Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Steinway vs. Bechstein

235 views
Skip to first unread message

Dan Koren

unread,
May 2, 2022, 7:35:25 AM5/2/22
to

AB

unread,
May 2, 2022, 1:45:30 PM5/2/22
to
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:35:25 AM UTC-4, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6ZTm4r4pNM

again, mostly talk
AB

Owen

unread,
May 2, 2022, 8:57:53 PM5/2/22
to
Yes, and he should have played the same music on each piano.

I liked the Steinway very much, it had a way of caressing the notes.

The Bechstein had more energy, brighter, seemed more nimble, but the
sound seemed brittle to me, and after a while, I found it more tiresome
to listen to, almost annoying. Perhaps I've imprinted on the ubiquitous
Stoneways.

-Owen

Néstor Castiglione

unread,
May 3, 2022, 4:17:41 PM5/3/22
to
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 4:35:25 AM UTC-7, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6ZTm4r4pNM


It's funny that the host says Steinways have a "darker tone" in the upper range. I've always felt they sounded shrill and chalk-white. I used to think Steinways were good for a lot of 20th-century repertoire that needed clear definition of rhythms and intricate polyphonic textures, but no longer believe this to be the case. Their sound to me, overall, is strident, even metallic. For me, the other three Bs (Blüthner, Baldwin, and Bösendorfer) are superior.

Dan Koren

unread,
May 3, 2022, 4:33:42 PM5/3/22
to
On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:17:41 PM UTC-7, Néstor Castiglione wrote:
> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 4:35:25 AM UTC-7, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6ZTm4r4pNM
>
> It's funny that the host says Steinways have a "darker tone" in the upper range.
> I've always felt they sounded shrill and chalk-white. I used to think Steinways
> were good for a lot of 20th-century repertoire that needed clear definition of
> rhythms and intricate polyphonic textures, but no longer believe this to be
> the case. Their sound to me, overall, is strident, even metallic.

It is extremely difficult to generalize about Stoneways. There are so many of
them all over the world, manfuctured over more than a century, maintained
(or not) God knows how, etc... By and large, I agree with you however: they
tend towards a metallic sound. They also tend to sound differently from
top to bottom, producing different timbres in the bass, medium and treble
registers. In the right (wrong?) hands this can be used to create a three
hand imprssion -- e.g. by VH.

From a different angle, I do not like Stoneway actions since they started to
use Renner howitzers. They are heavy and non-linear, like the steering on
newer Audis ;-)

> For me, the other three Bs (Blüthner, Baldwin, and Bösendorfer) are
> superior.

Why only 3? Bechstein no longer matters? ;-)

I have always preferred the B sound to the S sound. Rounder, mellower,
richer, warmer. Unfortunately, the Bs are not viable choices for concert
pianists (except perhaps Bosies) because of limited availability and
shortage of technicians. Many Baldwins have gorgeous sound but
are let down by their actions. I've seen quite a few refitted with
Yamaha actions. Jazz pianists seem to like them.

Last but not least, Yamaha CFS/ CFX are also great instruments.

dk

Jonathan Ben Schragadove

unread,
May 3, 2022, 7:56:34 PM5/3/22
to
A Bechstein (in the right hands) can produce a beautifully warm and gorgeous singing tone. One pianist who preferred Baldwins (Bolet) mentioned that the una corda ("soft) pedal on the Steinways altered the tone too much - Baldwin was more subtle. My understanding is that for jazz, pop, etc. Baldwin and Yamaha are preferred over Steinway because the latter's huge sound with complex overtones produces a "complicated" sound, and a "whiter" tone sounds (and records) "cleaner" for that kind of music.

Graham

unread,
May 4, 2022, 10:30:49 AM5/4/22
to
Moravec used a Baldwin for his NY recordings and it sounds awful.

Dan Koren

unread,
May 4, 2022, 10:48:30 AM5/4/22
to
This is a meaningless non-sequitur. Individual instruments can sound
as bad or as good as they are maintained, tuned, voiced and regulated.
The fact Baldwins have a certain kind of sound statistically as a family
does not preclude any single specimen from sounding otherwise.

dk

Dan Koren

unread,
May 4, 2022, 11:09:48 AM5/4/22
to
> does not preclude any single specimen from sounding different.

Judging from personal experience, good Baldwins have a wonderful
sound: softer than Stoneways, warmer than Bechsteins, and clearer
than Bluthners. They are well suited for a wide range of repertoire
from Schubert all the way to jazz.

Actions have always been Baldwin's greatest weakness. After WWII
Baldwin started to use Renner actions, with every evil this implies.
Many Baldwin owners replaced their actions with Yamaha actions.

Baldwin owned Bechstein from 1963 to 1986.

dk

MELMOTH

unread,
May 4, 2022, 1:17:33 PM5/4/22
to
Graham vient de nous annoncer :
> Moravec used a Baldwin

And Jorge Bolet...

Dan Koren

unread,
May 4, 2022, 3:52:11 PM5/4/22
to
And many jazz pianists.
They are more important
than Moravec and Bolet
combined and raised to
the 100th power!

Jazz rules!

dk

Paul Alsing

unread,
May 4, 2022, 11:17:35 PM5/4/22
to
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 12:52:11 PM UTC-7, dan....@gmail.com wrote:

> And many jazz pianists.
> They are more important
> than Moravec and Bolet
> combined and raised to
> the 100th power!

I doubt very seriously that you can comprehend *any* number raised to the 100th power... after all, this would exceed the number of atoms in the entire observable universe...

https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/stories/which-greater-number-of-atoms-universe-or-number-of-chess-moves

Dan Koren

unread,
May 4, 2022, 11:25:11 PM5/4/22
to
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 8:17:35 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 12:52:11 PM UTC-7, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > And many jazz pianists.
> > They are more important
> > than Moravec and Bolet
> > combined and raised to
> > the 100th power!
>
> I doubt very seriously that
> you can comprehend *any*
> number raised to the 100th
> power... after all, this would
> exceed the number of atoms
> in the entire observable universe...

I am a physicist. I think beyond
the limits of this universe .... ;-)

dk

Paul Alsing

unread,
May 5, 2022, 1:31:55 AM5/5/22
to
I am an astronomer, and I am unable to comprehend the limits of the universe... it is just incomprehensable... and I doubt that I am alone in this regard...

“Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.”
- Heisenberg

Dan Koren

unread,
Aug 25, 2022, 4:33:26 AM8/25/22
to
On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 4:35:25 AM UTC-7, Dan Koren wrote:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6ZTm4r4pNM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgecQ1uytSA

dk
0 new messages