rolls Royce. But you say, what makes the Rolls Royce any better? I challenge you, most people looking at the two would be able to draw conclusions even with little knowledge.. imagine now what trained auto mechnics and desigers could see ?

Manitou - Pianist - Technician

Design, materials and workmanship -- objective? Surely you jest!

Piano design is a very subjective art. What type of sound do you want? Loud and linear? No problem, I can design a piano that can give you that. Or do you want it to be warm and melodic, with more of an emphasis on pianissimo? I can also design a piano that will give you that. In fact, I can design each of these tonal extremes so that they will fit into essentially the same rim shape and size. Now, which one will objectively be the best, undisputed design?

Del [/QUOTE]

So, assuming I understand your post correctly, you seem to agree with my earlier thought that since sound and design are connected, design is not really completely objective.