Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum At what point does a Steinway become a "Steinwas"?

I have always thought that most of the discussions as above are not all that conclusive.

First of all, there is a very different philosophy about Steinway sound explained by Steinway itself: Hamburg Steinways are explicitly explained offering different tone from New York version. It's usually explained as "European" versus "American" preference of sound.

At same time, the pianos feel different, sound different and their finish is different.

They use different parts and components,especially hammers. One is thought "complementing" the other: in Germany I always noticed that Steinway dealers talk less than complimentary about their U.S. made counterparts.

Another curious thing is that when discussing rebuilding and replacement parts for Steinway grands, they often include same parts as are in many new pianos today.

This is not to say that a rebuilt Steinway cannot be a formidable instrument, but without its name on fallboard few if anybody would perhaps consider going to the extent buying one.

As long as the discussions keep centering around "famous names" instead of on pianos themselves, less attention is given to an instrument's tone and quality.

And this is exactly where the fastest changes are happening in today's market.

Very inconvenient for some - opportunity for others and forever remaining in great denial for everybody else.

Just take your pick.

Norbert

LOL. I love these names, Voltara!

Anybody else got some catchy names for rebuilt pianos?

It would depend on how the piano was before the work was done and if the piano still retained an authentic Chickering voice and if the work permanently ruined the piano's ability to ever again have an authentic Chickering voice. If it still had an authentic vintage Chickering voice, but the work was otherwise mediocre, you have a mediocre Chickering.


I think it is most important to retain the authentic vintage Chickering voice for it to still be a Chickering. If the touch is different, but more responsive, I think that is a good thing. If the touch is different but less responisive, or if the action is identical to original but doesn't play that great, it is a bad thing.
If the piano looks like the piano did originally but the voice is different, I call this a hybrid rebuild. If it still has a recognizable Chickering voice, it is still a Chickering.
Steinway takes the hybrid approach to their rebuilding. They essentially put a new Steinway into the old case. It still has a recognizable Steinway voice, but a new Steinway voice that is different than the vintage Steinway voice. This is a valid approach and some people prefer it. The focus is making an old instrument as much like a new instrument as possible rather than trying to rebuild the vintage instrument with the purpose of it having its authentic original voice and using more authentic parts and materials.



This is of course undeniably authentic. If all Chickering parts were used to achieve this result, great, but if materials and parts were sourced elsewhere that gave a more authentic result, that is obviously the priority.

Sometimes people want faithful restorations to make the piano as much like new as possible, warts and all. One of the nice things about having a chance to rebuild one of these pianos is that there are usually some areas that can benefit from a but of tweaking. If the original design had a weak note amidst strong notes, it is nice to be able to get the weak note closer in performance to the stronger notes, even if this is not really authentic to the piano's original design. Pianists always prefer this.
There is certainly a point at which all of the tweaking and custom work can change the sound of the piano to no longer have the authentic voice. If the piano's original voice is worth preserving, I think it should be.

Ultimately, if the people who own the piano are happy with it, that is what matters most, whether it is an authentic rebuild, hybrid rebuild, custom rebuild etc etc.

Yes ...

I'm sure much of it was simple aging and lack of proper and ongoing maintenance. But some of it might very well have been poor/incomplete rebuilding work. I would not use the term to describe poor initial quality off the factory floor.

And like others here, I did not think of the term as restricted to one brand. Maybe that's the issue. I'm thinking of the term more generally, and not in the very specific marketing way that immediately strikes others. Separated by a common language!

Why pursue a losing formula though with the reduced leverage and inferior hammers? Maybe there is a simple explanation or maybe it is in your book, and the book still is commercially available?


M.

How about Grotrianot.

The reason why the discussion about "original Steinway hammers" is IMHO somewhat moot based on perhaps by another interesting fact:

I know from several European/German rebuilders that obtaining an identical or 'near identical' set of Renner hammers made exclusively for Hamburg Steinway is considered highest trophy for rebuilding instruments in general..

Even if these pianos are not Steinways, but include others such as Bechstein, Bluethners etc.

Nobody I have ever spoken to however, has ever shown the slightest interest to order those hammers exclusively used for New York Steinway.

It's not exactly that there is no rebuilding going on in Europe or people there not knowing a bit about the different hammers available on market.

it just could be that all the talk about "original hammers" is less important than meets the eye.

Er...."ear"

Norbert

You mean "moot," don't you?

Tried to send a PM but the box is full.

I think what is being discussed are pre-1984 Steinway hammers, not hammers manufactured by Renner.

I would be happy to have a set of those Steinway (not Renner!) hammers, and also the higher leverage action as well that goes with those hammers.

That N.Y. Steinway D I played and recorded on was tremendous!

p.s. - I think it might have been more than just an immediately pre-1984 Steinway hammer design. This piano had the kind of sound one just doesn't hear except on recordings from the 1930s through the 1950s (with some N.Y. Steinway recordings 1960s-70s still sounding like that).


M.

A Friend of mine had his 1916 NYC-A III rebuilt by London S&S in 2004. NYC hammers, strings, and action parts were used. It still sounds like a NY instrument and not a Hamburg. No attempt was made to change the piano into something it isn't. It is a very beautiful piano.
_________________________________________

Any piano becomes a "Was" when it has been beaten to death or is simply old. "Steinwas" is nothing more than marketing because Steinway's primary competitor is a non-Steinway rebuilt Steinway. They are trying to capture the rebuilding market, nothing more, nothing less.

(I think "Extonia" is brilliant!)

I am beyond delighted that you wrote this. To me, that is the Steinway sound. The sound you hear on recordings from the 30s through 50s by Horowitz, Kapell, Fleisher, Van Cliburn, Rubinstein, Gould, I could go on and on.

This is the authentic, real Steinway sound. Sweet and growling and colorful. Thank you so much for your post. The sound of Horowitz's piano in the fugue from the Barber sonata, is my recorded reference for this.

Michael,
Can you post a link to your recording on that piano?

Thanks!

LOL. Very good, Dad. The only ones I could think of were "Bluthner Blunder" or "Hairy Baldwin".

Bösenduffer?

Byebyebach ?

Or for those in the UK, Welmarred, Beknighted or Challenged.

Mason & Hemlock??

Or perhaps Mason and Has-Been.

Love the names...
Baldlose
Knobe
Bosenosir
Samsuck..oh never mind

Very nice. We also have the Charles R. W-altered, the Young Changed, and let's not forget the Humbug Steinway.