Tuesday, April 8. 2008
A New, Improved Marketing Scheme For ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
08:59
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) A New, Improved Marketing Scheme For The Stuart Piano
Up there!
It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No, it’s … it’s SUPERPIANO!!! • faster than a feeding pullet • more powerful than a leitmotiv • able to leap eight octaves in a single bound < As a practicing Business Consultant, I recognise that the ugly aura of marketing is everywhere. My own (somewhat jaundiced) view is that marketing is an activity that should be performed between consenting adults in private… “The world famous pianist XXXX plays a YYYY piano exclusively”, where XXXX and YYYY may be substituted with any pianist and piano manufacturer you care to mention. Trans: XXXX is being paid by YYYY. Pianist XXXX says “A YYYY piano is the most expressive piano I have ever played!” Trans: XXXX is being paid by YYYY. And so on, ad nauseum. All utterly meaningless. The cost of a product, no matter what that product is, is a combination of development, manufacture, servicing and marketing/sales. In this modern age, where communication is king, the cost of the latter may even exceed the cost of the three former. Given the current competitive state of the industry world-wide and the emergence of Asian and Eastern European countries as major piano manufacturers, brand recognition and maintaining that recognition is everything. Hence the large names on the sides of pianos, as mentioned previously. But now things are changing. The internet now affords the opportunity of effective, sophisticated and cheap advertising via a web site. People such as myself who are interested in a product of this quality will be proactive in seeking it out. I didn’t need glossy brochures, showrooms and exhibitions to find what I wanted. I didn’t need worthless (and paid) recommendations by (otherwise very able) pianists about a particular product or brand name. I had a look at the web site, picked up the telephone number, made a telephone call, and then got in my car. My GPS did the rest… It was that simple. I’ve had many discussions with Wayne about business strategies and product positioning in the global market. With regards to his product, my view always has been to make the information available and the product will sell itself, and to a large extent this is the way the business works in practice. The web site has been improved significantly over time, and I know that more than one piano has been sold simply because of the quality and value of the information there. The product doesn’t need brand recognition. Amongst the intended target audience, it already has it. As a result, the price of the piano represents the development and manufacturing costs rather than the marketing costs, and that’s the way it really should be. This is why the piano is, despite other people’s more so-called business-like approach, very good value for the price. The piano is not only a 21st century piano, so is the business structure behind it. Saturday, April 5. 2008The Stuart piano can’t play…
Of course it can’t. The pianist plays. However, I digress…
I’m continually intrigued by statements such as “the Stuart piano is no good for X”, where X is Romantic music, Baroque music, Rococo music or skybluepinkwithpurpledots music. Such statements always imply a basis from which such judgments are made, in this case, comparing the Stuart piano to the current orthodoxy. The problem with that, of course, is that the Stuart piano is not in itself the current orthodoxy. We leave that to Steinway, Bechstein, Bosenyamaha etc etc. The piano that Mozart played, and therefore at that time the current orthodoxy at least for his music, is totally different to any other type of piano. Does that mean that Mozart could not be played on the Broadwood pianos of the English Piano School because they were new, compared to the Viennese Stein piano that Mozart played? Chopin and Mendelssohn loved to play Mozart. Did the fact they played on even bigger and ‘better’ pianos negate the music? Of course not. The theory of evolution (i.e. survival of the fittest) applies as much to pianos as to aardvarks (yes, I know, aardvarks never hurt anybody). If a better piano comes along, the old is discarded. Mozart’s piano is now a (very rarely played) historical curiosity. In order to play Mozart on the better mousetrap, one needs to reinterpret Mozart for that mousetrap. That doesn’t invalidate the better mousetrap – it simply means that the music is capable of, and needs, effective reinterpretation. Which brings me to the point of the sustain on a Stuart piano – it is long and powerful. The bottom C on my piano has a 40 second sustain time, and the volume decays much more slowly than other pianos. So your playing needs to adjust to this, and in fact it is very easy to play too quickly on this piano. The combination of reverberation in a concert hall plus the increased sustain means that clarity to the listener can be lost very easily. I’ve heard a performance of the Chopin B flat minor Scherzo on a 2.9 metre Stuart piano which was brilliant technically but very muddled to the ears. Consequently it is very easy to say that “the Stuart piano can’t play Chopin”. In reality, what is being said is that the performer didn’t adjust the performance to take account of the qualities of the piano, i.e. it is a matter of interpretation of the music, not a fault of the piano per se. Within my limitations, romantic music (indeed any music) is fine on the Stuart. Remember, the performer makes the music. The piano is simply the instrument of production. If you don’t produce properly, that is hardly the fault of the piano. It is but your humble servant. Friday, April 4. 2008
If you don’t like the heat, stay out ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
08:33
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) If you don’t like the heat, stay out of the kitchen
At the risk of being annoyingly repetitive, trying to play a Stuart piano like a ‘normal’ piano is commensurate with sticking to first gear in a Ferrari – the player is just not ‘getting’ what these pianos are all about.
There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way to play any music. For most people, there is a ‘square’ within which a style of music and interpretation meets their standards or expectations – outside this square is outside their comfort zone and they reject this as ‘wrong’. I’ve always believed that Horowitz, for all his brilliance, stayed within the square. Glenn Gould, for example, deliberately stayed outside it. Horowitz in all likelihood would not have liked playing a Stuart piano. Gould would have loved it. Pianos are normally built to comply with most people’s comfort zones, i.e. when you switch from one piano to another you should, by rights, be able to play your music in the way that you are accustomed to play. The Stuart piano does not fit this mold. It was deliberately designed to expand and redefine the square and performers, as I explained in my last post, have to understand that and be prepared to adapt to it. In ‘The Merchant of Venice’, Shakespeare writes “whoever chooses me must give and hazard all he hath”. This applies equally to the Stuart piano as it did to Portia. Performers have to listen much more closely to the sound they are producing, both in terms of what they hear at the keyboard and also what the audience hears in terms of the room ambience and acoustic properties. You need to link your fingers much more closely to the sound and resonance of the piano and ‘feel’ your way around the piece in ways that you haven’t done before. The result is unique to the Stuart, both in terms of the interpretation and the sound that you hear. The piano will bring out music in you that you didn’t know existed. This is the first step in fully understanding the piano. Even without the use of the extra pedals, the clarity of tone and dynamic range of the piano still exceeds any other. You have to learn to master these and apply them to whatever music you are playing. My advice always is to adjust to the piano – you will always play and interpret totally differently on this piano. If you revert to another piano, so will your playing and interpretation revert, since you will never be able to do the same thing on a piano which is not a Stuart. Everybody I have spoken to who has embraced the piano in the way in which it was intended has said exactly the same thing. If you’re not prepared for this, or if you don’t want to adapt and progress, don’t play it. This is a piano for the 21st century, not the 19th. Buy another piano and stay within the square. With a Stuart piano, you have a unique opportunity to define your own square. That is the challenge that awaits you. Nietzche would have approved … Thursday, April 3. 2008
Four pedals – but I’ve only got two ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
08:13
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Four pedals – but I’ve only got two feet …
The Stuart piano has four, rather than the standard three (for a grand piano), pedals, as follows:
1) the sustain or damper pedal (often erroneously and annoyingly called the loud pedal). Depressing this pedal lifts all the dampers off the strings and allows sustain on all notes. 2) the sostenuto pedal. Depressing this pedal sustains only those notes which have been depressed at the time – all other subsequently played notes are not sustained. This pedal is not often used, but can be very useful in, for example, Debussy’s La Cathedrale Engloutie. 3) The una corda pedal. This pedal shifts the hammers to the right, with the result that the hammer now only strikes one string rather than all strings for a particular note. 4) The dolce pedal (for want of a better name). The pedal moves the hammers closer to the strings so that not only do they hit the strings with less force (resulting in a quieter note) but this also allows the player to actually play the note more quietly than he or she could without the use of the pedal. All pianos have a damper pedal, and, more and more these days, the sostenuto pedal, but it is in the area of the ‘soft’ pedals that there is much less consistency. Many uprights I have seen have the dolce pedal, or else a mechanism whereby a layer of felt is placed between the hammers and the strings, thus producing an admittedly softer but also annoyingly muted, even strangled, sound. I might suggest that this type of pedal be named the recalcitrant neighbour pedal, because I can quite frankly imagine no other use for it, musical or otherwise. Very few uprights have the una corda, and my limited experience suggests that this is restricted to the higher end instruments. On the other hand, most grand pianos I have seen have the una corda pedal, and very few have the dolce pedal. The Stuart piano has both. Much has been made of this, quite a deal of it negative. Why have two pedals which basically do the same thing? A waste, surely?. Of course, they don’t do the same thing, and this is the point that virtually everyone who espouses the temerity of duo soft pedals misses completely. 1) The dolce pedal allows the pianist to play more quietly (although he/she doesn’t have to, but they can’t play as loudly) and the tone obtained is basically the same, since all strings are still being struck in the same fashion and in the same way. 2) The una corda pedal also allows the pianist to play more quietly, but as is the case with all other pianos as well, since only one string is being hit the sound is intrinsically softer and the tone is somewhat thinner and more muted. Note that this also is the case for the bass strings, where there is only one string anyway. In this case the hammer gives a slightly glancing blow to the string, and the effect is still the same. So, depending on the effect you want, you use the pedal you want. But wait, there’s more… The tonal and volume effect of the una corda pedal is gradual, in other words you can get a partial effect by partially depressing the pedal, both volume wise and tonally. The technique used here is to place the left foot somewhere in between and over the two pedals and then ‘rock’ the foot onto the una corda whilst still in control of the dolce pedal. In this way you can get a myriad of different combinations of the two soft pedals the result of which is a myriad of different touches, tones and timbres on the piano. Without putting too fine a point on this, this is quite unique in the piano world. It transforms the use of the soft pedals from a straightforward to a vastly increased and more complex combination of effects which can be used to totally transform the sounds that are played and as a result totally transform the music in ways that have not been possible before. Whilst it is true that Fazioli and Steingraeber pianos have the same double action, their implementations are totally different to the Stuart. Fazioli puts the fourth pedal some distance away from the shift pedal and it’s nearly impossible to play them together. He completely misses the concept of two pedals together. This is also the case with the Steingraeber Phoenix where the dolce action is at the bottom of the shift action – push to the first position is shift, keep going and its dolce - completely different objective. The four pedals have been in the Stuart design since 1989/90 as his original upright proof of concept had a shifting mechanism plus the dolce. Fazioli introduced his later. Together with the overall sound and resonance of the piano, this presents a vastly increased volume and tonal palette which enables the pianist to completely reinvent the piece of music being played, no matter from which period in history the music is from. It thus allows composers to specifically tailor their music to the possibilities offered by the instrument – from the softest, almost inaudible lows to powerful, clean sounds that dwarf the capabilities of other pianos – from delicate timbres to amazingly clean and sharp basses and trebles and all combinations in between. This may sound fanciful, but, believe me, its no joke. Its real, it exists and its here now. This instrument really is a leap forward and it opens up so many possibilities that those possibilities seem endless. The way I play Bach, Beethoven and Chopin would be an anathema to many traditionally minded souls. But the ability to reinvent is a powerful incentive to creative artistry. That’s why I can’t go back to a piano which, no matter how well it is built and how much craftsmanship goes into it, nonetheless doesn’t allow that kind of freedom and artistic licence. I have reinvented my square, and I suspect this will not be the last time I do it. Wednesday, April 2. 2008
First Impressions (continued) ... ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
12:18
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) First Impressions (continued) ... Rewarding
Sitting at and playing the Stuart piano are quite unique experiences.
Firstly, you are surrounded by the aura of the piano itself – the appearance and style, the quality. I have a custom made double stool for my piano, since this is a very useful option both for my teaching (I can get closer to the action, as it were) and also for duets, of course. I’ve always had a double stool – when I was much younger my parents made me one, and I still have it. Secondly, the volume range of the piano is much larger than any other piano I have played (The 2.9 metre beast is amazing in this regard). I’m convinced that Wayne has secreted a 200 watt amplifier somewhere inside the piano but I’ve never been able to find it… The overall efficiency of the sound production means that creating volume is not an issue – in fact one of my major initial problems was how to keep the volume down. I do this by effective use of the dolce pedal and also by consciously trying to play more softly – i.e. developing a softer touch. It must be emphasised that the entire dynamic range of this instrument is greater than any other – controlling this is an absolute prerequisite to getting the maximum musicality out of this piano. Once you have mastered the touch and the pedals (more on these later) a whole new sound canvas opens up to you and it is really up to the performer to exploit that canvas to the full, to ‘explore the possibilities’, as it were. Of course I have limitations – the fingers don’t necessarily do what they are told and I’m not nearly as good as I used to be in terms of memorising pieces. But the instrument is totally capable of producing whatever I want it to - it is simply a question of whether I can physically do it. If you ask me whether the whole process over the last 30 months has been worth it, the answer is an unequivocal yes. The trials and tribulations have been great, but nowhere near as great as the rewards. The feeling is really quite indescribable… Tuesday, April 1. 2008
First Impressions (continued) ... ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
10:09
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) First Impressions (continued) ... Challenging
So what to do now? I’m faced with the situation where I need to reinvent myself on the piano. Going from a small upright with a dodgy action to a Stuart is roughly equivalent to moving from a 1958 Volkswagen Beetle to a 2008 Rolls Royce – just how do I drive the bloody thing?
Therein, of course, lies the challenge for me, and, I suspect, all who play one of these instruments. The challenge is to rise to the occasion, or in more practical terms, rise to the instrument. Like driving a new car with all the latest technological bells and whistles, you have to learn how to use them and integrate the whole package with them so as to use them to their fullest advantage. Over the next few sessions, I’ll discuss some of the more important ones: 1) The four pedals 2) Resonance and sustain 3) Dynamic range 4) The extended keyboard |
CalendarQuicksearchArchivesCategoriesSyndicate This BlogBlog AdministrationStatisticsLast entry: 2011-06-01 11:23
121 entries written
11 comments have been made
|