Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum Garrick Ohlsson on pianos

BDB,

You have the general feel of what happened but there are some important mistakes that color the entire event. I had not started out meaning to discuss this but here goes:

Yes, Ohlsson had signed on as a Steinway Artist. However, there was no rental piano in the event in question and he was not asking anything of Steinway. The piano for his recital was "the house piano" in Tully Hall in NYC and the piano was fine in rehearsal and fine the day before the recital. However, when Ohlsson showed up the day of the recital the middle C had been removed from the piano and there was a note saying that the piano was being repaired at Steinway.

This act had nothing to do with withdrawing Artist Support. It was an act of unnecessary vindictiveness IMHO and an example of another day of artist management.

You know that his recital actually happened on a borrowed Bosendorfer.

Also, Ohlsson did not stop endorsing pianos because of this event. He was a Bosendorfer artist for many years after that.

The thought of the Artist management at the time was to crush his career by ruining his Tully recital. What happened actually gave Garrick much more publicity than he might otherwise have had and Steinway had an embarrassing time of it.

I think he currently owns a Steinway, a Mason & Hamlin, and a Bosendorfer, however he is at a point in his career now where he has no need to endorse anyone and simply endorses great pianos.

My 2 cents,

"However, when Ohlsson showed up the day of the recital the middle C had been removed from the piano and there was a note saying that the piano was being repaired at Steinway."

Gee, what a surprise.

That account does not sound likely to me. I recall that a piano had been delivered and was taken away. If the piano was tampered with, then Ohlssohn could have initiated legal action against both the hall and Steinway.

I don't want to go into the details - I only offered the comment as a warning about criticising piano companies.

Lots of people criticize piano companies without getting ordered to retract their posts.

I do not think that Mr Galassini would state anything that that was untruthful. He is among the most respected members of this forum. Thank you Richard, for clarifying this most unfortunate incident.

Kind regards,

Robert.

Ad hominem arguments do not prove anything.

Yes, there was a piano removed that was on loan to the venue. Steinway does this with many venues nationally.

But the recital could have gone on using the "house piano" with no troubles. That is the piano that was being "repaired".

Full disclosure = These are the facts as I understand them from conversation with Mr. Ohlsson.

Really, BDB, a young emerging concert pianist initiating legal action against Lincoln Center and Steinway? Great way to advance a career.

Your contention is that you should not have to live up to the terms of a contract that you have made with someone that you believe has lesser status? Those are not my business ethics. I learned a long time ago that you can never tell who will turn out to be important.

"...Great discussions...Of course, I would like to have heard the pianos too..."

Garrick mentioned that his Arabesque sessions were no longer in release (at the time of the interview). But, they're back, in a boxed set (16 CDs) released in 2008 on the Hyperion label, SKU 03457-14351-4, entitled, "Chopin The Complete Works, Garrick Ohsson." CDS44351/66. I believe I've seen some of the discs sold as singles at Barnes.

The credits are very full, and include the pianos' make, model and serial number, the piano tech's name, the recording engineer, studio location, session date, etc.

I'm hoping that someday his recordings of the Beethoven piano sonatas will be released in a similar form.

I agree with your statement in theory BDB. It is rare that I disagree with you but in this case I do. Frankly, at the time Mr. Ohlsson had nothing barring him from saying there is another good piano besides S&S. (I do not know what the contract says today, but I imagine that loophole has been filled. I would love to hear from somebody from Steinway).

Since it was not in the terms of the contract and Steinway was not providing any piano for this performance under the terms the aforementioned contract, I strongly disagree with you.

IMHO, this is a prime example of a bully having a temper tantrum.

BDB, do not put words into my mouth. My contention is that you are espousing an opinion that is not in sync with the facts of the situation. Steinway does not need you to come to their defense. Criticizing someones ethics in a situation you don't have full knowledge of is not appropriate, professional or semi-professional.

I am not disagreeing with you. All I was saying that if it had been agreed that the hall was to supply the piano, and the piano was not available to play, then Ohlssohn should have had legal recourse for that, and he should have pursued it.

I will also admit that my memory may not be correct. It was a long time ago. But time affects everyone's memories, even those who were closely associated with the event. All I have been talking about is my recollection and reaction.

It is, of course, a different world now. Steinway is a different corporation now, with different policies. In the interview, Ohlsson says his views on pianos have changed. The incident had an affect on both parties, who are both probably better off for it. But there are still musicians who endorse pianos merely because they want to make sure that there are pianos available for them to play, rather than because they have a preference for a particular brand, which I do not believe is ethical, nor is it healthy for the industry.

All of this is worrisome. I am not speaking of offensive remarks, libel, or whatever, but are we no longer allowed to even express our opinion? If my friends ask me which camera system I prefer, do I have to temper my remarks and praise the competition before stating my preference? It seems we are getting into slippery slopes here. I will go on record stating that I bought a Mason-Hamlin BB because I prefer it. I bought a Canon 7D camera system because I like it best. I bought a Lexus because I liked it best. No apologies to Nikon, Steinway, Mercedes, or whatever. Am I going to get in trouble now? (I am not referring to stars who have contracts for products, that is a little different. I am talking about PW posters who state their opinions every day, every post. No contracts or agreements.)

The question is: "Who cares? Who is likely to be influenced?"

There's a world of difference between the paid endorsement of a working professional at the top of his game and the listing of his favorite brands by an avatar who frames his comments in a chat room with his preference for one composer at the top and the "proud owner of ......" rouiine att the bottom.

About the only similarity I can think of is that neither should be taken too seriously.

I think the best outcome ultimately happened. Another piano was played and lawyers were not called.

Without the larger public scrutiny, who has more to lose? The then emerging career of an individual in a highly competitive field with replacements lined up and dying for the same audiences or a company that tried to influence an artists statements and went too far? The great "Steinway" didn't have a board meeting and decide to punish him, some middle manager went on a power trip emboldened by a corporate culture of superiority and business dominance. The hope is cooler heads could have prevailed, but the truth is few things make the papers. Arrogance happens in almost any industry-leading corporation. And even the most experience of sponsored pros occasionally have foot-in-mouth disease.

Sam,

While it is true that the board did not formally punish Ohlsson, it is a corporate policy of thiers to do whatever can be done to bring on new artists and to give disadvantages to artists who choose not to jump on board.

One example from a New York Times article:

Valentina Lisitsa, a Ukrainian-born pianist who prefers Bösendorfers, said she had encountered roadblocks to playing one at some of her American concerts. ''They created all kinds of difficulties,'' Ms. Lisitsa said of the response to her insistence on playing a Bösendorfer with the Atlanta Symphony in October. ''Steinway tried everything to get me to play Steinway, including some Steinway representative waiting for me in my dressing room right before the concert and asking me in not a very polite way why would I choose to play another piano.''

''Steinway tried everything to get me to play Steinway, including some Steinway representative waiting for me in my dressing room right before the concert and asking me in not a very polite way why would I choose to play another piano.''



One reason she could provide is that she has her own endorsement deal with a rival company. I doubt that she shows up at music trade show booths simply because she happens to be in the neighborhood buying groceries. In bucking the trend and attempting to displace the usual brand house piano, she must assume the burden of some difficulties as a touring artist.

I thought this thread was about the mature views of Mr. Olsson, who is heard to say more than once in the interviews that these days he aims to be everyone's friend and not truck in a piano if he finds the one already in place to be perfectly satisfactory.

... and that is indeed a very mature attitude. In any case, since touring schedules are planned way in advance, most of the piano scheduling can also be planned way in advance too. If a pianist has a preference for a certain brand, that preference can probably be accommodated. And if it can't be accommodated at reasonable expense, then a good substitute should fill the bill nicely. If you're a big enough name, I guess you can tour with your own piano (hoping it isn't seized at customs .... ).