Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum This baffles me.

I wrote that people, in a significant higher proportion, place these particular three pianos at the top.

I think there are fewer who, if they would have to name their three favorite instruments, would say Sauter, Bechstein and Bösendorfer. Or Grotrian, Shigeru Kawai and Fazioli.

Just a hunch.

top $$$ as a surrogate marker for top quality?
publish astronomically high enough list prices and no one will dare question you?

from Pianistical:
Last year I purchased a Sauter Omega. Steingraeber was a close second. Fazioli: very nice action, and exquisite craftsmanship, but didn't like the sound. NOTHING else even came close - and I played them all. Just one opinion. (From an actual consumer).

I wouldn't compare Shigeru Kawai with high-end Europeans. Not in the same class.

from pianistical
I think your hunch is right, particularly with the second example. That grouping brings together a European piano with a lot of buzz and controversy, a European piano that flies very low under the radar, and a piano of Asian origin. A person who would cite these three might be assumed to have a certain catholicity of taste, but in terms of tone potential, the Grotrian would be an odd fit with the blander character of the other two. Now, I've stepped in the doggy-do for sure.

I have a hunch too. I was kind of getting at it when I mentioned the easy transferance to 'category' to 'tier'.

I have a hunch that people who really know and respect pianos will be reluctant to rank them ONE MAKER over ANOTHER MAKER. Broad categories that take into account the maker's intent, asking price, and the execution of the intent seem reasonable. Relentless enthusiasm for tiering usually reveals a lack of respect and understanding, including the understanding that different lines from the same maker and different models within those lines have different positive and negative attributes.

The degree of certainty with which someone offers his/her ranking is more a measure of ignorance than knowledge. It makes for lively forum chit-chat, but in reality is no more meaningful than the ranking of sports teams or pop singers.

How much of Numerian's comments were lifted directly from S&S materials? So much of the phrasing sounds so familiar..... being in the marketing field.

I am still not entirely convinced that Numerian's comments were intended as being serious rather than ironic.

They were both serious and ironic, David-G.

Having participated for nearly four years on these forums, I began to notice a consistent theme regarding piano sound. Technically oriented people would say it is a sound rich in harmonics with less emphasis on the fundamental, but most people here would use words like mellow, multi-colored, growling (for the bass) versus undesirable sounds like bright, cold, sterile and thin.

My first piano was a Kawai, but for 20 years after that I owned a Bosendorfer. In 2004 I switched from the Bosendorfer to a Fazioli, largely based on the action of the Fazioli, but I also continued to play various other instruments when I could. That was when I noticed that on many Steinways I couldn't hear the details in the music as I was accustomed. The notes in the chords would disappear to a degree. This seemed to be part of the harmonic blend everyone else seemed to like, but to me it was sounding somewhat muddied.

I spent several hours at the Frederick Collection playing nearly every instrument, and that made it clear that there is no such thing as an ideal piano sound, at least for instruments built before 1880. The Collection only has a few built after that point, and these few are all rather different, except that the one that sounds most modern is their Steinway grand, one of the earliest Henry Steinway built. It could certainly pass as a modern piano.

This modern piano sound intrigued me. It seemed as if the grand piano had achieved a platonic ideal - a theoretical sound that all grand pianos aspire to. But this wasn't quite true either. Plenty of Tier 2 and Tier 3 pianos don't have this sound - they are lacking in something like depth, they have a thin or shrill treble (to use other people's words) rather than the bell-like treble everyone seemed to like.

Nor was this exactly the sound you got on all Steinways, since they are certainly not all the same. But it was to be found in concert halls on well-prepped instruments, and certainly found on recordings for most classical pianists, and these were all Steinway D's for the most part. It was this sound I really began to notice. In its best form, there is certainly reasonable clarity in the tone, but you really can hear the growl in the bass that people talk about, or the bell-like tones of the treble.

I heard Earl Wild perform on a Kawai a few years ago and it was not the "ideal" sound, even though I found it very pleasant. Pollini brought his Fabbrini Hamburg Steinway on his US tour and this was not the "ideal" sound - it was more like the Fazioli I was used to. In detecting these differences, I'm not saying I've got more sensitive hearing, and I doubt I would pass a blind test of different instruments to pick out which is which. All I can assert is that the more you listen for it, the more you can hear the platonic ideal piano sound, as defined by well-prepped Steinway D's, especially in studio recording settings.

In asking technicians about this, they would say that there is a sound that customers seek in their pianos. Occasionally they will describe it as the Steinway sound, though often they will use the verbal handles (bell-like, rich, mellow) that define the Steinway sound. This frustrates the technician because many lower tier instruments will never sound like a concert grand, and many Tier 1 instruments are not made to sound like the Steinway ideal.

And here we arrive at the ironic part. On these forums, no one complains about the Steinway sound, or at least the ideal found in concert halls and recordings. But there are lots of complaints about the cold, sterile, bright, though clear sound of other pianos. Why is this? The answer in my view is that all we have ever heard from childhood up, is the ideal Steinway sound. Obviously, our own Steinway that is 40 years old, or our teacher's Steinway that gets a daily beating, doesn't always have that sound, but we know where to find it. It's pretty much always there when we go to a piano recital, when we turn on the radio, or play a CD.

This explains the conundrum that baffles pianistical. Some people will play a Bosendorfer, a Schimmel, a Fazioli, a Yamaha, or a Hamburg Steinway even, and find it better "in every way" than a NY Steinway. But there is still something wrong with the sound, so they would never consider buying it. Even though it is better in every way, which implies even in its tonal qualities, it still does not comport to the platonic ideal we all keep in our heads. That is certainly ironic.

That was a very well thought out post Numerian. While reading it I realized that one of the reasons we like our Fazioli so much is because it sounds so much different from the "ideal sound". I think the ideal sound is great, but I also love variety. Our piano sounded fresh and exciting to us.

Dan

Numerian,

When you first mentioned that "tuners hear from people who own these other pianos that they need "to make it sound like a Steinway." I started a thread on the tech forum asking tuner/techs if these requests were a common occurrence. I phrased the question using your words verbatim.

http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/3/4533.html

Some reported that in all their many years in the trade, they had never heard this request. None of them could relate to your comments as you expressed them. That is not conclusive data, but in my mind it's a bit more conclusive than the statements of one person.

Your comments about the pianos used by Wild and Pollini are completely subjective to me. You say that the pianos they employed did not present the ideal sound. I think their choice takes precedence over your opinion. Most people attend concerts to listen to the artist and his/her interpretation of music. Few attend from the perspective of evaluating whether the piano in use is ideal for the purpose.

I understand your remark that "no one complains about the Steinway sound, or at least the ideal found in concert halls and recordings". I don't think it's 100% true, but I get the drift. Let's be reasonable. The fact that Steinway D concert grands are seldom viewed as less than satisfactory is probably due to the fact that they are designed and maintained to a level that is satisfactory for use in large concert venues.

I'd like to add one comment about the "singing treble". I've always felt that the degree to which a treble sings is more a function of what lies under it than what it in itself offers. Some pianos' bass and low tenor are better suited to creating a texture than they are to giving definition to each and every note played. If a melody line in the treble is played against this texture, it makes the treble stand out in such a way that it could be said to sing. I think you can find this tendency in pianos that occupy different price points, not only in Steinway pianos.

If, on the other hand, the piano's strength is to give clear definition to each and every note throughout the entire key range, the treble may not have the textured background against which to sing. A lot of the solo classical lit that is favored today: Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Chopin, Lizst and other romantics and post-romantics, seems to fit well with the clear treble melody played off against the busy textured bass. When the melody line is inverted however and comes from the bass or low tenor against a busy high tenor and/or treble, things don't always work out as well.

Hello Turandot-

I don't disagree with much of what you have said, and your last two paragraphs are particularly perceptive. There does seem to be a tendency for the modern grand piano to allow treble melodies to sing out well against a bass accompaniment, but when the melody is in the bass it doesn't always work as well. Maybe romantic and post-romantic composers have written for the piano precisely because of that capability. One of the interesting things about the Frederick Collection is to observe how piano composition changed as the instrument changed. Beethoven added tonal complexities to his music that were available on a more advanced instrument than Mozart had, and composers before 1830 tended to use harmonies in the bass that were thicker than what you might find in Brahms, because the tone was lighter and clearer and the harmonies made sense on that instrument. One of the things I like about the modern "colder" and more "clinical" sounding pianos is that Beethoven and Schubert, and certainly Bach, sound better balanced because polyphony and the use of bass chords can be better understood.

Now this is of course subjective to my hearing. Tureck and Landowska sound wonderful on their piano recordings, which were probably Steinways, so I will certainly grant that Steinways are mroe than acceptable for all periods of piano music.

Maybe I am confusing things by using the words "ideal sound" when referring to the Steinway sound we usually hear. I don't mean ideal as best, I mean a universal sound that is recognized as the modern grand piano sound. In listening to a Wild or Pollini or Hewitt play on something other than a Steinway, I think about the instrument for a minute or two at first, and then on and off if some tone sounds interesting, but 99% of the time I'm listening to the beauty of the composition and the performance. In other words, I agree with you here. Their choice of instrument takes precedence over my opinion of their piano, which was positive by the way, not negative, precisely because they were not using the usual piano in their concerts. I'm all for choice in these matters. What I should have said is they did not choose pianos with the "universal sound", and bravo for that.

I cannot speak to the other technicians who have never heard anyone ask for a "Steinway sound" on their pianos. I only know my tuners who have, or to put this another way, who complain that customers want that sound and don't realize their piano was not intended to sound exactly that way.

I am reminded, however, of an article that appeared over 20 years ago in Scientific American, analyzing why crowds of people who spontaneously sing a song, like Happy Birthday, gravitate toward the key of Eb. The bigger the crowd the more likely this is to be the case. One scientific theory offered was that in American homes electrical current hums through the wires at the tone of Eb. This wouldn't explain why Europeans also sing to Eb, even though their house current is different. To the extent the theory is true, though, it suggests there exists some subliminal, constant tonal exposures at work on us. That's how I think of the Steinway sound when it is coming from a well-prepped concert grand. It is ubiquitous and we don't realize often it is at work. Maybe it was invented by Henry Steinway when he invented and patented the modern grand piano, so that all instruments which follow his design (as virtually all do) will have that sound more or less. When one of his concert grands is tuned and voiced well it will have that sound. I don't make quality judgments about it; it is good enough for me, but I happen to prefer a somewhat cleaner sound produced by instruments that are variations from his basic design. But it is always there "in the ether" if you will, defining for all of us what a grand piano sounds like.

Turandot, Your comments are very interesting, but I find myself puzzled. Are you saying that the treble cannot "sing" without some sort of bass texture beneath it? I am never played a Steinway, but the treble of my antique Bluthner sings very beautifully, and warmly, even played as a solo line with nothing beneath it.

As a separate observation, my impression is that the bass and lower tenor of Bluthners have a distinct clarity, and do not just create a texture as you describe. This is of course a subjective viewpoint, and I would be interested to hear other people's thoughts on this.

Hello David,

No, I'm not saying that the treble of any one piano cannot be more lyrical than the treble of another. You can certainly compare the treble of different pianos by playing a melody line in isolation with your right hand trying to squeeze whatever is available from it. Obviously, what you squeeze out of a Bluthner will be quite different from what you extract from a Yamaha.

My observation was that the specific phrase 'singing treble' has less to do with the exact lyrical quality of the treble than it does with the juxtaposition of the lyrical treble line against the low tenor and bass. Some of that is, as Numerian has mentioned, built into the lit, especially into the romantic lit which places a quiet melody against a busy lower range. Some of that is built into pianos as well. As a simple example, Kawai pianos are not noted for their bass definition, but the texture they provide pleases many players.

Numerian,

Interesting stuff. My own taste is toward pianos which give definition to all notes in all ranges, even if the results are somewhat cold and clinical. However, I would never rate any piano higher than another based on my own taste. In fact, I wouldn't rate them at all other than grouping them into very broad ranges. It is to the benefit of everyone that despite Steinway's dominance in the concert world that other makers persist in their individual vision of what it is they are interested in building.

Turandot,
Very observant post. I think you are right on. Steinway is well-suited to certain textures often found in typical mid to late 19th century music-lyrical, cantabile melodies in the RH projecting over lush, arpeggiated accompanying figures in the low tenor/bass.

A piano with great emphasis on the fundamental, i.e. a Bechstein or Fazioli, gives much more definition to these types of accompanying figures. While a listener could certainly get used to this and come to love it, I think we can all agree that such pianos have a distinct advantage in contrapuntal Baroque music. IMHO, they do much better than Masons/Steinways in the music of French Impressionist composers as well.

Steinway enjoys overwhelming market dominance in the performance spaces niche, and the public enjoys just about any music played well on a nicely-prepped Steinway.

It is indeed to the benefit of everyone that other makers build pianos according to extremely different tastes!

Seems to me the old saying "Variety is the spice of life" is very apt here! Despite my appreciation of the "Steinway sound" I would love to also own a couple of other brands for the sound varieties they would offer.
It's hard to imagine that any one instrument is ideal for pre-baroque, baroque, classical, etc. (Despite Glenn Gould's recordings, I still lean to a harpsichord for most Bach, and I really like a vintage Pleyel for Mozart). But IMHO Steinway comes about as close as any.

Some very interesting points have been made by Numerian and Turandot in this thread.

The idea that we are predisposed to gravitate to a particular key is intriguing as is the concept of musical conditioning influencing our piano preferences.

When I first started looking to replace the Boston I had had for a few years (gift - not chosen) I though that there was an ideal piano sound that I would find eventually. Experience in the past few years taught me that this original idea (and much of the piano search) was naive.

If we ever get to the point of realistic digital modeling such that a good digital piano with a properly weighted keyboard and action can replicate accurately the tone of a Fazioli, Steinway, Bosie and so on, then perhaps it would be fascinating to have the ability to switch at will.

AJB,

I don't know how far away this is. It depends on how wedded one's concept is to the replication of the acoustic grand or, as the case may be with many, wedded to the replication of one's own favored acoustic grand. Generally, people with less disposable income are less demanding and do not split hairs about 100% authenticity.

There's lots of good stuff about this topic on the digital forum. I noticed you stated 'modeling'. There seems to be no clear consensus so far about modeling versus sampling. I think Roland's approach actually includes both since they are building on the same grand sample they introduced a couple of years ago and tweaking it with modeling (post processing) in each new product.

In a recent digital forum thread there was discussion of the hypothetical digital piano which would have a few different software pianos on tap for the user to choose from (without the tedious effort of running through an interface and computer and the latency issues that accompany that). Of the big players, it would seem Yamaha's hands are a bit tied. It would be strange for them to include Steinway, Bechstein, or Fazioli-based samples in a Yamaha digital. Under the present cicrcumstances, they could throw in a Bosendorfer of course. I think the same situation applies to Kawai.

Roland, with no allegiance to any acoustic brand, could theoretically license different software products or buy a software company like Ivory or Galaxy lock, stock, and barrel since buying innovation is often cheaper than achieving it.

The ability to sit at a digital and simply push a button to activate a fairly-convincing sound profile of a few different extreme upper-end pianos would be very liberating for those of us who don't have all that much disposable income.

End of heretical lateral digital digression

"If Steinway Supremacy advocates find owners and enthusiasts of other pianos "odd", I would guess that it's because they (the advocates) are what they are. It goes with the territory. "

I don't find people who prefer other brands than Steinway odd. I do appreciate their point of view. I can understand why some like a Fazioli or a Bechstein, Bosendorfer or Bluthner. Once Ori gives the word that his new showroom is completed I may be putting Steingraeder in my Tier 1 group as well.

When buying top end pianos why not try them all blind (include a few other brands for good measure) and pick the one which speaks to your ears and heart. I agree some peaople do this but some go automatically for the brand.

I would like to see Mr Fine's testers do this - what fun!

LJC,

That was my statement. Please do not take it personally. I was responding to Numerian's statement.

Not all of those who favor Steinway are Steinway Supremacy advocates, but I think you would have to admit that among all the many different types of Steinway fans (and that would include me) there is a noisy contingent who believe tnat Steinway reigns supreme and that any other taste or choice of instrument is odd.