Talk:Steinway & Sons/Archive 2

POV

The article contains claims that would seem more appropriate in an advertising spiel - e.g. saying that their pianos are better than any others, for whatever reason. I doubt if this was ever the case.

Quote from The Economist: 'Since 1853, artists have praised their instruments. Claude Debussy remarked that piano music should only be written for Bechsteins. For Wilhelm Furtwängler, Blüthner was best. “Blüthner pianos can really sing, which is the most wonderful thing you can say about a piano.”'

One thing missing is the Steinway Artist programme: this was a scheme set up after WWII with the effect of virtually forcing every concert hall to buy a Steinway.

Another quote from The Economist: "Meanwhile, Steinway thrived in America, establishing a near-monopoly in concert grands. Most attribute Steinway's success to clever marketing as well as to the quality of its pianos. (...)

Steinway is also skilful at marrying pianists to the brand, and there is an official roster of about 1,300 “Steinway artists”, from Alfred Brendel to Billy Joel. Musicians must own a Steinway to become a member of the club; in return, the nearest local salesroom will provide a piano wherever they are performing."

Same marketing tactics are used by Yamaha and Kawai everywhere. I was approached by both at NAMM shows several times during the 1990s and 2000s, but refused to marry any brand, because my goal is to play and enjoy a variety of high-end pianos, and because some concert grands are getting better and better every year. They are really competing for a place on stage at major concert halls, so let them compete and get better, and be played by all talented artists. User:Steveshelokhonov 2:18 PM on June 2nd, 2007.

I just don't think Wiki should say or imply that one brand of piano is superior to all others. --Tdent 14:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Brand worship will be crushed and destroyed. Shawnc 08:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

What brand worship? Those giants who dominate the world piano market, who cut green forests for wood for hundreds of thousands new grand and upright pianos every year, and keep growing: 40-50% of the global piano market is dominated by Yamaha with 100,000 pianos made every year during several decades now (the number of Yamaha pianos amassed on the planet in bigger than all other pianos combined, it is in millions, and keeps counting, and keeps pressuring any competition), 20-25 % by Kawai who makes up to 40-50 thousand pianos annually, 10% by Samick, and only 2% by Steinway, who has been making under four thousand pianos a year or less through decades, that's 25 times less than Yamaha. This is reality of today, hundreds of thousands of pianos against 4,ooo made by Steinway, which is already a not-so-big company, trying to keep making their costly high-end product with made-by-hand craftsmanship, and Steinway's market is under severe pressure from big industrial competitiors with their mass-produced pianos (oh' how many green forests were destroyed on the planet for waste, because 90% of those mass-produced pianos are now idle, as they were made way below concert hall quality and standards). See Market Research report: Musical Instruments (Pianos) published by Global Industry Analysts, Oct. 1, 2005 - 228 Pages. Wikipedia should be about true facts and full picture of reality. Please remain open for more truth. Sincerely User:Steveshelokhonov 8:48 PM on June 2nd, 2007.

Please stop taking this so personally. The post you're responding to was made eighteen months ago; none of it made its way into the article. There's no need to go over it again. Alexrexpvt 03:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Although claiming that Steinways are the best violates NPOV, it is generally true. In an attempt to log the thoughts of the time, one could mention that when the average pianist is asked which is the best brand, most say Steinway. Many schools and institutions claim to be "all-Steinway" schools, which is a mark of distinction. While being careful to not violate NPOV, it should be stated that most pianists do think they are the best. -Chewbacca 09:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Chewbacca has a point. The current version of the Wikipedia article may benefit from a better representation of Steinway as an essential part of culture, as a musical instrument behind thousands of popular songs, films, musicals, award-winning records, sold-out concerts at major halls across the world. Besides the industrial side of the story, which is well covered in many serious books, Wikipedia may benefit from covering the true grit of what Steinway piano is about - music, music, music. User:Steveshelokhonov 2:18 PM on June 2nd, 2007.

This is all very well, the problem is carrying it off without making the article into an advertisement for Steinway. I don't think simply listing promiment personalities who own Steinways in the Trivia section is going to do it (this, after all, is one of Steinway's marketing strategies). There is plenty of information in the 'many serious books' on the relationship between the company and various performing artists, and I certainly wouldn't object to the inclusion of this. I would, however, object if it were done with no balance: if we weren't on our guard to maintain neutrality; to emphasize that not everyone agrees with Steinway's marketing, concert & artist program, &c. and that begetting songs, musicals, records, concerts &c. is not a virtue of Steinway alone, but one shared by many fine piano manufacturers. Alexrexpvt 21:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sir! You are doing an important moderation job. Ditto!. I can't imagine how sophisticted artistic and creative messages may cut through censorship imposed by NPOV. User:Steveshelokhonov 2:42 PM on June 2nd, 2007.

"when the average pianist is asked which is the best brand, most say Steinway." tosh. pianists like different pianos for different reasons. saying that is like saying that 'Bach was 'the best' composer.' obviously, that's not true. he has his merits like any other composer, but one cannot expect to label any of them as 'the best.' much like composers, a pianist's choice of piano is simply a matter of personal taste. i have never met a serious pianist who would say 'steinway pianos are THE BEST.' however, i have met many who say 'i prefer steinways.' equally, i have met many people who say 'i prefer becksteins.' it is so false to talk of 'best and worst' in this context. i personally own two pianos - a bluthner and a steinway. which one i play depends on the type of music i am playing. the subtle and light bluthner is, i find, better for playing wishy washy impressionism, whereas the stentorian steinway is great for more percussive music, like prokofiev or grieg. faced with something light and classical, like mozart or hayden, i would prefer the enormous dynamic range of a yamaha. which piano one prefers is a matter of the type of music one is playing, and one's personal taste. so whoever is soapboxing for Steinway in the article either works for the company, is a trendy piano-fascist or doesnt know the first thing about pianos. it makes me wince when people talk of 'the best.' rant over. thanks for listening.

I don't know whether the article has been amended since the above posted their comments, but it does not say anywhere that Steinway is the best, or "the finest." There is little, if any, violation of NPOV here. Furthermore, some of the comments on this Talk Page are in error: Steinway does not insist that a Steinway artist own a Steinway; but I believe that the company gives a piano to an artist when he signs on, at least to the most-desired artists, and the youngest at time of signing. While it is indeed true that pressure exists on pianists to become Steinway artists because they know that they will have difficulty finding good Concert Grands when they play in smaller towns without Steinway's services, one must also realize that the reason why Steinway was able to offer these services was that the overwhelming number of concert venues had already owned Steinway instruments by the time such persuasion was able to exist. Having said that, it is the case--and the article makes this clear--that Steinway instruments have suffered a major loss in quality, relative to other pianos. The article, however, is woefully lacking in discussion of much relevant information: the important Steinway technical innovations and patents, the Accelerated Action, the Duplex Scale, the scandal of the Teflon bushings, the switch to plastic keys from Ivory, etc. I myself have owned and played on many different manufacturers' instruments and, while I believe that the pianos that Steinway manufactured up until about 1955 were mostly superb instruments, I think that the threat to Steinway today comes more from companies like Yamaha and Baldwin, than from Bosendorfer, whose instruments, while producing a more bell-like tone, have a much more limited range of tonal color and especially volume. The most recent Yamahas and Baldwins truly do remind one of the Steinways of the golden age of the 1920s through the 1940s. My opinions, for what they're worth. 66.108.4.183 00:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Mr Roth, thanks for your imput. It seems the POV, soapboxing comments, such as "when the average pianist is asked which is the best brand, most say Steinway" [which i quoted above], have been rightly removed.

Thank you. One other thing I forgot to mention: The characteristic "growling Bass" of the American Steinway, which is usually the quality that makes pianists prefer the American one. Frequently, fans of the Hamburg Steinway, or Bosendorfer ridicule the American Steinway with the claim that it has a "vulgar" tone. Well--if the pianist has not learned how to utilize the US Steinway, it can have such a tone. But, while it is truly almost impossible for anyone to produce a vulgar tone on a Bosendorfer, the US Steinway has the capability to produce magnificent barrages of rich stentorian sound, with a bass that not only can be heard in the last row, but, even more importantly, produces a resonant tone that simply is not available to the Bosendorfer player. It has "carry" and projection without being muddy. Even for Mozart, I think the US Steinway is to be preferred, while acknowledging that the performer does have to take somewhat more care with appropriate tone control. This makes possible not only exciting pianism, but also good musicianship, IMO. 66.108.4.183 19:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

I have added information on the controversy surrounding the Steinway Artists program. A well known pianist remarked privately to me that he refers to program managers as the "Steinway mafia." Issues Steinway's attempts to suppress use of other pianos is in the May 9, 2004 New York Times article, Piano vs. Piano, by Michael Z. Wise. THD3 19:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote: “I have added information on the controversy surrounding the Steinway Artists program. A well known pianist remarked privately to me that he refers to program managers as the "Steinway mafia." Issues Steinway's attempts to suppress use of other pianos is in the May 9, 2004 New York Times article, Piano vs. Piano, by Michael Z. Wise. THD3 19:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)”

Part of competition tactics is using media to badmouth a competitor. Michael Wize's article is interesting, but it fails to say the whole truth that Yamaha holds up to 50% of global piano market, Kawai holds about 20%, Steinway has less than 2% (my line about this fact was removed by moderators, is it fair, while negatives are allowed?). Does retelling negatives, such as the one above, and using anti-Steinway stories in Wikipedia article on Steinway fall in the category of "Gossip" or beyond the rguidelines of NPOV? Please clarify.

Many hundreds of well known pianist keep chosing Steinway, but one "well known" (incognito) pianist is chosen by THD3 to badmouth Steinway managers as "Steinway mafia" and THD3 is spreading this "Gossip" through the means of Wikipedia article about Steinway. Please clarify this in terms of fairness and balance, even in the discussion section. Sincerely. User:Steveshelokhonov 8 PM on June 2nd, 2007.

I think this is getting a bit personal. The section you quoted is eight months old, and the expression "Steinway mafia" doesn't appear in the article. The New York Times article does, however; for the reasons outlined elsewhere. Again, please have a look at your personal talk page (in case you're not sure where it is, it's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steveshelokhonov). Alexrexpvt 03:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yamaha and others are simply unable to make pianos for high-end concerto halls. Carnegie Hall and other halls also have Yamaha and other pianos but nobody wants to play a piano with a poor sound, thousands serous pianists play Steinways. Regards, Bobby.

Steinway in culture and entertainment

This is where opinions clash and disputes are inevitable, this is where censorship kills culture and creativity, this is where competition becomes ugly and reasoning is sacrificed for materialistic interests, this part is tough for an artist, but may be an opportunity for an attuned and sophisticated moderator.

However, this is the essence of the Steinway piano popularity, so it needs to be addressed in an open discussion, where NPOV restrictions don't become like censorship, where it falls in a "Grey area" category, so that information, after many twists and turns, transforms into arguable and disputable statements (isn’t anything may be made arguable these days?). It is about the artistic quality of a well known musical instrument, which is used worldwide for high-end cultural events, recordings and other entertainment, and is widely discussed by professionals in private talks, in circles, in magazines and on the web.

The current version of the Wikipedia article may benefit from a better representation of Steinway as an essential part of culture, as a musical instrument behind thousands of popular songs, films, musicals, award-winning records, sold-out concerts at major halls across the world. Besides the industrial side of the story, which is well covered in many serious books, Wikipedia may benefit from covering the true grit of what Steinway piano is about: music, music, music. The Alma-Tadema Steinway is one of many Steinways of serious cultural importance, not only because of its auction value of 1.2 mil. That piano was part of inspiration behind the success of many Broadway musicals.

As a pianist and owner of three pianos (Steinway O-180, Bechstein C-225, and a Yamaha Digital Piano - because it is never out of tune, unlike an acoustic piano) I am well aware of this three pianomakers view on how a piano should play and sound. I would like to repeat this again: the current version of the Wikipedia article may benefit from a better representation of Steinway as an essential part of culture, as a musical instrument behind thousands of popular songs, films, musicals, award-winning records, sold-out concerts at major halls across the world. Besides the industrial side of the story, which is well covered in many serious books, Wikipedia may benefit from covering the true grit of what Steinway piano is about: music, music, music! User:Steveshelokhonov 3:11 PM on June 2nd, 2007.

I responded to this point above (and frankly don't see why it needed to be posted twice). Regrettable as 'censorship' may be; NPOV is Wikipedia policy. I suggest that if you don't want other users to remove your contributions, you source them and attempt to balance them yourself. I try as much as possible, but some are simply not suitable for an encyclopedia. Alexrexpvt 22:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Please tell us about how a story from 1972 Garrick Ohlsson's personal career shifts from Steinway to Bosendorefer, and then back to Steinway, how does his 35-year-old story benefits the current fair and balanced approach in Steinway Wikipedia article. Does it belong on the main page, or maybe its place is in a special addendum titled "fun facts from history" or "Steinway jokes and other stories" for balance and fairness that we all appreciate today? I am new to this page, but I am not new to freedom of speech and opinions about entertainment, arts and culture. If personal stories with negative tone are OK with NPOV Wikipedia rules, then how about stories with positive tone, or just neutral tone? Here in California, the above mentioned Canadian pianist Louis Loutrie is welcome to play any piano he desires, whenever he is invited to play here (not very often, so far). Mitsuko Uchida, Lang Lang, and others just play Steinway, and they play it so well, they sold out the Disney Hall, as well as any other hall every time they play. Is it a nice manner to use Wikipedia for negative personal remarks, such as the one by Louis Lourtie, without any alternative story to balance such a negative tone? Canada does not have first amendment, Wikipedia is in Florida, under the US constitution, so how may we improve on this article by being more positive and creative? Your moderation work, Alexrexpvt, is not easy and it is appreciated. Sincerely, User:Steveshelokhonov 6:11 PM on June 2nd, 2007.

Not exactly. Ohlsson is a free lancer, as far as pianos are concerned. Sometimes he uses a Steinway sometimes, sometimes a Bosendorfer (as in his recording of Busoni's Piano Concerto), sometimes a Mason & Hamlin as in his recording of several Beethoven sonatas. Fact is, at least in America, pianists have to bow down to Steinway because nearly every concert hall in the country has one. To select another piano is to make their life inconvenient.THD3 01:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Concert halls buy Steinways based on several seroius decision making points:

1. Steinway is the only piano that delivers clear undistorted sound to every listener in a concert hall, to small or big audience, even when played with a full symphony orchestra, that is what every performer wants on stage: accurate delivery of his/her playing to people. I've played on stage for years, believe me no pianist wants to suffer struggling with a weak, non-delivering piano. Steinway does deliver the sound with all good sonic colorations. That is why Steinway is owned by every serious concert hall, many halls have three, or more Steinways. Bolshoi Hall at Moscow Conservatory has about 12 Steinways to chose from, and they buy a new one every couple of years, you know why - any larger piano losens up, loses its crown and softens with time. Shostakovich Hall at St. Peterburg Philharmonic has 8 Steinways, Disney Hall in LA recently bought two, Carnegie Hall, New York Philharmonic, Berliner Philharmoniker, Vienna Philharmonic, and hundreds other halls add new Steinways on a regular basis. They make their thorough decisions, and end up bying another Steinway, again and again, for the same reason: Steinway, especially a well maintained D-274, does deliver every nuance and detail of what the artist is performing.

2. A retired Steinway piano, after several years of use at an concert hall, after loosening and softening, like every other piano, is still a highly desired piano for smaller venues, recording studios, schools, and private homes. Most of other pianos lose much more of their playability and value after years. Of course there are exclusively made one-of-a-kind Bosendorfers, Faziolis, Yamahas, those are good, but average pianos from other maker are just... average in every way, sound and playability first of all.

3. Listening fatigue. It is a rarely discussed problem, which is typical with an average piano, but not much known among Steinway owners and performers.

I am trying to help your story by bringing some positive performer's experience to the table. Thank you. Sincerely, User:Steveshelokhonov 7:17 PM on June 2nd, 2007.

We have "stories with a positive tone": we have already recorded that the vast majority of pianists in the 2005-2006 concert season used Steinways; that many famous people have used Steinways; that many schools use only Steinways. The examples from Hewitt, Lortie &. serve to illuminate two things: 1) not everyone plays a Steinway; 2) Steinway does not deal kindly with "Steinway Artists" who praise other pianos. We already have the "alternative story", it's the main theme of the article: we don't need more (just look at the number of references that come straight from the Steinway Official Website). In short, these 'negative stories' taken together with the "positive stories" I have outlined above serve to create some semblance of neutrality. We don't need to list every famous pianist who's a Steinway Artist to balance the negative. Alexrexpvt 01:38, 3

June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that not everyone plays a Steinway is so obvoius, no negative stories needed to prove such a truism. Steinway is a high-end piano, and only 4000 are made per annum, while Yamaha has been making a bout 100,000 pianos every year for many years, Kawai make 50 to 70 thousand pianos annually, so there are millions of Yamaha and Kawai and other mass-produced pianos out there, and many are donated as free gifts (a beautiful gift, of course), so there are much, much more people who play a Yamaha, or Kawai, or other brand, than a Steinway. You do not need to validate telling Wikipedia readers another negative story, just to prove such an obvious fact that there are 40 times more other pianos of other brands in the world, than there are Steinways, today Steinway has less than 2% of the world piano market (you deleted my line about this fact, by the way). Hewitt chose a Fazioli, great, I love it too. How does Hewitt and Fazioli story, with its negative tone, comply with NPOV? Fairness and enlightening is highly appreciated. User:Steveshelokhonov 7:45 PM on June 2nd, 2007.

You dwell quite extensively on the fact that not everyone plays a Steinway, but the more important fact, which you didn't really deal with, is Steinway's dealing with "Steinway Artists" who stray from the flock: this is the main justification for keeping the section. The controversy over the Concert & Artist has dogged the company for years, and really ought to be included in any history of the company (it's the subject of innumerable books and well-documented tiffs). Glossing over this would be a deliberate concealment of fact. I think you're a bit too caught up in the 'negative nature' of it: the balancing of positive and negative "stories" brings us closer to a neutral article. See also your personal talk page.Alexrexpvt 03:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why “Steinway Artists” controversy is the more important fact? Why controversy around one of programs is now more important than the Steinway piano itself and its role in international culture? Who is making decision on what is a more important fact about Steinway for a Wikipedia article? How many people are making decisions for the rest? Is it two people? Twenty people? Two hundred musicians? Two hundred thousand Steinway owners and players?. Two or three million Yamaha players across the world? Corporate managements? What are the criteria for such decisions? Who benefits from such information? And finally how may we all stay open and fare and "objective" and accurate and clear of negatives, and spreading badmouth-type stories and "gossips" on a site that is open to the world? How can this article become free from negative messages? Imagine a nice and sweet young lady, who is enjoying her music lessons, and suddenly becomes "enlightened" with controversial stories, "gossips" about "Steinway mafia" coming from a "well known" pianist? I'd like to protect that girls pure joy of music, and I am not alone, I hope you understand me in a very positive way. Sincerely. User:Steveshelokhonov 01:10 AM on June 3rd, 2007.

Sonic quality and playability

Subjective issues of beauty and art may be better understood only when allowed to be addressed without censorship and restrictions.

1. Sonic quality. This is the reason why more pianists play a Steinway in serious performances, such as piano concertos with symphony orchestras at major concert halls. Steinway is the piano that secures delivery of pianist’s every expression, nuance and detail against even the most powerful orchestral tutti (this is where other pianos fade, and pianomakers admit that honestly at professional forums, such as the NAMM show, the Musikmesse, and other forums). Steinway in both live performances and recordings remains the piano of fist choise by many musicians. Comparative analyses were published numerous times in magazines and on the web. Opinions like Louis Lourtie's are cute curiosities, because Steinway is not a Microsoft at all, neither on the piano market, nor at thousands of concert halls where aother pianos are available. Steinway's market share (below 2%) is even much smaller than that of an Apple computer (5% or so), so comparing Steinway to Microsoft is ... no comment. Even Yamaha, with its 50% (or more) market share, is not Microsoft. At the same time every concert hall, an concert pianist, or a symphony are free to make their choice of piano - lease it or rent it for a show, then listen to the sound and also listen to the audience - they are many, and they respond to sonic quality.

2. Playability. Steinway's responsiveness to pianist's touch and imagination - this is what makes many professional musicians chose a Steinway. Yes there are great Faziolis, I met Paolo Fazioli and he played for me and my friends at several NAMM shows here in LA, I play a Fazioli at times here in LA and in London, good pianos (especially his 225 and 308 models), played some nice Yamahas (I like the CFIIIs and some of their C7s in a studio environment), Baldwins (the D-10 was nice in a small hall), Bosendorfers (the 225 and 290), Bechsteins (the 280 and the newer Cs ans BBs), Bluthners (the 280), Seilers (the 240), Kawais, Grotrian-Steinwegs, Irmlers, Sauters, August Forsters, etc., today almost every serious piano company can make one or two nice grands. However, on a worldwide concert level, thousands of performers do prefer the Steinway D-274. On a concert stage, no other piano on can deliver such a consistent quality of sound, such clarity, power, and such playability as D-274, be it a Hamburg or a New York D. That is why Steinway artists are counted by hundreds, while other pianos have only tens or even a fewer number of high-profile devotees, and often a pianomaker would donate their piano to a hall or a school, sometimes they pay for several tunings, services and maintenance, or give their piano as a free gift to a certain artist (nothing wrong with that, such is the nature of competition, but Steinway does not do such things). The D’s action requires more physical involvement from a musician, but it translates every nuance and detail very well, including every mistake and slippery touch, which some average musicians don’t like. Yamaha’s action has an easier touch, and steady sound control, a Steinway requires a rather lengthy learning curve until a musician obtains a good control, but then it’s a rewarding experience, almost like a fine-tuned racing car.

3. Delivery of sound, and sonic reference quality. Steinway delivers undistorted sound (and undistorted in all sonic colorations it is) across the entire space of a concert hall, even when played with a loud big band, a symphony orchestra, a chamber ensemble, or as an accompanement for a singer, group or choir. A well-tuned Steinway remains the piano that is regarded as a reliable sonic reference by other musicians in a symphony orchestra, a band or a choir. Why? Because Steinway delivers clear and rich sound to every ear, no matter how far in the audience, Steinway's sound comes across undistorted regardless of the distance (if no electronics involved). Spending more than one long day in a quiet studio with a Yamaha CFIII and a Steinway D-274, I learned that Yamaha is pleasant and sweet in live proximity, but it sounds tinny on record in comparison to D-274. When both pianos are heard from a distance across the room, the Steinway delivers superior clarity and sonic colorations. Similar conclusion was made by major concert halls in the presence of solid experts and musicians, such as the Dallas Symphony comparioson of Yamaha vs Steinway D on stage and in the audience. Disney Hall in LA has both New York and Hamburg Ds, for stars like Lang Lang, Mitsuko Uchida, and others to have a choice, its clear that they do not need to make a choice between Steinway and other pianos.

4. Durability and quality. Steinway pianos are very stable, durable, reliable and consistent in quality when the maintenance is right. Both factories make only high-end pianos using many of 100-130-year old tools for a hand-made production. Source materials are important, such as the Sitka spruce and Swedish strings, but other brands tried to use Sitka and Swedish strings, yet they never achieved the sonic quality and playability of a Steinway. Why? Patents and craftsmanship are part of the Steinway’s success. Of course, being a complex high-end instrument, a Steinway piano has thousands of moving parts that are different from other pianos, requiring a dedicated, serious, sophisticated technical maintenance. Only a well-maintained and well-tuned Steinway may fully represent the authentic sonic quality and playability. (Isn’t that true about a good high-end car too?)

Such are just a few reasons behind the fact that many, many professional concert performers play Steinway. Just like everyting in this world, Steinway is being discussed and disputed, but opinions so far failed to change the Steinway's sonic quality and playability. That is what keeps those hand-made pianos rolling.

Sincerely, User:Steveshelokhonov 3:19 PM on June 2nd, 2007.

Maybe, but subjectivity has no place in the body of a Wikipedia article. But since this is the Talk page, I can tell you, I sold pianos for years, and the above is right out of the Steinway sales manual.THD3 22:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for watching and moderating this highly sensitive area of international music culture. Perception of art and culture is the most subjective part of human intellect, so music and artistic discussions may only produce resultative outcome when moderated by a balanced and consentual group of people, including musicians as well as representative of auduences and customers across the board and across the world. Steinway is a renown piano played all over the world, just as a Stradivari, Guarneri, and Amati violins are renown among musicians and audiences, and boy did those violin makers compete with each other - you bet they did, just like today's piano makers. Still, maybe there is truth in the Steinway manual, and certainly there are good reasons and substance behind their sonic quality and success, thousands of musicians across the world made their choice. 560,000 high-end Steinway pianos were bought by schools and families for good reasons. That is why this Wikipedia article is so important, it deserves a thorough attention, and this discussion page is a good tool for the sake of making a fair result. I play piano professionally for 30+ years, and I sold only those few pianos that underperformed for me, just like people sell an underperforming car, I sold my Yamaha, my Seiler, my Grotrian-Steinwg and my Bluthner grands, each one of those I owned for 3-5 years until pianos began losing their initial sonic qualities, but my Steinway I keep for 15 years now, it is reliable and by far superior than any of my previous pianos. User:Steveshelokhonov 6:44 PM on June 2nd, 2007.

With respect to your personal experience, Steveshelokhonov, what does this have to do with the article? This is an article about a corporation, not a forum for personal opinions or agendas, no matter how informed. Given the nature of your changes to this article and the Sviatoslav Richter article, it's not hard to conclude that you have an agenda.THD3 01:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL and friendly! My only agenda is to play a variety of great pianos: mighty Steinways, fine Faziolis, nice CFIIIs, broad Imperials, pensive Immortals, nostalgic BBs and 280s, sweet Bluthners and sharp Seilers, rounded Kawais and bold Boldwins, among other high-end pianos from any brand, and to share the joy with people, as I become a happier person by making others happy. Such is my nature (call it agenda). Hope to see this article growing well tuned, meaningful, cultural, stimulating, informative, interesting, inspirational, solid, tastful, tactful, artistic, resonant, harmonious, deep and rich, where all counterpoints are intertwined in a fine accord by a masterful talent, just as any good music played by a talent on the Steinway piano. This article may also grow with contributions from Steinway, they may provide facts and data about themselves. Why not? And other makers of fine pianos deserve attention too. Sincerely, User:Steveshelokhonov 10:05 PM on June 2nd, 2007, in LA, CA.

Article reads like an advertisement

"Steinway's long established reputation and high standard of craftsmanship set the firm apart from other makers". This is like saying that other pianos aren't of high standards which is completely false, and even if it wasn't, it'd still be advertising. Removed. (User:Wormsie not logged in) --83.145.240.253 10:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is so much slanting and use of weasel words that this article is becoming a joke. The statement that "Today Steinway makes less than 2% of the world piano industry output, by limiting their production only to hand-made high-end pianos" is disingenuous at best. Steinway builds a small number of pianos because that's the number they can sell in the current market. If Steinway could sell more, they would build more, as they have in the past.THD3 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Working on the artice

Im from germany and i am a steinway fan. I still try to find the best NPOV so it would be fine if sombody could work along my english ==KarlKunde 12:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Karl. I've looked over the changes and they are very informative. I will touch these up to improve the English and grammar.THD3 14:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please try to reduce words like most, only, biggest, all. To me Steinway is one of the best piano brands in the world but they are not the only one. So if you are working on this article, try to keep a NOPV. KarlKunde 09:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

1850/1851

Lieberman's book Steinway & Sons gives the date of their immigration as 1850; according to its sources the Steinwegs "left Seseen on 7 May and arrived in New York on 9 June 1850". This is confirmed by Henry Z. Steinway's personal files. Alexrexpvt 14:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You could be right, but please let me look for the details first. KarlKunde 14:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sound is taste

Anybody could describe the taste of a citron, but would sombody who couldn't taste know what you mean? So i think a special sound is a hard thing to describe, and i have heard both pianos often. KarlKunde 16:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: "The difference between both productions is of course the different sound culture." I presume what you mean here is that European and American expectations of what a piano should sound like are different, and that Hamburg and NY Steinways correspond to this broad distinction. If that is what you mean, I suggest you rephrase it: 'different sound culture' isn't at all clear, and 'of course' is not obviously right: the company maintains that there are no distinctions. We need a source to maintain this. In other words, you need to define what a 'sound culture is', show how America and Europe differ, and show how the Steinways observe this distinction, if indeed they do.Alexrexpvt 17:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Steinweg Controversy

Theodor Steinweg had allowed Grotrian, Helferrich, and Schulz to use 'Successors to Th Steinweg' in their corporate name; later, the Grotrian family asked the Braunschweig government for permission to change its name to Grotrian-Steinweg, which was granted. Steinway eventually alleged trademark infringement: Grotrian sued, Steinway countersued, and Steinway won in October 1973. So 'Steinweg' and not 'Steinway' should remain in my reversion. Alexrexpvt 17:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sic! User:Steveshelokhonov 1:55 PM, June 3, 2007

Lortie Reversion

I've added a source for this, the NY Times. I think we need to keep this: the article is starting to look like a Steinway advert again. Alexrexpvt 17:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this text should be removed now. Grandmother said, envy needs to be worked for, compassion is a gift. Steinway is doing concert work for over 100 years, their pianos are the highest standart, so why should Steinway say "Oh, you dont want to play our piano, we help you carrie another piano on the stage". Other brands do pay pianists to choose their pianos on stage or in competiton. So nobody can tell whitch "fact" it is, that makes pianist play other brands.

If you go to the wiki side of Jim Beam you wont find that another distillerie like Jack Daniels is drunken by XY because jim beam is the microsoft of wiskey. KarlKunde 14:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The information is sourced (by no less than the New York Times) and relevant. It refers to legitimate complaints from pianists about Steinway's treatment of them. It should stay.THD3 18:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

The concert artist section specifically: it's important to show that there are some who disagree with Steinway's practices. 'Controversy' is an appropriate word for the criticism of Steinway's artist program: it is after all the name of one of the books cited as a reference. It's unnecessary to call Lortie's remarks controversial since they have a long pedigree, and the word controversy has already appeared in the article. The word 'controversy' itself does not negate a NPOV. Alexrexpvt 17:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm deleting the 'comments from pianists' section: it's simply advertising with no references. If it reappears I'll have to put an NPOV tag on it until we can agree either to dispense with it altogether or reword it substantially and provide sources.Alexrexpvt 13:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the comment about Steinways being one of the last outposts of hand-made instruments: Steinway competes against other grand piano manufacturers primarily, and the vast majority of their instruments are handmade: Bluthner, Bosendorfer, Bechstein, Mason & Hamlin, the Yamaha CFIIIS, and so on.Alexrexpvt 13:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The 'All Steinway Businesses' entry can hardly be considered as anything other than blatant advertising. The (unreferenced) decision of a shop to choose one make of piano over another is hardly encyclopedia material.Alexrexpvt 18:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Steinway Innovations

I've removed the claim that the company was responsible for the cast-iron fame: that was invented by Alpheus Babcock. It's harder to prove that other companies took up Steinway's designs, although they evidently did: Steinway patented them, and they found their way into most other pianos. I'll try to dig out some quotations for this. Alexrexpvt 23:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Other New York makers used hitch pin plates and resisting bars or tubes in the early 1850s, but full cast frames were used in Boston since about 1837 (US1,802 is a patent for an improved casting in squares, and grands a little later - US3238), and as early as 1833 in Philadelphia. Bluthner wrote it had been used even earlier in Germany:

Die Eisenkonstruktionen selbst sind übrigens keine amerikanische Erfindung, sondern auch bein uns schon seit langer Zeit versucht worden, zum Theil schon in den zwanziger Jahren dieses Jahrhundert, so von Grünberg in Halle, Zerenko in Dresden und vielen anderen Instrumentmachern. Die allgemeine Einführung der eisernen Rahmen datirt indessen doch erst aus den letzten Jahrzehnten, und es haben hierfür die Amerikaner sowohl durch ihre auf die Ausstellungen geschickten Instrumente, mehr aber noch durch die Presse eine sehr wirksame Agitation entfaltet.

Nach Paul [Geschichte des Klaviers S. 173 u. f.] gehen auch in Amerika die Versuche, eiserne Rahmen zu verwenden, bis in die swanziger Jahre zurück, später war es namentlich Jonas Chickering in Boston, der dieselben weiter verfolgte. Aber obwohl diese Versuche in der Vortrefflichkeit des amerikanischen Eisens und in der hohen Ausbildung der Giesskunst wesentliche Stützen fanden, dauerte es dock lange, ehe man sich allgemeiner mit dem Klange, der durch solche Eisenrahmen dem Instrumente ertheilt wird, befreundete. Namentlich baute man in Newyork noch viel tafelförmige Instrumente ohne Eisenrahmen ; hier nimmt die Firma Steinway das Verdienst für sich in Anspruch, die Eisenrahmen zuerst bei tafelförmigen, und dann auch bein andern Instrumenten zu Ehren gebracht zu haben. (Lehrbuch des Pianofortebaues, Bernhard Friedrich Voigt, Weimar 1872, fax. Ed. Bochinsky, Frankfurt 1992 p.201)

You can read evidence I wrote supporting my changing the wording about their inventing overstringing to patenting using it in grand pianos in the Piano article, in the archived talk section. A couple days after the patent (US26532) was issued Steinway published an ad in the New York papers, "having ascertained that several piano manufacturers have lately commenced making overstrung grands, we hereby notify them to desist, as we shall prosecute any infringements on our patent to the full extent of the law", but by the first of February J. B. Dunham (who according to N. J. Haines, of H. Bros., quoted by Spillane in History of the American Pianoforte had already been making overstrung squares before 1845, and who was associated with F. Mathushek, who had a patent for iron frame overstrung squares with fanned out strings similar to the design of S. & S. famous one - US 8,470) published a note in the same place that a Russian grand piano had been in New York City for over two years, and two weeks later mid February advertised having overstrung grands and squares for sale. (Steinway didn't even have the first patent showing overstrung grands in New York, S. B. Driggs' patent from May that year represented his invention "applied to a grand piano-forte having its stringed part independent of the case... and having the covered strings 'overstrung' and supported on a different bridge than that which supports the remainder of the strings," although it wasn't part of his claim. US.23,834) April 1860 Stodart & Morris offered "Grand, Upright and Square, of every fashion, overstrung and otherwise", George Steck advertised overstrung grands in 1862, and Hazelton Brothers by 1863.

The reports from European World's Fairs after Steinway's success in 1867 specifically describe European makers copying the Steinway, or at least American system for grand pianos:

The American mode of bracing, as exhibited at the Champ de Mars, excited the profoundest interest among European artists and makers.

Another feature of the American instruments that also attracted great attention was the fact that their scales, being much larger than those of European make, produced a peculiar freedom and clearness in the vibrations of the strings, and as a second consequence a firmness and roundness of tone not observable in any other piano-fortes at the Exposition.

How to augment the sonority and how prolong the sound ad libitum, were the problems that European manufacturers had been studying for years. They recognize a satisfactory solution of the first in the instruments of Steinway and of Chickering. (Paran Stevens, Report on Musical Instruments. Reports of the United States Commissioners to the Paris Universal Exposition, 1867. vol.1. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1869)

But even that year, the English reporter wrote, (quoted by Stevens) "The system of overstringing is not new; it has been tried several times without success, having been employed without intelligence; for, instead of favoring the vibration of the strings in spreading them, the vibration was damaged by laying them too near each other. It will be seen hereafter that the European manufacturers of pianos have exhibited very good instruments constructed after this system." - Mireut 00:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In light of all that, I'm minded to remove the section altogether, at least until we can agree a definite way of phrasing that doesn't give Steinway more credit than it deserves. Alexrexpvt 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the text that I removed, in case anyone feels like restoring it with some alterations:

The company introduced innovations such as the overstrung scale in 1859, the felt keybed, and the sostenuto pedal (Goldenberg: Steinway. pp. 28-31), which were soon copied by other piano manufacturers worldwide.Alexrexpvt 01:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget about another great Steinway "innovation": Teflon bushings!THD3 23:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Teflon bushings were invented by the late Joseph Pramberger, who worked for Steinway at that time, but when the failure of his teflon bushings became obvious (due to customer feedback), Steinway corrected the problem, then split with Pramberger. User:Steveshelokhonov 1:33 PM on June 3rd, 2007.

Glenn Gould

Gould did not make "all his acclaimed recordings" on a Steinway; he used a Yamaha for several, including the 1981 Goldberg Variations. Alexrexpvt 18:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes he received a CFII at the end, but he sounded less inspired than on his first Goldberg Variations recordings in the 1950s. His emotinally labile personality hardly sustained a switch from the piano he grew up with to a more modern Yamaha. Richter did a similar step, albeit his recordings did not gain in quality, his CFII sounded a bit tinny. I saw him playing live in St. Petersburg and in Moscow on that CFII up until his later years, his presence was strong due to his experience and his natural aura, but his famous finesse and precision was gradually decaying, even on a lightened action of his CFII. So its not only a piano, but also a medical condition, that plays part in performances as well as in perception. Too sad that Gould and Richter did not perform on CFIIIs or on a Fazioli. Just added this thought after listening to their CDs. User:Steveshelokhonov 11:59 PM on June 2nd, 2007.

Archive

Adding an archive as the page is getting a bit unwieldy. Please revert or let me know if I remove anything that needs to stay. Alexrexpvt 03:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Steinway-logo.png

Image:Steinway-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

"Art-case" should have more citations, especially regarding those "popular" and "renown" (sic) statements. Just because they were sold at that high a price means NOT that they are popular. ALTON .ıl 08:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that these case designs are limited editions seems to contradict the "popular" statement.THD3 15:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to cut it then, instead of having misleading information in the article. ALTON .ıl 01:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)