[uchihaitachi]

   
 
 
In a nutshell, what do Yamahas, Steinways, Pleyels, and Bosendorfers bring to the table, in terms of sonic attributes (bass depth, tonalities, balance, etc?). Not much comparative info on this online.

There's so much variability, depending on year of production, line etc. Balance, and tonalities can always be altered to a degree by technicians. All well made pianos, should be balanced.
 
Yamaha: lighter touch, mass produced, is similar to steinways except that they are just slightly inferior in every department. The concert grands are really good, but the jump up between the standard sized models and the concert grand is quite significant. the newer ones are quite a lot better than the previous models, with better 'ivory and ebony' like keys, touch and a singing tone. Easier to play in some ways than steinways due to the touch, and so you can play quieter more easily.
 
steinways: great in every department and starting from the smallest grands to the concert grands, it's all remarkable pieces of engineering. People tend to complain that sometimes they have a quite hard touch but this can always be modified by the technicians. Out of all the brands, they are the most consistent and easy to maintain over time. A 10 year old yamaha is going to be 70 or 80% of what the original was like, whereas the steinways have incredible longevity (rigid german engineering at its best). They are very sonorous, and have great tone in the lowest registers, which the yamahas often lack. Reminds me of a porsche. 
 
Pleyels: they have gone out of production in 2013? Not sure. I have only played one or two ones made in the 80s and 90s. Really light touch, sounds very anemic compared to the sonority of pianos made by steinway/bosendorfer/yamaha but has a very delicate singing tone. Makes sense why chopin played them. Quite similar to Bechsteins. 
 
Bosendorfer: I have only been to one showroom briefly. I think their glory years have long gone by. Seem to follow the old piano traditions. Lighter touch, not as good as modern day top of the line yamahas and steinways. The full size grand has some extra keys in the lowest registers, which I think is more a gimmick than anything, as you don't ever really use it. The ones I played sounded 'thinner' than modern day steinways and yamahas.
 
Faziolis: In a league of their own. They have patented technologies when it comes to using pyramidal supports for the strings, which increases resonance. So from the smaller sized pianos to the largest, they sound more sonorous than their rivals. Incredibly beautiful touch, so even, light and smooth from bottom to top. Their high registers sing like no piano I have ever heard. Their concert grand is the largest in the world at 3.08m and has a fourth pedal for 'softening' the sound without altering its timbre. The only problem with them is that they are quite temperamental and is very difficult to keep in tip top condition unlike the germans. It's also easy to play super super quietly or super loudly due to the touch, but it's also easy to hit a lot of wrong notes due to how responsive the action is. (Steinways still have better lower register voicing.)
 
Given the choice,
 
I would go with fazioli, steinway, and yamaha to perform
 
but to own, it would have to be the steinway  

 

[CanadianMaestro]

  There's so much variability, depending on year of production, line etc. Balance, and tonalities can always be altered to a degree by technicians. All well made pianos, should be balanced.
 
Yamaha: ....
 
steinways: ...
 
Pleyels: ....
Bosendorfer: ....
 
Faziolis: ....
 
Given the choice,
 
I would go with fazioli, steinway, and yamaha to perform
 
but to own, it would have to be the steinway  

 
@Uchih: Thanks very much. This is an invaluable resource for a Canuck ignoramus like Moi.

 
 
I thought you loved Fazzies?

 

[DjBobby]

   
https://sites.google.com/site/canadianmaestrosaudiosystem/desert-island-recordings/tempo-markings
 
*yawn*  (What does this have to do with "Best classical recordings ever"?)

Did you have a bad weekend? Cause your last posts seem to be bitching all around on everybody's comments all over the place. Including "forensic and your bs meter going red". Seriously? Cool down man, everybody has a right on his opinion. Unless you want to kill this thread stepping on everybody's toes. 

 

[uchihaitachi]

   
@Uchih: Thanks very much. This is an invaluable resource for a Canuck ignoramus like Moi.

 
 
I thought you loved Fazzies?

I do but, I wouldn't own one, as its longevity isn't great at all. For example, I often practice in the royal college of music and several years back they bought a large batch of faziolis for the practice rooms. Having had 2-3 years of constant use, they are but a pale shadow of what they used to be. 
 
Whereas steinways, there are 5-10 year old steinways, and with a bit of work every once in a while, they sound nearly as good as new! 

 

[Claritas]

I'm less concerned with whether a performer sticks to the score than with whether he is able to realize what I take to be the composer's aesthetic goal(s) in a given work. Even more important is whether the performer is able to make something better out of the work than the score alone provides. In any case, questions about interpretation are interesting and relevant.

Re Perahia, I love his tone but he's not an equally good interpreter of every composer (that's true of any performer). His Goldbergs is a mix of the predictable and the willful/erratic--I expected more. I have no problem with his Chopin except his later Etudes record, though he's far from my favorite Chopinist. Perahia's Mozart isn't all that Mozartean, but it's wonderful nonetheless because it works on its own terms and sounds great.

Re Gould, I remember his comment different from quinto or else I understood it differently. Gould disliked Mozart generally, late Mozart particularly. He made several very good Mozart records and a somewhat greater number of bad ones. That's often the case with Gould because he's full of novelty. Some of his Beethoven is amongst the best: I sometimes find myself humming his version of Op. 27/1. Another that stands out is Op. 31/1. He seemed most at ease and his inventive approach was most successful in the less popular sonatas, with the exception of his remarkable Moonlight sonata, which goes from tranquil though not sleepy to balls to the wall.

It doesn't really help to generalize about performers. They don't seem to be any more aware of their limitations than the rest of us.

 

[CanadianMaestro]

 
Did you have a bad weekend? Cause your last posts seem to be bitching all around on everybody's comments all over the place. Including "forensic and your bs meter going red". Seriously? Cool down man, everybody has a right on his opinion. Unless you want to kill this thread stepping on everybody's toes. 

You're telling me to keep cool??  Look at your post above. Believe me, I was having a great WE. You should read some ancient posts of mine back in July 2014. 
 
(I just hate it when people post stuff as "fact", like a blurry photo of someone wearing what appears to be a Senn 650, and claiming that they can clearly see the "650" tag on the headbands when it's not evident to me in the one photo posted).
 
And since when is *yawn* offensive. Yawning is a physiological response to lack of oxygen to the lungs.
 
No thread here ever got "killed" by expressing dissent.

 

[CanadianMaestro]

I'm less concerned with whether a performer sticks to the score than with whether he is able to realize what I take to be the composer's aesthetic goal(s) in a given work. Even more important is whether the performer is able to make something better out of the work than the score alone provides. In any case, questions about interpretation are interesting and relevant.

 

That's right. Interpretation is what makes classical music so interesting and enjoyable. Diversity too.

 

[Quinto]

A book about the search for 'the perfect' piano sound, nice read for who's interested..
 
(also discribes Steinway's production process in detail)

 

[Quinto]

I'm less concerned with whether a performer sticks to the score than with whether he is able to realize what I take to be the composer's aesthetic goal(s) in a given work. Even more important is whether the performer is able to make something better out of the work than the score alone provides. In any case, questions about interpretation are interesting and relevant.

Re Perahia, I love his tone but he's not an equally good interpreter of every composer (that's true of any performer). His Goldbergs is a mix of the predictable and the willful/erratic--I expected more. I have no problem with his Chopin except his later Etudes record, though he's far from my favorite Chopinist. Perahia's Mozart isn't all that Mozartean, but it's wonderful nonetheless because it works on its own terms and sounds great.

Re Gould, I remember his comment different from quinto or else I understood it differently. Gould disliked Mozart generally, late Mozart particularly. He made several very good Mozart records and a somewhat greater number of bad ones. That's often the case with Gould because he's full of novelty. Some of his Beethoven is amongst the best: I sometimes find myself humming his version of Op. 27/1. Another that stands out is Op. 31/1. He seemed most at ease and his inventive approach was most successful in the less popular sonatas, with the exception of his remarkable Moonlight sonata, which goes from tranquil though not sleepy to balls to the wall.

It doesn't really help to generalize about performers. They don't seem to be any more aware of their limitations than the rest of us.

Well said..
 
personally I particularly dislike Gould's late Beethoven (op.109-111)  really sounds like crap

 

[uchihaitachi]

My favourite living pianist
 

 

[CanadianMaestro]

Sokolov: For which composers?

 

[CanadianMaestro]

 

[uchihaitachi]

  Sokolov: For which composers?

He brings something fresh and inspired for every composer which he plays. It's a shame he never comes to the UK and only goes to mainland europe. 

 

[CanadianMaestro]

  He brings something fresh and inspired for every composer which he plays. It's a shame he never comes to the UK and only goes to mainland europe. 

But what's his specialty (what he loves to play most)? Every pianist has strengths with certain comps. 

Richter - Beethoven, Schumann, Rachman
Brendel, Kempff - Beeth, Schubert
etc

 

[uchihaitachi]

But what's his specialty (what he loves to play most)? Every pianist has strengths with certain comps. 
Richter - Beethoven, Schumann, Rachman
Brendel, Kempff - Beeth, Schubert
etc

He only records in complete live performances, never in studios so his discography is limited. But from what I heard,

Bach rachmaninoff chopin, schubert they are all exceptional