Sunday, April 27. 2008
Sometimes I think pianos are just ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
13:57
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Sometimes I think pianos are just too big
Any instrument, particularly a high quality one, will have characteristics which appeal on a personal level to the person who plays it. Violinists spend what seems like a lifetime searching for their perfect violin, spend inordinate amounts of money buying it when they find it, and then spend the rest of their performing lives learning how to play it. Virtuosos of most orchestral instruments (even harpists) get to carry their instrument around with them. It literally becomes part of their family.
Organists and pianists are not so lucky. Your average concert pianist plays as many different pianos as he/she plays concerts. Turn up to play, the piano is there. Play it, go away to the next one. No wonder many of them go mad … Perhaps this is a major reason why conformity rules. People expect, performers deliver what is expected on pianos they know will respond in a time tested and consistent way. Perhaps this is also why concert audiences are dwindling and younger audiences are going elsewhere. There is no progression, no variation, no challenge in the concert experience. Everything is cold, impersonal, black and numbing. Seen one concert, you’ve seen them all. Does it matter who is performing? In a very interesting commentary, Terry Teachout (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/Free-the-Piano-Player-11278) looks at this trend, and makes the very valid point that since Liszt pioneered the solo recital, over time the performer has been placed further and further ‘away’ from the audience. The audience comes in, the pianist comes in, the pianist plays, the pianist leaves, the audience leaves. The story of David Helfgott is well known. Whilst the traditionalists sneer, his audiences lap it up. I think the reason for this is quite simple. By some means or other, Helfgott ‘connects’ with his audience and takes them along with him. It doesn’t matter if he’s not Horowitz or whoever. The overall concert experience is different and people come out of his concerts moved in such a way that even the best concert pianists cannot hope to emulate, given the gulf that is normally present between the performer and the audience. So, today’s concert pianist has two hurdles to overcome: familiarity and atmosphere. We need to reinvent a few things. 1) To get way from the sameness and expectation for conformity that seems to be the norm these days – and that certainly was not the case in days gone by. 2) To allow the humanity and personality of the performer to become just as essential as ingredient as the printed music itself. 3) To encourage diversity in interpretation and create an awareness in the audience that this as much a learning experience for them as anything else. The Stuart piano has, in my view, an important role to play in this – indeed I suspect that lurking in the back of my mind somewhere when I acquired this thing was an inkling that I really saw this as a way for me to express myself such as I am able to in precisely this fashion. Horowitz I am not, of course. But if I can push things along a little bit in these directions I won’t be too displeased, no matter how many mistakes I may make along the way. But it takes time to learn how to play this instrument to its full potential. Expediency is a trap that must be avoided at all costs. Investments very rarely succeed in the short term. Saturday, April 26. 2008
Technology in Music – a Piano ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
09:03
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Technology in Music – a Piano Industry Threat?
I suppose my scientific upbringing as a research chemist contributed to my appreciation of technology and what computers (even many years ago) can achieve. My first electronic instrument was a Yamaha GS2 keyboard, which weighed a ton (!) but was able to produce sounds like none other at the time. For some of my church work, I use a now rather ancient (15 years old) but still very serviceable Ensoniq KS32 keyboard.
What little composing I used to do was laboriously written out by hand. Then I discovered music notation programmes, and now am quite fluent in Finale (I have never liked Sibelius, for some reason). There is no way I would go back to handwritten music. The advent of MIDI allowed me to use the KS32, in conjunction with appropriate software and sound cards, to develop orchestral arrangements that to most peoples’ ears sounded very close to the real thing. But there was one thing I was never happy about - the ability of these machines to accurately reproduce the sound of an acoustic piano. It doesn’t matter whether you use FM synthesis, sampling etc – the touch, feel, responsiveness, tonal range, volume and so on just isn’t there. Recently, I’ve looked at http://www.pianoteq.com, who have developed what they term a 4th generation physical modelling synthesis which claims (and I have no reason to doubt them) to reproduce a piano sound much more precisely than has been possible in the past. They are able to record any piano (including vintage and historical instruments) and reproduce it almost exactly. Whilst this is all well and good (and obviously from a software perspective extremely sophisticated, and of course is much, much cheaper than acquiring said pianos), there are still a number of issues I have with any attempts to reproduce piano sounds electronically. Firstly, the keyboard touch. No-one has yet developed a keyboard that can accurately reproduce the force feedback mechanism of the piano action and link it precisely to the appropriate reproduction of the sound. Weighted keyboards only go part of the way – no matter what their manufacturers may think. Secondly, the variability of the piano sound. A computer can only reproduce what it is told to reproduce and will produce exactly the same sound over and over again – the concept of vertical colour as previously discussed would be impossible to achieve since colour relies on combinations of sounds and very subtle but important aspects of the structure of the piano which not only vary from piano to piano but also over the time that the sound is being produced. But my major objection – no matter how close they may get – is that such things are imitative of human endeavour and do not drive the design of the instrument. Certainly electronic music has its place – but such techniques cannot build a better acoustic mousetrap. They can only imitate and modify what is already there. Convenient? Yes, electronic keyboards take up less space. Cheaper? Yes, they can be mass produced and computer circuitry is cheap these days. Useful? Undoubtedly, but only up to a point. They will never surpass the acoustic instrument as an acoustic instrument per se, they will only modify and imitate. Undoubtedly they will get even better, and good luck to them. I will follow their progress with interest. But they will never replace the innovation and development of the genuine article. That’s one reason why the Stuart piano is so important – it redefines the instrument and invites others to keep pace and imitate its advances. Mainstream manufacturers not only have to look to competition in their own acoustic piano industry, but soon electronic keyboards will become much more viable – indeed for relatively simple piano music they already are. The Stuart piano’s position within the industry is such that it is, I believe, protected to a large extent from these problems. I wonder if I can say the same about Steinway, Bosenyamaha, Bechstein etc? I don’t think I can. Wednesday, April 23. 2008
Made in Australia - The Great Debate Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
21:03
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Made in Australia - The Great Debate
I drive a Citroën C4 Picasso. To me, it is an immensely comfortable and practical vehicle which, finally, attempts to embody the style, quirkiness and the je ne sais quoi that Citroën have never really had since the heady days of the phenomenal DS19. The car was built in Spain, but it is undeniably a ‘French’ car, not ‘Spanish’. Some years ago whilst looking at BMWs, the dealer himself told me that the lower models were nowhere near as good as they used to be since they moved production to South Africa, but BMWs no matter where they are built are still ‘German’ cars. Likewise Toyotas built in USA are still Japanese. The ubiquitous Morris Mini-Minor (I learnt how to drive in one), once a British icon, is now owned and designed by BMW. MGs are now made in China, I believe.
From that perspective, the romance has died. Things ain’t what they used to be. None of these points are criticisms as such but point to the inevitable conclusion that globalisation has blurred nationalistic barriers to such an extent that the phrase “Made in Wherever” now in many cases has little or no meaning. I’ve seen some very interesting discussions concerning, for example, the veracity of labeling a Bechstein piano as “Made in Germany” when in fact German law allows that statement when a product receiving only "40%-50% added manufactured value" within Germany itself – qualifies for that status. So is a Bechstein really a German piano? More importantly, is it really a Bechstein? I'm not so sure... Consider this. The Bechstein piano, as with every long lived product brand name, has a problem with their history catching up with them. In all reality, Bechstein is another brand name which has outlived its founders, i.e. the brand name ain’t what it used to be. The same can be said for Steinway, Bosendorfer etc. It is an important difference that Stuart & Sons still has its founder and the product is still evolving under the guidance of the ‘original thinker’. I'm sure many who buy Stuart & Sons pianos are about supporting human endeavour just as much as buying product. Rowan Atkinson purchased his Stuart & Sons piano precisely for that reason, and it was an important factor in my own purchase of one as well. After all, it is perfectly possible to buy a very good piano for a fraction of the price from anyone else. Some specialised parts (strings, actions) for Stuart pianos come from overseas because they are the best quality parts they can get for the purpose and there are no equivalent Australian manufacturers. But, the piano case and iron frames are made in Australia, and the piano is 100% designed, assembled, finished, tuned and optimised for performance at the factory. So without needing to calculate "added manufactured value" it is, I would submit, correct to say the piano is undeniably Australian, whichever way you look at it. I know for a fact that Wayne fully intends to keep it that way. And I fully support that. Monday, April 21. 2008
Reinterpreting the 'Classical' ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
20:47
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Reinterpreting the 'Classical' Repertoire
It is certainly possible to play the full classical repertoire on the Stuart piano without significant recourse to its extra design and performance features over those of traditionally designed pianos. Indeed, a majority of pianists will so do when they are playing these pianos for the first time. Therein lies a problem, of course, because they will then judge the results on previous experience and as is undoubtedly clear by now, the Stuart is different and it is not valid in any way to make that comparison.
I have spent two and a half years playing this piano, and I’m still adjusting to different pieces in different ways. I recorded a CD some two years ago, and listening to it now I can recognise the changes and improvements (IMHO) in my playing since that time. I’ve also played a number of other (good) pianos in the meantime, and found that I am not that happy with the outcome. As I’ve said elsewhere in this blog, I have stylistically reverted to the norm, and that is not a good feeling – not that I have much choice in the matter as I’ve explained. So if one wants to play conservatively on a Stuart piano and try to get what may be called a ‘traditional’ feel to the repertoire, what are the things you look for and must do? Firstly, buy another piano. OK, so I’m kidding. Scrub that one … Firstly (for real) take note of the resonance and sustain. This will mean a broader conception of the piece in terms of tempo, and certainly pedaling. I’ve found in a concert hall environment I use much less damper pedal than I do playing the same piece in my own home. Remember that what you are hearing close to the piano is not necessarily what the audience hears – particularly in a place with significant reverberation. Secondly, you must adjust to the increased dynamic range. It doesn’t pay to be heavy handed on these pianos – they require a softer touch overall, but one has to take into account the first point above if you really want to let loose and test people’s auditory pain thresholds to their limits. Thirdly, you need to listen to the clarity of each note, especially in the high and low ranges. You get a totally different sound than a ‘normal’ piano simply because you can hear each note that much more clearly. Balance between the hands and the individual tonal ranges becomes much more of an issue. If you take these into account, then you have the basis to do a good job on most styles of music. Note, however, that you are only just scratching the surface of what the piano can do. Nonetheless, you have to start somewhere, I suppose. I had to Saturday, April 19. 2008The Vertical Colour of Sound
The Stuart piano has unique attack and decay transients of the sound. The responsiveness of the piano together with the tonal variations offered by the four pedals opens up a much wider palette of sounds and timbres than is possible on other more traditionally designed pianos.
Whilst most classical music has been written as a time-based series of sounds (hence the importance of rhythm), the advent of tightly controlled electronic sounds heralded by the Moog Synthesiser has allowed a much greater focus on the ways in which sounds blend together and the frequencies and behaviour of their harmonic interactions. In this way, the individual sound is the critical thing rather than a sequence of sounds in the classical sense. Much of this work was pioneered by Brian Eno, originally from Roxy Music. He is credited with the development of ‘ambient’ sound, where the tonal and time variability of the sound itself is an inherent part of the music. In his excellent book on Eno, Eric Tamm describes this as the vertical (as distinct from horizontal or time based) colour of sound. To quote from Chapter 1, “Timbre is a term that refers to the colour of sound itself: it is what makes the same note played on a violin, a trumpet, or a xylophone sound different. This aspect of musical sound can be thought of as ‘vertical,’ since it depends to a large extent on the harmonics, or barely audible frequencies, that are stacked up ‘vertically’ on top of the primary heard note itself.” Whilst it may seem that traditional acoustic instruments are not suited to this new scenario, in fact the reverse can be true. Eno comments that “I like it because of the complexity of its sound. If you hold the sustain pedal down, strike a note and just listen ... that’s one of my favourite musical experiences. I often sit at the piano for an hour or two, and just go ‘bung!’ and listen to the note dying. Each piano does it in a different way. You find all these exotic harmonies drifting in and drifting out again, and one that will appear and disappear many times. There’ll be fast-moving ones and slow-moving ones. That’s spellbinding, for me” One of the major design philosophies of the Stuart piano is to reinvent the piano to be relevant to 21st century music as well as offering new scope for traditional classical music. In this sense there are a number of features which make it ideal to explore this vertical colour of the piano sound. 1) the clarity of the sound – the frequency band or width of each note is narrower than in other pianos and consequently the harmonic interactions with other notes are much clearer and cleaner than on other pianos 2) the unique behaviour of the attack and decay transients of the sound 3) the almost total lack of low frequency masking which is the tendency of the lower frequencies to obscure or over power the upper frequencies 4) the extended keyboard range which allows a much wider frequency canvas to be explored 5) the unique pedal arrangement which allows a multitude of different types of sound within the one sustained canvas This opens up a vast number of possibilities in interpreting piano music, not only 21st century but also mainstream piano music from all eras. Naturally enough, this would make your average traditional pianist take to the Stuart piano with an axe. Such things require a totally different mindset, a very good ear and a willingness to let go what has been learnt in the past and explore uncharted but exciting waters. Anybody for swimming? Friday, April 18. 2008Recording the Stuart piano
I’ve tried many combinations of microphone types, numbers and positions when recording my Stuart piano. What I have worked out (basically by trial and error) is that a fairly simple approach to recording produces a sound effectively indistinguishable from more complex (and more expensive) setups.
I have discovered Ockham’s Razor (again)… I now record from two Behringer C-3 omnidirectional microphones placed just inside the piano – one covering the bass side and the other the treble. These are panned left and right, respectively, to provide a stereo mix. They pick up sound from both the soundboard directly and from the piano lid. I also have a Rode NTG-2 shotgun microphone placed about 4 metres away from the piano, and pointing directly at the lid. This picks up a fair amount of the room ambience and I mix this (normally at a reduced level) into the other tracks depending upon the sound I want to create. The use of more microphones, either close to or ambient to the piano, does not appear to add any significant features or quality to the results from those three microphones. These record into a Boss BR1600 digital recorder, which provides the phantom power necessary to drive the microphones. This records at 16bit/44.1 kHz, i.e. at CD quality. I record dry, i.e. no reverb added into the raw recording. I then mix and occasionally add in appropriate reverb etc as part of the mixing process. I do not use either equalisation or compressors / limiters of any sort, unlike the practice of many commercial recording houses. This latter is why commercial recordings of the Stuart piano in many cases do not accurately represent the true sound of the instrument and therefore are not true indications of what the piano really sounds like. My music room is carpeted, so the sound is quite dry, but the advantage of that is that it picks up the pure piano sound and all of its intricacies. This results in recordings of very good quality which to most people’s ears are indistinguishable from professional studio recordings. I have recorded the Stuart piano at Tiger Studios in Sydney with a professional 24bit/192kHz setup with very high quality (=expensive) microphones, and of course, there are differences, but I am not an audiophile and so such things are not, to me, important enough for me to ‘improve’ what is at the moment quite sufficient for my needs. Once 24bit recorders (at least 96kHz) become a bit more mainstream I may look to upgrade, but the moment I have a very good flexible setup which is quite remarkable value for the money I spent on it. Another good investment. Now, what do I need next? Thursday, April 17. 2008Caring for your Stuart Piano
Quality pianos need very special care.
One of the things I’ve noticed since I’ve had the piano is the very fine tolerances required to produce a piano of that quality in the first place, and how easy it is for the piano to become ‘out of alignment’, as it were. In my case, I found after a few months after I acquired it that the piano action was ‘bottoming out’, and I was getting a loud thump as the action was hitting something that it was not designed to do. This was easily fixed during a routine service, and Wayne revoiced the piano back to where it should have been. This illustrates the point that pianos are not static – they do change over time and it takes a while for them to settle into a new environment. In practice, it was just over a year before equilibrium was achieved with the piano’s environment. Since that time, Wayne has only needed to make minor changes to the voicing. He has also installed some very powerful magnets to keep the mechanism even more firmly attached to the piano case. I suspect that if I ever needed a pacemaker this could cause problems… Whilst I have an air-conditioner in my music room, it's not on all the time (being a scientist originally I do try to be a little bit green, in the ecological and non-Kermitian sense). I have heat film on the windows which helps to keep the temperature within reasonable bounds. Although the temperature outside may be more than 40° Celcius, in my music room it never gets above 30° Celcius. In practice, the piano is much more affected by humidity changes than by temperature changes. I have a dehumidifier set to keep the humidity below 50% all the time. On humid days, this will take a large bucketful of moisture out of the air in about one day. Putting a dehumidifier inside the piano is definitely not an option here – Wayne’s view, which I agree with, is that this cure can be worse than the disease, hence the external dehumidifier which works extraordinarily well and is very quiet in operation. The piano holds its pitch and tuning remarkably well. Over a period of time, we have noticed an overall drop in pitch of a couple of cents, but this is consistent over the whole range and is not noticeable in practice. I wish I was as stable as the piano. Wednesday, April 16. 2008
What is the point of the extra keys ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
07:49
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) What is the point of the extra keys if there is no music written for them?
Composers are always limited by the instruments they write for.
Beethoven in his mature works liked to explore the full range of the piano, the last movement of the 4th piano concerto is a case in point. There is also a section in the 1st movement of the Sonata Op110 where Beethoven clearly wants to go higher than the range of his piano allowed, and as a result there is a fairly obvious ‘break’ in the way the music sounds. It is common practice these days for pianists to play what Beethoven wanted, rather than what he wrote. At two points in his Toccata, Khachaturian runs out of notes in the upper range – at the end of the first section and right at the end. The range of the Stuart allows the player to continue the sequence right up to the top F. Once again, the result is clean, effective and very, very logical. What this means is that the player can, with appropriate judgement, expand the music to fill the notes available. For example, doubling of octaves, both in the bass and treble, can produce effects which emphasise or develop different sounds and effects which can be in total harmony with the music and the composer’s intentions. The extended range of the piano expands the musical possibilities. I use the extra notes, both bass and treble, quite often these days, and I do not believe that I am in any way detracting from the music. I am reinterpreting and expanding the music. For a serious musician, this is an ideal position to be in. How far can you go, I wonder? Tuesday, April 15. 2008
How about this for a joke (= Has it ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
17:45
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) How about this for a joke (= Has it come to this, yet again?)
Here we go again. There really is no end to the stupidity of some people,
From the Sydney Morning Herald, Letters, April 15th: “Piano choice off key XXXX, (Letters, April 14) have you actually heard classical music played on the Stuart piano? The new Stuart design has a completely different sound entirely inappropriate for classical music. It might have a cleaner, clearer sound but it lacks the complex mixture of harmonics of the Steinway and most other grand pianos. The Stuart sounds much like an electronic piano, which is fine for much modern music such as ragtime but leaves my teeth grinding when listening to classical music. The Stuart is a new and different instrument with a new and different sound, which is not necessarily better for all types of music.” What a load of utter and complete crap. I have responded as follows: “Piano choice ‘in’ key XXXX, (Letters, April 15) have YOU actually heard (and, furthermore, even played) classical music on the Stuart piano? Your views on the ‘inappropriateness’ of this piano for classical music are totally subjective, groundless and inaccurate. The piano, in fact, has been championed by many fine musicians both here and overseas for its ‘clearer, cleaner sound’, which is not only a major advance over the ‘Steinway and most other grand pianos’ but is patently a huge improvement over the thick dull sound common in the average acoustic piano. Your amazing description of ragtime as ‘modern’ music (Scott Joplin lived from 1868 to 1917) gives the lie to your pretence of being anything other than just another hysterical and ill-informed musical illiterate.” Boy, did I enjoy that, or what … Of course, this letter wasn't printed ... Neither was this much more skillfully written letter by the eminent Australian pianist Simon Tedeschi, who very kindly gave me permission to include the text in this blog, and I quote: “XXXX's letter regarding the Stuart piano left me a little confused - I dare say a few other musicians might be in the same boat. I have played approximately 10 of the Stuart Pianos, including recordings on two of them. To lump them all together in the same category is at best spurious, because they vary greatly. To compare their sound to electronic music - and then to associate electronic music with 'modern' music such as ragtime (the precursor to jazz in late 19th Century America) is similarly inscrutable. I would encourage XXXX to listen to the instrument at NSW Government House, which is a perfect piano for Romantic music. I would also recommend a number of others as having precisely the opposite qualities as argued in the letter, such as the Stuart Piano performed on Gerard Willems' internationally acclaimed Beethoven CDs.” You can’t argue against that in any way. Tuesday, April 15. 2008Forget-me-nots
It really strikes home that the mind is not in the shape it used to be when it stubbornly refuses to remember pieces of music that in bygone days would have been etched in stone somewhere inside without any effort. No matter how I try with some pieces, it just doesn’t work. I panic.
I suppose that like most things that don’t come naturally any more, there are two options. Firstly, accept it and secondly, do something about it. Retrain the memory. The problem is that some new pieces I can remember and some I can’t, and I don’t know why this should be the case. Its not complexity so much, or technical difficulty. I never really had a technique for memorising – it just happened as part of the process of learning a piece of music. I’m beginning to believe that one of the major contributors is discipline – in the sense of playing the notes exactly and ‘tightly’. Virtually all of my work as a church musician, whether on a keyboard or organ, is improvised in one way or another. Its perfectly natural for me to do this and I’ve been doing it for many years, even if there are occasions when I think I’ve rediscovered the Lost Chord. I suspect that that has worked against my ability to memorise – my brain is being lazy and shortcutting the path to what is left of my long term memory. I’m not sure if there is a cure. Monday, April 14. 2008Has it come to this? (encore)
The recent acquisition of a Steinway piano by the Sydney Opera House illustrates, in my view, one of the worst sins of music administrators not only in Australia, but I suspect elsewhere as well.
The sin of complacency. Let me requote from an earlier posting: “The decision to go with a Steinway, rather than one of the other major brands, such as Kawai or Yamaha, or an Australian-made Stuart piano, was made in consultation with the Sydney Symphony, the main hirer of the Concert Hall. A venue like this is expected to have Steinways. That's what everyone wants to play on" This gave rise to a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, which I quote in full below: “No reason to spurn Stuart Vladimir Ashkenazy is, without question, a great pianist. Whether that qualifies him to be the sole judge of pianos for the Opera House is another matter, especially when he seems to have such a close relationship with the manufacturing firm. Furthermore, while there is no doubting the truth of the comment by Richard Evans, the new Opera House chief executive, that the venue is expected to have Steinways, the fact is that there are quite a number of them already at Bennelong Point. Why was the Australian-made Stuart spurned so readily as the replacement? It sounds just like the treatment of our composers. We will never achieve much if we always look overseas for affirmation.” How true. Consider this (partial) quote from one of the fora at pianoworld.com (the capitals are original): “… in order for Steinway to design anything, they must first have an R&D department. Since nothing new has come from that company in terms of a genuinely new model in likely 80 years plus or minus, it would be a safe assumption that they are not designing ANYTHING … The fact is there are very few piano engineers on the planet. I am sure that it is Steinway's assertion that they already have the best pianos on the planet, so why employ an R&D department, which I am sure that they do not. The Asian manufacturers on the other hand, likely employ such departments. THEY after all ARE introducing new/improved models on a fairly regular basis.” To which latter list, of course, we can add Stuart & Sons. The author of the above quote has hit the nail flush on the head. By purchasing an admittedly very high quality Steinway, the Opera House has voted for the status quo, tradition, conformity and musical blandness. As one who has watched the Opera House grow from its inception, the last thing you can say about its design is status quo, tradition, conformity and blandness. Utzon’s original design is quite simply breathtaking in its originality and vision, even fifty years later. It’s a pity that, at least in this instance, the current Opera House administration doesn’t wish to or is unable to match his vision. More food for thought. Monday, April 14. 2008Retraining the ear
As one gets older one notices wear and tear on the body. I have more wrinkles, I’m obviously slower than I used to be and I’ve just picked a nasty case of tennis elbow in the right arm which is taking quite a while to dissipate. All of these things I can adjust to since they are anticipated as one matures in life. What is more difficult to adjust to (and indeed recognise in the first place) are the mental changes. I’ve always relied much more on my brain than my brawn but now I’m noticing that there are things that I used to be able to do which now are either much more difficult or else I cannot do at all.
This is exacerbated by the Stuart piano, which in fact requires the performer to be much more careful about how he/she plays and monitors the sound coming out. It is very easy to overdo things. The trick with this piano is that there are a number of important features to get used to. The first is the dynamic range of the initial strike. As I’ve indicated before in this blog with reference to the pedals in particular, this piano has the widest dynamic range of any that I (and other people) have played. A properly voiced 2.9 metre Stuart piano can deafen people close to it, but by the same token on the same piano you can produce clean, controlled sounds that are practically inaudible. A colleague of mine who is an expert in the physiology of the ear and therefore is very sensitive to such things, plays my piano with the lid down … Secondly, the decay transients also have a unique behaviour. These transients are much more responsive than in the standard piano where they have been dumbed down to produce what could be described as a dull, woody thud. Not only do you have a longer sustain, but also a unique tonal quality of that sustain. Lastly, there is an almost total lack of low frequency masking which is the tendency of the lower frequencies to obscure or overpower the upper frequencies producing the thick dull sound common in the average acoustic piano. It is thus possible to create a clean, long lasting sustained sound involving the entire 97-note piano range. Another consequence is that you can play much more loudly without drowning out an instrumental or vocal soloist. This is quite evident in performance. What this means in practice is that it is necessary to listen much more attentively to the sound coming from the piano. Even more than in other pianos, the combination of the fingers, feet and ears is absolutely critical to producing the best sound. In my case my feet are OK. My fingers never were that strong but as long as I don’t overdo things I can work them pretty well. My ears are the problem. Even now, I’m still not listening properly. I pick up things when I listen to a recording of my playing which I never recognised when I was playing and recording it. More practice, more recordings, more listening. Did I mention the word challenging earlier? Sunday, April 13. 2008Money....
...is many things to many people. To a musician, it is a means to an end to acquire an instrument of sufficient quality that:
1) it is an investment in the musical sense – it adds value over a period of time to the ability of the musician to play what he/she wants to play in the way that he/she wants to play it. 2) It is an investment in the monetary sense – the instrument will retain its value over a period of time and in some cases even grow in value. Whilst the capital cost of an instrument is obviously a critical part of the equation, it is not the only thing that in my view needs to be taken into account. I have a Martin acoustic guitar that I bought in 1976. It is still played regularly (by my son rather than me) and is still in the same condition as when I bought it. In money terms, it has been valued at 6-7 times the amount I paid for it. One has to allow for inflation of course, but basically I have not lost by buying it, despite the fact that it took a sizable amount of my very limited resources at the time to buy it. Short term, people thought I was mad. Long term, the guitar has been everything I wanted and more. Friends who bought lesser guitars have long since consigned them to the scrap heap. The same thing applies to the Stuart. Yes it is a lot of money, but that is only one part of the equation. You have to consider the acquisition of one of these instruments as a long term investment, and when you do this, the piano begins to make eminent sense. You hear much discussion about second hand (pre-loved, used – whatever euphemism you want) Steinway, Bosenyamaha etc pianos. Why? Because these are ‘cheaper’ than buying a new one. Was buying the new one in the first place a good investment? Consider the following: • The cost of a 2.9 metre Stuart piano is around the $Aus215K mark (including GST). • The Sydney Conservatorium (which incidentally has two Stuart pianos) recently bought a 2.9 metre Steinway for around $Aus250K and that didn’t include the cost of sending two people over to Germany to select it nor the cost of transporting it back to Australia. The Sydney Opera House also just bought a new Steinway for the same amount. • There is a Bechstein baby grand (~1.6 metre, not 2.2) in a showroom in Sydney priced at $Aus225K. We know of three Stuart pianos in private hands that have been on sold for more than the price that was originally paid. The 2.9 metre piano that Gerard Willems played in his award-winning Beethoven recordings was sent to London last year and sold within three weeks for the same price as a new piano – and this piano was built in 1999. It’s now domiciled in Switzerland in a lovely house with a high roof next to a lake. And it still sounds great. Now we add in the intangible benefits. My piano is not only for me. Its for my son, and his children, and his children’s children and so on. Its an investment for the next generations and as such, amortised over that period of time, the initial cost is essentially immaterial. I am a long-term investor. Wayne normally makes a maximum of around six pianos per year, but there are about ten in the pipeline as I write this. There is no production line. Each piano is individually crafted, and no two are identical. No-one else will have a piano the same as mine. It is unique, and will remain so. Based on our experiences to date, Stuart pianos will not lose their value over time. You can’t say that about any other piano past or present. Now, you tell me. Which of the above three is the best investment? Actually, don’t tell me. I know the answer already. Friday, April 11. 2008Has it come to this?
“The Steinway Spectacular
Get ready for an evening of unprecedented virtuosity when eight of Australia's leading pianists perform the most compelling works ever written for piano on eight Steinway Concert Grands in The Steinway Spectacular - for one performance only.” This reminds me of the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984 where they had myriads of identically dressed pianists playing Gershwin on myriads of identically-looking white (yuk..) grand pianos. I wonder if they were Steinways too? Yes, its great that Steinway are paying lots of money to get lots of pianos on stage to be played by lots of pianists, both in Melbourne and Sydney, and they’re obviously paying lots of money to promote and underwrite the event which is a good thing for the average music lover in Australia, even though the publicity blurb for the occasion is somewhat over the top. But I suppose that’s what you’ve got to do to put bums on seats these days so maybe I shouldn’t be too critical. Now I’m undoubtedly going to get lots of flak for this, but in my view it’s a crying shame that Steinway need to go to this extent to market their products. Are people, as a result of this, going to rush out and buy a Steinway? I doubt it. I would judge that this is simply a brand recognition / reinforcement exercise in the face of mounting competition within the industry. We have seen many so-called ‘quality’ European manufacturers go to the wall or else forced to manufacture off-shore in order to compete in today’s market and I don’t doubt that Steinway (or any other manufacturer of ‘traditional’ pianos for that matter) are feeling the pinch. The problem with that of course is that the cost of this and other marketing exercises gets added into the cost of the instrument. So… • How much of the cost of a Steinway is the piano, and how much is marketing? • How much is dealer markup and profit? • If you buy one of these are you really getting the musical and investment value you think you are? • Is this why second hand Steinways are considerably cheaper than new ones? I suspect you could replace ‘Steinway’ with any other brand and the questions would still be valid. The hype surrounding the selection of pianos amazes me. Take this snippet from the Sydney Morning Herald this morning concerning the selection of a new piano for the Sydney Opera House. “The decision to go with a Steinway, rather than one of the other major brands, such as Kawai or Yamaha, or an Australian-made Stuart piano, was made in consultation with the Sydney Symphony, the main hirer of the Concert Hall. A venue like this is expected to have Steinways. That's what everyone wants to play on" Is it really? Wants to? Or expects to? Or is conditioned to? Isn’t it about time we broke down these stupid barriers that maintain the status quo for no other reason than to maintain Steinway’s perceived (and in many people’s views, erroneous) position in the piano kingdom? Food for thought, I think. Thursday, April 10. 2008
The Role of Temperament in Music Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
18:26
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) The Role of Temperament in Music
… and I don’t mean anything to do with the psychological state of the performer, or, in my case, the owner of a Stuart piano.
All tunings of any keyboard instrument are approximations. This is very well explained by the American composer Kyle Gann on his website (http://www.kylegann.com/histune.html). As an example, the size of a major third is 386.3 cents, a cent being one 1200th of an octave. Since three consecutive major thirds on a keyboard equal one octave (for example C->E, E->G#, Ab->C) it is clear we have a problem, since 3 x 386.3 = 1158.9, i.e. we are out by 41.1 cents. The whole problem with tunings where there are 12 semitones to an octave is how do we approximate the tunings to compensate for this discrepancy? By and large there have been four historical steps in this process: 1) Pythagorean tuning, where (to quote from the above web site) “Before the advent of meantone tuning, the French academy at Notre Dame (13th and 14th centuries) followed a medieval tradition since Boethius (4th century) in decreeing that only a series of perfect fifths could make up a scale; their ratio was 3/2, and 3, after all, was the perfect number, connoting the Trinity among other things. Thus the Pythagorean scale is a just-intonation scale on a series of perfect fifths, all the ratio numbers powers of either 3 or 2”. Pythagorean tuning thus focuses on perfect fifths. Thirds are somewhat dissonant, which helps to explain some of the compositional traits of the period. 2) During the 16th century, composers began to include major and minor thirds in their harmonies, thus introducing major and minor triads, amongst other things. Given that in Pythagorean tuning the major thirds are 400 cents (urk!) rather than 386.3, clearly some adjustments needed to be made. This gave rise to meantone tuning, where the thirds are more consonant but the fifths less so. The major disadvantage, however, was that some triads (Db, F#, Ab, and B) were horribly dissonant. This disconcerted a certain J.S.Bach, who (not alone, of course) wished to be able to play and compose in all keys. 3) This led to the concept of a well-tempered scale, where the dissonances, if you like, are spread out between the intervals more (but not totally) equally. Bach had his own tuning standard, but two of the major tunings were Werckmeister III (mainly used for harpsichords) and Young 1799 (mainly used for pianos). 4) Equal temperament, namely where all semitones are equally spaced over the octave, is really a 20th century standard, although it was known but not by all accounts accepted, during the 19th century. It can be argued that equal temperament removes the subtle characteristics of various keys which, to a sensitive ear, are clearly identifiable in a well-tempered tuning. Before I acquired the Stuart, I had my little upright piano tuned to Young 1799. There was a noticeable difference in the sounds I produced from the piano. My colleague who tuned it for me was initially put off by the changes (he has a very good musical ear), but admitted to me later that after a while he had adjusted to the tuning and in fact had tuned his own piano in the same way. Whether it was better or not is a matter of individual taste since there are no right or wrongs here, but it was not difficult to understand why some keys are better than others for a particular style of music. Wayne tunes my piano to equal temperament. He does this totally by ear, focusing on beats and tones rather than quantitatively measuring the frequency, and has a very precise method for so doing. The clarity of each note (even the very low and high ones) makes this job much easier than with a standard piano. The question now arises as to how would the Stuart piano sound in a well-tempered tuning. It could be argued that whilst this may be more suitable for pre-20th century music, this may make modern music less viable on the piano, since most of that style of music relies much less on the 19th century concept of keys, but this has really yet to be tested in practice. Using Wayne’s tuning specifications as a basis, I have developed a methodology for tuning a well-tempered (or any other temperament for that matter) piano, using a fully aural method, i.e. no quantitative frequency measurement, similar to way he tunes equal temperament. The results should be interesting, to say the least. |
CalendarQuicksearchArchivesCategoriesSyndicate This BlogBlog AdministrationStatisticsLast entry: 2011-06-01 11:23
121 entries written
11 comments have been made
|