Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum Bosendorfer Imperial concert grand -- 9 extra keys question

Some numbers are just famous: 88 piano keys, 12 tones, 50 states, 99 bottles of beer, 101 dalmatians, 40 days/nights/years . . . 😀

Maybe not that famous. There's a story about Horowitz that might even be true:

Horowitz, after having heard a young pianist in a concert, sent him a note congratulating him on his playing. The pianist wrote to thank him, saying he was thrilled to receive praise from such a great man, but he knew he could never create the same sort of excitement that Horowitz did when he was "at the 88". Horowitz said to his daughter:
   "What does he mean. Is that some club?"
His daughter explained that some people called the piano the 88 because that was the number of keys on the keyboard. Horowitz replied:
   "Really? I had never bothered to count them!".

My apologies to all about the long-windedness of this post, but the points raised demand a detailed and considered response.

I’m perplexed that you should make such a statement, since you undoubtedly have never seen nor (as a result) played one. There are in fact, only 5 such instruments currently in existence, 4 in private ownership and one at The Newcastle Art Gallery. This latter instrument was recently played in performance by Chris Jarrett, who was so impressed by it that he wants to do an Australian tour using Stuart pianos. The range has been successfully done from ~16Hz (C0) to ~5600Hz (F8) on both the 2.2 and 2.9m models, and it has been proven to be possible, using Stephen Paulello XM music wire, to reach ~8400Hz (C9).

The Imperial subcontra octave is highly loaded with audible harmonic presence largely to do with its very stiff soundboard. Stuart pianos have greater fundamental presence in all models, a point supported by recent PhD analysis of its sound spectrum by Kevin Hunt. The strongest partials emitted from the subcontra octave are usually the second and third octave above which is normal for most low frequency stretched strings anyway. The clarity of the sound is not attributed to the actual harmonics as such. Stuart pianos have similar harmonics to all other pianos - they just emphasise them differently. The coupling of the string has more to do with clarity of sound than the harmonic content. If the coupling is predictable, damping from counter phasing and other variables muddy the sound envelope. If the harmonic structure is kept stable then the non-linear nature of piano harmonics will be less variable and will produce a better aural sense of stability thus, clarity. Whilst it might appear as though C0 is the limit at that length, it is doable and providing the player is aware that very low frequencies are better played softly to induce the maximum fundamental in what is a sea of harmonics, this range is very effective at that length, and proves that the subcontra octave can be applied across a wide spectrum of piano sizes contrary to much popular thought on this matter. In the Stuart, even on the lowest notes, there is an almost total lack of low frequency masking which is the tendency of the lower frequencies to obscure or overpower the upper frequencies. This makes the very low notes much more useful than on any other piano.

Bosendorfer have been building pianos since 1828. Their pianos span the entire Romantic period notably the greatest period of composition and performance for the instrument. Also, many of the names you raise are Austrian who have been most loyal supporters of their country’s great achievements. Stuart, on the other hand, is a 21st century maker in a place and time where the acoustic piano is in decline from moribund, technological stagnation and now, radical change. The notion that the piano was perfected around 1900 is an anathema and totally incorrect. Evidence that it’s become a stagnant musical artefact drowning in standardisation is painfully obvious to any student of its craft.

Contributors to these fora have often raised the so called ‘Artist Monopoly’ fostered by Steinway and the disagreeable consequences of that heinous subjugation. Stuart is mindfully aware of this and does not pay or solicit musicians to play his instruments. Rather, he engages those who seek him out for all the right reasons.

It is important to note that Bosendorfer is a tiny handcrafted maker by world piano making standards. A brief observation of Bosendorfer’s production history will readily reveal a miniscule production by comparison to the mass production of Steinway, who, historically has been a substantial maker of up to 6,000 units per annum. However, in a modern context, they have slipped considerably in context to the gargantuan Asian manufacturers.

Bosendorfer has built a very small number of the Imperial grand model over the past 115 years. The total production in their 187 year history is less than 50,000 instruments - an average of around 270 pianos per annum. In reality, these numbers have been highly variable from only a handful of instruments per year to as many as 550 at their peak under the Kimball regime1966 to 2002. The building of Imperial grands during the Kimball period when there was maximum overall production, was only around 25 per annum. In the absence of direct access to the Bosendorfer archives, I cannot believe that more than 1,500 of these instruments have ever been built, indeed it is more likely to be under 1,000 units. By contrast, Steinway have the capacity to build over 150 D model grands per annum and there is no doubt that this number can be and is varied considerably to meet the global demand. This obvious numbers game is not something that Stuart, as a contemporary maker, can and does aspire to participate in. Stuart seeks to explore the possibilities - not to beat the statistics or to impress those who are thus motivated. Success is not measured by quantity, nor by the number of recordings. If that were the case, Rolls Royce would be amongst the least successful cars on the planet.

Recording in the modern era is as much about marketing as the piano itself. If I were to quote all the Steinway artists (that list (including Ohlsson, by the way) would dwarf yours) would that imply that the Imperial is inferior to the Steinway? The (obviously) small number of recordings of Stuart pianos have in the main been very well received. To be honest, recording any mainstream repertoire nowadays is pretty much a pointless exercise given the swamp of stuff that has been sloshing around for over a century (Oh my God, not another Revolutionary Study…). Stuart pianos have been around for a relatively short time and there are very few (less than 60) in existence. Stuart did not develop his pianos to record ‘old’ repertoire, but to encourage ‘new’.

Please be so kind as to point out where I have implied that the Imperial is a ‘bad’ piano, or not worth recording. My comments are in the context of adding the extra notes, and in that context the word ‘brave’ is valid. However, compared to the integrated designs of Pape, Erard and now Stuart, the Bosey is found wanting in that respect. Given that the extra notes can be covered, and also have their colours reversed to warn potential pianists of their danger only points out that Bosendorfer, like others, are really slaves to the 88 key paradigm. And that is a pity – their hearts were ruled by their pockets which is surely the basis of their complete retreat into the late 19th century 88 note brigade.

The Imperial was, to all intents and purposes, a straightforward extension of the Bosendorfer concert grand design using the same strings and scaling, i.e. including all of the advantages and disadvantages of that design. The extra notes were an afterthought on their standard design to accommodate pianists such as Busoni. The Stuart, on the other hand, was designed from the ground up to have the extra notes (both in the treble and the bass) and is a complete reworking and optimisation of the piano design. Even now, it is not the end. The 102 key instrument is the ultimate piano – until the next one comes along…

An in depth study of the piano’s ambitus will reveal a significant number of European makers in the latter half of the 19th century made grand and even upright pianos with more than 88 keys. It is thought that the standardisation to 88 keys was the result of the emerging American industry that eclipsed European technology and production. The American makers were totally committed to standardisation which is evidenced in the relative uniformity of US production methodologies. In effect, anyone versed in piano design can easily tell a US designed and manufactured piano. This was not the case in Europe. There was not only more diverse design experimentation but a concomitant artistic experimentation. After all, most of the main aesthetic movements were initiated there and adopted elsewhere. As far as I know, there has never been a mainstream US brand with more than 88 keys apart from the gigantic Rubenstein which is a one off and 100 years too late!

A pity for Stuart is that his work is tied to Australia, largely noted for sport, beer and kangaroos!

Regards
Chris

Your personal attack on me is not appreciated. It is banal, unwarranted and imbecilic. You quite clearly have not understood the subject of this thread nor my response to it. A pity.

Regards
Chris

I wasn't being comedic. Any attempt to escape the 88 note strangulation of piano design is brave in my book. Any perceived witticism, as you say, is simply a disappointment that they never put their full faith in it, but went back, in the main, to the status quo.

Regards
Chris

It is 'A' successful attempt. There is no 'lol' about it.

Please name them.

Once again, you have totally misinterpreted the context in which I said that. Please go back and reread what I said, carefully...

Regards
Chris

Listen here http://www.stuartandsons.com/demo-cd-ii.html (tracks 2-5-6) with a good earphones and we talk later...

I have only played once on this instrument. It is quite a beast, and no doubt, it has an enormous bass. But I did not use any of the nine extra bass keys ( I have no scores where these keys are utilized). But I thought about one thing. The nine extra bass strings could make a sigificant difference to enhance the bass response by means of sympathetic resonance. It would be interesting to test this by comparing the sound of low octaves with and without damper pedal.

I listened it on my HiFi system. With all due respect: it pales by a Bosendorfer imperial.

And an even more significant number (the vast majority in fact) made pianos with 85 keys. In classical and early romantic times, even less.
Except for Bösendorfer instruments, pianos with more than 88 keys are virtually unknown in Europe.

It depends on who the piano is for, but for private homes, I can think of plenty of things.
- Pianos that play like concert grand pianos but only take as much space as baby grands, or even upright pianos (digitals and hybrids are not quite there yet).
- Pianos with key tops that don't feel like buttered bread after playing on it on a summer day (Ivorite, IvoryTouch or other comparable stuff are not bad, and mostly better than acryl/phenol, but there's room for improvement).
- Acoustic pianos that don't go out of tune quickly (only acoustic pianos have resonating strings).

I believe that the innovations provided by makers like Yamaha, with digital pianos, silent systems, and transacoustic, are more useful for the everyday piano player than a piano with more than 88 keys.
But the fact that Yamaha bought Bösendorfer shows that Yamaha repects Bösendorfer.

It's not strangulation if there's no demand for more. Anybody can try to make a larger pianos and see how successful they are.
Bösendorfer is the most successful so far, and as you said, they are less common than 88-keyed pianos.

Have you heard of Alpha pianos?
http://ma8346.wix.com/mpianos-en
They made a hybrid piano with Bösendorfer action and 97 keys, but I don't know if it was ever more than vaporware.
They now seem to have a new model, the MPiano, and it has 88 keys. I wonder why this is. Not.

It was not a brave attempt.

It is a simple story of demand:
Ferrucio Busoni asked for a piano with more keys. Bosendorfer built it for him. More people wanted it. In the end it became so popular that it was the most sought after concert grand in the world.

How could you ever translate that to "A brave attempt". Are you trying to convince us that you don't have your facts straigth?

The Alpha piano isn't vapourware: I played one a week ago at the Musikmesse in Frankfurt. The one I played only had 88 keys, but it was an impressive instrument: Renner action complete with felt hammers hitting pressure sensors instead of strings and an extensively sampled Bösendorfer sound. I loved playing it, but it's way out of my price range. They don't have a mass production lineup: I think you could probably order one with as many keys as you desire (within reason!). I have no idea how many they have actually made and sold.

The MPiano is not a DP, it's a keyboard controller that can react to things like sliding a finger along a key.

I played one 4 years ago at the Musikmesse. It had 97 keys at the time, and the representative said to me, that they wanted to replicate the feel of the Bösendorfer Imperial. Which would mean that the Alpha would be a cheap alternative to the Bösendorfer Imperial, since it costs "only" 30.000 €, as opposed to a real Imperial for 136.000 €.

I'm not sure if there are many people willing to spend 30.000 for a hybrid.

Two years ago Alpha had not updated their website for a year, that's why I thought it might be vaporware.
But if they are still in business, then maybe there's more to it.

However, on their website, they are now comparing their Alpha to Bösendorfer 280, Steinway D and Yamaha CFX. All of these pianos have 88 keys. So I guess there really is not much demand for more keys.

I have to agree.

I actually have a CD of the S & S 2.2m (made by S & S for promotional purposes) to listen to, and compare with the Imperial (of which I have, of course, several CD recordings, as well as played on personally).

BTW, CJM, you contradict yourself in your long-winded post. Fazioli is a very young player in the top-tier grand piano stakes (only nine years older than S & S), yet within a few years, it had attracted a large following. And keeps on doing so.

Understand that people are taking issue not with your enthusiasm for the S & S (which I also share, BTW - and I wish that S & S would invite some great classical pianists to record on it), but by the way you use it to knock down a world-renowned piano which has a unique quality of sound that most of us here, if we had the choice and the means, would want to own.

Are the keys used? Not often...there is little call for them in the real world. More a curiosity than a need, yes/no?

Is there a benefit to having them? Absolutely. Take a look at the inside of your grand piano. Where do the strings hit the bridge for A0, A#0, B0, and C1? The lowest strings on the piano are at the very edge of the bridge and near the bottom corner of the soundboard. On the other end, in the treble, the strings and bridges are pushing the edge of the cabinet and soundboard again.

Adding those extra keys enlarges the soundboard, lengthens the bridge, and allows the keys you do use to get more from the instrument. The strings and bridges are further into the 'curve' and provide better transmission of energy into the soundboard. Additional benefit comes from sympathetic vibration of the extra strings, too.

The Imperial has a wonderful sound and those extra strings, bigger board, and better transfer of energy into the instrument are why it sounds so great. Whether you use the extra keys to play is almost beside the point! Having them provides this enormous beast its unique sound.

I have only tuned a couple in my career, and those at dealerships while on display, but they are a treat to work on, tune, and play.

Seriously,

I agree totally.

One only has to compare the Bösendorfer 280 to the Imperial (or even the old 275) to hear the difference those extra strings make to the resonances of the piano, even when those extra notes aren't played.

Personally, I regret the replacement of the 275 by the 280, though I understand why, in commercial terms.

The first time I played the 275 (several decades ago, in their showroom in Bösendorferstraße, Wien), I was smitten. But the Imperial really got to me, like no other piano, then or since.

I think they are both magnificent instruments - and I think you are both as defensive as each other when it comes to your favourite pianos.

Actually, I agree with you - S & S 2.9m would be my second piano after the Imperial , if I own a mansion.

I think I've got all the classical recordings ever made on Stuart & Sons (Mozart/Beethoven/Liszt recital, Beethoven sonatas, Chopin, Brahms, Vine, Glass), and I really like its sound.

But to use S & S 2.2m to knock the Imperial 290, as CJM did, is ludicrous.