Bosendorfer/Wikipedia

[thalberg]

This excerpt from Wikipedia baffles me---it seems to have it exactly backwards.  Don't people praise Bosendorfers for their purity and say that Steinway is more rich and less pure?  Upon playing them, that's what I would say.

The Bösendorfer sound is usually described as darker or richer than the more pure but less full-bodied sound of other pianos like the Steinway or Yamaha. On the Imperial Grand, this is due in part to the inclusion of 9 additional bass notes below bottom A (the Imperial Grand has 97 keys, compared to the more usual 88). The strings for these notes are not often struck, since very little music has been composed to make use of them. However, the strings for these notes do resonate when other strings in the piano are struck, and their presence contributes to the additional body in the tone of these pianos.

[gerry]

I think Wikepedia got it right. The relatively dark, rich tone of the Bosie is unequaled for the romantics but it's more challenging to achieve the pure, crisp, detached and rather dry quallity needed for Scarlatti, Mozart, etc. (please note I said "challenging" not "impossible".

[iumonito]

Well, Gerry, it is one of those things.  You say potato, I say tomato.

When you say unequaled I say unsatisfactory.  When you say challenging, I say almost unavoidable.

I have come to appreciate Boses as of late, but I only like them in Haydn, Mozart and Schubert.  Even for Beethoven I find them wanting.  For something like Prokofiev or Rachmaninov (and yes, I do know there are some discs out there on Bose reproducer pianos that are very well engineered and sound good) they are just the wrong piano.

A matter of taste.

The sympathy resonance you get from the drones does not make the sound darker, I think, but just a little more full.  This does not overcome what I have heard referred to as the Bose's under-engineered soundboard (vast as it may be), nor the quite distinctive choice to have single stringing, nor the choice to make the rim thin, light and half of it of soft spruce rather than a hard wood like ash, beech or maple.  These three combined make for the pristine sound Thalberg was referring to.

I think Wikipedia must have been written in this instance by a Bose person.  No one else, I would believe, would describe these pianos on those terms.

[gerry]

Unequaled, and challenging--I stand by my words. Potato...wasn't aware I said it but maybe I was thinking it. Have fun dissecting the merits/shortcomings, I've been in love with my Bosie for almost 30 years and it just keeps getting better & better.

[nyonyo]

Unequaled, and challenging--I stand by my words. Potato...wasn't aware I said it but maybe I was thinking it. Have fun dissecting the merits/shortcomings, I've been in love with my Bosie for almost 30 years and it just keeps getting better & better.

It has been known that human being can adept to the situation and condition.
You are just getting more and more familiar with your Bosie. You learn to love more of what you have.

[iumonito]

It has been known that human being can adept to the situation and condition.
You are just getting more and more familiar with your Bosie. You learn to love more of what you have.

And that is wonderful.  That we all would be so lucky to have the piano we love!  Bose would sell lots of pianos.  They may even sell me one! (Did I mention I am playing lots of Schubert, Mozart and Haydn these days?)

...

and in a moment of contrariness, I hapen to love my two pianos (a 2002 Irmler and a 1870s Bechstein), but I have no delussions about whether I would trade them if I had the opportunity to have a Steingraeber 272 and a souped-up Bluthner Model I to replace them.  I would in a heartbeat.  If "adept to situation and condition" was a really strong human trait, people would not change pianos, and we all do as soon as we can get one better.  Wouldn't you.  It is only when you get to the point where there is no such thing as one better (Gerry may be there for his taste) that you truly stop and enjoy the roses.

[daniloperusina]

Imo, "..less full-bodied sound of other pianos like the Steinway.." is as inaccurate as it gets. I beleive Steinway is the very definition of full-bodied piano sound.
One reason for their dominance in concert halls, is their unique ability to project a full-bodied sound to the last seats of the hall.
Now, this thickness they have is not to everyone's liking. It's not something you necessarily fall in love with, or would be your preferred type of sound in all (or any) musical situation.
The loudest doesn't have to equal the best.
The fattest doesn't have to equal the most beautiful.

I think Bösendorfer's sound is not 'fat' (which the article hints). It's rather thin, but with a beautiful color to it.

[thalberg]

Also, did anyone catch how the article said "steinway or yamaha?"  I mean, what an insult to put Steinway in the same sentence as Yamaha.  The author of this article clearly hated steinway.

[jlh]

Also, did anyone catch how the article said "steinway or yamaha?"  I mean, what an insult to put Steinway in the same sentence as Yamaha.  The author of this article clearly hated steinway.

I'm not so sure this is a put-down of Steinway, considering that in many ways the two pianos are functionally identical.

I do agree with your original point about the article.  I play on a Bosie every week for my lessons and have performed on several 9' bosies (just performed the Falla Fantasia Baetica on one yesterday in fact...).  Bosies are more crisp and pure and if anything the extra strings at the bottom are there to compensate, not to add.

[kamike]

but I have no delussions about whether I would trade them if I had the opportunity to have a Steingraeber 272 and a souped-up Bluthner Model I to replace them.

Just curious, in what way would you "soup" up a Bluthner?

[thalberg]

I'm not so sure this is a put-down of Steinway, considering that in many ways the two pianos are functionally identical.

I'm anti-Yamaha.  To me it seems like an insult.

I think a better sentence would have been to say "Steinway or Mason and Hamlin." 

[jlh]

I'm anti-Yamaha.  To me it seems like an insult.

I think a better sentence would have been to say "Steinway or Mason and Hamlin." 

True, the quality and overall value of a Steinway does outmatch a Yamaha.  I don't like Yamahas either considering how cheaply they are made.  I was only referencing the fact that they are functionally similar (ever done a side-by-side view of the actions of both pianos?).

[daniloperusina]

There was a saying that if you put a Steinway tech and a Yamaha tech to the test on who knows the Steinway's construction better, the Yamaha tech would win.

They apparantly learned by studying and copying. And why wouldn't they? I've also heard that there's (an eastern asian) saying that 'copying is the greatest compliment'.

But the difference is very apparent. Steinway is uncompromising hand-built quality, sort of 'cost is no concern'. Yamaha is the opposite, cost-effectiveness is all. Their price and quality is mid-range, and that is their place in the market.
It's silly to compare Yamaha to Steinway, Bösendorfer, Blüthner, Mason&Hamlin, Bechstein and a few others. It should be 'if you can only afford half the price, consider Yamaha, which is also half the quality.'

Rolls Royse vs hmm...Volvo. Both have engines and move when you hit the gas pedal. But one costs way more than the other, and there are a few reasons for that. 

[thalberg]

Yes Richter occasionally played yamaha.....why??  And Gould at the end of his life played a yamaha.  Again, why??

My friend Karl tells me that Yamahas range the whole spectrum of quality--their cheapest models are trash but their best models are great.  Unlike Steinway--everything they make is premium (if inconsistent) but you can just get it in larger or smaller.

I have not played a top quality Yamaha--at least not recently enough to remember what it's like.  Maybe the 9-foot models are good.  who knows.

[jlh]

They apparantly learned by studying and copying. And why wouldn't they? I've also heard that there's (an eastern asian) saying that 'copying is the greatest compliment'.

Beyond that, my understanding from talking with technicians is that Yamaha basically went behind Steinway's back and stole (or rather bribed) some of their engineers who took the blueprints for the Steinway action back to Yamaha.  Don't know all the details but that's what I heard.

Yes Richter occasionally played yamaha.....why??  And Gould at the end of his life played a yamaha.  Again, why??

My guess would be for the money?  Perhaps Yamaha gave them a monetary offer they couldn't refuse?

[nyonyo]

Beyond that, my understanding from talking with technicians is that Yamaha basically went behind Steinway's back and stole (or rather bribed) some of their engineers who took the blueprints for the Steinway action back to Yamaha.  Don't know all the details but that's what I heard.

My guess would be for the money?  Perhaps Yamaha gave them a monetary offer they couldn't refuse?

Yamaha action is as good as Steinway's if not better.

What I read, Glen Gould could not find another Steinway that he liked.

[jlh]

Yamaha action is as good as Steinway's if not better.

It's the same thing... can't be better if it's the same thing... 

[nyonyo]

It's the same thing... can't be better if it's the same thing... 

Maybe because of better manufacturing process. Yamaha produces many more pianos in one year compared to Steinway and it is well known that Yamaha pianos are very consistent when come to quality, may not be the best piano, but they are made uniformly. Therefore, there is a big possibility with the same blue print, Yamaha makes better quality action.

[thalberg]

What I read, Glen Gould could not find another Steinway that he liked.

Where did you read that?  Because in Franz Mohr's book , My Life With the Great Pianists, he talks about that exact thing--Gould and Yamaha.

He says that Gould brought a lawsuit against steinway for something like 300K when one of their employees tapped him on the shoulder.

Years later, when Gould needed his piano rebuilt, Steinway refused to put their finest technician on it for him, so they rebuilt it poorly.  Gould's piano was therefore gone forever.

Because Gould was devastated, he refused ever to play a Steinway again out of contempt for the company.

[arensky]

Where did you read that?  Because in Franz Mohr's book , My Life With the Great Pianists, he talks about that exact thing--Gould and Yamaha.

He says that Gould brought a lawsuit against steinway for something like 300K when one of their employees tapped him on the shoulder.

That was many years before, in the late 50's, and is a bizarre episode that has never been fully explained by any party involved.

Years later, when Gould needed his piano rebuilt, Steinway refused to put their finest technician on it for him, so they rebuilt it poorly.  Gould's piano was therefore gone forever.

I don't think it was dramatic as all that; what I recall reading (in Otto Friedrich's biography of Gould) is that his Steinway (the one that is now in a museum in Canada) was dropped during one of it's many journeys to the Columbia recording studio in New York and despite Steinway's best efforts it was never quite the same again. I believe he used other Steinways for awhile.  Yamaha came into the picture in the late 70's when Gould was planning to record the Goldberg Variations for the second time and he was looking for a piano that could be made to sound convincingly "harpsichordistic". This search led him to the Ostrovsky piano shop behind Carnegie Hall, where he went to try some August Forsters. He did not find them to his liking but in the back of the shop was a battered early 1960's Yamaha. Gould immediately purchased this questionable instrument, much to everyone's surprise. Gould had the instrument rebuilt and regulated to his liking. This is the piano used in the 1981 Goldberg Variations recording, and I believe on a few others.

Heh, I played some August Forsters in that shop around that time; freaky. 

Because Gould was devastated, he refused ever to play a Steinway again out of contempt for the company.

I don't think that's the case, but he wouldn't be the first pianist to get fed up with Steinway. They are a bit like the evil empire of the Star Wars movies.  Their pianos aren't as good as they were 50-120 years ago, and Josh's estimate of them compared to Yamahas are pretty accurate, imo.

[thalberg]

Thanks for your version of the story, arensky.  Those were some interesting details I hadn't heard.  If you have the time, maybe you could pick up Franz Mohr's book and tell me your impression of what he says.  That's where  I got my info.

[gerry]

Gould was an individual who had extremely unique and eccentric opinions and reactions to events around him. To use his experience as an argument against Steinways is ludicrous at best. So what if he chose a Yamaha in a fit of pique against Steinway; does this series of unfortunate events--the dropping of his piano and all the subsequent comedy of errors--really mean anything? Do they really justify the shaping of opinion? From what I read, his Steinway was about as unique as Horowitz's and very unlike the average example one would encounter--hardly your quintessential Steinway. He was a genius to be sure, but flawed in many aspects of life. These stories are entertaining to read--I find the "enshrining" of his piano (apparently not very close to its original condition) in a Canadian museum laughable (what did they do with the Yamaha??) and indicative of how we love to revere such objects and bestow on them an undeserved mystique. All that said, I attribute little or no credence to anyone who would use an example like this to belittle Steinway and exalt Yamaha.

[iumonito]

Just curious, in what way would you "soup" up a Bluthner?

Hi Kamike,  (to the Fiddler on the Roof Tune of if I were a rich man)

If a Bluthner Model I I had and all the money to make it sound my way
I would add little specs of bronze to the hammers, springs to the action, and Stanwoodize the action;  the feel of the action would be on the light side, but not too light.
I would add a side post and reinforce the back posts;
I would get the soundboard voiced, by replacing the original ribs with I-ribs, placing bronze masses in strategic spots in the soundboard and filing the edges of the bridges to get very precise and stable termination points for the strings;
I would have the pins in the soprano register relocated, to have longer strings in the high treble;
I would have the key covers replaced with legal mammoth ivory;
then I would have Sam Powell voice it to my taste quite regularly (perhaps as many as 6 times the first year).

And for kicks I would have it decorated in the spirit of a Flemish harpsichord, pastel colors and floral desings and probably a Watteau-like scene under the lid included, just because I think Black or Rosewood are too severe for the Mercurial tone I expect I would obtain from my souped-up Bluthner.

It is just a dream, though.  I would need to have taken care of many a more practical expense before spending the 100K plus that such intrument would likely cost.  If I could get it for 35K, I would buy it tomorrow.

[thalberg]

Hi Kamike,  (to the Fiddler on the Roof Tune of if I were a rich man)

If a Bluthner Model I I had and all the money to make it sound my way
I would add little specs of bronze to the hammers, springs to the action, and Stanwoodize the action;  the feel of the action would be on the light side, but not too light.
I would add a side post and reinforce the back posts;
I would get the soundboard voiced, by replacing the original ribs with I-ribs, placing bronze masses in strategic spots in the soundboard and filing the edges of the bridges to get very precise and stable termination points for the strings;
I would have the pins in the soprano register relocated, to have longer strings in the high treble;
I would have the key covers replaced with legal mammoth ivory;
then I would have Sam Powell voice it to my taste quite regularly (perhaps as many as 6 times the first year).

And for kicks I would have it decorated in the spirit of a Flemish harpsichord, pastel colors and floral desings and probably a Watteau-like scene under the lid included, just because I think Black or Rosewood are too severe for the Mercurial tone I expect I would obtain from my souped-up Bluthner.

It is just a dream, though.  I would need to have taken care of many a more practical expense before spending the 100K plus that such intrument would likely cost.  If I could get it for 35K, I would buy it tomorrow.

Fascinating!  Where did you learn about these things?  I did not know they were possible. 

[daniloperusina]

I don't see the need for stealing a blueprint. All you have to do is open up the Steinway and the action is there right in front of you. Little pieces of wood that you can dissemble and copy all you want. By the way, S's action was built by Renner for a while.

I think Yamaha gave Richter this offer: we will provide you with two concert grands and a group of technicians. They will follow you in a lorry wherever you go, and whenever you want to play they will put up the piano for you. Free of charge.

Even I, after some debating with myself, would probably have said yes.

[jlh]

I don't see the need for stealing a blueprint. All you have to do is open up the Steinway and the action is there right in front of you. Little pieces of wood that you can dissemble and copy all you want. By the way, S's action was built by Renner for a while.

Yamaha tried to emulate the Steinway in the 80's but they got frustrated because they couldn't get the tone or the action to sound and work the way they wanted.

Your solution sounds simple, but it is not.

[arensky]

These stories are entertaining to read--I find the "enshrining" of his piano (apparently not very close to its original condition) in a Canadian museum laughable (what did they do with the Yamaha??) and indicative of how we love to revere such objects and bestow on them an undeserved mystique.

I always wondered about the Yamaha too; seems it and his Chickering are also in the museum!

https://aix1.uottawa.ca/~weinberg/tour.html

[nyonyo]

Yamaha tried to emulate the Steinway in the 80's but they got frustrated because they couldn't get the tone or the action to sound and work the way they wanted.

Your solution sounds simple, but it is not.

By the way, the stealing thing is not necessary. If they try to copy a microprocessor, may be stealing is necessary. Just to copy a piano action can be done easily. It is an obsolate technology. I think Yamaha just cannot copy 100% of Steinway action. Yamaha will be sued.

[iumonito]

Fascinating!  Where did you learn about these things?  I did not know they were possible. 

What do I know, maybe they aren't!  I dream of having an after-retirement career as a piano designer and rebuilder, although at the moment I cannot even tune a unison.  My goal would be a simple one: to make a 227 cm piano under $20,000 that plays better than a Steinway (it has already been done, so I would just be adding one to the mix).

Let's take this sidetrack elsewhere, we are too off topic here.  Cheers to Bosie and Konichiwa!