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

[Ed Sutton]

Fred-

Good comments. Set-up is foremost. (Maybe tuning even before set-up, since 
no one claims that a seriously out-of-tune piano sounds good!)

Pianos are musical instruments, not tools. As such, a Consumer reports type 
rating will not be possible. Larry Fine does a remarkable job.

Much of the value of a musical instrument lies in what it can invoke in the 
performer. I believe that in any high-stress occupation, ritual and belief 
also play a significant role, and one that shouldn't be discounted. Consider 
the great variety of rituals that athletes use.

In any case, we have seen many times on this list that piano solutions don't 
necessarily converge. I am uncomfortable with any 
one-and-only-best-solution.

Ed S.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Sturm" <fssturm at unm.edu>
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway... The "Safe" Piano.


> 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
>
>
>