Monday, April 14. 2008Has it come to this? (encore)
The recent acquisition of a Steinway piano by the Sydney Opera House illustrates, in my view, one of the worst sins of music administrators not only in Australia, but I suspect elsewhere as well.
The sin of complacency. Let me requote from an earlier posting: “The decision to go with a Steinway, rather than one of the other major brands, such as Kawai or Yamaha, or an Australian-made Stuart piano, was made in consultation with the Sydney Symphony, the main hirer of the Concert Hall. A venue like this is expected to have Steinways. That's what everyone wants to play on" This gave rise to a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, which I quote in full below: “No reason to spurn Stuart Vladimir Ashkenazy is, without question, a great pianist. Whether that qualifies him to be the sole judge of pianos for the Opera House is another matter, especially when he seems to have such a close relationship with the manufacturing firm. Furthermore, while there is no doubting the truth of the comment by Richard Evans, the new Opera House chief executive, that the venue is expected to have Steinways, the fact is that there are quite a number of them already at Bennelong Point. Why was the Australian-made Stuart spurned so readily as the replacement? It sounds just like the treatment of our composers. We will never achieve much if we always look overseas for affirmation.” How true. Consider this (partial) quote from one of the fora at pianoworld.com (the capitals are original): “… in order for Steinway to design anything, they must first have an R&D department. Since nothing new has come from that company in terms of a genuinely new model in likely 80 years plus or minus, it would be a safe assumption that they are not designing ANYTHING … The fact is there are very few piano engineers on the planet. I am sure that it is Steinway's assertion that they already have the best pianos on the planet, so why employ an R&D department, which I am sure that they do not. The Asian manufacturers on the other hand, likely employ such departments. THEY after all ARE introducing new/improved models on a fairly regular basis.” To which latter list, of course, we can add Stuart & Sons. The author of the above quote has hit the nail flush on the head. By purchasing an admittedly very high quality Steinway, the Opera House has voted for the status quo, tradition, conformity and musical blandness. As one who has watched the Opera House grow from its inception, the last thing you can say about its design is status quo, tradition, conformity and blandness. Utzon’s original design is quite simply breathtaking in its originality and vision, even fifty years later. It’s a pity that, at least in this instance, the current Opera House administration doesn’t wish to or is unable to match his vision. More food for thought. Monday, April 14. 2008Retraining the ear
As one gets older one notices wear and tear on the body. I have more wrinkles, I’m obviously slower than I used to be and I’ve just picked a nasty case of tennis elbow in the right arm which is taking quite a while to dissipate. All of these things I can adjust to since they are anticipated as one matures in life. What is more difficult to adjust to (and indeed recognise in the first place) are the mental changes. I’ve always relied much more on my brain than my brawn but now I’m noticing that there are things that I used to be able to do which now are either much more difficult or else I cannot do at all.
This is exacerbated by the Stuart piano, which in fact requires the performer to be much more careful about how he/she plays and monitors the sound coming out. It is very easy to overdo things. The trick with this piano is that there are a number of important features to get used to. The first is the dynamic range of the initial strike. As I’ve indicated before in this blog with reference to the pedals in particular, this piano has the widest dynamic range of any that I (and other people) have played. A properly voiced 2.9 metre Stuart piano can deafen people close to it, but by the same token on the same piano you can produce clean, controlled sounds that are practically inaudible. A colleague of mine who is an expert in the physiology of the ear and therefore is very sensitive to such things, plays my piano with the lid down … Secondly, the decay transients also have a unique behaviour. These transients are much more responsive than in the standard piano where they have been dumbed down to produce what could be described as a dull, woody thud. Not only do you have a longer sustain, but also a unique tonal quality of that sustain. Lastly, there is an almost total lack of low frequency masking which is the tendency of the lower frequencies to obscure or overpower the upper frequencies producing the thick dull sound common in the average acoustic piano. It is thus possible to create a clean, long lasting sustained sound involving the entire 97-note piano range. Another consequence is that you can play much more loudly without drowning out an instrumental or vocal soloist. This is quite evident in performance. What this means in practice is that it is necessary to listen much more attentively to the sound coming from the piano. Even more than in other pianos, the combination of the fingers, feet and ears is absolutely critical to producing the best sound. In my case my feet are OK. My fingers never were that strong but as long as I don’t overdo things I can work them pretty well. My ears are the problem. Even now, I’m still not listening properly. I pick up things when I listen to a recording of my playing which I never recognised when I was playing and recording it. More practice, more recordings, more listening. Did I mention the word challenging earlier? Sunday, April 13. 2008Money....
...is many things to many people. To a musician, it is a means to an end to acquire an instrument of sufficient quality that:
1) it is an investment in the musical sense – it adds value over a period of time to the ability of the musician to play what he/she wants to play in the way that he/she wants to play it. 2) It is an investment in the monetary sense – the instrument will retain its value over a period of time and in some cases even grow in value. Whilst the capital cost of an instrument is obviously a critical part of the equation, it is not the only thing that in my view needs to be taken into account. I have a Martin acoustic guitar that I bought in 1976. It is still played regularly (by my son rather than me) and is still in the same condition as when I bought it. In money terms, it has been valued at 6-7 times the amount I paid for it. One has to allow for inflation of course, but basically I have not lost by buying it, despite the fact that it took a sizable amount of my very limited resources at the time to buy it. Short term, people thought I was mad. Long term, the guitar has been everything I wanted and more. Friends who bought lesser guitars have long since consigned them to the scrap heap. The same thing applies to the Stuart. Yes it is a lot of money, but that is only one part of the equation. You have to consider the acquisition of one of these instruments as a long term investment, and when you do this, the piano begins to make eminent sense. You hear much discussion about second hand (pre-loved, used – whatever euphemism you want) Steinway, Bosenyamaha etc pianos. Why? Because these are ‘cheaper’ than buying a new one. Was buying the new one in the first place a good investment? Consider the following: • The cost of a 2.9 metre Stuart piano is around the $Aus215K mark (including GST). • The Sydney Conservatorium (which incidentally has two Stuart pianos) recently bought a 2.9 metre Steinway for around $Aus250K and that didn’t include the cost of sending two people over to Germany to select it nor the cost of transporting it back to Australia. The Sydney Opera House also just bought a new Steinway for the same amount. • There is a Bechstein baby grand (~1.6 metre, not 2.2) in a showroom in Sydney priced at $Aus225K. We know of three Stuart pianos in private hands that have been on sold for more than the price that was originally paid. The 2.9 metre piano that Gerard Willems played in his award-winning Beethoven recordings was sent to London last year and sold within three weeks for the same price as a new piano – and this piano was built in 1999. It’s now domiciled in Switzerland in a lovely house with a high roof next to a lake. And it still sounds great. Now we add in the intangible benefits. My piano is not only for me. Its for my son, and his children, and his children’s children and so on. Its an investment for the next generations and as such, amortised over that period of time, the initial cost is essentially immaterial. I am a long-term investor. Wayne normally makes a maximum of around six pianos per year, but there are about ten in the pipeline as I write this. There is no production line. Each piano is individually crafted, and no two are identical. No-one else will have a piano the same as mine. It is unique, and will remain so. Based on our experiences to date, Stuart pianos will not lose their value over time. You can’t say that about any other piano past or present. Now, you tell me. Which of the above three is the best investment? Actually, don’t tell me. I know the answer already. Friday, April 11. 2008Has it come to this?
“The Steinway Spectacular
Get ready for an evening of unprecedented virtuosity when eight of Australia's leading pianists perform the most compelling works ever written for piano on eight Steinway Concert Grands in The Steinway Spectacular - for one performance only.” This reminds me of the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984 where they had myriads of identically dressed pianists playing Gershwin on myriads of identically-looking white (yuk..) grand pianos. I wonder if they were Steinways too? Yes, its great that Steinway are paying lots of money to get lots of pianos on stage to be played by lots of pianists, both in Melbourne and Sydney, and they’re obviously paying lots of money to promote and underwrite the event which is a good thing for the average music lover in Australia, even though the publicity blurb for the occasion is somewhat over the top. But I suppose that’s what you’ve got to do to put bums on seats these days so maybe I shouldn’t be too critical. Now I’m undoubtedly going to get lots of flak for this, but in my view it’s a crying shame that Steinway need to go to this extent to market their products. Are people, as a result of this, going to rush out and buy a Steinway? I doubt it. I would judge that this is simply a brand recognition / reinforcement exercise in the face of mounting competition within the industry. We have seen many so-called ‘quality’ European manufacturers go to the wall or else forced to manufacture off-shore in order to compete in today’s market and I don’t doubt that Steinway (or any other manufacturer of ‘traditional’ pianos for that matter) are feeling the pinch. The problem with that of course is that the cost of this and other marketing exercises gets added into the cost of the instrument. So… • How much of the cost of a Steinway is the piano, and how much is marketing? • How much is dealer markup and profit? • If you buy one of these are you really getting the musical and investment value you think you are? • Is this why second hand Steinways are considerably cheaper than new ones? I suspect you could replace ‘Steinway’ with any other brand and the questions would still be valid. The hype surrounding the selection of pianos amazes me. Take this snippet from the Sydney Morning Herald this morning concerning the selection of a new piano for the Sydney Opera House. “The decision to go with a Steinway, rather than one of the other major brands, such as Kawai or Yamaha, or an Australian-made Stuart piano, was made in consultation with the Sydney Symphony, the main hirer of the Concert Hall. A venue like this is expected to have Steinways. That's what everyone wants to play on" Is it really? Wants to? Or expects to? Or is conditioned to? Isn’t it about time we broke down these stupid barriers that maintain the status quo for no other reason than to maintain Steinway’s perceived (and in many people’s views, erroneous) position in the piano kingdom? Food for thought, I think. Thursday, April 10. 2008
The Role of Temperament in Music Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
18:26
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) The Role of Temperament in Music
… and I don’t mean anything to do with the psychological state of the performer, or, in my case, the owner of a Stuart piano.
All tunings of any keyboard instrument are approximations. This is very well explained by the American composer Kyle Gann on his website (http://www.kylegann.com/histune.html). As an example, the size of a major third is 386.3 cents, a cent being one 1200th of an octave. Since three consecutive major thirds on a keyboard equal one octave (for example C->E, E->G#, Ab->C) it is clear we have a problem, since 3 x 386.3 = 1158.9, i.e. we are out by 41.1 cents. The whole problem with tunings where there are 12 semitones to an octave is how do we approximate the tunings to compensate for this discrepancy? By and large there have been four historical steps in this process: 1) Pythagorean tuning, where (to quote from the above web site) “Before the advent of meantone tuning, the French academy at Notre Dame (13th and 14th centuries) followed a medieval tradition since Boethius (4th century) in decreeing that only a series of perfect fifths could make up a scale; their ratio was 3/2, and 3, after all, was the perfect number, connoting the Trinity among other things. Thus the Pythagorean scale is a just-intonation scale on a series of perfect fifths, all the ratio numbers powers of either 3 or 2”. Pythagorean tuning thus focuses on perfect fifths. Thirds are somewhat dissonant, which helps to explain some of the compositional traits of the period. 2) During the 16th century, composers began to include major and minor thirds in their harmonies, thus introducing major and minor triads, amongst other things. Given that in Pythagorean tuning the major thirds are 400 cents (urk!) rather than 386.3, clearly some adjustments needed to be made. This gave rise to meantone tuning, where the thirds are more consonant but the fifths less so. The major disadvantage, however, was that some triads (Db, F#, Ab, and B) were horribly dissonant. This disconcerted a certain J.S.Bach, who (not alone, of course) wished to be able to play and compose in all keys. 3) This led to the concept of a well-tempered scale, where the dissonances, if you like, are spread out between the intervals more (but not totally) equally. Bach had his own tuning standard, but two of the major tunings were Werckmeister III (mainly used for harpsichords) and Young 1799 (mainly used for pianos). 4) Equal temperament, namely where all semitones are equally spaced over the octave, is really a 20th century standard, although it was known but not by all accounts accepted, during the 19th century. It can be argued that equal temperament removes the subtle characteristics of various keys which, to a sensitive ear, are clearly identifiable in a well-tempered tuning. Before I acquired the Stuart, I had my little upright piano tuned to Young 1799. There was a noticeable difference in the sounds I produced from the piano. My colleague who tuned it for me was initially put off by the changes (he has a very good musical ear), but admitted to me later that after a while he had adjusted to the tuning and in fact had tuned his own piano in the same way. Whether it was better or not is a matter of individual taste since there are no right or wrongs here, but it was not difficult to understand why some keys are better than others for a particular style of music. Wayne tunes my piano to equal temperament. He does this totally by ear, focusing on beats and tones rather than quantitatively measuring the frequency, and has a very precise method for so doing. The clarity of each note (even the very low and high ones) makes this job much easier than with a standard piano. The question now arises as to how would the Stuart piano sound in a well-tempered tuning. It could be argued that whilst this may be more suitable for pre-20th century music, this may make modern music less viable on the piano, since most of that style of music relies much less on the 19th century concept of keys, but this has really yet to be tested in practice. Using Wayne’s tuning specifications as a basis, I have developed a methodology for tuning a well-tempered (or any other temperament for that matter) piano, using a fully aural method, i.e. no quantitative frequency measurement, similar to way he tunes equal temperament. The results should be interesting, to say the least. 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 Monday, March 31. 2008
First Impressions (continued) ... ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
11:13
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) First Impressions (continued) ... Intimidating
It is a truism in music in general that the better the instrument, the better you play. Actually that’s not quite correct … the better the instrument, the better you are allowed to play. Quite often the instrument is the limiting factor – it is rather difficult to play Chopin on a toy piano, to quote a rather extreme example. I’ve played a number of instruments during my life, and each time I’ve upgraded the instrument I’ve been able to play better. But, as in everything, there is a downside.
The Stuart piano, let me assure everyone, is not a toy. It has a responsiveness, tone, clarity and resonance to match and, in my and many other people’s views, exceed any piano currently on the market. But many people who have played the instrument are intimidated by it. One of my students when she first sat down in front of it was scared even to touch it. I quickly assured her that, being built mainly of wood, the piano was in fact peaceful and vegetarian and not in the least aggressive and carnivorous, and therefore her fingers were indeed quite safe from premature amputation. Why intimidated? The reason in the main is quite understandable. The piano is so good, so clear, so responsive etc etc that it amplifies everything I do wrong. I can record a piece on my (now rather old) upright piano and within the limits of the tone and action I can be happy with the outcome. I play the same piece on the Stuart, and the recording sounds uneven and lumpy. It’s not the piano, it’s me, full stop. I’m not nearly good enough on this instrument, yet … Thursday, March 27. 2008
First Impressions (continued) ... ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
11:13
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) First Impressions (continued) ... Imposing
Pianos, of course, come in many shapes, sizes and colours - upright or grand, miniscule to humungous, white and black and all shades in between. One of the worst I've seen was a bright blue upright - fortunately the sound was just as bad as the colour.
Traditionally, most grand pianos that one sees are black. This, I suspect, has more to do with the quality of the timber used than it does the aesthetic quality of the piano. The problem with that, of course, is how do manufacturers then tell the discerning concert goer that its one of 'our' pianos rather than 'their' pianos that the unfortunate pianist is doing his or her damndest to coax some musical sounds out of. Simple, really, when one thinks about it. You simply write your company's name in big, bold letters on the side of the piano so that it distracts everyone from looking at the performer. In my view, such a thing is a distinctly black (pun intended) mark. Giving the Stuart piano an 'Australian' look and feel is an integral part of the design philosophy. For example, the words 'Terra Australis' are clearly imprinted on the frame. The use of rare and exotic Australian hardwoods allows a unique opportunity to provide a stunning visual appeal to the entire instrument. Black (although available if required as a special order) is not on the a la carte menu. Of course, some people don't like this. They prefer a traditional, conservative approach to the visual aspects of the piano. To me, that immediately rings some very loud alarm bells, since they are then more likely to prefer a traditional, conservative approach to playing the piano as well, and as I have made clear elsewhere in this blog that is not the way these instruments can and should be played. My piano is finished in Tasmanian huon pine, estimated to be up to 2000 years old. The detail and symmetry of the veneer is quite astonishing and I cannot fault the finish in any way. Wayne has recently started using Tasmanian black heart sassafras, which is equally as stunning in its visual appeal. Everyone who sees my piano for the first time is stunned. Come to think of it, they’re still stunned the second time as well … Friday, March 14. 2008
Why the Stuart & Sons piano? ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
19:28
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Why the Stuart & Sons piano? from the designer's perspective
I’m continually amazed by the amount of useless and irrelevant information about the Stuart pianos on the web. As an owner of one I have always tried (and this blog is no exception) to identify and counteract some of the crap I see. Typical of such comments is the following from a piano forum in the UK.
“The Stuart piano is very expensive and having played one I think they are overrated. I would buy a Bluthner and save your money.” Whilst the writer of this piece of nonsense is entitled to his view (as indeed I have mine) it does demonstrate very clearly a total lack of understanding of why these pianos were built in the first place and the sort of person who would shell out a lot of money for one. To be perfectly honest, in my case, money was never a consideration. I wanted the best, and I got it. Additionally, I knew that it would take me quite a while to adapt to the piano and start to play it in the way in which it was intended. Even now, after some two and a half years, Wayne and I are still “exploring the possibilities”. Owning one of these is a long term commitment. Let me make one thing very, very, very clear. You don’t play a Stuart piano like a ‘normal’ piano, because it is not a ‘normal’ piano. Take for example this email exchange I had with someone who was interested in the Stuart piano and wanted some advice __________________________ > I'm still looking around at pianos, unsure which way > to go, although I did love the Bosendorfer sound - a recent friend > showed me his two Austria-imports of rebuilt 100yr old instruments. Good (no offence meant!) for playing 100 year old music in a 100 year old way.... ___________________________ To help others to understand the ethos of both the builder and the people who are his customers, I’m quoting part of a missive from Wayne which is very instructive and revealing (the emphases are mine). “The challenge to all new comers to the old piano game is how to get the message and product through this maze. The golden rule is, do not do what everyone else does! By selling these bespoke pianos directly to the public, Stuart & Sons are also able to provide the dedicated and special service that purchasers of bespoke products should rightfully command and not to be subjected to the expediency of the commercial imperative. No Stuart & Sons pianos have been discounted for a sale and this will not happen. The three instruments that have changed hands since the company commenced were all on-sold for more than their original price. What one must consider is that Stuart & Sons will not lower their price to shift product or do special deals that effectively spit in the eye of their sincere and loyal customers. 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! This should give the readers a firm grasp on where Stuart & Sons wish to be in the modern world. I have no illusions or pretensions about the snobbery and elitism of the arts world. I seek to explore the possibilities and I want to be with like minded people who wish to explore and live now in our time and not that of our forebears”. Further comments down the track. Monday, March 10. 2008
First Impressions - Imposing, ... Posted by Dr Christopher Moore
at
08:57
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) First Impressions - Imposing, Intimidating, Challenging, Rewarding...
The Stuart piano is an imposing, intimidating, challenging but ultimately extraordinarily rewarding instrument.
Imposing: The physical appearance of the piano is of the highest order. An American owner of a Stuart concert grand piano has stated that it’s the best finished piano he has ever seen. Everyone who has seen my piano is bowled over by the sheer artistry put into the physical appearance of the instrument. The detail and the symmetry of the veneer are absolutely perfect. My piano is finished in 2000 year old Tasmanian huon pine, which is very rare and difficult to get, and consequently somewhat expensive. Never was the Millignan phrase “you can’t get the wood, you know” truer in real life. Every Stuart piano is unique – no two pianos look the same. Intimidating: I’ll make no bones about it – this piano is intimidating, and this is a view that many people have shared with me. The reason is very simple. This piano is of such a high quality and is so responsive and reactive to the fingers that it accentuates everything that I do wrong. There is also the small matter of four pedals rather than three (more of that later) and the fact that the 97 notes mean that the ends of the keyboard are not where you are used to, which can be a difficulty for some people. The piano also has an extraordinary resonance and sustain. But, don’t worry, all is not lost … Challenging: … because the challenge is to adapt to a totally new way of playing the piano and taking advantage of what it offers. This piano is not for the faint of heart nor for those who are so stuck in their ways that they don’t want to change or progress. The Stuart piano offers an unparalleled adventure in the art of making music, and you don’t (because I’m not!) need to be a concert-quality pianist to take part and succeed in this adventure. And ultimately… Rewarding: … once you succeed in this challenge, you will never, and I do mean never, go back. This piano offers the rewards of a complete reinterpretation of the entire keyboard repertoire, from Attaingnent to Tan Dun, from Byrd to Crumb. What you can achieve from a traditional viewpoint is little short of heresy, but from a musical viewpoint is cathartic and mind blowing. All of these points will be expanded upon at length in future postings |
Calendar
QuicksearchArchivesCategoriesSyndicate This BlogBlog AdministrationStatisticsLast entry: 2011-06-01 11:23
121 entries written
11 comments have been made
|