Any classical concert artist can take a melodic line of Chopin or Rachmaninov and drip dry it on the Steinway lyric treble. When there's no melodic line to speak of in a piece of Rachmninov lit, concert artists of the Russian school: Kissin, Kobrin, Gabrilov, Lubyantsev, etc, can whip up a frenzy on a Steinway or any other concert grand in a mad dash to get to the finish line first.

But how does a Steinway concert grand acquit iself when a pianist trained both in Moscow and by Alicia de Larrocha and possessing a gifted left hand slackens the tempo of a Rachminov Etuce Tableau and lightens up on the pedaling to achieve fundamental clarity not automatically associated with Steinway?

Judge for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUdHB-nDa5Y

William,

What do you want us to say?

First of all thank you for sharing: magnificent; after having watched and listened to some of her other video recordings I saved her YouTube Channel with my favorites.

The answer to your question will presumably be the combination of quite a few factors:

* As I noticed from watching a video track on her personal website - "the making of" she apparently knows what a piano as an instrument is and knows how to interact with her piano technician.

* There is no doubt she is a prodigee and as such she is capable of doing things most of us amateurs and even professional pianists can't.

* As she studied with Alicia de Larrocha she must have leraned a lot about bringing clarity on a piano as this is a prerequisite in one wants to excel in playing Mozart like de Larrocha.

* Honestly it would not have crossed my mind of qualifying a Steinway Hamburg (think this is a Hamburg used for the recording) as being not capable of achieving fundamental clarity, certainly not when voiced properly.

* And perhaps we all automatically focus too much on the piano. A bit like Norbert concluded in his thread about geussing on what piano Glenn Gould recorded the Emperor (thread entitled 'Which piano ...expect surprise ...':


This is unfortunately as far as I get.

schwammerl.

Gee! Only one taker!!? No reactions at all?






Certainly not that listening to it reminded you of Norbert. That caught me off guard.

Offhand, Turandot, it seems like the sort of grandiose, self-involved, and narcissistic topic that belongs over on the pianist corner.(C'mon, man!) Hope that helps.

Mike

William, you are not REALLY asserting a lack of fundamental clarity of Steinway I hope. I think that Argerich has recorded enough Bach on Steinways that it ought to be pretty darned obvious that if any clarity is lacking it is owed to the performer and not to any Steinway that I have heard or played, assuming good voicing and regulation. From what I can see Casale is doing what the piece requires. Just because Kissin and others get carried away and mash the right pedal is no reflection on the instrument. There is not much subtle these days with Kissin. My own opinion would be that he left the nursery early. His musicianship is not at all keeping up with his prodigious technique, and that's really a sad thing.There are many of this generation that apparently left the nursery early.


Horowitz certainly never had any clarity issues with Steinway, otherwise he might have opted early on to use something else. This is why most decent teachers will not allow for only implementing legato with pedal and rather tend to promote a finger legato. Casale achieves this to good effect in the Rach. Etude. A good example of this sort of playing might be Horowitz playing the Barber Sonata. The Steinway is crystal clear as it should be.It is virtually neo-classical in its clarity especially in the fugal section and certainly in the finale as well. Look to his performance of the Rach 3rd concerto with Mehta especially in the last mvt. Through the "come prima" beginning on p.64 through the bottom of p65 (sections 56,57 and 58), you have a boatload of notes per square inch playing at warp factor 6. It is clean and clear and projected fabulously. This video is at times available from China. It's a must have and beautiful in so many ways that it borders on a religious experience. I guarantee you will cry through the subtleties, it's that good. It bears no relation to the Ormandy pairing done previously.

Anyhow, my point was that there is no lack of clarity when you have a good/great musician playing. I'll go so far as to say that there's no better piano!

JP,

I think it's better for me to not say exactly what I think, but I will say that I agree with you that the lack of clarity is with performers and not with the instruments provided by Steinway.

There was a recent thread here about the European and the American sound. I was going to throw a few recorded samples of Steinways into a post, both the NY and the Hamburg varieties, to make the point that either species can give you all that you need and exactly what you want. As the thread developed I lost interest.

Of those samples, Casale's Etude Tableau was my personal favorite, so I put it up here now just to read the reaction of others to the qualities exhibited by the instrument. I don't know if, as you say, Casale is just doing what is required to interpret the music correctly (although that in itself is an accomplishment these days).

What Schwammerl posted makes some sense to me. The artist understands the music and understands her instrument. The technician has to be considered as well, and I would add that in these times, the recording engineer cannot be overlooked. I don't know the percentages, but when I hear the Steinway sound at its best both in recorded samples and live performances, I'm left with the question -- what else could a concert artist who actually interprets music ask for?

In this forum there are many fans of what you might call Steinway alternatives, so maybe they can help me out with that question.

William,

I would personally not be afraid of recording on a new Yamaha CFX concert grand as an alternative to a Steinway.

I heared an extremely well prepped CFX the other day and it may not be exactly the same as a Steinway but the piano could well claim it's own qualities.

A statement you presumably do not expect coming from me?!

schwammerl.

I find the criticisms of Kissin, Kobrin, Gavrilov, etc. by some in this thread quite silly especially since the criticisms are not stated as personal opinion but more as fact. I have heard Kissin play close to ten times and have heard Kobrin play twice. I think they are are both phenomenal pianists particularly in the Russian and Romantic literature.

That's a god point. Let me clarify. All these gentlemen are entitled to their interpretations of the music they play, and they are all phenomenal technical pianists in my opinion.

When it comes to evaluating a piano's ability to bring order and make sense of very difficult material, interpretations that emphasize breakneck speed, liberal pedaling, and sheer technical virtuosity don't do much to serve the evaluation. I have a personal frustration with the emphasis on sheer technical virtuosity and fast tempo, especially in how it has taken hold in the youngest generation of classical pianists whether they are American, Asian, or European, but that is personal frustration and really irrelevant to the point. Performers are not on stage to demonstrate the virtues and versatility of a Steinway piano or to satisfy me personally, so I certainly don't hold that against them.

My point was simply to share a sample which, in my opinion, demonstrates the capabilities of a Steinway grand in bringing order and tonal clarity to the musical message of very dense and difficult material (if and when the artist is in tune with that idea). It's only my opinion, but I find that ability remarkable, just as I personally found the capabilities of Keith Kerman's Steingraeber grand and the Ravenscroft grand remarkable. Though they are quite different, all of those three in my opinion share that special ability and defy the conventional categorizations of American sound / European sound.

Happy New Year Turandot.
Thank you for starting a good topic. (refreshing).
After listening to this particular performance you brought to our attention; in my opinion there are three factors contributing to the sound or quality in the tone.

(Disregard the order)
1) The recording has no ambience sound and all reverb has been filtered.
2) The piano on its own offers a significant part of the clarity we heard.
3) The pianist control as she squares evenly all chords and separate them from each other as if they were single notes with no use of damper pedal.

I’m speculating here but this performance seems a struggle and the stress of the pianist is past to me while watching and listening(between 2:09 and 2:20)(2:35 and 2:45)(2:54 and 3:01). In my opinion there is a lot of production to this video and quite an effort from the pianist, without diminishing her great virtuosity not my favorite.

Here is a clip of Kissin on the same piece, which in my opinion is a much more pleasant performance of the piece where I feel the pianist literally own the piece.


Kissin (Rachmaninoff)

Here is a younger Kissin having the strugle and stress I mentioned earlier, where he can perform the piece but does not own it yet.


Younger Kissing (Rachmaninoff)

What Margaret Wacyk says:



A quote from Heinrich Neuhaus:



So, William

I share your opinion; that makes at least already two.

schwammerl.

A far better way to evaluate a piano's clarity is to listen to a piece(much of Bach, Mozart, Hadyn, Beethoven) where the standard/ best interpretations require clarity. The piece in the OP does not fit this description.

I find descriptions of pianists like Kissin and Kobrin as merely great technicians quite silly.

Luc,

Thank for the quotes. Doesn't that make a minimum of three?

Kurtmen,

Thank you for the comments and samples, and the best to you personally and professionally in the New Year!

I don't feel that Cristina Casale struggles with her material. Her performance repertoire is small and she performs sparingly. Generally artists do not choose material with which they struggle to communicate to an audience. I believe her performance follows her interpretation. But that's not the point of my post.

I listened to both Kissin's. I had heard them before. They are different and I'd agree the mature Kissin shows a more secure grasp, but I don't personally care for either. However, an evaluation of Kissin is also not the point of my thread. I feel that he, like many pianists of the Russian school, and many young pianists today, simply tries to overwhelm a piece like that Etude instead of interpreting it. Of course, that's not my point either. That's simply my opinion.

Like you, I am very interested in the quality of recording. I believe at the present time the cost of attending live performances -- be it opera, solo piano, ensemble, or orchestra -- has become prohibitive for many. There is also a huge cultural shift toward what we could call at-home entertainment and away from attendance at a live event. This shift goes well beyond music and has serious consequences for the future of course. In the world of music it makes the recording engineer extremely important. To me, it even filters down to the sale of musical instruments. I don't know if Carnes uses recorded samples on its web site, but I would suppose it does not, unless the samples are judged to be of good enough quality to help sell the product.

In the Kissin performances the sound quality was not good. The young Kissin sample was just plain bad. So whether you like his performance or not, it is impossible to evaluate tone, not just because of the speed, heavy pedalling, and dense texture of the material, but because of recording quality that is substandard by today's standards.

Plover,

As I wrote, it was not my intent to belittle Kissin. I will remind you that the nursery comment was not made by me. IF the worst criticism that Kissin gets it that he is a phenomenal technical pianist, he's in good shape from a critical perspective. Again, he and the other Russians mentioned are of no importance to the thread topic.

Now, about your comment on how tone should be evaluated according to Plover, you miss the point. I am not interested in listening to the tone profile of different pianos. I am interested in hearing how a piano's ability to maintain good fundamental tone in all registers simultaneously holds up when the material is challenging because of its density and full use of dynamic range. I stated that in my opening post and stated it again to make it clear to you. If you can't get it, or think it's not worth considering, just state that once and be done with it. Belaboring your peeves here over and over again doesn't accomplish anything.

Or you do.

Or you can't get it or think my points aren't worth considering.

And, yes, using a piece played in way far different from normal as a way to evaluate a piano's tone makes little sense to me. Kind of like testing a tennis racket on the baseball diamond. And, yes, Kissin at age ten knew far more about playing the piano and making music than you ever will.

That may well be true, but it's no excuse for trying to derail a thread which merely attempts to point out the capabilities of Steinway concert grands to handle difficult material.

I've about had it with your buffoonery. I honestly have no idea why and how the mods put up with you. It's not my call, so I'll say nothing further in response to your posts in this thread in the hope that you will disappear.

The point of my comment was to show why your criticism of Kissin starting with the OP was ill chosen.

Plover,

You stated your thoughts quite well upon your entry into the topic. William has repeatedly stated that he is not criticizing the artists, only the abilities of the piano. Yet you continue to come back again and again and try to assert a moot point. Are we not all speaking English? Would another language be better? Perhaps pictures.... Lip reading...

I have no problem with people stating opinions. But you won't let it drop even after the person agrees with you. Now I expect you will come back with some sort of data asserting what percentage of your posts are disagreeing with others, or perhaps you'll point a finger at all the people you don't approve of. Don't bother. We've all heard this before. Let me help. Clean up your act if you want to reach 14,000 posts.

Serenity now! Serenity now!

fingers

Excelsior!!

I think Turandot gave us good topic and we got sidetrack with the playing style and the music instead of focusing on the piano. I personally appreciate this kind of post since makes the forum interesting and informative.
The quality of the recording actually is good to evaluate the tone.

I like Steinways in general. This particular piano on the video reminded me of a Hamburg C we had; as soon as I heard that piano was as if I heard the voice of somebody close to me.

The sound in the video is not in my opinion a typical Steinway sound. Here is a brief explanation in how that tonal quality can be achieved in a large Steinway:
The contact time of the hammer with the string is equal to the first reflection of the string from G4 up approximately depending on the size of the piano. The heavier the hammer the longest stays in contact with the string diminishing some of the output (I referred to volume and harmonic content) of the piano; on the other hand if a hammer is too light the sound will be too thin. Therefore there is always some compromise made in order to find balance in the tone.

What I'm guessing was done to that Steinway is some felt was shaved off making a narrower hammer profile. What happened is that it brings up the output of the piano, but also Steinway's D/L (Hammer contact distance within the speaking length) usually is further-in therefore a fatter tone is achieved. Based on these factors this type of prep works achieves a Steinway with a more focused or defined sound yet not to thin and percussive, but definetely in the bright type sound category.
Besides the pianist technical ability; I think the piano is playing a role in creating such dry transparent sound.


In regard to my comments about the pianist forget about it... I'm a Kissin fan

Kurtmen,

Thanks. No more from me about Casale. She's picked up a couple of hundred views on youtube, and Schwammerl has her bookmarked as a fave, so all that's been taken care of.

You're in italics here.

The sound in the video is not in my opinion a typical Steinway sound........[It is]a Steinway with a more focused or defined sound yet not to thin and percussive, but definetely in the bright type sound category.

Yes, I agree. This is why in the opening post I mentioned a fundamental clarity no automatically associated with Steinway.

I think the piano is playing a role in creating such dry transparent sound.


This is what I was not sure of. Had the sound resulted merely from post-prcessing, then of course it would not be the piano as much as the recording process. There was also a minimum of right pedaling and legato playing. You don't get this on most samples of dense material with a wide dynamic range.

What I'm guessing was done to that Steinway is some felt was shaved off making a narrower hammer profile. What happened is that it brings up the output of the piano, but also Steinway's D/L (Hammer contact distance within the speaking length) usually is further-in therefore a fatter tone is achieved.

Here I'm a little lost. In changing the profile I'm assuming a minimal loss of hammer weight, not enough to alter the action feel. Correct? Just a matter of reshaping the strike point?

I was thinking along the lines of voicing, but not shaving. I thought maybe what was involved was a little hardening of cold-pressed hammers to achieve just enough of a percussive attack for clarity without the penetrating brilliance one hears on many recent=production European grands. But I'm a layman, and happy to wear the dunce cap on these things. I was just speculating inside my head..
_________

What appealed to me personally in this clip was how a singing tone was available in all registers, even the bass could shape a melody. I especially liked the way the high tenor could sing out an interior melodic line. Now some of that could have been the artist, but I guess I promised to leave her out of it.

Also, I got a sense the thing was evenly voiced. The bass wasn't overbearing. The treble wasn't shrieky. There was an evenness that some people might find too flat, but it appealed to me. Finally, I thought the tone transitions from one register to the next were seamless. IOW, I dig this piano in a big way and I want it now!! !

Thanks again, Kurtmen. Let's see if anyone else has a reaction, or if I'm just an outlier.

William,

Thanks for the intro to Cristina Casale. Nice - I could sit and look at her listen to her all day!

I'd agree with Schwammerl and JP on the fact that Steinway's feet are firmly in the 'fundamental' camp. So are mine.

The excellent prepping (of a piano make and model best suited to this music), the recording and the careful post recording work that may have inspired your post confirms your later comment that an artist who interprets music can't expect much more from a piano than the one in the video.

Hearing it for the first time, I thought, probably like you and Kurtmen, the piano had been prep'd slightly brighter and clearer than normal for the music Cristina had selected. (Although I doubt additional hammer shaping would be required as the Hamburg hammer profile is pretty diamond shaped to suit the piano's fundamental character anyway).

You've probably already seen them but for those who haven't, I took a look at a couple of her other videos which appear to have been done at the same session. Both demonstrate that the tech's toning skills (and maybe because it's a great piano) haven't compromised the ability to still produce a considerable tone change when played softly. (G min and G maj preludes)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOb4ZM_7E...lf=mfu_in_order

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf4yaBUbP...lf=mfu_in_order

I too LOVE this piano. I wish we could know more about the tech. And thanks for introducing me to Casale, William.

Steinway piano..with pedal..excellent..without pedal, dry/thin..
hard to believe its such a marked difference..it begs for pedal use
all the time..and I doubt if its miking problems..

Piano techs rarely get a mention in any credits whilst on Cristina's 7 videos, credits show producer, director, editor, script(?) cameras, recording co., etc. but no mention about the tech.

I bet Schwammerl has the info....

For what it's worth and as far as I found out:

Jorquera Pianos, Barcelona:

Jorquera Pianos

Carles & Isàs Horvath:

Carles Horvath

schwammerl.

Chris,

Thanks for the response. To show my gratitude, I'll disagree with you (slightly) in the underlined portions.

1.)IMO, the Casale piano as prepped has a much broader application than a particular artist, particular brand and model preference, and particular repertoire. In fact, I can't think of anything it wouldn't work for, though that certainly doesn't mean it would be everyone's preference.

2.) Although the piano's voicing may be brighter than the usual choice for dark Rachmaninov, to my ears it's not as bright as the usual Hamburg Steinway sound these days which (again, personal opinion here) is more brilliant than a generation ago.

I had heard all of Cristina's recorded links previously, but thanks for posting them. To get you past the eye candy aspect , here's another clip from a different artist ('artist' term not used loosely).

This is the Steinway used for all contestants and all repertoire at the Artur Rubinstein Piano Master Competition in Tel Aviv last year. Like the Casale samples, the recorded sound is fairly dry. Required repertoire at the three different stages included solo romantic, solo classical, chamber music, and in stage 2 and 3, piano concerti. No composer was mandated, so choices of marerial to be played on the same piano were many and diverse.

I suppose that this piano may have been voiced differently for the concerto phase of the compeition since piano with orchestra usually gets a different prep setup. But I doubt much was done to the tonal character of the piano up to that point other than touch up. The logistics of tailoring the piano to each competitor's preferences for each piece of lit would have been overwhelming.

I've listened to all that's available from that competition in clips on the Net, IMO this piano in everyone's hands is more typical of the current brilliance of Hamburg Steinway concert grands, whereas the Casale piano is less bright and has more depth of tone. Words to describe tone are difficult at best, but for me the Casale piano tone is more robust and earthy.

I'm using Daniil Trifornov's Prokofiev Sonata in the link to the Rubinstein competition piano because he pedals sparingly and the piece travels up, down, and all around in exploring the piano's different registers. I like the piano. I'd be crazy not to, and it seemed to work for all competitors in cases where their performances are available on the Net. My point is just that IMO its tone goes more toward brilliance and less toward depth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NG9V8KJsB4

I'll include Trifornov's Mephisto Waltz (Liszt) as well. I don't think that performance lays bare the Steinway tone as well as his Prokofiev performance, but the Mephisto is becoming a signature piece for him as he devours the competition scene and swoops onto the concert circuit. I think he's all of 20 years old at this point!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5FDtRiN6fY

William, I'm relieved to see you underlined less than 50%. Keeping it on a musical note, as long as we can maintain a pleasant 'tone' between the two of us and any differences in opinion are partial rather than fundamental, then I'm happy to continue.

I am puzzled that you consider recent Hamburg Ds to be brighter than 15- 20 years ago. If anything, the recent ones I've played and heard live are no brighter, some a little softer, than in the 80s and 90s. They may be clearer, as your opener suggests, but not brighter. I think a reason for this is that modern recordings and home hifi are now so sophisticated that any tone imperfections are laid wide open for the armchair listener. Hamburg hammers have changed over the last 15-20 years, they started using a smaller hammer (more to improve repetition, rather than tone) so much so that when replacing a set of worn old ones you could end up with hammers smaller than you were taking off. They are now back to a similar size as those used 20 years ago without compromising repetition. At the end of the day, as the factory selection room will tone each piano to its own merits and with the concert tech determining the optimum sound for the hall/ artist/repertoire it's difficult to categorically say whether Hamburg Ds are brighter than they were or not.

Thanks for the two links. Disappointed there's no more eye candy though! I agree the piano (for me) is far too bright and thin, although the bass has some remarkable penetration, the top two octaves dull and wooden. Looking for an example of how the piano would sound when playing something softer, I came across a clip of him playing Chopin's A flat study 25 - no depth at all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLZ4WJiDldU

The encore version by Lang Lang milking the same piece shows just how much tone difference you can get from a model D (a very showy interpretation but perhaps by accident rather than design you hear the full spectrum from incredibly soft to overpoweringly bright).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLuBTloY9jM&feature=related

There is no doubt each Steinway D is different even if "the selection room will tone each paino to its own merrits" and even "with the concert tech determing the optimum sound".

With the last two examples of the Chopin Etude No 1, op 25 given by Chris it is also clear that the role of the pianist in the tone production of the Steinway is at least as important as the other two factors.

In the first example from the A. Rubinstein competition where the Steinway souds dull the young pianist is still unable to set down a mature performance of this etude.

In the second example by Lang Lang we have an equally disappointing performance but this time for other reasons. If one does not understand the composer's intention when creating a piece of music this is the result: 'Einheitswurst' playing Chopin like von Beethoven with a D sounding either soft or overpoweringly bright with nothing in between.

There are ways though of having both, a reprodution of the composer's intention combined with a deep soundind Steinway.
Below is an example by Rachman El Bacha on Steinway D:

Rachman El Bacha - Chopin Etudes, No 1 , op 25

We know that a high quality piano responds very well to toning and regulation and many say the Steinway D is the most versatile concert grand on the market. Many times we read the complaint here that because of the domination by Steinway of the piano concert stage there has now become a lack of diversity of sound character in the concert halls (I subscribed a few times myself to that statement, bigging for concert grands of more different makes on stage).

However after only having listened to the many sound samples of a Steinway D in this thread alone with the D sounding so differently each time, ranging from bad and shrill to exquisite, depending on the factory output, the tech competencies and the pianist skills, this could leave us with the conclusion there is no such thing as a typical Steinway D sound, there is more than enough versitality on the concert stage than we can handle and that there is no reason to be bored when the piano choice is a Steinway.

schwammerl.

Chris,

Any exchange with you will be amiable. I don't think I'm the only one here who is always anxious to read what you have to say.

Thanks for the youtube swap. I gave you the eye candy. You gave me back the visual feast that is Lang Lang. Fair enough.

To be candid, samples of that particular Chopin Etude don't work for me. I started the thread wishing to point out an example of how the Steinway tone at its best can handle clarity in dense busy material with interior melodic lines, minimal right pedaling, full use of dynamic range, and full use of every range of the 88 keys. That Etude doesn't serve on any of those counts.

I'll be candid. If I listen to anyone capable of playing that Etude softly and deliberately with legato touch and maximum pedaling, I won't be able to detect much difference between a Steinway and a Sejing. Maybe you can draw conclusions from that Lang Lang clip, but I can't, other than that he appears to be in some sort of transcendental swoon.

Schwammerl

Thanks for the dealer/tech info about William's model D featured in his opener and also for your input - you're one of the best fountains of factual info on the forum! (along with William of course)

William

I always enjoy reading your stuff too. I appreciate the time you've spent on this topic. As a tech rather than a pianist, I always seem to end up assessing a piano's qualities more by its tonal range and dynamic range than by what you set out to demonstrate. That's just me. As you have just said " I started the thread wishing to point out an example of how the Steinway tone at its best can handle clarity in dense busy material with interior melodic lines, minimal right pedaling, full use of dynamic range, and full use of every range of the 88 keys." You ably demonstrated that and I've learned a little more about the whole business, thanks to you (and Luc).

Chris,

Thanks for your understanding on this. I think it's obvious now from everyone's responses here that this is a very difficult subject to keep on topic.

A good part of the difficulty is in sorting out all the components that go into a recorded performance and reckoning exactly who ( the tech, the maker, the artist or performer, the engineer, the composer) is responsible for what. With the sophistication of recording and playback equipment that you have cited and the worldwide trend toward at-home listening and away from attendance at live musical events, this particular issue is becoming more and more important.

It also seems to be particularly difficult to avoid winding up swapping samples of performances that one considers superior or disappointing whether it's Kissin, Kobrin, Lubyantsev, Trifornov, Lang Lang, or El Bacha. This brings in the subjective taste element. It's only natural.

Finally, I have to accept some responsibility here for either introducing a topic that is of minimal interest or introducing a topic of interest in a way that makes is uninteresting or confusing. Whichever that is, there are precedents.



As a musician, I always wind up looking at a performance, live or recorded, from the perspective of how clearly it illuminates what the composer put to paper: both the overriding intent and the details.

Imagine an exercise where you are given a blank sheet of notation paper and your task is to listen to unknown music and commit to notation everything you hear: the notes, the phrasing, and the dynamics. If the material is rhythmically complex, densely written, fast-moving, and goes against the more traditional harmonic structures, it's quite a challenge, one that can either be obscured by the instrument and performer or made a bit easier in certain cases. Some performer elements that make it more difficult IMO include heavy right pedaling, undue emphasis on personal virtuosity, playing on top of the keys instead of into them, and heavy reliance on loudness and booming bass resonance. Instrument elements that IMO don't help the cause are extreme voicing, overly long sustain, uneven tone across the registers, and pianos that don't punctuate the percussive attack in some manner or other. In that connection I recall Michael Spreeman's comment on the Ravenscroft thread that if you take away the attack from the sound, it's not only difficult to distinguish among pianos, but to distinguish among musical instruments in general.

There's also the very complex aspect of emotional response. Different music has different hooks for different people and some music is probably better simply enjoyed than analyzed. There's a local research group in La Jolla. CA, the Neurosciences Institute, exploring that aspect and I couldn't begin to state their findings with any clarity. I'm sure there are other researchers working on the same issue. I'm just more up to speed on this group's work.

Anyway, I think it's time for me to give this one up. The topic just doesn't seem to resonate and I'll take the blame for that. Thanks to you, Schwammerl, Kurtmen, and all who have responded to the question posed.

Not a significant loss of hammer weight but in theory and practice the less weight the less time the hammer stays in contact with the string or the faster the hammer detaches from the strings.
Therefore any increase or decrease of weight will affect the sound of the piano.

Agreed, Kurtmen.

For the number crunchers, 1gm of hammer felt (that's a lot though) makes a difference of about 5gms of touch weight.

Also, a lighter hammer, again, theoretically, creates less hammer shank bend, which, in theory, (of which there's too much) gives a better chance of the hammer striking the strings spot on. Having said all that, personally I like working with bigger hammers. No theory, that's just been my experience.

I'm surprised you got no reaction from fans of the other mainstream concert models - except one positive response from Luc (Schwammerl) on the new Yamaha CFX. Any Bechstein, Bosendorfer, Bluthner, Kawai, Sauter, Steingraeber, Yamaha fans out there?

Chris,

I think the reason for this is that within such an in depth thread of this one from William there is mereky room for disagreement on opinions and much less or no room at all to be right or wrong!

But if you want to get another go on trying to answer turnadot's original dilemma ...


... let's give it a try.

Others are struggling with the same dilemma as I found out on Pianostreet with a thread called "I don't like ^Bösendorfers"

Pianostreet - I don't like Bösendorfers

As you can see there is the camp that finds that fundamental clarity is mostly found in European painos and in Yamaha and that in the case of Bösendorfer the treble, although singing' would become a bit short in this department of clarity:



And then there is the camp that finds that although a Bösendorfer is indeed a totally different piano than a Steinway it does not fall short of anything and can indeed bring out that treble clarity.
Now I have to quote your son, Will, who was a poster here:

... and ...


I see myself in the 'second camp', especially when you read the words: "you need to work more"

Does this mean we are back to some of the comments that emphasize the role of of the pianist in all of this??

schwammerl.

Luc

Valentina Lisitsa's interview and demo at Namm on the Bose Imperial answers this and some other points better than I can. Bearing in mind it wasn't recorded in a studio or concert hall acoustic, the sound quality is pretty good. Now Luc, can you use your powers and find a good recording of Valentina on an Imperial playing the Rach Etude Tableau to compare with the opener, then we may have an answer for William.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYeuWWsRjms&feature=related

Before I provide my explanation about Bosendorfer keep in mind that ALL piano-designs are a compromise and therefore while you gained something in one end something else has been diminished at the other end.

To understand better Bosendorfer and their sound, it is important to know that soundboards are not designed simply to transmit energy; otherwise the decay of the tone will be too fast. Soundboards are built to reflect energy or specifically to radiate energy. Energy radiation is determined by the soundboard’s stiffness; mass distribution, ribs height and placement, grain direction, wood quality. The rim plays a supporting role in reflecting energy back to the soundboard which will radiate energy back to the strings.
Bosendorfers in order to create a pure sound needs to compromise in this area (energy reflection) and emphasize in (energy transmit ion) therefore the use of a less stiff soundboard and a spruce rim. This rim is often misunderstood as an extension of the soundboard. NO this rim consumes the energy allowing the piano to have less reverberation and clarity of sound instead of creating excessive reflections. There is also here why no need for duplex.

Valentina's Imperial has the front duplex which IMO is the holy grail in adding the extra projection, power, dynamic range that a concert grand, in particular, needs.

I intended to say rear duplex.

Unfortunately not Chris.

She recorded here Rachmaninoff Project on a Steinway Hamburg.

Below is the Tableau No.6:

Rachmaninoff Etude Op;39 Tableau no.6

But perhaps you can be happy with some liszt from here on the imperial?

Bösendorfer rocks

schwammerl.

Happy? I've just booked two tickets for the Royal Albert Hall. But I wonder what piano she'll be using for that one?

Maybe the Bose Rocks clip will rekindle William's interest.....

Thanks again Luc

I quote that for asking for clarification--are you saying less clarity? (Read it without the "reverberation and" and it reads that way.

I've always thought Bosendorfer had a much finer treble end than most, able to project, with a hint of sweetness to the projection that let it sparkle without the piercing quality I hear in NY or Hamburg Steinways. I'm curious to know if you actually mean essentially, less clarity. Otherwise, I don't hear so much less "reverb" than perhaps less higher-partial string resonance. Both have their own beauty.

Wow, Luc, I love that video clip.

But I thought Bosendorfer was only good for mozart and chamber music....

I haven't lost interest. I've gotten sidetracked studying Lang Lang's facial expressions.

Seriously, I am better off sorting out what people who know more than me have to say than struggling over and over again to phrase the question correctly.

I've mulled your question for a couple of days. I think I never considered any lack of clarity to be inherent in a Steinway. I've always thought it was Horowitz' fault, as de la Rocha proved. (Thanks for the pointer to Casale. I watched all her bits and liked them.)

Eric,

I'm not sure what clip you're referring to, but just to be clear. There are two Lisitsa versions of Rachminov's Little Red Riding Hood Etude on the Net. One is the one Luc posted.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ValentinaLisitsa#p/search/1/RFMNhx2-VDE



The other is an earlier one. Production values are low since it was recorded and edited completely by university students. The sound is not top-notch. However, it did become a youtube sensation and she has referred to it more than once as being of significance in helping her career.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVuP1BjbhAg

Borh performances are on Hamburg Steinways.

Actually William,

I found a third one of Op.32 no.6 recorded at 'the Bimhuis' Amsterdam in Nov. 2010.
It is again on a Steinway Hamburg (simply because this was the piano the studio was offering) and yet agin it is different from the other two:

Op.32 no6 at Bimhuis Amsterdam

During that same event at Bimhuis she also recorded Op.32 no.12 (same venue, same recordingcircumstances and same piano).
Here in the commnents one finds some critics on it: not the best Steinway or recording or acoustic environment or not on par with here recordings on the Bösendorfer.

Op.32 no. 12 at Bimhuis Amsterdam

At the Bimhuis she was also interviewed and talks about the very first recording of Little Red Riding (no.6), about how she became famous as a result of YouTube and (although she is a prodigee) how you have to work hard (she says she studies 12 - 14 hrs per day)
Again could it be you have to, as a pianist, work hard or work differently on each and every different piano if you want to get out of it what you intend to?

Interveiw at Bimhuis Amsterdam



I guess Eric was referring to the 'Bösendorfer rocks' clip?

schwammerl.

Sorry perhaps I didn't write properly my thoughts. I meant to say that the rim helps to have less reverb and energy reflection back to the soundboard and therefore to the strings. All these allows for more clarity.
A conventional rim made of hardwood reflects must of the energy back to the soundboard or deflect it as reverb.