Steinway v. Yamaha !?
Alister Smith
Sorry to keep harping on that same old string - but I have just heard
an interesting story.
I was having a chat this morning with the manager of my local piano
store and I happened to mention that I prefer the types of digital
pianos which have Steinway samples. For example - Technics.
I also said that I have never really been keen on the sound of the
Yamaha acoustic instruments, therefore that is why I do not like their
digital ones.
Just a personal preference of course. Yamaha makes excellent pianos -
especially for the price. (I'm talking about an ideal world here).
The store manager then said my preferences were probably something to
do with <what I'd been brought up on>. And this made me think.
It is true. All my favourite artistes play and record using Steinway
pianos. Bill Evans, Artur Rubinstein, Glenn Gould {to name but a few}.
I have most of their albums. Meanwhile, when I was working I played
(mostly) Steinways belonging to my employers.
The piano bloke then went on to say that, up until recently, the local
Academy of Music was exclusively Steinway. Until, that is, they bought
a new C3 and now (he's told) all the kids are queuing up for time on
it in preference to the Steinways. He added that future generations
will probably prefer Yamahas.
Now - I must make the point that this fellah doesn't sell Steinway
pianos BUT he sells Yamahas. On the other hand - does anyone know if
there might be something in what he says?
According to him - the reason Yamaha can make and sell pianos so
inexpensively is that they can turn out x amount per week, whereas Mr
Steinway takes three weeks to produce just one. He also claimed that
Steinway are not making pianos anymore - they are merely selling the
warehouse stock. True? False?
In my opinion Yamaha pianos lack the bright, singing tone of Steinway
and I think the Yams are pretty weak up in the top register. Moreover,
only Steinway have that special C4 to C5 sound. Save perhaps a few
1930s Bluthners - and they are very thin on the ground around here.
As a final comment - maybe it's because I am getting old, but I can't
help feeling that the standard of today's piano players is no match
for those <greats> of the past. I am thinking here more specifically
about classical players rather than contemporary jazz stylists who,
naturally, will by their very nature be <different> - and that
<difference> might not be my cup of tea (if you get my drift??).
Is Mr Steinway only able to charge more because of <the name> or are
his pianos in fact <better> than Yamahas? If so, in which respects?
I'd be most grateful for any comments - particularly from our experts
in this group.
AS
Patrick Lindblom
Alister Smith wrote:
[snip]
> In my opinion Yamaha pianos lack the bright, singing tone of Steinway
> and I think the Yams are pretty weak up in the top register.
I wouldn't qualify as an expert, but I'm surely interested in
your opinions. I've just bought a brand new C3 for my home,
and I'm in love with mine...(yeah, subjective, I know)
Even so, I would state that you're maybe right. I have my
lessons on a Steinway B-211, so I switch between them several
times a day. The "B" have a much clearer treble than my C3.
OTOH, maybe you can't compare a C3 (186 cm) to a B (211 cm).
Anyway, I would say that the action on my C3 (and also the C5
and C7's I have played) are much more sensitive than the "B".
The large step seem to be between a C2 and C3, in my opinion.
As a matter of fact, I was going to buy a C2 at first (it fit
my budget better) but ended up with a C3. It was well worth
the price difference, both in sound and action!
Just my .02...
/Patrick
SteveC.
Alister Smith wrote:
Interesting point of view.
>
> It is true. All my favourite artistes play and record using Steinway
> pianos. Bill Evans, Artur Rubinstein, Glenn Gould {to name but a few}.
done on a Yamaha.
>
> In my opinion Yamaha pianos lack the bright, singing tone of Steinway
> and I think the Yams are pretty weak up in the top register.
Maybe they lack the "singing tone" , but it seems all the Yams I played
were *too bright* and thin. But I was always after that dark, woody sound
that Rudy Van Gelder got on all his Blue Note recordings
>
> As a final comment - maybe it's because I am getting old, but I can't
> help feeling that the standard of today's piano players is no match
> for those <greats> of the past. I am thinking here more specifically
> about classical players rather than contemporary jazz stylists who,
> naturally, will by their very nature be <different> - and that
> <difference> might not be my cup of tea (if you get my drift??).
For the most part, I agree. One of my new favorites is Joey Calderrazzo.
You should check him out.
>
> I'd be most grateful for any comments - particularly from our experts
> in this group.
An expert I am not. (My first post). Two nights ago I heard Peter Serkin
with the Nashville Symphony on a Steinway. I thought his touch was very
light (my first time hearing him), and the piano still sang out in all
dynamic ranges.
Steve
--
Spinnin' em Loud and Proud in Nashville,
Steve Cox
Hammond A-100/145 Leslie/Kurzweil PC88MX/K2000S
Donald E. Mannino
Alister,
Judging from your quotes of this Yamaha dealer, I'd say take everything
said by this person with a grain of salt. Lots of balderdash in there.
BTW, Glen Gould's last CDs were on a Yamaha piano.
Don Mannino RPT
wa...@ari.net
Glenn Gould was a genius. He is my favorite pianist. I own almost
everything he ever recorded. Gould was also a crackpot.
He had a run-in with Steinway and there was a lawsuit. Seems a Steinway
employeed shook his hand too hard and "damaged" his shoulder. In any
case the fact that he ultimately chose Yamaha for his last recordings just might
have been influenced by this incident (or for that matter because he liked the
particular Yamaha he recorded on). Who can really say?
The fact that an artist chooses one piano over another for a
particular recording, is no justification for anyone to chose that particular brand
for their own use. Artists have a lot of reasons for doing what they do,
and playing what they play. Certain instruments may be best suited for certain
performances, best suited for certain artists, or just plain more profitable for an
artist to play. Maybe the voice in their toaster "told" them to play an "Ignatz".
Quiz: Paderewski endorsed Steinway, Weber, then Steinway again on his American
tours. What did he endorse in Europe? Did his toaster or his business manager
make the piano selection?
Frank Weston
Tom Myler
wa...@ari.net wrote in article <5c56kl$2...@ari.ari.net>...
> > "Donald E. Mannino" <DonMa...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > Alister,
> >
> > Judging from your quotes of this Yamaha dealer, I'd say take
everything
> > said by this person with a grain of salt. Lots of balderdash in there.
> >
> > BTW, Glen Gould's last CDs were on a Yamaha piano.
> >
> > Don Mannino RPT
> >
> >>>>
>
> Glenn Gould was a genius. He is my favorite pianist. I own almost
> everything he ever recorded. Gould was also a crackpot.
>
> He had a run-in with Steinway and there was a lawsuit. Seems a Steinway
> employeed shook his hand too hard and "damaged" his shoulder. In any
> case the fact that he ultimately chose Yamaha for his last recordings
just might
> have been influenced by this incident (or for that matter because he
liked the
> particular Yamaha he recorded on). Who can really say?
SNIP
Another possible factor: Several years after the handshake lawsuit
/fiasco, GG's beloved Steinway fell off of a truck liftgate and was badly
damaged. Steinway repaired/restored the instrument, but Gould felt it was
never the same again. I think this happened 6-7 years before Gould died.
My favorite pianist too. And his (own) cadenza to the Beethoven C-major
piano concerto (1st movement) is one of my two or three favorite pieces of
classical music.
Not that you asked.
--
Myler, Tom
"It's what you learn AFTER you know it all that counts"
bo...@thepianosource.com
"Tom Myler" <TomM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Not that you asked.
>--
>Myler, Tom
There is a lot to be said about prefering the sound you have become
accustomed to. As a salesman, you would die to hear some of the
"sound" preferences that we put up with. My first experience years ago
was mocking the sound of the Kimbal La Petite (a PSO for the
uninitiated or a piano shaped object) and having the customer tell me
that this was the sound she was looking for an just loved. Or the
people who bemoan the fact that they cannot get a tinny sound like in
the player pianos of olden day, etc. People will grow up to prefer the
sound they hear. Steinway did it in the 1800's by filling concert
halls, dance halls, local opera companies with Steinways, and this is
the whole purpose behind manufacturers wanting to get in on the
college loan programs (besides current sales) etc. This simply does
not make them bad. Too many people onthis group thnk that because
something is commercial or marketing that it is bad and that isn't
true. We can all afford to be purists only in our dreams unless we
decide to own nothing until we can afford that "pure" thing.
Bob S
Tom Myler
bo...@thepianosource.com wrote in article
<5c6cr5$p...@camel1.mindspring.com>...
> "Tom Myler" <TomM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
snip
> There is a lot to be said about prefering the sound you have become
> accustomed to. As a salesman, you would die to hear some of the
> "sound" preferences that we put up with. My first experience years ago
> was mocking the sound of the Kimbal La Petite (a PSO for the
> uninitiated or a piano shaped object) and having the customer tell me
> that this was the sound she was looking for an just loved. Or the
> people who bemoan the fact that they cannot get a tinny sound like in
> the player pianos of olden day, etc. People will grow up to prefer the
> sound they hear.
more snip
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll never forget the time two sweet elderly women walked into the piano
store I was working in, and went up to a grand that was absolutely
completely ridiculously out of tune; any randomly selected unison would be
going WOW WOW WOW WOW....; One of them played a few chords on it, turned
to her friend with a smile and said "What a LOVELY vibrato".
Nathan Eberhardt
I hope this string is some sort of joke.... :-)
-Nathan
Nathan Eberhardt
In article <32e3585...@news.demon.co.uk>, ali...@aosrsrch.demon.co.uk (Alister Smith) says:
>
>Sorry to keep harping on that same old string - but I have just heard
>an interesting story.
>
>I was having a chat this morning with the manager of my local piano
>store and I happened to mention that I prefer the types of digital
>pianos which have Steinway samples. For example - Technics.
>
>I also said that I have never really been keen on the sound of the
>Yamaha acoustic instruments, therefore that is why I do not like their
>digital ones.
>
>Just a personal preference of course. Yamaha makes excellent pianos -
>especially for the price. (I'm talking about an ideal world here).
>
>The store manager then said my preferences were probably something to
>do with <what I'd been brought up on>. And this made me think.
>
>pianos. Bill Evans, Artur Rubinstein, Glenn Gould {to name but a few}.
>(mostly) Steinways belonging to my employers.
>
>The piano bloke then went on to say that, up until recently, the local
>Academy of Music was exclusively Steinway. Until, that is, they bought
>a new C3 and now (he's told) all the kids are queuing up for time on
>it in preference to the Steinways. He added that future generations
>will probably prefer Yamahas.
quality. I've spent hundreds of hours practicing on garbage
Yamaha C2's and other larger models and they aren't fit for a dumpster.
They just don't have any character and you can't get any emotion to
come through the keys.
As far as Yamahas for jazz and other modern music, they still aren't
nearly as good as one of the deluxe Baldwins. Yamahas lack a lush
tone. Even the Yamaha that Watts used sounded like garbage and ruined
most of his recordings. And Yamaha gave him their very best.
I've heard Kawai's that produce a pretty good tone, as well as Roland
and other models.... but not Yamahas, unless thin and clear is
something that would suit what you're performing.
Of course this is only an opinion.
-Nathan
>
>Now - I must make the point that this fellah doesn't sell Steinway
>pianos BUT he sells Yamahas. On the other hand - does anyone know if
>there might be something in what he says?
>
>According to him - the reason Yamaha can make and sell pianos so
>inexpensively is that they can turn out x amount per week, whereas Mr
>Steinway takes three weeks to produce just one. He also claimed that
>Steinway are not making pianos anymore - they are merely selling the
>warehouse stock. True? False?
>
>In my opinion Yamaha pianos lack the bright, singing tone of Steinway
>and I think the Yams are pretty weak up in the top register. Moreover,
>only Steinway have that special C4 to C5 sound. Save perhaps a few
>1930s Bluthners - and they are very thin on the ground around here.
>
>As a final comment - maybe it's because I am getting old, but I can't
>help feeling that the standard of today's piano players is no match
>for those <greats> of the past. I am thinking here more specifically
>about classical players rather than contemporary jazz stylists who,
>naturally, will by their very nature be <different> - and that
><difference> might not be my cup of tea (if you get my drift??).
>
>Is Mr Steinway only able to charge more because of <the name> or are
>his pianos in fact <better> than Yamahas? If so, in which respects?
>
>I'd be most grateful for any comments - particularly from our experts
>in this group.
>
>AS
Tom Myler
Nathan Eberhardt <eber...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in article
<5c6mmg$t...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
>
> I hope this string is some sort of joke.... :-)
>
>
> -Nathan
------------------------------------------------------
Humorous, yes. "Some sort of joke", no.
Relax.
Alec Weil
Alister Smith wrote:
>
> Sorry to keep harping on that same old string - but I have just heard
> an interesting story.
snip
> The store manager then said my preferences were probably something to
> do with <what I'd been brought up on>. And this made me think.
>
> It is true. All my favourite artistes play and record using Steinway
> pianos. Bill Evans, Artur Rubinstein, Glenn Gould {to name but a few}.
> I have most of their albums. Meanwhile, when I was working I played
> (mostly) Steinways belonging to my employers.
>
> The piano bloke then went on to say that, up until recently, the local
> Academy of Music was exclusively Steinway. Until, that is, they bought
> a new C3 and now (he's told) all the kids are queuing up for time on
> it in preference to the Steinways. He added that future generations
> will probably prefer Yamahas.
>
> Now - I must make the point that this fellah doesn't sell Steinway
> pianos BUT he sells Yamahas. On the other hand - does anyone know if
> there might be something in what he says?
>
> According to him - the reason Yamaha can make and sell pianos so
> inexpensively is that they can turn out x amount per week, whereas Mr
> Steinway takes three weeks to produce just one. He also claimed that
> Steinway are not making pianos anymore - they are merely selling the
> warehouse stock. True? False?
Although I feel justified in writing about Steinways, I find it inappropriate to
compare them to other manufacturers. As always, I hope that the pianist trusts his or
her own ears and fingers.
However, this Yamaha salesman has supplied misinformation concerning Steinway that needs
to be corrected.
1) It would be wonderful if it only took us 3 weeks! The following times are highly
approximate:
Wood sawn into planks. Stored outside 1-2 years
Wood processed: Stored 3-6 months
Rims bent and stored 6-9 months
Other components manufactured (various lengths of time)
Assembly of parts: 8-12 months
2) Please ask our dealers concerning our delivery times -- and their waiting times. They
will make it very clear that we are not simply shipping from stock. In other words,
Steinway & Sons is actively producing pianos. As a publicly listed company, the data
on our sales and production growth are freely available.
Finally, Alistair writes:
> Is Mr Steinway only able to charge more because of <the name> or are
> his pianos in fact <better> than Yamahas? If so, in which respects?
As you can see from the above exchange with the Yamaha salesman, it is all too easy to
gather misinformation when looking at pianos. Thus I feel it important -- particularly
within the user group environment -- to be as cautious as possible of hearsay.
At the risk of being repetitive: play as many pianos as possible, learn some of basics
of how a piano is put together and develop your own tastes and preferences. The
"smarter" you become, the less easily swayed you will be by misinformation.
Alec Weil
Steinway & Sons
Patrick Lindblom
Nathan Eberhardt wrote:
>
> No. People buy Yamahas because they are cheaper and of adequate
> quality.
Aha. Thanks for telling.
> I've spent hundreds of hours practicing on garbage
> Yamaha C2's and other larger models and they aren't fit for a dumpster.
> They just don't have any character and you can't get any emotion to
> come through the keys.
Excuse me, but would you *really* claim that as a
general point? I'm biased, but I would say my new C3
have *much* character and I can surely put emotions
through it. I play a Steinway B on my lessons and -
sure - it's a wonderful grand. In comparison, however,
my C3 have nothing to be ashamed of. The B is about 10
inches longer, resulting in a slightly deeper bottom,
but I couldn't afford a C5 or 7...
Anyway, what I wanted to say was this: I have access
to both a Steinway B and C for practice, but I prefer
my C3. Actually, I find the action even *more*
sensitive than the "B".
I've heard that it's a big difference between old C3's
and new ones. I can't recall which year they changed,
but a technician I spoke to told me to watch out for
ten year old C's. true, anyone?
> -Nathan
/Patrick
Daniel Wilson
Tom Myler <TomM...@worldnet.att.net> said:
> I'll never forget the time two sweet elderly women walked into the
> piano
> store I was working in, and went up to a grand that was absolutely
> completely ridiculously out of tune; any randomly selected unison
> would be
> going WOW WOW WOW WOW....; One of them played a few chords on it,
> turned
> to her friend with a smile and said "What a LOVELY vibrato".
That's what's known as exquisite tact.
Dan Wilson
-Chen,J.L.
In article <32E87F...@ecs.se>,
Patrick Lindblom <patrick....@ecs.se> wrote:
>
>> I've spent hundreds of hours practicing on garbage
>> Yamaha C2's and other larger models and they aren't fit for a dumpster.
>> They just don't have any character and you can't get any emotion to
>> come through the keys.
>
>Excuse me, but would you *really* claim that as a
>general point? I'm biased, but I would say my new C3
>have *much* character and I can surely put emotions
>through it. I play a Steinway B on my lessons and -
>sure - it's a wonderful grand. In comparison, however,
>my C3 have nothing to be ashamed of. The B is about 10
>inches longer, resulting in a slightly deeper bottom,
>but I couldn't afford a C5 or 7...
>
>Anyway, what I wanted to say was this: I have access
>to both a Steinway B and C for practice, but I prefer
>my C3. Actually, I find the action even *more*
>sensitive than the "B".
How old is the B you are refering to? and in what condition?
I believe your C3 is a very new piano. You should compare
it to a new B to make that statement. The Steinway action
is much heavier than the Yamaha's but that does not mean
Yamaha action is more sensitive. To me the Steinway B offers
a lot more power and dynamic than the C3 or even the C6.
C3 is a very good piano but the B (if maintained right) is a
concert quality piano.
Julian
Tom Myler
"Daniel Wilson" <dw...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in article
<E4J8u...@cix.compulink.co.uk>...
You may have a point there.
(pause)
Nah- she was sincere. She just didn't know that what she (apparently)
could hear was "wrong".
Lance G. Hill
In my opinion, as a veteran concert piano technician, I can say that there
is very little to talk about when comparing Yamaha or Kawai to Steinway or
Baldwin. People DO generally buy the Japanese/Korean brands because they
can deal and get a larger piano at a lesser price. I have worked for
countless concert and recording artists who do NOT like to use a Yamaha
(although in jazz sessions, it IS liked because it's easier to attach
microphones). One constant comment is that they do not hold their tune as
well. (This of course could be the tuner!)
In helping people to select new pianos, there is one thing I can say about
many of the Yamaha pianos. They all generally seem to have the same
"voice." There is very little difference from piano to piano. Yes, they can
be voiced. This is not to say the Yamaha or Kawai are inferior instruments
totally. For the price, they are good value. Yamaha does make a superb
concert grand that I believe is now priced higher than a Steinway concert
grand. It's a special instrument that has had immaculate attention at the
factory.
Given a choice, I would go with the American Steinway or Baldwin, the
latter of whom is making truly superior instruments consistently today. The
key word is "consistency" here. They will hold up better and longer, retain
their value much better, respond better and longer in the maintenance
procedures. Whatever a person seems to have in the way of pianos becomes
very dear to them. So, whatever you have, continue to enjoy it and take
care of it. You are the one who has to be happy!
Lance G. Hill, Concert Piano Technician
and Assistant Sysop, MSN
Patrick Lindblom
- -Chen,J.L. wrote:
[snip]
- > How old is the B you are refering to? and in what condition?
> I believe your C3 is a very new piano. You should compare
> it to a new B to make that statement. The Steinway action
> is much heavier than the Yamaha's but that does not mean
> Yamaha action is more sensitive. To me the Steinway B offers
> a lot more power and dynamic than the C3 or even the C6.
>
> C3 is a very good piano but the B (if maintained right) is a
> concert quality piano.
>
> Julian
- Your right. The B in this case is three years old, played by 20 students each day, and yes, my C3 is brand new, picked by myself after playing many models and played only by me. You're also right in the fact that the Yamaha isn't *more* sensitive, but I think it's unfair to say you cannot get any emotions through it (at least that's what I meant).
- I'm not saying that the Steinway is a bad piano, quite the opposite. Neither do I state that Yamaha is a better grand. I only say that they have character and you can make emotions come through the keys. As can you on a Steinway.
- I still wonder - if I had had $70.000 instead of $17.000, would I have bought a Steinway B instead? I don't know. Maybe.
- Regards,
- Patrick - backing off a bit :)
Patrick Lindblom
- [snip]
- [I wrote]:
- > > Excuse me, but would you *really* claim that as a
> > general point?
- Nathan Eberhardt wrote:
- > Yes, I can. But it's still only an opinion.
> A colorist would have a most difficult time
> playing a Chopin nocturne or various Debussy on these
> pianos and making them sound professional.
> Even modern music taped on Yamaha C3's, (like piano Christmas
> music tapes that I have), have a very tinny sound to them. - Haven't heard any taped music from a C3, I guess.
[snip]- > Experienced pianists and listeners know when the sound
> of a piano interferes with the artistry of the music. Just listen
> to his [Andre Watts] cd of Beethoven sonatas and how his big Yamaha sounds like
> a dying moose. - I'll try to find it. Can you give some details on the CD? CD number, etc.?
> You can't just compare two pianos that you have.- True. I rest my case on that. I've played too few Steinways to justify a comparison. I guess I'm only in bad luck (or is it good luck?) on the Steinway at school.
> I'm talking about the characteristics of these pianos
> overall, after having practiced on dozens of them.
> Some Yamahas do have an outward "aesthetic" appeal when
> you first hear them, and would be satisfactory as
> accompaniment for a singer etc.... But try to vary the tone
> to any specifity and you might have a hard time.- Maybe it has all to do with me not being a player at a high level...but consider this:
- After I had been practising 4 weeks on my C3, my teacher was said I had got a much nicer, expressive, tone [on the Steinway] than I had before Christmas. Either it's because my C3 is really good, or else it's because it's really bad :), hence *forcing* me to play with even more feeling. I don't care. Point is I'm getting a better pianist with it, even at the Steinway.
[snip]
> If Yamaha plans on competing in the market of "quality pianos" and
> not just "economic options" they will have to do much better.
>
> -Nathan- Maybe so. Curiosity: Do you hold the same true for larger models? The C7 or even the CFIII-S?
- Regards,
- Patrick
-Chen,J.L.
>Your right. The B in this case is three years old, played by 20 students
>each day, and yes, my C3 is brand new, picked by myself after playing
>many models and played only by me. You're also right in the fact that
>the Yamaha isn't *more* sensitive, but I think it's unfair to say you
>cannot get any emotions through it (at least that's what I meant).
No,no,no. I am not the person said you can't get any emotion through a C3.
I just want to point out that although Yamaha's action is generally much
lighter but it is not more sensitive.
>I'm not saying that the Steinway is a bad piano, quite the opposite.
>Neither do I state that Yamaha is a better grand. I only say that they
>have character and you can make emotions come through the keys. As can
>you on a Steinway.
>
>I still wonder - if I had had $70.000 instead of $17.000, would I have
>bought a Steinway B instead? I don't know. Maybe.
>
>Regards,
>
>Patrick - backing off a bit :)
First, a Steinway B won't cost $70K but probably $40K. Even that I agree
a lot people won't buy the more expensive Steinway but the cheaper Yamaha.
The Yamaha C series (especially the C3 and C6) offer a lot of piano for
the money. It is definitely true that you won't get twice as much piano
from a Steinway compares to a Yamaha. After all, a piano can only be as
good as the player. If one can't appreciate the quality of the better
instrument why waste the money?
Julian
Greg Jones
Patrick Lindblom wrote in article <32EB99...@ecs.se>...
>Maybe it has all to do with me not being a player at a high level...but
>consider this:
>
>After I had been practising 4 weeks on my C3, my teacher was said I had
>got a much nicer, expressive, tone [on the Steinway] than I had before
>Christmas. Either it's because my C3 is really good, or else it's
>because it's really bad :), hence *forcing* me to play with even more
>feeling. I don't care. Point is I'm getting a better pianist with it,
>even at the Steinway.
<unlurk>
I've had a similar experience. For three years I'd been taking serious
lessons, and practicing on a Samick 5'2" baby grand. For most of that
time, my teacher had been trying to get me to achieve a penetrating,
focused tone, instead of sounding weak and muffled most of the time.
In one lesson last spring, I basically spent an hour practicing the cadenza
to the concerto I was working on (Beethoven 1st, 1st movement, cadenza #2,
if anyone cares) on her Steinway "L". By the end of the lesson I was
producing a decent tone. She asked "What did you change?"; I replied "I
don't know.". Gradually over the next two or three weeks I lost this
ability. She asked "Where did it go?"; I replied "I don't know.".
This summer I managed to upgrade to a Steinway "D" that I fell in love with
after a recital held at the local Steinway dealer. Of course I played it
for a couple of hours after it was delivered, finishing up by running
through the concerto. One thing I noticed in particular was that it was
very easy to tell when I was producing a good clear tone and when I wasn't.
On a whim I went over to the Samick and played through just the cadenza,
and found that the tone always sounded uniformly strong or weak.
Presumably I was still playing a third of the notes with a good tone and
the rest poorly, but I couldn't tell the difference.
Now, after several months of practicing on a Steinway, my tone production
seems to be improving. Of course it's never enough for my teacher, but at
least I think I'm working from a new level now.
So I'd bet that your nicer expressive tone came from the fact that your C3
allows you to be much more expressive than whatever you were practicing on
before (you don't mention what that was). Since something like this can't
be described in terms of pure mechanical movements, you have to hear the
results of what you're doing. If you can't tell the difference between
doing it right and doing it wrong, you can't practice doing it right.
Anyway, this logic seems to make sense to me...
--
Greg Jones
gr...@microsoft.com
[I just happen to work here. Sheer coincidence.]
[Remove the anti-spam underscores from my address to reply.]
Patrick Lindblom
-Chen,J.L. wrote:
> No,no,no. I am not the person said you can't get any emotion through a C3.
I know. I only referred back to my original comment.
> I just want to point out that although Yamaha's action is generally much
> lighter but it is not more sensitive.
Agreed. I understand the point. And I'm not upset anymore. :)
> First, a Steinway B won't cost $70K but probably $40K.
Now, *this* is interesting. In Sweden, where I live, a new
Steinway B I saw had a price tag of SEK 480.000. Even with
a rate of 7 SEK per USD, that's $68.571. Where's the
difference? Tax??? Or was the price tag on the wrong model?
BTW, the list price for a C3 is SEK 146.500 (*math* 21 grand).
What's the price in the U.S?
/Patrick - who adores the Steinway, don't get me wrong. :)
-Chen,J.L.
>> First, a Steinway B won't cost $70K but probably $40K.
>
>Now, *this* is interesting. In Sweden, where I live, a new
>Steinway B I saw had a price tag of SEK 480.000. Even with
>a rate of 7 SEK per USD, that's $68.571. Where's the
>difference? Tax??? Or was the price tag on the wrong model?
>
>BTW, the list price for a C3 is SEK 146.500 (*math* 21 grand).
>What's the price in the U.S?
>
>/Patrick - who adores the Steinway, don't get me wrong. :)
I believe we are talking about the same model (B, 6'10.5").
I am talking about the cash price in the US. It is quite possible
the difference is the tax and freight. Or may be just the pricing
structure is different? I understand that Steinway is even more
expensive outside of the US. This is also true that you can buy
Yamaha cheaper in Japan than rest of the world.
The C3 is listed at $29295. The actually selling price is usually
in the $17-20K range. I have never heard anyone paid more than $20K.
Julian
bo...@thepianosource.com
ch...@ihgp3.ih.lucent.com (-Chen,J.L.) wrote:
>>> First, a Steinway B won't cost $70K but probably $40K.
>>
>>Now, *this* is interesting. In Sweden, where I live, a new
>>Steinway B I saw had a price tag of SEK 480.000. Even with
>>
In Sweden you don't get the same Steinway that we get in the US.
First the Hambourg Steinway uses Renner actions while the US uses
their own. I think most would agree that the German Steinway is a
superior instrument in many ways. I cannot say having never played a
German grand only a few German verticals.
Bob S
A440A
Greetings;
Bob posts;
>. I think most would agree that the German Steinway is a
>superior instrument in many ways. I cannot say having never played a
>German grand only a few German verticals.
I can't agree with the speculative nature of this leading
suggestion. It would,(IMHO), be more accurate to say that the two
different Steinways have their own strengths and weaknesses, both
figuratively and literally.
A far greater difference may be found in the way that pianos are
maintained. Sloppy set-up, tuning, and voicing, will render the finest
piano in the world a marginal instrument, so one should be aware the
technical requirements if they are to judge instruments.
Regards,
Ed Foote
Precision Piano Works
Nashville, Tn.
bfeng
In article <19970130112...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, a4...@aol.com
says...
In article <19970130112...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, a4...@aol.com
says...
>Bob posts;
>>. I think most would agree that the German Steinway is a
>>superior instrument in many ways. I cannot say having never played a
>>German grand only a few German verticals.
>
> I can't agree with the speculative nature of this leading
>suggestion. It would,(IMHO), be more accurate to say that the two
>different Steinways have their own strengths and weaknesses, both
>figuratively and literally.
> (deleted)
>Regards,
>Ed Foote
>
Interesting question that I've also wondered about. Having just returned
from Europe where my wife just completed concert tour (yes my pride is
showing), I did form some impressions of Steinway's (US & Hamburgs) and
Yamahas.
To address Ed Foote's excellent point about piano maintenance - The
Steinway and Yamaha grands she performed on were full size concert grands,
well maintained (tuned the day of the performance) and relatively new
(less than 4 years old). Also, these weren't somebody's practice pianos
and therefore were not likely to have been abused. Finally, the acoustical
space (e.g. hall) makes quite a difference as well. At each performance I
had a chance to listen from a variety of seats (during rehersal) and did
my subjective best to factor into account the different hall
characteristics.
My perceptions:
German Steinway (mdl D): Excellent instrument. Very good power, tremendous
clarity in the lower registers and wonderful degree of natural sustain in
the higher registers. Timbre very balanced across the entire range. Wife
say's it's easier to get this piano "obey" & "produce the desired sound"
than any other she's familiar with. Also, the touch, while a tad lighter
than what she's found in US Steinways, is very controllable and
responsive. Unfortunately, now she want's one.
US Steinway (mdl B and D): I'm most familiar with the mdl B we have at
home but I've heard her perform on B's and D's in concert halls a number
of times. The differences are chiefly: (1) The bass, while as powerful,
doesn't seem to be as clear. The US units sound a bit . . . muddled in the
first octave and a half. (2) The upper registers are very similar, but the
Hamburg unit seems to have a bit more "air" or sustain. (3) The middle
registers on the US instruments sound a little bit simpler or thinner.
Well, that's not a great description. Somehow the Hamburg D she played in
Madrid had a richer, more complex tonality. As far as touch goes, the
wife likes what we have but tells me it takes noticebly less energy and
concentration to finese out the desired response/sounds from the Hamburg
than any US instrument she's played.
Yamaha (mdl CF): She played a beautiful, 4 year old, 9' Yamaha, in Orense
Spain, that had been freshly tuned and adjusted (by a elderly, blind
tech!). It was equal in controllability/response to the US Steinways, but
fell short of both in terms of resonance, sustain, and richness. Don't get
me wrong, this was a wonderful sounding instrument (great little hall
too), but it just didn't sing out as much (even at full pedal) or have as
complex a tonality as the Steinways. It also lacked a little bit in power
compared the US and German Steinways D's (but better than any Steinway B
I've heard).
Personally, I don't think the price difference between the three (Yamaha,
US or Hamburg) justifies the difference in sound. But then again, I'm not
a professional pianist. Just for the record, I've heard a few Steinway,
Hamburg B's here in the U.S. and a number of them were a bit
disappointing. I guess that lends more creedence to the opinion that if
you want the best sound you should judge each piano individually.
J Feng
Ken Iisaka
In article <5cikug$1...@nntpb.cb.lucent.com>,
>First, a Steinway B won't cost $70K but probably $40K. Even that I agree
>a lot people won't buy the more expensive Steinway but the cheaper Yamaha.
A Hamburg B will cost over $70K last I checked. Even $40 for a
New York B is on the low side. Let me know if you find a place
where I can buy a New York B.
--
Are we - _~@ __@ __@ _~@ Ken Iisaka <kii...@morgan.com>
there _,\=\=\-\_ _,\=\=\-\_ Morgan Stanley Japan, Ltd
yet? (*)/===/'(*) (*)/===/'(*) Tokyo, Japan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alister Smith
On 31 Jan 1997 21:41:23 GMT, bf...@ford.com (bfeng) wrote:
>I guess that lends more creedence to the opinion that if
>you want the best sound you should judge each piano individually.
I quite agree. And it was most interesting to read your impressions of
the different pianos you encountered.
AS
Alister Smith
Gentlemen,
I am very grateful for the response to my initial posting. I know a
lot more now than I did before. It is so interesting I think to hear
all these different points of view - and the info about Glenn Gould's
Yamaha will have to be investigated as soon as possible. I must get
this CD. I wonder if it's on CBS? Other Glenn Gould snippets
gratefully received too.
Tom Myler's tale about the two old ladies and the wonderful <vibrato>
had me in stitches. So typical of <customers> - I think. There's no
accounting for taste.
Meanwhile Mr Veil's factual information on Steinway was most welcome.
Room for a little <sport> here I think with the Yamaha salesperson.
(Good-humoured sport I might add).
Also, Mr Veil's advice to prospective piano purchasers sounds
extremely <sound> to me. If you like it - buy it. It is YOU who must
be happy.
Mr Lindholm mustn't take offence, though. He is actually streets ahead
of me (and probably many of us) right now inasmuch as he has actually
gotten himself fixed up with a grand he likes. I played a C3 recently
in a store near here and, while it was (IMHO) far from being ideal,
the price was right.
The owner of THIS store has a warehouse chock full of Yamahas. He
personally (like myself) prefers Steinways BUT - according to him they
would put him out of business. He couldn't sell them on account of the
high prices. The local market just isn't up to it. Though he reckons
the Steinway build-quality is second to none.
I am still looking for a suitable piano and, to tide me over in the
interim, I have actually bought a Yamaha. But don't laugh please. It
is a P150 (digital piano). And, believe it or not, I am growing very,
very fond of it. All those <other sounds>?? It also does a rather fine
imitation of a Hammond organ (B3). Indeed after a few drinks when it's
really late and I am playing this P150, I have convinced myself on
more than one occasion that I am gradually sounding more and more like
my cousin Jimmy.............. :-)
But, if the truth be told (and I have just remembered this) maybe
Steinway is not my all-time favourite piano after all. No. There were
the two 1930s vintage Bluthner six-footers I played extensively back
in the 1970s. Both owned by educational establishments here in the UK
these instruments were unfortunately not for sale.
In conclusion it will probably be a used piano for me OR, if a new
one, then undoubtedly a Yamaha (C3??)***
As we say here in Scotland <champagne ideas and a beer pocket>. (And
although I am a whisky man myself there is absolutely nothing wrong
with beer).
Alister
PS I went to a recital last week. Yamaha sent a bloke up to my local
store to demonstrate their new GranTouch GT1 (the digital piano with a
real piano action). I was most impressed. I even bought the CD.
But to return to Tom Myler's anecdote - the salesman said next day
that he lost one sale afterwards as the man's wife had objected to the
GT1 because the <lid> couldn't be raised <like in a REAL grand piano>.
Wouldn't have <looked> right in the lounge when her pals came round
for coffee.
So everyone's got a valid point at the end of the day I guess :->
AS
Patrick Lindblom
Alister Smith wrote:
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I am very grateful for the response to my initial posting. I know a
> lot more now than I did before. It is so interesting I think to hear
> all these different points of view - and the info about Glenn Gould's
> Yamaha will have to be investigated as soon as possible. I must get
> this CD. I wonder if it's on CBS? Other Glenn Gould snippets
> gratefully received too.
I'm looking for that CD too. I'd be extremely grateful if
you'd let me know if you find it.
[snip]
> Mr Lindholm mustn't take offence, though.
I'm not offended, but I appreciate your concern.
I saw, however, no other alternative than to defend
my dear grand in this battle ;) ;)
Just another one on the Yamaha side:
I went to a recital with Marc-André Hamelin this weekend.
He played Alkans transcription of Beethoven's 3rd P.C. He
also played Godowsky's "Künstlerleben (Strauss)". He played
a Yamaha C7 and it sounded *fabulous*, IMHO. When everything
else is said and done, maybe it has all to do with the pianist...
Regards,
Patrick Lindblom
Tom Myler
Alister Smith <ali...@aosrsrch.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<32f89eab...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> Gentlemen,
> I am very grateful for the response to my initial posting. I know a
> lot more now than I did before. It is so interesting I think to hear
> all these different points of view - and the info about Glenn Gould's
> Yamaha will have to be investigated as soon as possible. I must get
> this CD. I wonder if it's on CBS? Other Glenn Gould snippets
> gratefully received too.
snip
If you're referring to his recording of the Goldberg Variations on which he
played the Yamaha, I'm sure it's still widely available. My cd (14 years
old) is Columbia MK 37779. It's probably a Sony disc today, and may have
a different catalogue number.
More recently, the videotape of the recording session was finally released,
on VHS (tape) and Laserdisc. Both are on the Sony label. Title: The
Glenn Gould Collection, Volume XIII, The Goldberg Variations. Excellent
sound quality, superbly filmed with about 300 different camera angles. At
one point you're so close to him that you can see nose hairs. If you're
in the UK as your address suggests, I'd be amazed if it's not available in
the formats you use.
This is a wonderful video.
I do have two small complaints with it, however. The film editing is a
bit jumpy at times, rapidly changing back and forth between two different
cameras, to the point where it's distracting and then irritating. And
it's not made clear (enough to suit me, anyway) that this is not actually a
videotaping of one performance straight through from start to finish,
although it's presented and viewed as such; it's the video equivalent of
the audio recording. A 50 minute "perfect take" assembled from 2 months
of recording sessions.
Small complaints, though. Get the video, and tell them Tom sent you.
Rich DC250
Anyone have a realistic estimate of what a 1984 Grotrian ebony 7 ft grand
would actually sell for? It is well maintained and does have ivory keys.
Needless to say it plays and sound wonderful. Washington DC area. Thanks
in advance for any replies.
Rich
Mr Kim J Bunker
piano. My oppion If you can get it for a fair price it is very worth the
piano Current book value in (The American Piano Buyers Guide)Page 15 1996
Grotrian model 225 7'5"Base price:$61,000.00./Average sale
price:$58,240.00.Used Residual;$52,994.00.
--
Kim J Bunker
President
Orange Coast Piano
http://www.forpianos.com
Tel:714 836-7368
Fax:714 543-0835
Email:ocp...@pacbell.net
Rare Musical Instruments,Remanufactured Pianos
Piano Accessories
Shipping Avalible Worldwide
jwi...@zianet.com
In article <32f89eab...@news.demon.co.uk>
ali...@aosrsrch.demon.co.uk (Alister Smith) wrote:
>
> Mr Lindholm mustn't take offence, though. He is actually streets ahead
> of me (and probably many of us) right now inasmuch as he has actually
> gotten himself fixed up with a grand he likes. I played a C3 recently
> in a store near here and, while it was (IMHO) far from being ideal,
> the price was right.
>
> The owner of THIS store has a warehouse chock full of Yamahas. He
> personally (like myself) prefers Steinways BUT - according to him they
> would put him out of business. He couldn't sell them on account of the
> high prices. The local market just isn't up to it. Though he reckons
> the Steinway build-quality is second to none.
>
>
> But, if the truth be told (and I have just remembered this) maybe
> Steinway is not my all-time favourite piano after all. No. There were
> the two 1930s vintage Bluthner six-footers I played extensively back
> in the 1970s. Both owned by educational establishments here in the UK
> these instruments were unfortunately not for sale.
>
> In conclusion it will probably be a used piano for me OR, if a new
> one, then undoubtedly a Yamaha (C3??)***
>
I have a Yamaha G3 which I absolutely love. Now I also want Kawai 5'10". Love those too.