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 … 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. |
Calendar
QuicksearchArchivesCategoriesSyndicate This BlogBlog AdministrationStatisticsLast entry: 2011-06-01 11:23
121 entries written
11 comments have been made
|