Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum How Would You Rate Pianos?

I think that the "the expressive range" of a piano is not very different from a piano's tone. My tech is a terrific tech and a decent pianist, but I play far better than he does. I would have no problem having him help me choose a piano or evaluating a piano's capabilities. In fact, he helped me choose my present piano. I think he can corrrectly evaluate a piano's expressive potential and touch better than close to 100% of non professional pianists. Any lack in his playing ability is made up many times over in terms of his experience, training, hearing skills etc. If good techs couldn't hear the same things as the best pianists, I think it would be very hard for them to voice a piano to a customer's liking.

I’d like to see ratings that break out dimensions along the lines of what the Piano Book used to do, so that performance (tone, touch, dynamic range and responsiveness, tonal range), construction quality, fit and finish, and quality control could be evaluated separately again. I think this would give a more detailed picture and allow consumers to determine what is most important to them and to search accordingly. Sometimes in all the fuss over fit and finish, attention to visual detail and factory preparation, the basic issue of performance as a musical instrument seems to become less paramount, rather than the sine qua non of evaluating a piano. Obviously not everyone may feel that way, but it would allow consumers to make decisions based on what is most important to them.

It might help to address inconsistencies such as this: In the last full edition of the Piano Book, here is what Fine said about NY Steinway: “Although the reviews in this book tend, by their nature, to highlight the problem areas, my sense is that most technicians feel that Steinway grands, properly serviced, are among the best-performing pianos- if not THE best- made.” (p.146) He gave them maximal five star ratings in performance while dinging them on quality control. It’s interesting that despite Fine noting in more recent supplements that the pianos out of the NY S&S factory have been coming out better prepared, with fewer concerns that needed to be corrected over the past several years, the quote above was left out of the new Piano Buyer.

What is also interesting is the statement in the Piano Buyer (and Mike Carr also pointed this out recently) that manufacturers were redesigning the European pianos for “better sound projection, tonal color and sustain—that is to sound more like American Steinways.” Hmmm……the supposedly “audibly higher quality” European pianos needed to be redesigned to sound like NY Steinways to improve their sound projection, color and sustain—arguably among the most valued qualities in piano sound! Inconsistencies like this lead me to take the Piano Buyer ratings with a large dash of salt.

In the final analysis a piano is about its musical expression in representation of the music being played.

A well built piano without redeeming musical qualities is as valuable as a well built chair put into the attic for storage.

While much is being said [and postured..] about construction, design, componentry and so on, the final mark wil always be about the musicality a piano offers to the player.

And this is where the problem will always be.

Unfortunatly, this most important aspect of an instrument - any instrument that is - is often the least understood or *agreed* upon.

It is certainly impossible to 'understand' for those not actively involved in playing themselves or at least being able to crititically 'listening in'.

Even in those circumstances, there will always be differences of opinion.

Unfortunately for much of the industry, it's become all about *selling* and making money.

Norbert

Probably the most sense you've made in years.....thank you Norbert.

What would you guess is the percentage of Steinway buyers that have Steinway's image as one of their primary motivations to buy?

Is one of the benefits of owning a Steinway that it impresses others? If so, does that benefit have value?

Well my grandma bought her piano purely on looks! That thing is pretty bad to play. And has so many issues. Wish she had bought a used Kawai or yamaha. She just loved the french look of the hyundai.

Weren't those French Hyundais made by the Huguenots that didn't stop in New Orleans? I think some went on to China to design piano cabinets for Pearl River.

Charles

Well it wasn't made in france, or new orleans thats for sure.

Steve,

I would guess it is the same percentage as Bosendorfer buyers that have Bosendorfer's image as one of their primary motivations to buy.

fingers

About 50% of my Steinway customers are fairly good players, and want to own a piano that plays and sounds good, 40% play somewhat and want the Steinway name, and the last 10% just want the name on the furniture.

Plover,

As I said, I see your point. I just don't agree with you. Not a problem, and I mean no slight to techs and tuners either.

I don't think the Fine statements are inconsistent. Of the three qualites projection, color, and sustain I think only sustain is almost universally admired (by classical pianists but perhaps not jazz pianists). Projection seems only important in concert venues, and if color was universally admired I don't think Bechstein would be highly admired in both the past and present.

I think Fine is just saying that European makers who want to sell their pianos in the the US have begun catering more to American tastes, not that American sound as typified by NY Steinway is better.

The Fazioli site lists five characteristic they feel are representative of good tone: clarity, uniformity, wide dynamic range, selective, and long duration(sustain). Not all characteristics of NY Steinway IMO.
http://www.fazioli.com/en/

I can confirm that you are correct.

As a piano shopper, I would want to see the pianos being tested are randomly selected from randomly selected authorized dealers without the dealers/manufacturers knowing.

If the dealers typically prep their pianos, fine. If they don't that is fine too. Just do what they usually do with their usual technicians, no more no less.

The point is to make sure the pianos being tested are at a level representative to what the customers would typically get from dealers. No more no less. This is most meaningful to us piano buyers. It also motivates manufacturers to make sure that the pianos that they sell at dealers floor are well finished, not some work-in-progress, and that the dealers do the proper prep.

There is very little point in testing specimens that are specially selected and prepped by the manufacturers because those are not what the customers would get. But I can see why manufacturers want to do it this way because they simply want to use the rating as a marketing tool.

Perhaps we could simply adopt the "Caddyshack" method:

Judge Smails: "Well Ty, how'd you shoot today?"
Ty: "Well Judge, I don't keep score."
Judge: "How do you measure yourself against other golfers?"
Ty: "By height."
- Caddyshack

I think it would be fair to have the pianos randomly selected, but expertly prepped by the manufacturers, if the manufacturers actually made a point of insisting that their dealers regularly prepped their instruments to any kind of standard.

I like Bob Snyder's approach although the big drawback is that any pianist who is good enough to have legitimate opinions on these pianos will certainly know a Steinway when they play it, whether they can see it or not, and the familiarity gives Steinway an advantage that cannot be overcome with blindfolds.

The only way to really make this fair, and get really useful information, is for the reviewing pianists to live with the instruments for a while. That would take away some of the familiarity bias, and it would also allow some real world experience with the pianos. How long do they stay in tune, in regulation, in voicing. I know there are pianos out there that make a great initial impression, and the better one gets to know them, the less interesting they become. Other instruments reveal themselves better over time but don't make such an impressive first impression.
Some instruments are better practice pianos and others are better for performing and still others work well with one type of repertoire and not so well with another and this sometimes takes time to be revealed.
I would also like to see each respective model reviewed in this way as there are more and less successful models within every manufacturers offerings.

Bob Snyder's test included techs' evaluation. Their identification skills would surpass those of almost all players.

Keith,

Your test conditions of living with several pianos for a while are a mite unrealistic despite the good points that you make about initial impression and how it can change.

Also, since you are the leading proponent of Dan's corollary, your post is far too wordy and should be dismissed. If you can reduce it to a soundbite, it would be much more useful.

As the OP let me add another criteria to suggested rating methodologies.

The should be feasible. In fact, they should be doable.

The reason I posted this thread is that Larry is examining possible alternatives to the rating system currrently in Piano Buyer. We see the upside to these ratings as well as the downsides.

Many of the suggestions made here, while appreciated, in reality could not be accomplished.

Perhaps I should have asked "How would you suggest Piano Buyer ratings and rating process should be structured"?

It is hypocritical for manufacturers to insist on testing only their approved selected specimens because this proves that the ones they sell are not the ones they send to test. If they are really that good, they should have confidence on all of their production units, not just the 'approved' one.

How is it hypocritical for a manufacturer to be able to be responsible for the preparation of their own pianos? I'm not talking about the selection of the piano itself; I am talking about the person who prepares it.

Having the pianos randomly selected – but then prepared by a person of the manufacturer’s choosing, as one person recommended, would be fine.

Also, having pianos randomly selected from any dealer – this would tell you more about the dealer, than it would the piano.

There are many people – in many professions – to whom the quality of a piano is extremely important. The weakness of the current evaluation system used by the Piano Book is that it considers only the opinions of one of those groups of people. And I am convinced that in an uncomfortable number of cases, a verdict is handed down without anyone even touching the piano in question.

And when you add to that the fact that one or more of the technicians who contribute to this book are, or were authorized representatives for the very pianos they evaluate, is it any wonder that the brand(s) they DO represent do very well in their evaluations?