Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Steinway on the mind

I often hear people being accused of "having Steinway on the mind". That is to say, due to the legendary status of Steinway's name, people are naturally biased towards them.

I don't think it's such an irrational bias. In my personal experience, the very best pianos I've played have always been the very best Steinways. I cannot speak for Boosendorfer, Fazioli or Mason and Hamlin, as I have not played them. Shigeru Kawai, concert Yamahas, Schimmel, Estonia, and others prove, to me, to have an inferior recipe. They are obviously high end instruments, but they seem to have the lack of character that the best Steinways have. The Shigerus are especially bad by comparison - feel and sound.

Am I the only one that feels this way? Maybe I am just under the spell.

(I'm not trying to bash on anyone's taste here.)

The Steinway is the best piano, closely followed by the German pianos (headed by Bosendorfer). (And the Steinway, although now an American brand, was originally German as well.)

I haven't played enough Hamburg Steinway's to form an opinion. I wonder how they compare to the American ones.

Which is not German and never was, actually, as more or less everybody knows.

Steinway was not originally a German brand, although the original members of the family came from Germany. I suppose that since 1888, when they opened the Hamburg plant, they could be considered German as well.

I haven't played many Steinways, but there is one I play regularly that I know very well. I haven't played many Yamahas, but there are three that I play regularly and that I know very well. The Steinway sound is very gorgeous and complex. Full-figured and curvy. Mature. Been around the globe a few times. Also, there is something about the action that takes work to get used to. It's like driving a tank made by Ferrari. But once you get it sorted, you can use that complex tone palette to create many nuanced "colors." The Yamahas seem to have a much simpler action and sound. Somehow, they sound "cleaner" and "shinier." Sleek and taut. No more or less beautiful than the Steinway, but less "deep." Not vapid or vacuous; just less calculating and treacherous than a Steinway. Sincere. That's it! A Yamaha is "sincere." And Pure As The Driven Snow. The Yamaha actions of the three pianos I know (a G3, a G1 and a C3) are very responsive and direct, if that makes any sense. They do exactly what I tell them to do without me having to make special accommodations for the "inbetween-i-ness" that happens from the keys to the strings.

The other grands I know are vintage guys--two large Haddorffs that were very fine instruments in their prime, and a handsome Chickering quarter grand. The Haddorffs play and sound like liquid gold. The Chickering I have not figured out, yet, though I have been working on it for almost a year, now. I do know this about the Chickering: it is very full of itself.

All of that is to say this: If music is what happens between the notes, each piano is going to give you something to work with, and it is up to you to see what the piano will give you.

As one who has to work with the piano I'm given to work with, I'm not sure I understand the question. Each piano has its own personality. Music is found in developing a relationship with each individual instrument.

--Andy

I'm sure it's the best for delivering the Steinway sound. If that's what you prefer, go for it.

Tastes do differ, though.

Beautifully said, Andy. I haven't had the same positive experience you've had with Yamahas. I've only tried a few and felt they sounded thin and mechanically consistent with no personality. I did play on one lovely Bosendorfer that had a rich, mellow tone and buttery action.

I admit, I am partial to Steinways. I've wanted one ever since I saw and heard Rubinstein play on one when was a little girl. When I was finally able to buy one in my late 50's, the salesman told me it would be like moving from a pony to a thoroughbred and it would take me four years to adjust to the subtle action and the nuances and color that would open to me. He was spot on. Playing a superior instrument improved my playing and my listening skills tremendously. I only regret that I do not have the space or money to buy a Steinway D. I've played on a few D's that were magical, as if rainbows were coming off the strings. The best was an old CD that had seen years on the stage and was repeatedly concert prepped. Its tone and colors were breathtaking. While shopping for my Steinway O, I was struck by how different each Steinway piano is.

My teacher had a divine Steinway L that all of her students just adored. It had an exceptionally light, but playable, action. So, it shouldn't always be about wrestling for tone.

That said, I'd say 1/3 Steinways are superb, 1/3 remind one of the superb ones, and 1/3 are plain awful. This is not necessarily Steinway's fault, as much initial prep and subsequent wear and tear come into play.

Right. In my experience, nothing compares to that first group.

If you want to know if you are 'under the spell' or not, then go play those other instruments until you can hear the beauty in them. Until you can really understand why people like them.

If you can't hear it, then you're under the spell.

I 100% agree with the love of Steinway pianos. I have been lucky enough to play on my share of Steinway, Yamaha, and Kawaii grands. I have played on a decent number of Bosendorfers and Bechsteins. I have encountered the latter two the least. I know they are supposed to be much pricier than steinways but I still didn't like the feel as much. Maybe that was related to the particular instruments I played but I feel like just about every Steinway I have touched has been superior to other instruments, whether it was in great shape or not. Something about the range of sounds and my ability to control the instrument is usually always better in a Steinway.

As for the yamaha and kawaii grands there isn't even a comparison to make.

Hamburg beats New York, btw. No contest. It's the already wonderful Steinway on steroids.

You're sort of making it look as though I said they are bad instruments. I said it was obvious that they are high end pianos, and I would be lucky to own any of them. I'm simply saying that there's a certain earthiness about Steinway, and their actions are so buttery. The European pianos come real close. The Asian pianos definitely do not compare in that way.

There are crappy pianos everywhere. But, the best Steinway will always beat the best Yamaha or the best Bosendorfer or Fazioli. At least in my experience... Also, I detest Faziolis - they're shallow and don't offer you much to work with.

Steinways are fantastic instruments, needless to say. There's a reason why they're the most prevalent high end brand, and it's not only marketing hype.

I remember being disappointed the first time playing a Bosie (at an audition), and really disappointed walking into my new teacher's room and seeing two Bechsteins. However, after spending some time with them, it's easy to see why they are considered top notch instruments, just very different then Steinways.

There's a clarity to Bechsteins that's just beautiful. If you're expecting the roar (for lack of a better term) of a Steinway, then you're going to be disappointed. Also, if you don't know what your doing musically, a Bechstein will kill you. They're not as forgiving as Steinways. However, if you've got great control over what you're playing, a Bechstein is hard to beat, IMHO.

Really? The only Fazioli I ever played gave me some much to work with I was overwhelmed. Really, the control was so enormous I still don't know if I like it. But that was just one experience, never saw any other Fazioli around here. Plus the treble really was shallow, and the action was so incredibly even it didn't feel like a piano. This was the only time this was an issue, but it felt too artificial. Still, I never saw anyone complain about having too little to work with. Interesting.

As in, it was so shallow that playing anything besides a fast Scarlatti was abysmol. Not enough depth.

I'm saying it looks like you don't understand them.

When you start talking in stereotypes like 'Asian pianos' or 'European pianos' it makes me roll my eyes....when you start talking about the 'buttery' action that only exists in Steinways, it's my sign to leave the conversation because you sound like a fanboy.

Some pianists prefer the sound of American hammers, which are not factory installed on a Hamburg Steinway, so there needs to be some distinction there between the N.Y. and Hamburg divisions of S. & S. I've noticed that European grand pianos tend to have a much more rounded bass than U.S. instruments, and this deliberate outcome of design isn't going to be preferred by every pianist.

I'm not sure how important all of this is. When Artur Schnabel abandoned C. Bechstein pianos, audiences didn't say that his magic had disappeared. Liszt built his reputation on pianos other than S. & S. - I don't think he ever played on one except for an instrument that was gifted to him. Nyiregyhazi had the wherewithal to get his massive tone out of any piano, and unlike Josef Hofmann, Horowitz and Paderewski, he didn't have special concert instruments for his use and suited to his particular goals in sound.