The Oxford Dictionary defines music as follows:
“vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion”. The interesting aspect of this to me is that music ‘produces’ effects which are very much subjective and unique to the person either producing or listening to music. Music, at the level we understand it, is very much a human experience – no humans, no music.
When it comes to pianos, given the number of people in this world and the number of people playing, it is clear that a large number of pianos are needed to fill the available demand. At the lower end of the price spectrum, countries such as China are ramping up to churn out pianos at an ever increasing rate. This is obviously not a bad thing, but it does imply that each instrument is basically the same as any other, and will play and sound very much in the same way. Add into this the plethora of electronic keyboards now being produced, and that sameness and standardisation is very much a feature of that level of instrument.
But the piano since its inception has never been static, especially for the 200 years following Christofori’s pianeering(sic) work. More keys, stronger frames, more sustain, more volume – the list goes on and I don’t have to expound on that here. At the top end of the piano spectrum, the situation is anything but innovative. The Steinway ‘standard’ has been present for well over 100 years and virtually every manufacturer slavishly follows this design. Whilst it is true that each manufacturer is ‘different’, the differences between pianos are subtle and very minor. A vast majority of people (myself included) would not be able to distinguish between say a Steinway and Bosenyamaha sound in a blind test.
Then along comes Stuart & Sons and immediately in many peoples’ eyes the excrement hits the thing on the ceiling that goes round and round. It’s not the same as X, therefore it’s no good. The tone is different, it’s got four pedals and so on and so forth. Yet many of these doomsayers also decry the lack of innovation in pianos. In the last post I mentioned comments by Geoffrey Lancaster about Stuart pianos. He wants innovation but,
“They don't have that dimension of warmth that, say, a great Steinway or a great Bosendorfer has”. Innovation changes the instrument and produces a different quality of sound and feel. If it doesn't change the instrument, what is the point? Steinway and Bosendorfer do not innovate because that would change their ‘standard’ and people will rise up and desert concert halls in droves. They are stuck in a rut of their own making. They have established the status quo. They dare not innovate because that status quo, and their comfortable position in today’s music world and marketplace, would be destroyed.
Lancaster totally misses the point. He is all for ‘innovation’ but doesn’t like the changes that innovation brings. He is stuck in an 18th and 19th century rut, and no amount of coaxing will bring him and others of his ilk into the 20th let alone the 21st century. He plays great Mozart and Haydn in a 250 year old way. Put him on a Stuart piano, and he would be totally lost.
And that’s a pity, because with the right feel, attitude and skill, any classical composer can be given a new, valid life on these pianos.
Many people support innovation and change in principle, but in practice, that’s a totally different matter. Very few can handle it.