Kissin Review

[Horace Greeley]

Folks,

Happy New Year!

I thought that I would start out this year by finishing off some of last 
year's unfinished business so:

Here, at last, is the Kissin review, along with my letter to the reviewer, 
Joshua Kosman, of the S.F. Chronicle, and most (I think) of the responses I 
that have received.  In the interest of fair play, and all that, I have 
included at the end, a review of Mr. Kissin's recital in Orange County (as 
Segerstrom Hall).

Before launching in, a few observations:

1.- We each bring to these things our own training, experience, abilities 
and prejudices.  I had hoped, in my letter to Mr. Kosman, to present a 
somewhat different set of filters for him to reflect on as he listens to 
pianists and pianos.  To date, he has not chosen to respond.

2.- In editing the remarks and responses I received, I have deleted the 
names, and, as many identifying items as I thought that I could without 
destroying the content of your remarks.  This has nothing to do with any 
individual, but rather speaks to the fact that one must assume that 
anything published to the internet is public knowledge just as surely as if 
you had posted it on a billboard by the expressway.  Nothing on the 
internet is truly private.

3.- From a technical standpoint, I have also removed as much of the 
specialized characters, type faces, colors, etc. from the different 
messages.  There are two main reasons for this: first, not everyone has 
mail readers which will render that stuff as anything other than computer 
gobbledygook.  Second, this message will be large enough without the extra 
space taken up.

I have also reformatted all of the message and tried to avoid starting new 
lines/paragraphs at other than the left-hand margin of a new line.  This is 
because people use their email readers differently, and the formatting 
which works for someone who uses 120 columns will be really messy for those 
who use 80.

4.- In order to try to help keep clear when there is a change between 
writers, I have tried to use the following conventions:

- Between sets of thoughts, that is, between someone's statement/question, 
my responses to it,
and the next such set, I have used a row of plus signs: ++++++++++

- Between internal changes within such a set, I have used asterisks: 
***********

- Additional comments that I may insert into the body of another's texts 
are placed within brackets: [...]

Anyway, with all of that out of the way, here goes:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The following is the text of the review of a recital by Evgeny Kissin, 
performed 26.Sept.00, at Davies Symphony Hall, San Francisco, CA.  The 
reviewer is Joshua Kosman, Music Critic for the San Francisco Chronicle. [I 
should also note that both this review and the one at the end of this piece 
were originally formatted for presentation on a web page.  I have tried 
very hard to be sure that I have not deleted anything.]

***********************

Evgeny Kissin remains one of the towering young piano virtuosos of our day, 
an artist of formidable technical and interpretive resources. But there's 
no getting around the vein of bluntness, even crudity, that has become 
increasingly apparent in his playing in recent years.

Kissin opened the season for San Francisco Performances in Davies Symphony 
Hall on Sunday night with a program of 19th century standards by Beethoven, 
Schumann and Brahms. Aside from a few finger slips in the Brahms, the fiery 
brilliance of his keyboard technique was as remarkable as ever.

And so long as the music remained subdued or lyrical, Kissin's effortless 
command of tone and voicing was nothing short of astonishing. The hushed, 
velvety sound he elicits from the instrument beguiles the ear while 
revealing inner lines with startling clarity.

At the louder and more extroverted end of the dynamic spectrum, though, 
Kissin's taste for thunderous banging is growing ever more pronounced. 
Without gradations or subtlety, he will suddenly begin to pound away -- 
sometimes in midphrase, sometimes at sectional transitions that are then 
marked all too starkly. The result is a maddening duality, a kind of sonic 
whiplash that keeps listeners shuttling uncomfortably back and forth 
between dynamic extremes.

Kissin's performance of Brahms' Sonata No. 3, which occupied the second 
half of the evening, exemplified both the finest and most off-putting 
aspects of his artistry.

He gave the first movement a sense of spacious architecture, drawing the 
far-flung sections of the movement together into harmonious proportion. But 
he gave the music an unwelcome air of pomposity as well, one that made the 
vivid outbursts of a young virtuoso composer sound stiff and oppressive.

The two linked slow movements found Kissin at his best, bathing the music 
in radiant tone and eloquent rubato, and underpinning the music's lightness 
with a solid base. The finale, though, was troubled by technical lapses and 
a general tendency to bluster.

The evening's first half offered a similar dichotomy. Kissin opened with 
Beethoven's ``Tempest'' Sonata, marking the first movement's starts and 
stops with crisp clarity yet allowing things to run off the rails whenever 
momentum began to accumulate.

The remainder of the program was devoted to Schumann's ``Carnaval,'' a 
string of short character pieces that only highlighted Kissin's 
inconsistency. The fluid, dreamy writing of such pieces as ``Eusebius'' and 
``Chopin'' made an exquisite impression, while the heavier writing in 
``Estrella'' and the final ``March of the Davidsbundler Against the 
Philistines'' prompted plenty of pounding.

Oddly, Kissin's most consistent playing came in his four encores, in spite 
of their variety. They were a gorgeous rendition of Liszt's arrangement of 
Schumann's ``Widmung,'' Chopin's ``Revolutionary'' Etude, an uncredited 
virtuoso medley of tunes by Johann Strauss Jr. and a sublimely still-voiced 
Tango by Albeniz. ..

**************
[My initial email to Mr. Kosman}

Mr. Kosman,

Your review of Evgeny Kissin's recital brings a number of thoughts and 
experiences to mind, which I will try to distill into something that makes 
sense in some minimal space.

My perspective, while different from yours, is also somewhat different from 
that of the average concert listener.  To establish a degree of credibility 
as quickly as possible, mine is that of someone who has spent most of the 
last thirty-two years as a "concert" piano technician.  Among other 
situations, I trained at both the Steinway factory and Steinway Hall with 
Franz Mohr, Chief Concert Technician Emeritus, his predecessor, along with 
many other present and former Steinway employees.  I was, for a number of 
years, the Chief Technician for the UCLA Center for the Performing Arts at 
Royce Hall, and have held many other similar posts.  Over the years, I have 
worked repeatedly with many major artists ranging from Arthur Rubinstein 
and Rudolf Serkin to Dubravka Tomsic, Jeffrey Kahane, and Kissin, 
himself.  Currently, I limit my work to supporting the Carmel Music Society 
and the Monterey Symphony, and a small number of recording and private clients.

Moving to the review, I will immediately admit that I did not attend the 
concert.  At the same time, as I read your review, some of the issues 
around the performance simply leapt off the page.

First, as to Kissin's performance itself It may well be that his radically 
eccentric technique is catching up to him.  That is, even though he is a 
tremendously gifted musician and technician, his basic hand technique is 
flawed.  The problems revolve around the positioning and elevation of his 
wrist, and the resulting angles to which his fingers must be contorted to 
address the keys.  There was, even some years ago, a visible tension in his 
forearm and upper back as he compensated for this.  I suspect that these 
issues began as mannerisms which, for whatever reason, were not dealt with 
sufficiently early in his instruction.  Again, I have mostly enjoyed his 
playing over the years.  He is much more consistent than Pogorelich, and 
nearly as consistent as Dubravka, but not quite.  Still, when he is 
centered, his performances are electrifying; much like Nikita Magaloff 
doing Debussy.  There is no question of his standing as one of the current 
reigning pianists.

Second, Davies For all the money that has been spent, and all the major 
improvements that are _clearly_ audible as a result, remains a very 
difficult hall in which to work, particularly on pianos.  There is still a 
impressive amount of standing wave distortion at some critical frequencies 
with the side curtains up.  With the same curtains down, the sound is 
simply swallowed up by the hall.  The positioning of the clouds can be 
equally frustrating.  From an audience standpoint, there are still "dead" 
and "live" spots in the hall.  The answer is that whatever goes on in there 
either gets the greatest degree of attention possible paid to artistic 
detail, or audibly suffers in  consequence.  Which leads to,

Third, the piano The secret of the problem is shown in the following from 
your review "Without gradations or subtlety, he will suddenly begin to 
pound away -- sometimes in midphrase, sometimes at a sectional transitions 
that are then marked all too starkly."  What you are describing is 
something which, in great part, transcends Mr. Kissin's issues.  The piano 
itself is simply not properly setup.  This is a very complex, difficult set 
of problems.  Knowledge of most of which is sadly lacking, at least as much 
among piano technicians as among pianists.

Described as simply as possible, in order for any pianist to have the kind 
of gradation of tone and volume for which we all look, the hammers must 
reflect the same kind of gradation of density and resiliency.  Think of a 
progressive-rate coil spring.  If compressed slowly and lightly, that is 
how it returns.  If compressed quickly and more fully, it collapses more 
completely, and returns to "rest" more quickly and with greater 
force.  Further, this is only one tiny aspect of the art of "voicing" the 
instrument.  The larger picture includes working with whatever action 
geometry is present, regulation, tuning, hammer shaping, et cetera ad 
nauseam.  The instrument you describe has very hard hammers, which have 
received minimal surface needling at the strike point.  The letoff (the 
point at which the hammer is released in its travel toward the string) is 
too far from the string; and, one suspects that other regulation issues are 
present.

Going back to your observations, hammers that reflect what I have described 
above, will produce precisely the effect you describe.  The lower volume 
levels may sound truly magnificent.  But, the moment one moves much beyond 
mezzo-piano, one is through (metaphorically) the softened top crown of the 
hammer and into the over-hard center and shoulder sections.  There is 
nowhere for the energy to go.  The hammer cannot compress.  The string 
cannot move beyond its limit of elasticity.  The hammer stays in contact 
with the string noticeably longer than it should, thereby 
dampening/deadening some of the energy it has just imparted it.  The tone, 
as a result, virtually instantly becomes hard, brittle, "glassy", and, 
virtually impossible to control.  The result is, as you so accurately 
depict it, "...as maddening duality, a kind of sonic whiplash...".  It is 
exactly that.  In short, Kissin never had a chance to do anything other 
than what you heard.

People seem to want instant, no-cost fixes for everything now days.  There 
is simply no way to do real concert work in those settings.  In the days I 
was doing the work at Royce Hall, when there was a recital or chamber 
performance requiring piano, whenever the performer(s) did not want it for 
rehearsal, I had the hall for the entire day.  This meant that it was 
possible to tailor the chosen instrument for a specific performance.  There 
was time to learn what the program was, work out if some particular 
temperament or stretch in the tuning would be advantageous, adjust the 
regulation and voicing.  In short, to try to bring the piano to a point 
where it was as transparent to the artist as possible - for the instrument 
to, at the very least, not detract from the dialogue of the musical moment 
between artist, composer, space and audience.  Those days are gone, and 
with them, often, a certain magic.

What to do?

This is the difficult part.  Reviews like yours help tremendously.  It 
would also be helpful if the artists would stand up in their own 
behalf.  In my experience, they will not, even when instruments are 
virtually unplayable.  Until they are willing to do so, everyone will 
continue to accept the declining status of things. The manufacturers, 
presenters, recording companies, etc., are happy just where things 
are.  They are all making more money than they ever have; and, as we all 
know, immediate financial profit is the aim of all activity.

For my part, I will continue to work for people like Dobravka and others 
when the situation works, go to an ever diminishing number of live 
performances, and listen to recordings, most of which were made before 
1970.  Fortunately, my life has now evolved to where I can do this work in 
ways that are meaningful to me, and not have to worry overly much about the 
rest.

I have responded to your review because the issues you address are so 
clearly evident, and hope that you understand that the opinions offered 
here are simply that, opinions offered in what is intended as a way to shed 
some different light on a very complicated and difficult set of problems.

Thank you very much for your time.

Best regards, and, please, do keep writing...

Horace

++++++++++++++++++
[My initial post to CAUT]


Tocaut@ptg.org
SubjectQuestion


Folks,

A question before I waste any of your bandwidth...

Recently, reading a review of a local performance convinced me to write to 
the critic - not about the review per se, but rather about a subject the 
review did not mention - the piano.  Now, understand that in 35 years of 
tuning, I have never done this.

The review may be seen at

http//www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/09/26/DD82230.DTL

(Sorry if the above "wraps".  If you have trouble, the title of the review 
is "Brahms, Beethoven Take a Pounding Pianist Kissin's outbursts 
maddening", from the 26.Sept.00 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle.)

Anyway, I wrote to the reviewer, and also published my thoughts privately 
to a few friends.  Several of them suggested that I post the whole thing to 
CAUT, which I am happy to do, but did not want to do so without some 
feedback from the list.  I am mostly concerned with the length of the 
communications - mine is, characteristically, not short....and, I would 
want to include the thoughts of some others, as I think that they are 
careful and thoughtful additions to my own remarks.

The subject is something near and dear to all of our hearts, particularly 
in this space - concert voicing and preparation.

As is everyone else, I am pretty busy with work and stuff, so it would 
probably be next weekend before I could really get my thoughts together 
enough to post.

That's it.  I hope that this finds everyone well and happy, as well as 
thoroughly buried by the new Academic Year.

Best regards to all.

Horace

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[Here start the various replies/etc]


SubjectREQuestion

So Horace, in your opinion, it was the piano not the pianist that was the
problem, if there was one?  Did you attend?

******************

First, no I did not attend.  The review, in addition to the large numbers 
of performances I have heard in the area provided the information 
necessary.  I fully recognize that many might find my assessment 
presumptuous without having been there.  I respectfully demur. Others have 
their areas of expertise.  My energies have gone into the specific arena of 
concert and recording preparation of pianos.  Some problems have become so 
prevalent (particularly in the last 20 years or so) as to be endemic.  One 
of the largest is the lack of knowledge of how to build piano tone.  This 
is a complex issue, partially (and certainly practically) outside of what I 
hope to accomplish here.

As to the problem at the recital: I do agree with Mr. Kosman's assessment 
that Mr. Kissin's playing has demonstrated  "bluntness, even crudity, that 
has become increasingly apparent in his playing in recent years".  At the 
same time, the specific issues raised as to this specific performance made 
it clear to me that a fair percentage of whatever problems (of 
tone/volume/etc) there had been were related to the instrument, and not to 
the performer.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sounds like a piano with laqueritus.  <G> Would love to
hear your comments.

*******************

"Lacqueritis" is a wonderful term...I think I'll plagiarize it.

I (sort of) addressed this issue in my email to Mr. Kosman.  What I liked 
in this response, as well as a few others, is that other technicians 
besides myself had _essentially_ similar analysis of the 
instrument...without hearing it.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The reviewer did love certain areas of the performance but apparently the
piano couldn't handle overdrive?  Voiced for pianissimo only?  I remember
the traditional voicing technique from the Hamburg Factory's head tech
(can't remember his name) insisted on deep needling in the low shoulders for
FF first before working into the softer ranges.

************************

I'll break this up:

"Overdrive" is a good way to look at it.  From a traditional voicing 
standpoint, one finds the absolute greatest amount tone that the weakest 
note on a given instrument will produce.  This is before making musical 
considerations as to tone, rather, at what point of hardness will an 
exceptionally hard blow drive this note into distortion?  (On an S&S D, 
this is usually one of several places: the bass/tenor break, again at the 
g/g# at the break in the tenor, the c# going into the first treble section, 
and the middle of the first treble.)  This is "overdrive", that is, the 
point at which the tone is no longer of normally usable musical value, but 
produces a distinctive distortion in the sound.  Note that even at this 
level, the sound produced is not necessarily thin and/or reedy or "glassy", 
just sufficiently noisy that it is objectionable.

Voiced for pp only?  That is one way to describe this.  What happens in 
this kind of scenario is that the usable dynamic range of the instrument is 
compressed.  The pp usually sounds at least OK, if not pretty darned 
good.  The problem is that there is very little gradation between that and 
what I think of as "splatty".

This latter is the result of the hammer not being able to get away from the 
string quickly enough.  It winds up dampening as it energizes, thus robbing 
the energy which would otherwise produce a sustained tone.  There is much 
less "dwell", I think Del calls it.

Gerhardt, and others from Hamburg (my own training on this was with Robert 
and Michael Glazebrook, definitely take this approach.  Always working "in 
reverse", as it were, when voicing will help produce a smooth gradation of 
tone, and a wider dynamic range.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 >Recently, reading a review of a local performance convinced me to write
 >to  the critic - not about the review per se, but rather about a subject the
 > review did not mention - the piano.

Hmm,  not having heard the concert, I don't know if the problems were
with the piano or the artist. Banging seems to have become a real facet of
piano playing in the  last 20 years, or so.

***********************************

This is a very big issue.

I really do feel that the question of piano tone is one which is no longer 
really addressed very well.  There are a lot of issues.  Most have to do 
with educational problems, reflected in just about every way in which we 
approach tone - from design and construction to recording to performance.

Most (certainly not all) younger performers (perhaps, even most of them 
under the current age of 50) have grown up learning about piano tone from 
their stereo systems, not be going to many, many live performances.  They 
(and, dare I suggest it, most technicians) are dependent on the 
questionable quality of recorded sound coming out of the speakers of these 
systems of questionable quality.  The roots of this problem were addressed 
as long ago as 1956/57 in Slonimsky's book (entitled, I think, Pianos and 
Pianists).  He directly states that drive of the recording companies of 
major artists (of the day) to recording complete sets of whomever was 
destroying the quality of both live performance and recording, itself.

It is an argument I have lost so often that I no longer join it very often.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I would love to hear your comments on this performance and the piano (lets 
not forget the hall).  I'm going to hear the same concert October 14th.  I 
have heard Kissin live three times in the past and have always enjoyed his 
performances.  He reminds me of early Rubinstein recordings of the 20's and 
30's; very, very intense.  Beethoven did comment on the Tempest sonata "the 
strings must break" (I can't remember where I read that right 
now).  Perhaps Kissen is to intense for this reviewer and/or that piano/hall.

*****************************

I absolutely concur.  I have heard him live several times, and come away 
with highly varied impressions.  When he is on, earlier Rubinstein 
certainly does come to mind - not later.

The comment about his intensity is dead-on.  I, also, remember reading 
Beethoven's comment (who know where?).  Does this comment make sense in 
terms of what I describe above about voicing?  Certainly, he was too 
intense for the piano.  Given my experience in Davies, a good deal depends 
on where one is sitting...anything in the "orchestra" is highly 
variable.  The loges are generally pretty good, with best sound (oddly) on 
the sides, not in the back.  The "nose bleed" sections are there, in my 
opinion, to help pay the overhead.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I read the review, and my best guess (and since I didn't hear the recital 
it's only a guess) is that the piano was fine and got pounded a lot.  The 
reviewer statement "And so long as the music remained subdued or lyrical, 
Kissin's effortless command of tone and voicing was nothing short of 
astonishing. The hushed, velvety sound he elicits from the instrument 
beguiles the ear while revealing inner lines with startling 
clarity."  leads me to believe that the piano was capable of being played 
softly.  To me the classic "over lacquered" piano is incapable of ppp 
playing and subtle shadings of tone.   Perhaps the hammers were too soft 
and the banging was his frustrated attempt to get a fff.

*************************************

A very great deal depends on how the individual instrument is set up; and 
that, clearly, depends on the competency of the technician doing the 
work.  I have heard many S&S pianos "voiced" as you describe.  What most 
often winds up being the case is that some one over-lacquers and then does 
varying amounts of crown needling, trying to make up for the problems they 
have just created.  If they had been properly trained for voicing to begin 
with, these issues would be largely nonexistent.

As to the banging - yep, he is fully capable of banging a piano into 
oblivion.  But, the review does not support this particular conclusion.  A 
soft hammer, in direct contrast to an over-hard one, cannot impart all of 
its energy into the string as it simply continues to compress until 
whatever energy it has gotten from the jack is used up and it then sponges 
back into the check.  Does this make sense?

My experience of the "classic 'over-lacquered'" hammer is that, having once 
done that, the technician does not then go back to finish the voicing job - 
in essence, leaving the work half done.  Del, among others, has some very 
cogent thinking about the quality of piano hammers and how to work with 
them.  I agree with much of what they have to say, but have spent much of 
my life being in a position where it was necessary to work with the hammers 
at hand, no matter how "bad" they might have been.  If one is consistent in 
how one works, one can do a very good job with lacquer.  At the same time, 
if the tone is not built into the instrument to begin with, you are dead 
before you start.  This is specifically the problem with many new pianos, 
there is simply no board - from a certain point of view.  If you make a 
hammer harder, in essence what you are doing is making whatever sound there 
is louder, not making substantive changes in its base quality.  Garbage in, 
garbage out.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I want to hear you take on this also.  Having read various ideas, it's 
obvious we can't be sure without having heard the concert.   The piano 
tuner, and piano cannot bare all blame as the pianist has opportunity to 
request voicing modifications prior to any professional
concert, unless they're just too nice to complain----rare indeed!

One thought, some pianos can be real deceivers both to pianists and 
voicers.  The sound at the bench isn't the same as out in the hall.  Some 
bright ones are very loud at the bench and thin in the hall, some dull ones 
are dull at the bench and booming with power in the hall.

************************************

As to the first part, I both agree and disagree about the ability to assess 
these things.  Without question, one cannot make note-by-note analysis 
without being at the piano.  At the same time, my experience is that one 
can come a good deal closer than one might think.

As to the next - there is another dynamic present in many markets.  There 
are many places in which the technician simply does not make themselves 
available to artists, and/or cannot work with them.  This is much more of a 
problem than many people realize.  Now, that being said, this is not 
something that most of us in institutional situations will do.  In many 
"major" metropolitan areas, however, it is the rule, not the exception.

Then, I absolutely agree about the realities of the perception of 
tone.  And, this immediately goes to my criticism of technicians who do not 
go to concerts for which they tune.  How the heck do they know what they 
have done?  How do they learn how to correlate the piano at the keyboard to 
what they experience in the hall?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I find it interesting that several here assume the review is an attack on 
the piano, somehow pointing a finger at the piano tech. I did not assume 
the integrity of the tech was in question, rather the performer! We can 
only do so much, then it's up to the "other guy".

********************************

Yes, and that really _is_ the point.  The review, to my reading was/is more 
of an attack on Kissin and his performance than of the piano.  My point is 
that the energy of the review was at least partly misdirected.  The 
instrument itself, and the technician behind it, were not up to the task at 
hand.  The reviewer did not give these latter concepts any ink; thus, my 
letter.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That is the trick isn't it.  How to get a piano to project without breaking 
up in FFF?  Do we just say this is the piano's sound and take or leave it, 
or do you do something?  If so what?

I have a another question for everyone.  You have a new piano, it is played 
for a season and during that time what typically are you doing to maintain 
the voice?  Where will you be needling or whatever? Different strokes for 
different manufacturers, let me hear it.  How will you decide when to put 
on a new set of hammers during the life of that instrument?
********************************

The first part of this is the part where art meets, and, hopefully, 
transcends science.  There is really only so much reductive work that one 
can do.  At some indeterminate point, the musicianship, training and 
experience of the technician (and their judicious application) become the 
determining factors.  From my perspective, yes, there is a point at which 
one has to say: "That's all there is, there isn't any more."  At the same 
time, most technicians reach this point entirely too soon.  Further, for 
concert work, I _do_ want the piano to break up at the loudest possible 
volume level; but, I want it to break up evenly at that level, and not 
before reaching it.  That way, the pianist truly does have the entire range 
possible available to them on a given instrument.  These things take time.

Actually, the second paragraph here really is integrated with the 
first.  There is a very great deal to do during the first year of a piano's 
life.  Needling, is certainly one of those things; but, here again, I think 
that most technicians reach for the needles/lacquer/whatever too 
soon.  Everything is settling in, changing.  Keeping up the regulation is 
just as much a part of voicing as needling.  A story: Several years ago, I 
went with a colleague to look at a couple of fairly new pianos in a fairly 
new hall.  They wanted feedback about the instruments, and how they were 
voiced in the hall.  As they played,  I wandered around, and we exchanged 
thoughts on different things.  At one point, they said that the instrument 
just did not seem to have sufficient power somehow - it would play quite 
loudly, but not in a particularly focused way.  I asked about the letoff 
and drop.  These were at "specification" per the manufacturer, but seemed 
to me to be too low.  We raised the letoff on a few test notes, and 
experienced an immediate change in the presence of the instrument at 
different volume levels.

As to new hammers, much depends on the use of the instrument.  I know, that 
is really glib.  At the same time, even if sets of hammers are assumed to 
be consistent from one set to the next, some pianos need hammers every 
other year or so.  Others may go decades.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[This one is a little complicated, as there are now three voices.  My 
comments are in brackets.]

  I wrote what I do below.

wrote:

 > That is the trick isn't it.  How to get a piano to project without 
breaking  up in FFF?  Do we just say this is the piano's sound and take or 
leave it, > or do you do something?  If so what?

I don't mean do nothing! except if it can't be better.  First analyze!, 
think!  experiment on one note!, take a break! think and listen some 
more!  Possibilities include deep needling shoulders, mate strings to 
hammers, check hammer travel, all regulation including key frame bedding, 
check pinning,   I assume by "breaking up" you mean the tone is not holding 
together at fff.  If you mean it gets harsh, deep needling into strike 
point, everything slowly, thoughtfully.

[I both agree and disagree here.  My disagreement is with crown 
needling.  There is always a way to avoid this, including washing out 
whatever hardener has been used.  If you do choose to do this, emphasize 
the "thoughtfully" part...a lot.]

Hammers and regulation are not the source of every problem, could be the 
soundboard, acoustics, and/or a pianists touch, or a combination.  No 
mechanic can keep a race car driver from pushing too hard and smashing into 
the wall.

[Very well said.  It is a question of knowing one's limits.  We are all 
affected differently by psycho-acoustic elements in our work.  The question 
seems to me to be one of expanding our individual frames of reference to 
include those of others.  That way, we have the best chance of achieving 
something faintly resembling a reasonable balance between all these 
different factors.]

 >  You have a new piano, it is played  for a season and during that time 
what typically are you doing to maintain the voice?  Where will you be 
needling or whatever?

Keep it locked;  Control humidity;  Any of the above and more as needed,   No
two sets of hammers respond exactly alike, whatever works.

[Sounds good to me.]

 > How will you decide when to put on a new set of hammers during the life 
of that instrument?

1. When the sound is bad (thin and raspy usually) and no known voicing 
technique cures,
2. When the string grooves are long such that filing would cause regulation 
and tone problems, (too small, to light , or too hard of hammer).
3.  Sound Rules!  Never replace bad looking hammers that sound and feel great.

[Very good rules!  Especially #3.  Some of the best sounding/feeling pianos 
I have ever seen have had pretty ratty looking hammers.]

We ought to keep this to one type of hammer, say NY Steinway.  The magnitude of
the questions just too great.

[Hmm - OK, if we can also stretch this to include some kind of concept 
about how, if one can make those hammers sound good, one can probably deal 
with most others....allowing, of course, for differences in technique.  The 
real issue is sound.  First and foremost.]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

Is it possible that there can be a problem with the piano and yet not blame 
the technician?

Suppose that the governing body (Concert Hall, etc.) is short-sighted and 
tight with the checkbook, and the budget is inadequate?  Suppose that the 
only work the piano gets is tuning, because if extra service is performed, 
the technician is essentially donating their time without 
reimbursement?  Suppose that the piano needs the extra work and the 
technician doesn't convey this need to the holder of the checkbook in such 
a way as to convince them to pay for proper service?  Suppose the 
technician does explain the need properly and the person in charge agrees 
on the need for extra service, but there still is no budget?  Suppose that 
the work is agreed on and the budget is available, yet there is no time to 
properly set-up the piano because of scheduling conflicts, rehearsal times, 
lots of performances, etc.?  Suppose that there is plenty of time for 
preparing the piano, and the budget is available, but the performer doesn't 
have time to meet with the technician to express need for any changes if 
desired?

****************************

Yes, it is possible "that there can be a problem with the piano and yet not 
blame the technician?"  It is just easier to blame the technician than for 
an owner/dealer/manufacturer to acknowledge that there might be a problem 
with an instrument.

As to part two here - all of the above can be dealt with fairly 
straightforwardly except the last: "performer doesn't have time to meet 
with the technician to express need for any changes if desired?"  This is a 
very sticky point that is not going to change any time soon.  Most pianists 
are woefully uneducated as to their instruments.  This is from the bottom 
to the top of the range of performers.  As I recently noted, some of the 
most trouble (for technicians) comes from those who think that they do know 
something.

This does not mean that one does nothing.  Quite the contrary.  The goal 
(for me) is to have an instrument as well prepared as it reasonably can be 
before an artist ever even sees it.  This means different things for 
different pianos.  The word I think of is "transparent" - how transparent 
is the piano to the pianist?  Are they made aware of it intruding itself 
between them and the music?  If this kind of frame of reference is your 
goal, most of them will be most pleased before you even ask.  There will, 
of course, be more discriminating ones who want/need/demand something 
more/extra.  That is where your judgement, as the person ultimately 
responsible for the instrument, must come into play.  If what they want is 
reasonable, will not damage, will result in some improvement, can (at the 
very least) be undone, and there is time, I will probably try to 
accommodate them.  To the extent that what they want falls outside of these 
guidelines, I probably will not.

+++++++++++++++++++

Having been involved with piano performance from both sides of the fence 
(i.e. pianist and technician) - and these remarks apply equally to both 
historical and modern pianos - it is ultimately the responsibility of the 
pianist to adapt as required to meet the characteristics of whatever 
instrument is presented. There is no excuse for banging fff with rough and 
ugly tone. While many pianists can make some pianos sound good, it is 
possible to make any piano sound bad, and, by recognizing its limitations, 
the true artist is capable of making any piano sound good. In my experience 
there is no shortage of spoiled-brat un-thinking superstar pianists, 
however there is a serious shortage of true artists. Go think.

******************

Very well said.  Most of the pianists for whom I have had the greatest 
respect and the best working relationships are now dead.  At the same time, 
I have also heard a number of younger people coming up who seem to have 
much better concepts of pianism than the immediately preceding 
generation.  One must always think.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have heard many lovely-sounding, responsive pianos made to sound ugly by 
pianists who couldn't be listening to themselves. Pianists must find the 
balance point between strength and beauty in any instrument - it's not 
always just a question of playing too loud, either. I've heard concerts on 
pianos I've prepared where the piano sounded strangely out of whack or 
balance (driving me to despair) only to hear the same piano sound glorious 
the next day when played by a different pianist (raising me from my 
despair). A good pianist quickly figures out how to "stroke" an instrument 
and bring the most out of it whereas it seems that many simply don't seem 
to have an affinity for the instrument. This is a really good reason to 
attend as many concerts performed on instruments you have prepared as is 
possible. You can hear them at their best and at their worst and continue 
to figure out how to find the ideal.

*****************************************

One cannot really do concert work an not listen repeatedly to instruments 
(particularly the ones on which one works) performed on under many 
differing circumstances.  This is the only way to establish an inner 
"baseline" of one's performance as a technician.  And, no, I do not think 
that most pianists now days spend very much time truly listening to 
themselves.  By that I mean a studied approach to understanding how what 
they do at the keyboard affects the perception of the sound of the 
instrument in any given space.  Some of the best names currently active get 
positively frantic if the piano is not harsh and glassy sounding at the 
keyboard - they cannot, and demonstrably often are not, even slightly aware 
of how they sound in the hall.  Several years ago I had one get positively 
abusive around things they wanted changed.  No amount of talking or 
demonstrating would convince them, so I did what they thought they wanted, 
and said they were pleased with.  Imagine their surprise and rage when the 
reviews blasted the piano.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

.what I know about Kissin, and what I've heard, he is not a spoiled brat or 
unthinking, but may just be a true artist...

*****************************

He is an artist.  At the same time, however antiquated the concept may be, 
when I think of a "true" artist, I think of someone like Rubinstein, 
Richter, or Bolet (among others) who could (and did) produce beautiful 
music from things like Wurlitzer spinets.  Kissin has not yet reached that 
level.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

The only time I heard Kissin in  concert was with the NY Philharmonic at 
Avery Fisher Hall March 26, 1997.  The piano, S&S CD405, was extremely 
bright and glassy, juiced to the limit.  Kissin had no trouble being heard 
over the orchestra, but the trade of was loss of flexibility of tone color. 
The piano sounded the same at pp and ff, just a softer or louder version of 
the same partials.  The audience loved it, so what do I know.

*****************************
First, the date of this concert was after Franz had retired, so the "new, 
improved" voicing techniques (for which I freely admit I have little to no 
time) would most probably have been the ones used.  What is described here 
is replicated in many different venues now.  People who do understand what 
pianos can sound like are ignored, if not systematically pushed 
aside.  Further, on more the one occasion, instruments set up like this 
have had to be revoiced, if not have the hammers replaced after the New 
York guys get done.  This is not a pretty picture, and one from which one 
can expect no help or support from Steinway.

As to the audience...well, people simply are no longer educated to expect 
anything more than has been described here.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Case in point: This past weekend I rented a grand for a wedding reception 
which had been thru previous rentals.  This time a jack had broken in the 
octave below middle C.

Granted the parts were 1907 vintage and I did forget to reinforce them with 
CA but the Father of the Bride did mention that 'he really played it', 
emphasizing his exuberance for the fortissimo.  However it is not a new 
occurrence where force is utilized over finesse.

I have heard plenty of bangers in my day but the two outstanding players in 
the finesse department were Rudolph Fircuszny (sp) and Ellis Larkins.  I 
could listen to these guys all day.

***********************************

Force over finesse is one of the few constants.  I would add to the list 
Ivan Morevec, Julius Katchen, and a few others.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I wonder if the reviewer sat in the first row, just below the
piano?  That wouldn't be fair, as dynamics are augmented close up yet
could be perfect a few rows back.

************************************

This is a _very_ good question, especially in a hall like Davies.  I 
suspect that, if he was in the orchestra section at all, he was probably at 
least half-way back. More likely, he was in one of the loge sections.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Kissin is not a brat, proved by the fact that after every concert I have 
been to he is willing to stay backstage and shake hands with concert goers 
(yes he actually lets the general public touch his hands!) and sign 
programs, not his own CD's that people have to buy before he signs them 
(I've seen Pollini do that) unthinking, just look at the repertoire he is 
playing, and a true artist, Richard Goode commented after hearing Kissin 
play the Chopin Preludes he heard voices he had never heard before, a man 
whose' opinion I value more highly than a newspaper reporter.

Kissin might very well be the best pianist under the age of 40.  You should 
all go
give him a listen before you condemn him.

***************************

I completely agree that Kissin is a complete and ingratiating 
gentleman.  He is most generous with his time and talent.  At the same 
time, he so monopolizes a hall and instrument that the technician as (quite 
literally) no time for any kind of post-rehearsal touch up.  Further, he is 
so controlled by his entourage that, given a selection of instruments, an 
entire day can go by without a decision being made.

This is not, for me, an issue of condemnation.  It is, however, an exercise 
in education.  Yes, if one has not heard Kissin live, then one certainly 
should not miss the chance.  At the same time, one hearing will not 
necessarily produce a balanced picture of this artist.

I think the following letter helps to make my various points:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is interesting to see the range of responses this thread has 
inspired.  Being a recipient of a copy of Horace's excellent letter to the 
reviewer, I am looking forward to his sharing his letter with the 
list.  Tempted as I am to share some details, I will content myself to say 
that Horace discusses in some detail his perception of the present day loss 
of the skills of fine action set up, regulation, and voicing--skills which 
he learned from past masters.  Horace apparently deduces from the wording 
of the reviewer that the piano was not properly prepared.

This may very well be true; however, I posted Horace an account of my 
experience preparing a piano for Kissin a year ago.  Kissin's management 
had reserved every available moment in the hall during the day preceding 
and day of the recital, and he, with the guidance of his teacher, worked 
tirelessly and relentlessly during the entire 12 hours at an intense 
concert level with a heavy Russian program--right up to curtain 
time.  Despite my gentle attempts to gain access to the piano for touch up, 
Kissin, while remaining courteous, dismissed me with the assurance that 
everything was okay.  Clearly, it meant more to Kissin and his teacher to 
have the rehearsal time, than for me to have time to refine the tuning and 
voicing.

The local reviewer commented that the instrument's sound became harsh at 
times during the many big climaxes.  For my part, I was elated that the 
piano stood in tune and sounded as good as it did despite the heavy use and 
deficient prep time.  Furthermore, unlike the Davies Hall piano in Horace's 
speculations, I flatter myself that this instrument was properly set up, 
was regulated properly, and that the hammers had the appropriate shape and 
resiliency.

Horace, in his letter, also shares his insights into Kissin's technique and 
the acoustics of Davies Hall.  There are also a host of other factors that 
go into a performance--factors which those of us who are frequently 
backstage observe from a perspective denied to the public and the 
critic.  I recently read an account of a late Caruso performance, written 
by his late son, in which he recalled his anguish at the unkindness of the 
public and critics toward shortcomings in his father's delivery and stage 
presence, knowing that they had no idea of the pain, both mental and 
physical, with which his father performed in his last days, and the 
professionalism and sense of responsibility that lead him to go on stage 
even though he was really, unbeknownst to him, probably in the latter 
stages of lung cancer.

So what conclusions may we reach from all this?  Basically that, quite 
properly, "everyone is a critic", but that the conclusions we reach and the 
judgments that we make really often say more about us than about the actual 
situation, about which we rarely have sufficient information to make fully 
informed judgments.  Was the performance truly flawed?  Is Davies Hall 
really acoustically deficient?  Was the instrument really inexpertly 
prepared?  Is Kissin's technique really flawed?  Did he misjudge the limits 
of the instrument?  Certainly there are objective criteria upon which one 
can base such judgments; however, criticism is most incisive and persuasive 
when tempered with humility and compassion.

I believe that Horace's letter could stimulate an excellent discussion 
about concert preparation techniques of today, contrasted with those of the 
halcyon days of yore.

*******************************

This letter really plumbs the depths of these issues.

I particularly appreciate the thought about "halcyon days of yore" in 
reference to concert work.  Those days are gone, and we can but dimly grasp 
the relationship between Rachmaninoff and Bill Hupfer through the rosy lens 
of Franz' telling of his relationship with Horowitz.

The unfortunate "fact" is that in most situations, the only people really 
concerned (as in, sufficiently concerned to try to do something) about good 
concert preparation are those of us who do it.  As an internationally known 
Steinway artist told me some years ago: "We are thankful for those of you 
who care and try, but cannot, at risk of our own employment, make too much 
noise".  Last season, I heard essentially the same thing from several 
traveling artists.  If they complain too much, they are simply not called 
back.   It is only the one's like Kissin who can refuse with impunity to 
play a specific instrument.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A great post, very fair and balanced.

Recently, I was faced with a pianist that wanted to practice full tilt 
until curtain time.  I was so miffed that I did not stay for the 
concert.  The performance got good reviews, and the Pianist and Orchestra 
were happy with the end result.  Your post has given me more than a little 
food for thought, and to accept that this will happen from time to 
time.  It is still not a comfortable feeling when you feel your best work 
is not on centre stage.

Faceless stage left.
***************************

This is something which simply occurs from time to time.  The problem, of 
course, is that it is, for us, a tremendous narcissistic wound to not be 
able to have everything "perfect".  As noted in my post about the situation 
with Jose Feghali, I still have problems with tact.  (HARVEY!!! Please note 
the correct spelling!)

Well, Snaggletooth, most of us wind up stage right...faceless or otherwise.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

[Here is another letter received off list, which has immediate bearing...as 
it were.  As before, I will put some comments in brackets.]

Thank you for sharing your letter with me.  I am astounded that you are 
able to discern so much about the voicing and hammer condition of the 
instrument from the comments in the review.  Certainly the local reviewer 
must be much more reliable than our local critics. Sometimes one wonders 
whether we attended the same performance.  I am reminded of an occasion 
many years ago when I lived in East Tennessee, when the local critic 
reviewed a programmed piece on an orchestral concert that was deleted at 
the last minute!

I tuned for Kissin last year at Bass Hall in Fort Worth and found it a 
fascinating experience.  Atypically for a major artist, he had booked every 
available moment in the hall for the day before and the day of the 
performance, and used every minute of his time--right up to curtain 
time.  His mother and teacher were present during every moment, and the 
rehearsal was really like an intense master class, with the teacher very 
much in charge.  I frequently had to remind myself that Kissin is a 27 year 
old man.

His technique and control, even after hours of intense practice at concert 
levels (and this was a heavy Russian program, including Islamay) was 
formidable; however, there was something missing.  The program was lacking 
in tender and lyrical moments, yet, somehow he failed much of the time to 
move or touch me deeply.  Even the technical displays failed to impress.

After my first morning with the piano, he really did not want to allow me 
time to touch up the tuning and voicing, which, fortunately, remained 
passable; but, to my dismay (and accurately, I felt) the Dallas reviewer 
commented upon the hard piano sound at climaxes, of which there were many.

I have noted recent and past discussions on CAUT about hammers and action 
parts.  I have tried many different varieties, and have found that each has 
strengths and limitations, which a skilled voicer must learn to 
overcome.  Some are more comfortable working with the Steinway type hammer, 
using the hardening techniques, while others are more comfortable with the 
European, dense type hammer, with all the detailed needling and filing 
techniques required.  Each tends to discount the other.  For my work, since 
I must deal with both NY and Hamburg Steinway pianos, I have found it 
necessary to tackle both approaches.  I respect both techniques and use NY 
Steinway, Renner, and Abel hammers in various circumstances.  I am 
sometimes surprised that technicians will point out poor quality control 
and manufacturing shortcomings in NY Steinway parts and in the pianos in 
general, yet, in almost the same breath, speak of the NY hammer in terms 
verging upon religious fervor, as though they are imparted with 
semi-magical tonal qualities.  I was shocked to hear Ron Conors speak so 
dismissively of the Renner hammer.  On the other hand, I have heard 
advocates of other hammers speak of the NY Steinway hammer as though it is 
incapable of producing a beautiful and varied sound, which goes against my 
experience and the experience of anyone who knows how to work with them.

[This paragraph could easily launch a whole book.  The real issues here are 
again ones of the training, experience and musicianship of the technician 
involved.  If these are not of at least reasonably high order, nothing else 
is possible.  There have been sufficient complaints from enough folks to 
simply assert that the work coming out of New York these days speaks for 
itself.]

I regret that NY is attempting to make the Hamburg instrument more like the 
NY instrument (Sitka spruce boards, and NY manufactured hammers and action 
parts).  I love both instruments and respect the artists who prefer one or 
the other.  Malcolm Bilson presented a brilliant lecture here several years 
ago about the homogeneity of modern pianos, compared with the true 
diversity to be found in the 19th century.  His motto was "viva la 
difference!".

********************************

There is a lot going on in piano manufacture of which we can only be dimly 
aware.  The simple fact is that they (the traditional American and European 
manufacturers) can no longer build pianos the way they used to, and the 
Japanese/etc choose to build something else.  I fully agree with Bilson's 
statement about diversity of concept of tone and touch.  It is no accident 
that Paderewski's tours were more largely with Knabe and Weber pianos than 
Steinway.  Or that major artists of this century have performed on one 
instrument in public and recorded on another brand.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have done enough concert work to have experienced most of what you said, 
and more.

I have tuned so many pianos that I considered not ready for a concert but 
they were used anyway.  Most people think any piano is suitable for a good 
player.

And you are right, a lot of players will not speak up.  Usually when they 
do they get chopped off at the knees. (Hard to pedal that way.)  I have 
know several pianists to have a screaming hissy before a concert on an 
eminently playable instrument caused not  by the piano but their own
nervous condition and stage fright.  Like I said, I have seen most of 
everything that happens on stage.

*****************************

This really captures a certain essence of the problem.  One of my very 
least favorite situations is that of following a technician "of a certain 
age".  The venue in question sees no difference between the work, and, 
since the artists performing do not complain, are more than happy that he 
charges so very little....

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Of course I have to ask, do you know who the technician was?  Was it the 
house piano or a rental?  Do they even have a  house piano, or does it go 
back and forth in the C&A program?

***********************************

Yes, I know, and do not feel that the name matters.  There are both house 
and C&A pianos available at Davies.  SF is in the grip of an agreement 
between Pro Piano and S&S in re: provision of concert instruments.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I especially enjoyed how you pointed out that it was the improperly 
prepared hammers (mainly) which were responsible for the "sonic whiplash" 
and not the pianist. I wouldn't have thought to educate a writer on such a 
technical point but, having done so and so clearly, it makes perfect sense 
that you did.

As for Davies Hall, I only once have gone there, to hear John Browning do a 
solo concert, well before any amendments were made to the acoustics (70s). 
The faint impression I have is of a tiny instrument lost in this huge barn. 
You miss too much of the subtleties if you're sitting in the nosebleed 
seats as we did. The blessings of live music are almost nil at such a 
distance.
					
**********************************

I do not think that reviewers get enough reviewing.  There have been many 
concerts in many places over many years when I have frankly wondered if we 
had listened to the same tunes played by the same folks.  Besides, the 
issues here just leapt off the page (for me).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


OK, now, here is Mark Swed's review of the same program, only played on 
28.Sept.00 in Segerstrom Hall in Orange County, CA. :

"Evgeny Kissin, magnificent pianist though he is, can give the impression 
that he is not quite of this world.  His haair and his playing defy 
gravity.  The robotic bows he takes after each piece are so mechanically 
stiff and undemonstrative that one wonders if he might be deaf to the wild 
applause he inevitably receives.  Last season, when he gave a Chopin 
recital in the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, he played wondrously yet weirdly, 
as if so trapped in the composer's work that he was trying to break free by 
distending or exploding phrases.
"Thursday night, Kissin returned to Southern California to open the 
Philharmonic Society of Orange County's series at the Orange County 
Performing Arts Center, this time with a serious program of Romantic-period 
standards by Beethoven, Schumann and Brahms, which he will repeat Sunday at 
UCLA.  And this time, Kissin seemed almost liberated, at least for him.

"Kissin plays in a very grand manner that carries with it much that is 
great about the Russian piano tradition.  He may not yet fully reveal the 
transcendence in Beethoven, the meaningful quirks in Schumann or the 
all-embracing warmth of Brahms.  He is, after all, only 28 - which is easy 
to forget since he has been famous for more than a decade.  But whatever 
fuller connection might be made with audience or composer is compensated by 
his connection with the piano.  Thursday night was a rare and wonderful 
occasion to simply marvel at the incredible sounds this young man can make 
with his instrument.

"First of all, there was the piano itself.  The concert was the pubic debut 
of a new Steinway that the center has purchased.  One hears nothing but 
complaints these days about clangorous new pianos, about the incorporation 
of modern plastics, about the decline of craftsmanship.  "New" is a bad 
word in the piano world.  Instruments are thought best when made in the Old 
World and old enough to have been broken in, for the materials to have 
settled.  Pianists of Kissin's stature and fussiness go to the trouble and 
expense of making their personal instruments their traveling 
companions.  Yet Kissin was said to be so impressed by the new piano from 
New York that he left his own Hamburg Steinway backstage at Segerstrom Hall.

"And the new piano sounded fabulous.  Kissin has a powerfully bit sound, 
and his ferocious attacks on the keyboard, especially in Brahms' massive 
Third Sonata, rang gloriously.  His range of dynamics and keyboard colors 
partly define him, and on this evening, the piano seemed to do everything 
he wanted - from its top to its bottom, from a single note hanging in the 
air to a thundering cluster of them - responsively and with unfailing beauty.

"The first piece was Beethoven's D-Minor sonata Opus 31, No 2 [sic], known 
as "The Tempest".  The storm is more internal than meteorological, and the 
turbulence is as significant in the lonely recitative passages as in the 
stormy eruptions.  The lapping waves in the last movement provide a 
victorious calm.  But for Kissin, the recitative passages were more like 
visions of something distant and exotic, gorgeous sound wafting in the soft 
air like a Chopin melody, while the fast contrasts had an etude-like showiness.

"In Schumann's "Carnival", with its small pieces that can give us fleeting 
glimpses of the characters behind their masks at a masquerade, Kissin was 
master of neither the individual personalities nor their elusive 
dancing.  Again, the piano and what it could do was the single character of 
the work.  But what it could do, in Kissin's hands, was 
extraordinary.  Particularly interesting was Kissin's drawn-out lyricism in 
Schumann's portrait of Chopin.  That the pianist's Chopin style here was 
more lovingly faithful to Chopin than he sometimes is to the real thing 
added an interesting layer of mystification.

"Brahms' sonata is the most ambitious work of the composer's 20s, and 
Kissin took to it with demonic energy.  Sometimes that energy and its 
reverse, melting lyricism, seemed studied - Kissin rarely gives the 
impression of spontaneity.  But the sheer fullness of sound, the rainbow of 
pianistic colors, and the big but never banging climaxes were their own 
great rewards to a listener.

"Kissin is a great pianist who may yet become a great interpreter.  He is 
an absolute master of his instrument and its sound.  And he grows; he is 
not the same pianist as he was earlier in the decade; he is not the same as 
he was last season.  He is even now beginning to let his hair down 
(figuratively).  Among his four encores were a delightfully virtuosic take 
on themes from "Die Fledermaus" played with amusing flair and a gentle 
almost sexy good night with an Albeniz tango."

End of Review
+++++++++++++++++++++++

HG:

What a difference between these two reviews!  How to account for it?  Same 
pianist.  Same literature.  Two different pianos, two different halls, and, 
clearly two different sets of ears listening.

I cannot speak for the pianos, as I have not seen either of them.  As to 
the ears of the reviewers, I have both agreed and disagreed with each of 
them in regards performances at which I have been present.  Like the rest 
of us, they bring their individual experiences and prejudices with them 
when they review.  So, I think of them as being variable, but not 
necessarily outside of some reasonably acceptable range.

The halls are a somewhat different story.  I have tuned multiple times and 
heard many concerts in each.  Frankly, I do not particularly like either 
one.  The are both representative of many modern halls, more interesting in 
architectural innovation and style than in quality and consistency of 
listening environment (one of the writers quoted above make note of this as 
to Davies).  Both have undergone some acoustic modification since they 
opened, and are better than they used to be - still, the quality of the 
listening experience is going to be directly related to where one is 
sitting.  Another writer noted that sitting too close to the stage is going 
to affect sound.  This is definitely true in both halls.

So, in my mind, what we largely come back to are the pianos involved.  And, 
I think that a great deal of ground has been covered in the various 
comments and responses above.  At least, I hope that this serves to open up 
more dialog about how we think about, and, as a result, approach doing 
concert work.

As final notes on this post, I first of all want to apologize for the 
length of time it has taken to get all this together.  It is not possible 
to have any one, final word on any artistic subject, but there really has 
not been a great deal of dialogue around the specific areas of perception 
addressed by various folks in the data above.

Second, this fall has been an exceptionally difficult time for me on many 
fronts.  As relates to piano work in general, and this kind of post in 
particular, several events and correspondence on pianotech have really 
caused me a great deal of pain and grief.  I have had to revisit a lot of 
the more negative aspects of my own personality, professional decisions 
that I have made over many years, and seriously consider in what areas and 
ways I might still have anything to offer to a profession which I dearly 
love, but no longer do full time.  I wish to publicly thank Susan Kline, 
Gina Carter, Jim Bryant, Tom Winter and Ed Foote for their sensitive 
listening to my complaints and their thoughtful and considerate suggestions.

I look forward to more input from folks on this subject, and hope that we 
will be able to get comments from some who have good experience, but are 
often quiet.

Best regards and wishes for a most prosperous and happy New Year to all.

Horace

P.S. - Oh, Yes!  I almost forgot, the topic of the next submission will be 
something around why the use of 440 is problematic.  hg

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Horace Greeley, 			email:	hgreeley@stanford.edu	
CNA, MCP, RPT				
Systems Analyst/Engineer		voice:	650.725.9062
Controller's Office			fax:	650.725.8014
Stanford University
651 Serra St., RM 100, MC 6215
Stanford, CA 94305-6215

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++