[CAUT] Steinway... The "Safe" Piano.

[Fred Sturm]

On Nov 22, 2008, at 10:06 PM, Kendall Ross Bean wrote:

> Practicing only on Steinways is "safe" for pianists, IF they can  
> also assure
> that they only perform on Steinways.

	Four points of view have been stated in this thread:
1) Aspiring pianists should practice on Steinways because that is what  
they will find on concert stages.
2) Aspiring musicians who practice only on Steinways won't be  
successful performing on non-Steinways.
3) Aspiring pianists should practice on a variety of different brands  
of pianos, because that will make them better musicians (and perhaps  
because they will run across non-Steinways on the concert stage).
4) Pianists can't tell the difference between Steinway and other  
brands unless they can see the fallboard decal.
	All four cannot be true. A couple little comments on each:

1) This assumes that the Steinways being practiced on resemble those  
to be found on stage.
2) This assumes that Steinways are distinct enough from other brands  
that skills learned on them won't transfer (also true of statement 1  
in a reverse sense).
3) This assumes that there are substantive differences which have an  
effect on, say, interpretation merely due to brand/manufacturer:  
inherent differences. And that the mere fact of having access to  
variety will instill a sensitivity to those differences and a more  
adaptive technique and musicianship.
4) This implies that brands/designs/manufacture are perhaps less  
important than individuality (characteristics of individual pianos as  
opposed to those of manufacturer groupings).

	All four statements are missing some of the essential elements in the  
total picture, the foremost of which is quality of setup, and  
consistency of maintenance. Until all the pianos being commented on  
are equally well prepared, there is no basis for comparison. And even  
then, there will be argument about whether piano A was, indeed, as  
well prepared as piano B, or whether a different approach would have  
brought out its underlying qualities better.
	I certainly think that an aspiring pianist, or an established on for  
that matter, should ideally have access to and should work on as wide  
a variety of well-maintained instruments as possible. I don't believe,  
though, that this access will necessarily lead to a better pianist.  
Some musicians adapt well to a variety of instruments, others don't  
seem to "get it." They simply do the same thing and complain that the  
results are different. This is true not only of students, but of many  
established musicians, even quite prominent ones.
	On the whole, I think our emphasis should be on skill of the piano  
technician, and adequate resources to get the work done. If and when  
these needs are met, then it becomes interesting and important,  
potentially, whether there are M&H, Sauter, Bluthner, Bosey, etc  
included in the mix. Insisting on variety without, at the same time,  
ensuring the chops and the resources to keep all the instruments in  
top shape is really pretty pointless.
	So except for those few schools which are adequately staffed (both in  
terms of numbers and of skills) to keep their inventories in top  
shape, this whole argument really has little relevance. Better to buy  
what is "adequate" at as cheap a price as obtainable, and put the  
savings towards maintenance - that is, assuming there is any budget  
for purchase at all. Because one thing that IS certain is that a badly  
maintained instrument is detrimental to the educational experience,  
and to the performing experience (both for performer and audience).

Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu