Monday, May 26. 2008I passed the test - I think ...
One of the reasons that I bought a Stuart piano in the first place was that, at least in the back of my mind, I needed to get what was left of my performing skills back to whatever level my mind and fingers would allow me to do. Whilst I haven’t really put as much effort into the technical side as I should have (I always was lazy in that respect, much to my teacher’s chagrin) I think that over the past couple of years my playing has become more assured and confident, at least when I was listening to the results.
But there’s nothing like performing in public, and I must admit the prospect of so doing made me somewhat nervous, the reason being that I haven’t given anything like a full solo piano recital for so many years that quite frankly I can’t remember when or where the last time was. That doesn’t mean I haven’t performed musically – I do a lot of church music, both as an organist and, with my family, on other instruments – but I haven’t exposed myself to the gaze of an audience who are specifically there to hear me play for many, many years. So it was with some trepidation that I finally summoned up the courage to arrange a function where I could do just that, and it was pleasing that I was able to achieve a number of different aims at the same time. Firstly, I was able to get a number of friends and family to attend a barbeque at my house. Rule #1 – provide good food and good wine. Secondly, the BBQ was a fundraising event to assist a friend of mine who is aiming to build a much needed children’s hospital in his home country of Sierra Leone, which has the highest infant and child mortality rate in Africa. Rule #2 – a (very) good cause. I was also very pleased and grateful that Wayne and Katie Stuart gave up their time to come down from Newcastle to meet everyone and talk about pianos and all sorts of other things. So I used the occasion to demonstrate in practice some of the features of the Stuart piano, and this became the test of my performing ability and where I currently stand in that regard. Rule #3 – add value to the occasion. Rule #1 – we had barbequed fish, octopus, prawns, steak, chicken and pork together with cauliflower cheese, roast vegetable salad, humungous prawn crackers, bread, cheese, Filipino ice cream + much more. A good selection of white and red Australian wines plus many bottles of cranberry and pink grapefruit juice and soft drinks for those with delicate stomachs rounded off the menu. Rule #2 – we raised over $1250 for the hospital. My thanks to all – great stuff. Rule #3 – Wayne spent most of his time talking about pianos – and everyone learnt quite a bit during that process, and I certainly think that between the two of us we got the main point across of the piano being deliberately designed to expand the capabilities of the ‘traditional’ piano for all kinds of music, but especially for the 21st century. And my performance? By and large I was happy with the way I played. I deliberately chose a varied programme which included Louis Couperin, Bach, Chopin, Debussy, Pärt, Vine and Gottschalk to firstly allow me to settle in to the performance properly and not be too ambitious first up, but also to provide sufficient variation to show what I could do and what the piano was capable of producing. I also had the advantage that I was close to the audience and was able to interact properly – and I always was good at communicating in that way without ever going close to GBH on the earhole. An interesting sidelight was that despite the piano being in a relatively small room (it does need to be bigger) and that I really let loose on a couple of pieces, no-one complained about the piano being too loud – and Wayne made sure beforehand that the piano was optimally voiced. That really puts the lie to views that this kind of piano (at least the 2.2 metre version) needs to be voiced down for home use. The piano’s exceptional clarity means that loudness does not equate to murkiness – the sound is much more pleasurable to the ear no matter what the volume. So now two things have come of the event. Firstly, everyone who was there wanted a repeat event in the future, so tentatively we are looking around the end of September for that to occur. Secondly, I have to raise the bar again with respect to my own playing. I suppose that this is a natural consequence of the process I established 30 months ago now. The momentum has been a bit slow coming – but that’s because I’ve had a long way to come to get to this stage. Now, I have to find more hours in the day – I’m not sure how to identify where I get the time from. Something’s got to give… There’s no turning back, now, I suspect. Friday, May 23. 2008It's not a Steinway ...
I know that, of course, but it seems as though many people don’t.
I’ve made the point many times that playing a Stuart piano requires a totally different mindset to that required for what I might call a ‘traditional’ piano. Most of the comment I see and hear still is very much hidebound by the traditions of the piano built up over the last 150 years and the sense of ‘comfort’ or ‘not wanting to change’ that this engenders. Janet Brewer, from the Queensland Conservatorium of Music at Griffith University, has submitted a thesis for the Master of Music, Performance Research degree entitled “It’s not a Steinway – Features and Perspectives of the Stuart and Sons Piano”. Her work uses a qualitative research methodology including surveys, interviews and subsequent discourse analysis to investigate the distinctive characteristics of the Stuart piano through the perspectives of experienced professional pianists who have performed both solo and chamber repertoire on Stuart pianos. Her overall conclusion is very much along the lines that I have espoused in this blog (and I wrote most of that before I had read her thesis) that playing the Stuart requires a different approach to clarity, touch and resonance and that the design stimulates the performer to draw on their experience and skill to provide something innovative in their interpretations. What the results point out is that there is considerable variation in performers’ views about how particular types of music can and should sound. There was general acceptance that the piano is easily adaptable to baroque, classical and post-19th century music, but opinions were divided as to romantic music as typified by Chopin, Brahms and (say) Rachmaninoff, where the sonority (i.e overall frequency mix) was seen by some (but by no means all) to be lacking. This type of music certainly relies very heavily on producing sound canvasses across the entire keyboard range and the combinations thereof are critically important to the human ear, but it seems to me as a (by now) experienced player of one of these pianos that the human ear is the problem. We are so used to the complexity (i.e. muddiness in many cases) of many pianos’ sounds that we have become desensitised to the qualities of the resonance itself. What the Stuart piano allows is a clearer definition to the listener of the composer’s structure and harmonies, and it is that clarity which I suspect people find difficult to adjust to. I play Chopin, Brahms and Rachmaninoff (as well as many others of that genre) and am finding that I’m appreciating the music much more because I can hear the harmonies much more clearly. In addition, that clarity is enabling me to expand using the extra notes to further explore the sounds that the composer may have had in his mind at the time he wrote the notes down. If it is felt that “the performance of the rich textures of Romantic music was deficient”, the cure for that deficiency lies in the fingers of the performer. The result will be different to the norm, but that is all to the good because this piano can redefine the norm if the brain controlling the fingers is good enough. The Stuart requires you to reinvent the way you play. The results of this thesis confirm that view. It also shows even so-called professional pianists quite often cannot get the old outdated ways out of their system. If you can do that, you’re on the way to a totally new and exciting experience that no other piano can match. Monday, May 19. 2008
Try before you buy … or not … the ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
09:21
Comments (0) Trackback (1) Try before you buy … or not … the Great Internet Marketing Dilemma
When I was looking for a new piano 2½ years ago, I looked at and played as many new pianos as I could find to get a feel for what was out there. Eventually, as I outlined in the first post in this blog, I ended up in Newcastle, played a certain piano, and that was that. Quest over.
For many people, the principle of ‘try before you buy’ is a critical part of the purchasing process. In the piano world, that means the availability of showrooms with multitudinous pianos and sales people wearing ties and purporting to know exactly what you want or need and which piano in their showroom precisely fits that need and quite coincidentally blows your budget out of the water. But times are changing. The internet has spawned a large number of on-line stores which sell just about anything you want to buy from the smallest to the biggest. These ‘virtual’ stores only exist, as far as you’re concerned, on your computer screen. Their physical location is not necessarily that important. Their raison d’etre is price and convenience. Online ordering is cheaper to process, so they can offer much lower prices and much greater ranges than traditional retail stores, and then deliver to your home. Last year I bought a top of the range Patricola Oboe. I picked this one because I had seen very good reviews of it and the rosewood finish appealed to me much more than the traditional black. I bought it off a website in the USA, a significant reason being that it was much, much cheaper to so do than buying the instrument in Australia. Obviously, I didn’t have the opportunity to ‘try before you buy’. How does this relate to the piano industry in general and the Stuart piano in particular? Australia is, physically, a long way from anywhere else. Even parts of Australia are a long way from anywhere else. Stuart pianos, being what they are in terms of size, cost and manufacturing ethic, are not made in sufficient quantity to economically justify any form of ‘official’ dealership in any other place other than at the factory since this would add significantly to the cost without adding anything in terms of constructive value to the instrument. I have made the point in previous posts that when you buy a piano such as a Steinway, you are paying for considerable dealer and marketing costs – this is not a philosophy or practice which is desirable in my view for Stuart pianos. The advent of the internet has allowed the development of sophisticated web sites which fulfill much of the initial marketing requirements for many products, Stuart pianos included. So, firstly you can check out the website (impressive) and download the sound samples (even more impressive). However, having digested all the information there, how then do you get information you really need to close the deal? Do you need any more? Do you need to actually play the piano? I’m not so sure that you do. In the previous post I noted that “playing a piano such as this in a showroom, dealer or even at the factory is not necessarily going to show you in any significant way how your relationship with the piano is going to be consummated long term. The piano will adjust to its environment, and you will adjust to the piano.” So what and how you play now will not be what and how you play in the future. Another critical factor is how the piano is set up and maintained – bad voicing will result in bad voices, pianistically speaking. And as most people know, probably from hard experience, trying to predict the future is not exactly what you would call an exact science, nor in fact a science of any description. No matter how informed a decision is you can never be absolutely certain that any decision you make now is going to work in the future. No matter how reliable a product is by previous experience or reputation, how can you be sure that you’re going to get that reliability in practice? Of course, the answer is that you don’t. Essentially, you trust, or have faith in, the brand. What is becoming much clearer in the piano industry is that are far as the traditional ‘quality’ manufacturers are concerned, faith in the brand is rapidly being eroded due to competition from ‘cheaper’ makes and the consequent need to become more price competitive. This has, quite legitimately in my view, compromised their reputation for quality, and made it much more difficult for people to accept the brand name as a guarantee of the quality of days gone by. So buying a piano sight unseen is tantamount to a ‘leap of faith’ or ‘crossing the divide into the great unknown’ or a multitude of other statements which approach the class of cliché. You can never be sure as to what you are getting – and it’s not as though you can simply send it back to where you got it from and get another. But a case can be made that if you know what you are getting and can rely on it, then the chances of success improve dramatically. This is the internet marketing model. It doesn’t need a middleman, a physical store or anything that the pre-internet business regards as necessary. The process is essentially as follows: 1) I’m in the market for a new, high quality piano 2) I know about your product and its superb quality, tone and touch 3) I like the look and the sound of it as evidenced by your web site and am happy with the price 4) I know that if I order one from you it will be of that superb quality when I get it, so … 5) Send me one, please … do you accept VISA? There is no doubt about the quality of the Stuart piano. Mine still looks and plays better than when it just came out of the factory it has settled down beautifully. Unlike other manufacturers, this particular brand name is a guarantee of what you get. Their uncompromising attitude towards quality and pricing is an essential part of that. This of course comes with one giant, humungous caveat. It will only work for that quality of instrument for which the faith matches the result – mass produced instruments will not have the consistent level of quality to be able to take that risk, hence the need for showrooms and dealers. The other ingredient of course is the player. If you understand what the piano is about and want to be part of the experience of reinventing yourself as a musician, then there is no doubt, no leap of faith or whatever. The only risk is with you, not the piano. If you’re up for that, you won’t be disappointed. Wednesday, May 14. 2008Grease and oil change...
I commented in a previous posting on how easy is for the piano to become ‘out of alignment’, as it were in a number of ways, for example, tuning, a particular bugbear with many cheaper pianos. Given the fact that I’m planning to do some recording from the piano fairly soon, I asked Wayne to visit and work his magic on the beast and see what needed to be done to optimise the recording process.
This he did last weekend, and as per usual when we get together we covered a multitude of conversational topics both connected with and not so much connected with the state of the piano industry in general and the Stuart piano in particular. In between and during which he (and I) drank multitudinous mugs of tea, pulled the piano to pieces, attacked it with various (to me) dangerous looking instruments both sharp and blunt, and then put it back together again after a final and detailed tuning of all 97 notes. The results of course were excellent overall, and the piano is very stable in its current environment, which is all to the good. Most of the octaves and major intervals required very little adjustment and the piano has kept its tune, both in absolute and relative pitch terms, extraordinarily well. We focused on the topmost range of the piano and balanced out the really high notes to produce a very clean and sharp sound which augers well for the ability to examine the ‘vertical’ quality of the sounds, particularly when allied to the extraordinary bass qualities of the instrument. One of the problems with tuning any piano is that after a while one’s ears become desensitised and that certainly happened to me – when I played the piano directly afterwards my ears didn’t feel comfortable at all, although later that night things had returned pretty much back to normal. It just goes to show that there really is a 200 watt amplifier in that piano – I only wish that Wayne would relent and show me where it is… But, all facetiousness aside, there is no doubt that this piano, and by extension many others of this ilk as well, really do require constant tuning and voicing to bring out the best in them. The other conclusion I’ve reached over the period of time I’ve had the instrument is that it plays quite differently to when I first acquired it. Now that certainly includes much adjustment on my part as I’ve emphasised previously, and that process of course will continue ad infinitum, but the piano has settled as well and this gives added weight to the argument that playing a piano such as this in a showroom, dealer or even at the factory is not necessarily going to show you in any significant way how your relationship with the piano is going to be consummated long term. The piano will adjust to its environment, and you will adjust to the piano. The implications of this are quite intriguing and potentially impact the marketing process for these pianos. More on that as we go forward. Incidentally, I’ve done some test recording since, and the results are definitely better. A good excuse to keep going, I think. Tuesday, May 6. 2008
The Stuart piano expands to fill the ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
20:12
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) The Stuart piano expands to fill the brain available…
OK, let’s get back to some things musical, in particular how I would reinterpret some pieces on the Stuart piano. This is where the challenge lies with this piano – and the limitation is not so much with the fingers as with the grey matter in between the ears.
I’m currently planning another CD of music played on my Stuart piano. Whilst it will undoubtedly be a rather modest effort both in terms of performing standard and complexity, nonetheless it will give me an opportunity to explore different ways of playing some pieces quite properly regarded at standards for their time. Take, for example, La Cathédrale Engloutie by Claude Debussy. I use the extra bass notes and the four pedals as follows: • 01-15: Dolce and Una Corda pedals both down • 01-04: Bass notes in LH played one octave lower • 05-13: Ring the bells cleanly • 16: Una Corda up, Dolce still down. Play very quietly at the beginning • 20: Dolce up. Build up the power to Bar 22 • 23-28: More power up to Bar 25. Hit the LH very hard up to Bar 28 • 28: Bass C is held with the Sostenuto pedal. • 28-39: Don’t bounce the chords – play sustained • 42: Sostenuto pedal up, dolce pedal down • 42-45: Bass notes in LH played one octave lower • 44: Add in Una Corda – keep until ‘pp’ in bar 53 • 47-61: Bass G# doubled in bass right through to bar 61 • 53-58: Dolce pedal down (una corda up) • 59-65: Dolce and una corda up • 60: Double the bass crotchets, build up force to bar 61 • 65: Dolce pedal down • 66: Una corda down on bass G# - hold both until end of piece • 66-70: Double bass in LH, add in doubled C in RH (LH has to take the doubled C in Bar 69) • 70-84: As quiet as possible. Bass rumble feel. • 84-end: RH high chords slightly emphasized, bass chords very mellow The result? Quite spectacular from all perspectives. Very, very quiet through to enormous power and majesty. Arvo Pärt has written only a handful of works for the piano, but his piece “Für Alina” written in 1976 is a marvelous exploration of Gregorian sonorities for the piano. The recordings I’ve heard of this are not that impressive in my view – I’m not sure why but I just can’t seem to connect with them in any way. One thing about the recordings is that the piece is repeated, anything up for four times, with different octaves (up and down) in the right hand to what is written. So that got me thinking • I have both the una corda and dolce pedals down throughout the piece. • I have the damper pedal down throughout the piece. • I play the piece twice – once as written, and then again with the right hand up an octave throughout the piece – yes, up a further octave. This takes the piece into the extra high notes on the Stuart – above the 88 note mark. It requires very careful control and touch all of the time and very precise tuning to boot. The effect, together with the extraordinary bass resonance, is magical, to put it mildly. Brilliant stuff. I have made a preliminary recording of this piece, and it is interesting that on my small speakers, the upper notes sounded a bit out of tune, but Wayne has played my recording on high-quality speakers and tells me the tuning is spot on. Obviously at that frequency my speakers are not reproducing the pitch exactly. The Stuart piano was designed with these in mind. It is perfectly acceptable to adapt music to the new environment and produce music that is ethereal at one end of the spectrum through to church organ-like power, sustain and resonance at the other, coupled with the enhanced range of the piano. Welcome to the 21st century. Monday, May 5. 2008
I think the message may well be ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
20:35
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) I think the message may well be getting through …
In an interesting article published in the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-piano-0430apr30,1,140163.story)
Tom Hundley succinctly describes the parlous state of the European piano manufacturing industry. “Today fewer than 10 European manufacturers survive. With the exception of mighty Steinway & Sons, which produces pianos in Europe and America, most of the survivors are in serious danger of extinction. The endangered list includes Pleyel, the famous Parisian firm that once made pianos for Frederic Chopin; C. Bechstein, which rivaled Steinway for supremacy in European concert halls until it fell from favor because of the Bechstein family's close ties to Adolf Hitler; Boesendorfer, the iconic Viennese manufacturer that last year was taken over by Yamaha; and Bluthner, one of two companies that still make pianos in Leipzig. The British piano industry has completely died. It's almost dead in France. There's a little bit left in Austria, and here in Germany, it's slowly reducing” The reason lies with competition, in particular from Asia. “Of the 480,000 pianos produced worldwide last year, 430,000 were made in Asia. China has rapidly emerged as the major player, producing 375,000 instruments last year. In terms of craftsmanship and tonal quality, mass-produced Chinese pianos do not come close to matching their handmade European counterparts, but they are vastly cheaper. A Chinese grand piano can cost less than $10,000; Bluthner's least expensive grand goes for about $64,000. But Bluthner also is manufacturing less magnificent and far less expensive pianos in China under the Irmler nameplate, a Leipzig firm that went out of business in the 1930s. ‘A Chinese sausage in a German wrapper,’ sniffed Sebastian Staron, a piano restorer who is happiest when he discovers a neglected 1930s Bluthner or Boesendorfer in somebody's basement.” The whole article is eye-opening, but what is of additional interest are two comments by people from, of all places, Australia. “Design is the key. Most pianos today are mostly the same as 19th century piano with only some modern techniques and modifications added. We need to look forward into the future if we want the piano industry to survive. Sound, touch, range and even look. Just have a look at what Mr. Stuart is doing in Australia.” “I think Mr. (name withheld) has a very valid point! As he intimates, the so called German piano industry is only a fragment of the instrument's 300 year history. In reality, what is being witnessed is the decline in the aesthetics of the Mechanical Age and the domination of European culture in the new global economy. If the acoustic piano is to survive beyond being a European museum piece, it will have to adopt a new voice and persona that more aptly reflects the impulse of composition and social aesthetics of the here and now. The 20th century could easily be dubbed the century of the market economy and the reproduction of proven form. Surely, it's high time for a good clear out. The makers, musicians and events mentioned by Tom Hundley date back over 150 years. Get over it Tom and all you musty old pianophiles, move into the 21st century with your dignity intact before it's too late! No wonder arts organisations peddling this worn out mantra to the younger generations are finding it increasingly difficult to get through. Quite simply, why should they be interested when what they want is to explore their own creativity, not that of their great, great grandfathers.” The European piano industry is suffering from a lack of innovation, and hence a lack of relevance in today’s modern world. If you look at manufacturers of woodwind and brass instruments, there is continuous investment in new manufacturing techniques and design – not just more efficient or cheaper – but better instruments for both the student and demanding professional. Why can’t the piano industry do this? • The Pleyel website has a quote from Chopin: “When I feel the music flowing and I am strong enough to strike my own sound, I must have a Pleyel” • On the Bechstein webisite: “Bechstein is the Stradivarius of Pianos” – Pablo de Sarasate (who was a violinist…) Piano manufacturers advertising 21st century instruments using 19th century musicians playing 19th century instruments. Can you imagine Ford still advertising the Model T? No wonder these companies are going down the tube. The article continues “Pleyel, for example, has decided to market its instruments as luxury baubles linked with famous-name artists and designers who have been commissioned to jazz up the traditional cabinetry of the classic concert grand. Pleyel Chairman Arnaud Marion has said he wants to make the company the Hermes of piano manufacturing, referring to the French purveyor of expensive silk scarves and other fashion accessories. We can't compete with the Chinese on cost, so we compete on the design and craftsmanship," he said. Pleyel's high-end designer objets d'art will cost more than $140,000.” So they will take a traditional piano (promoted by Chopin), pretty it up, and try to sell it. Smart thinking, Moriarty. I think not … Where’s Rosemary Brown when you need her? Sunday, May 4. 2008
The Stuart Piano as Principle as ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
16:15
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) The Stuart Piano as Principle as well as Practice (Part II)
I’m taking the somewhat unusual step of quoting part of my reply to a missive on the Pianoworld fora which to me illustrates many of the misconceptions about the Stuart piano which basically arise from the inability to see the principle of the piano as against the practice.
The missive is italicised and underlined. ____________________________________________________________________ As some older posters here may recall I struggled with a buy/don't buy decision with a Huon Pine one that I loved. The view of both the dealer and the tech was that it needed voicing down for home use. That is very disappointing from two points of view. Firstly, neither the dealer nor the tech has any real clue about the ‘why’ of the piano and their views as such are not only irrelevant but demonstrably and totally wrong. Secondly, I find it disappointing that you allowed your musical judgment to be influenced by such views. As I have said on innumerable occasions now, you change yourself – you do not change the piano. Voicing down destroys everything that the piano was designed to be and is. I’m surprised that you appear not to understand this. Until an instrument is actually in situ it is impossible for anyone to really assess the appropriate level of voicing. Voicing must be seen as an infinite and relatively simple procedure to adjust a piano's sound to its environment. 30 minutes can change an instrument from a bright metallic monster to a muted old hound. I posted here once about a concert artist playing one in the recital hall at Hurstwood. The room was full and the Russian pianist was quite forceful. The piano was VERY loud indeed. The Russian pianist Alexander Ghindin, has a reputation for forceful and dynamic playing. He drove the piano full bore for that concert. This of course has nothing to do with the piano as it only responds to the player's input. A loud sound is not the problem of the piano but of the player and their control over the dynamic range. It must be noted that all the playing was not very loud and there was a lot of exquisite soft playing. The only real comment that could be made about that experience was that Ghindin did not consider the age of the audience, their hearing sensitivity, and the size of the shed. This is not a piano problem as prior to this concert there was an extraordinary performance on the same piano by the young Russian pianist Anton Lyakhovsky, which provided a totally opposite experience. What this clearly demonstrated was, indeed that the piano was, … Nevertheless, capable of very wide tonal variety in the right hands. Absolutely. From what you have been saying, I would opine that yours are not the right hands (no offence meant, it’s a ‘feel’ I’m emphasising here). If they were, you would have seen through the tech, the dealer and the performance and bought the piano, no questions asked. I am not entirely persuaded that there is much that is truly markedly different in the design compared with other concert pianos available now. The casework is very high quality - though some of the timbers and finishes may not be to everyone's taste, and such work comes at a premium. The case work has nothing to do with the ‘differences in design’, which are internal not external. If you cannot see those, then I suspect that is more of an issue with you rather than with the piano. The vast majority of people who have seen and played Stuart pianos, from the time the first piano was constructed in 1990 (that was an experimental upright, the first 2.9m concert piano was built in 1994), have clearly and unequivocally seen and appreciated those differences. In my case, it was obvious the moment I started playing the piano in the factory. If Stuart wishes to remain a niche operation then marketing everything from Australia will deliver that. But to achieve more global acceptance and penetration I would have thought that some form of sales and demonstration facility in America and mainland Europe would be useful. And expensive. Your point shows a lack of understanding of how current global marketing and communications systems work. We don't need expensive off-shore agents anymore. In fact, I personally wonder why makers of high quality pianos (including Steinway) bother with this old fashioned and very costly dealership system. With their names they could sell all the pianos they make directly from the factories, at a lower price and more profit. The cost of a Stuart piano accurately reflects production, not marketing, advertising or retailing costs. You cannot compare Stuart pianos in a business sense with other ‘mass production’ (including Steinway) instruments because that ignores the fact that so few are made each per year and, of critical importance, totally by hand. Some people do not want mass produced product and actively seek the difference factor and, more to the point, are prepared to pay for it in the full knowledge and understanding that they cannot have such a product for nothing. The Stuart piano does not compete in any market niche – it has created its own. Marketing the piano as a direct competitor to other pianos which are totally different both in concept and design is completely erroneous and missing the point. And from what you have written so far about the Stuart piano, I have to say with respect that you (and others) have missed the point too. I got the point straightaway, and I bought the piano on that basis and that basis alone. Here is a extract from a message sent to me by a very happy person who will have a Stuart piano delivered tomorrow. “I spent a happy hour playing it on Tuesday at the factory and even that short time impressed me with the range of timbres and 3D sound available. I have many years of exploration ahead. I dearly love my grandmother's 1898 Steinway, but it's time to move on. I notice that almost all reviews and comments on the web concentrate on obscure technical aspects. That in fact was the last thing I considered. 1 - It's not black (Red cedar and Maple under the lid) 2 - It's made in Australia, my dollars stay here. 3 - It sounds magnificent in concert. Far better than on most of my CDs. I was finally convinced after hearing Mark Gasser play Messiaen in Brisbane. I had never heard any piano play so softly and still be capable of such subtle and beautiful shading, and yet be ready to produce a Voice of God volume when required, all with absolute clarity of the inner parts.” To emphasise the point, I’ll add a short excerpt from Wayne which describes this much better than I could: “It is worth mentioning that the profiles of the people who have purchased Stuart & Sons pianos have similar characteristics. All have been well educated, successful in their chosen life path both financially and personally, have sought individuality in their surroundings and belongings. They usually form the cutting edge and the Stuart & Sons piano is, in effect, a synthesis of that mind and ethos. The ho hum of the musty old piano world, the intrigue of the boring lineage of players and incestuous relationships within the microcosm of the arts community are not for these individuals. They seek light and enlightenment; this is not rhetoric but reality. Often, they play at an amateur level or purchase for young student study. It is contemporary relevance and vitality they seek as any old standard piano can be had at the local shop for whatever the going discounted price!” Does this describe you? Thursday, May 1. 2008
The Stuart Piano as Principle as ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
22:05
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) The Stuart Piano as Principle as well as Practice (Part I)
The general views I am gleaning from discussions I see on the web concerning the Stuart piano are:
1) There is much intrigue from those who have never seen one or played one. Many have heard of the piano in a positive way, very few anything negative. 2) Recordings (other than those on the web site) do not adequately represent the piano’s sound. Comments such as ‘weak bass’ or ‘strident’ sound are much more functions of the recording process itself than any intrinsic property of the piano. 3) Setting up and voicing of the piano is critical. Having played a number of Stuart pianos now, the ones that are voiced properly invariably sound much better than those which aren’t. Revoicing the latter solves the problem. 4) Many people who do get the chance to play are, as is natural, comparing the sound and action to others they have played, and not always favouring the Stuart. My view on the last is simple. They are just not getting what this piano is about. As I’ve remarked elsewhere in this blog, people feel comfortable when dealing with things within their own square of expectation. If it fits, OK. If it doesn’t … The Stuart is much more than simply a well constructed piece of wood with strings and keys attached. There are myriads of these in the world today and there are many who wax lyrical about such-and-such a piano, much in the same way I suppose as I do in this blog. But as I grow more and more into the piano, so that it becomes a virtual extension of me and I know how to exploit its unique qualities, the more I realise that something has changed within me. I’m beginning to understand what drove Wayne to build the bloody things in the first place. Its still a piano, of course, but finally I’m feeling comfortable enough in my own mind that I’m doing something I could never do before – I have, as I have said before, reinvented the way I play the piano. Everything so far that I’ve put forward in this blog are pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that individually may not mean that much but when brought together as a cohesive whole elevate the entire pianistic experience onto another level – one that I suspect many people would not be able to either understand, appreciate or, more to the point, achieve. Its not that I’ve suddenly become another Horowitz or Ashkenazy – I’m nowhere near that level. But at the level that I am at, the sounds and music my fingers are producing are taking the music I play above and beyond what the composer could have envisaged given the pianos they wrote on and for. The Stuart piano I play is not just another piano. Before I bought this instrument, I played many other ‘just another piano’s, including some very reputable brands indeed. The Stuart was the only one that appealed on both the sheer quality of the sound and the intellectual challenge required to play it. Yes, it was much more expensive, but I would remind readers of the Oscar Wilde definition of a cynic – “a person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing”. The piano is the principle behind dragging myself up to whatever Nietzchean level in practice I can achieve. So for those people who either listen to one or else have the good fortune to play one, open your eyes and ears and dispense with any intrinsic or built-up myopia and selective deafness. Tabula rasa. Speak to the piano. If it doesn’t answer you back in a way you have never experienced before, then close the lid and go away. This piano is not for you, more’s the pity. This is a musician’s piano, pure and simple. Let go, Luke … Use the Force, Luke … |
CalendarQuicksearchArchivesCategoriesSyndicate This BlogBlog AdministrationStatisticsLast entry: 2011-06-01 11:23
121 entries written
11 comments have been made
|