Talk:Bösendorfer

Hollein Böses

I commend User:Redlark's eagerness to contribute helpfully and adaptably to the Bösendorfer Article, but I think that his addition might not be relevant enough to add to this—right now very short—article. The fact that a specific architect constucted a special edition Imperial grand does not seem significant to be mentioned here, especially if one considers how short the section on the regular 290 Imperial Grand (one of the most significant piano series in the world) already is. Maybe this bit of information would better be placed in the Hans Hollein article, because it seem to concern him more than it concern Bösendorfer pianos in general. — Mütze 19:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything about where the 2nd Hans Holleins model is located. I know one of them is in Florida (The hotel even advertises it.), but I can't find anything about the one in China. Starcity ai 07:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest an entry that's more general. Bosendorfer offered other architect-designed models (e.g., Josef Hoffmann, Josef Frank, Theophil Hansen) as well as specialty designed models (e.g., Chrysler model, Swarovski Crystal model (rare)). Unless anyone objects, I'm going to remove the specific Hans Holleins reference and include a more general entry about the different designer models that were once produced (who knows what will change with Yamaha at the helm?).71.198.178.83 (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Digital / player pianos

Am I right in saying that Bosendorfer does not produce digital / self-playing pianos? Digital piano Player piano

--LeedsKing 11:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Wrong wrong WRONG. Urgh, you should have been there during the great MichaelIsGreat War of June 2006. Bösendorfer does in fact make the CEUS Computer Grand Piano (which is BRAND NEW and I don't know if it's available yet). In fact, there was a HUGE edit war about that piano! It all started when an anon posted a LONG paragraph on the CEUS (in ad format). I reverted it, saying that it was an ad. Then MichaelIsGreat came in and reposted the paragraph- 8 times in a row! He also posted the paragraph in the Player piano article, also 8 times in a row. While doing that, he used insulting edit summaries and talk page comments (The mad people who delete my postings, GO BACK TO YOUR MAD HOUSE!). Finally, he was blocked. In fact, there is a sentence in the current article that says "The newest Bösendorfer model is called the CEUS Computer Grand Piano". That was my attempt to see if MichaelIsGreat would come back or not, writing about the computer piano but not in ad format! Fortunately, he did not. See archive 1 of this talk page for more about him. SupaStarGirl 12:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was quite a hassle. — Mütze 13:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Question: is the CEUS all that recent? I recall being present during a demonstration of a computer-driven Bösendorfer at the International Piano Archives at Maryland probably 15-20 years ago. I don't know whether it was CEUS system, though; for all I know, it was some predecessor system. I do recall that it depended on an IBM PC that now would seem positively ancient. Drhoehl (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For info about CEUS, check out Larry Fine's book, "2007-2008 Annual Supplement to The Piano Book" for a detailed description on page 32. To summarize, the CEUS (Create Emotions with Unique Sound) system accurately records whatever is played on the piano. It records every nuance (e.g., how far down a key is pressed) using optical sensors that measure key and hammer movement at a very high sampling rate. To complicate things, there's also something called a CEUS Master Stage Piano, which is a complete key and action set of a Bösendorfer 280 grand piano powered by a CEUS system. Hope this helped answer your question.NorCal Bosie (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Steely Dan

Was Steely Dan really a Bösendorfer artist? SupaStarGirl 23:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, according to the liner notes of the CD remaster/re-release of Katy Lied

"O, the things we've seen and heard! - an Arp synthesizer burning in the courtyard of a West Hollywood sound stage - the thunder of a DeTomaso Pantera parked beneath the echo chambers of Studio C - the mighty room-service bill from the Beverly Wilshire hotel, reflecting the cost of the joyful reunion of Mr. Phil Woods and 200 of his closest L.A. studio/jazz-musician pallies - the world's first and last DBX noise reduction unit with factory installed wings, and a Bosendorfer piano that actually got louder after being struck - all things considered, the Katy Lied experience poses, we think, nothing so much as the musical analog of Richard Burton's famous query, in the sword and sandal epic "The Robe" - "were you...out there?" Yes, we were."

I've also read other articles and interviews that mention their use of a bösendorfer. If this quote doesn't qualify as a citation, let me know. --Insomniak 05:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If I had Katy Lied, I would have realized that and put Steely Dan back in. However, I do not have Katy Lied. Although there is no way to prove your statement if one does not have the album, I still trust you on this one, and I will put Steely Dan back in the article. SupaStarGirl 16:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Brian May from Queen was also inserted into the article. Someone deleted it as a hoax. I know you shouldn't site Wiki articles for Wiki articles, but an anon has recently inserted text saying that on a Queen song called Flash, there was a Bosendorfer. According to the article about the song called Flash, there was a Bosendorfer Imperial. SupaStarGirl 15:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sound and other comparisons

It would be great to read something about the distinctive sound of a Bosendorfer compared to other famous grand piano marques such as Steinway and Bechstein. I appreciate that it would be difficult to actually put the difference in to words but I would love to read it!

195.194.167.31 12:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Danfreedman did. It looked like an ad and I deleted it. SupaStarGirl 22:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is where opinions of attending public may differ from what the pianist feels, because sound perception is very subjective due to individual variations of the inner ear anatomy, various exposure and experience in perception of sound, level of musical education, and personal taste. I played quite a few Bosendorfers, their Imperial grands are very responsive, comfortable in control of every nuance and detail, well-balanced sound, mellow in treble, transparent in the middle, and deep in the bass. Modern Imperials are improved, but still mellower sounding pianos than Hamburg, or New York D-274. Imperials are very solid pianos, and are most meticulously built, as the flagship of the brand. Bosendorfers made in the early 20th century also sound much mellower than Steinways, or Bechsteins of the same vintage. They are not used for stage performances of major piano concertos with symphony orchestra, because Bosendorfers are less clear and less powerful on fortissimo than Steinways, and this is also true for most other pianos, none can perform like a D-274 on stage with a full orchestra. Unlike D-274, a Bosendorfer grand cannot be heard clearly through a full orchestral tutti, no matter how much power a pianist can strike. That's why many concert halls and top pianists use a D-274: [1] and [2]

Bosendorfer's people admitted in several conversations at the NAMM show, that even their best sounding piano still can not beat the Steinway D-274 acoustically on a concert stage, especially when played with a full symphony orchestra. Even a better 290 Imperial can not penetrate through the sound of a full orchestra on stage, albeit the same piano may have enough range and projection when played in a smaller room or a small recording studio. Microphones may also help to manipulate the volume, but then much of the live sound's beauty gets lost. People in some London studios told me that Bosendorfer grands made in the early 1930s were chosen by the BBC and some other studios because their softer sound was easier on the primitive microphones of that time. Eventually those Bosendorfers were retired a few decades later, after those pianos lost their crown and projection. On the contrary most Steinways have unlimited longevity, because of their rebuildability and high residual value they are in high demand, and Steinway provides a steady supply of original parts for rebuilding. A few rebuilt Bosendorfers I played sounded mellow in the treble, but unevenly balanced across the compass. Extra bass keys in 97 and 92 key models are practically useless, they make the piano bigger, but not always better.

Sviatoslav Richter described how he found himself agonizing several times trying to chose between a Steinway D-274 and a Bosendorfer to make his best performances and recordings. Two particular episodes are interesting. One was his recording in Paris where Richter had both pianos in perfect condition. Eventually he made many takes on both pianos alternating them day after day, and after his final listening and analyzing of all recorded takes he chose the Steinway. Another time he chose a Bosendorfer for his brilliant recording of Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier. In his later years he received a CFII from Yamaha with an accompanying technician on Yamaha's expense, but the tradeoff for Richter was the tinny sound of that CFII on his latest recordings. As his hearing deteriorated with age, he ignored the tinny sound, and continued using CFII, also because keyboard was adjusted very light and easy on his hands, so Richter continued playing in smaller halls, like at Moscow's Pushkin Museum of art, but he could not play any of his favorite piano concertos with a full symphony on a Yamaha, a fact causing him a severe depression in the end. On the contrary, Vladimir Horowitz made a wiser solution, he adjusted the action to fit the touch of his hands and kept meticulous maintenance of his Steinway, so he could continue playing the same piano for his entire career without agonizing about switching to other pianos. I played his Steinway at a show, it had a lighter action and was easy to control.

As Richter used to say: "Around the piano - either play or listen." His world was above the verbal realm, and he did not talk much about perceptions and subjective feelings, it was either a beautiful music, or no less beautiful silence. Words are always smaller than inner thoughts and creative imagination of a free mind. However, every piano is also an object of art, it is a thought provoking instrument that works on many levels through the quality of sound, performance, music selections, adequate audiences, right place and time, and other components contributing to a nice ambience. Even when he switched to a 9ft Yamaha for touring, he still practiced on his two Steinways at home in Moscow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveshelokhonov (talk • contribs) 06:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A comparative study done by a group of experts in Dallas addressed the problem that most pianos may sound well only in close proximity, but the beauty and power of sound fades with distance, and gradually loses quality with each row away from the piano in a concert hall, only a D-274 can deliver clear and powerful sound to every seat in a large hall, concluded experts at the Dallas study. A thousand people can not be placed close enough to a piano, so the sound can not be delivered to everyone with equal quality. Recording studios can play tricks with placing microphones very close to piano's soundboard, albeit a recorded sound is ALWAYS distorted and unnatural, like frozen food. Another truth is that a pianist can never hear the same sound as others around the same piano. So a pianist's judgement about the sound is not always the same as his listener's. Most importantly - comfort, playability, control, and responsiveness of a piano - that can be felt only by a performer. It takes hours of playing to get a thorough feel about a particular piano in such characteristics as dynamics and control, as well as fatigue and stress on the body, especially important in concerts with a full orchestra when a piano must deliver everything.

Victor Borge was a Bosendorfer pianist, but for a comedian known for his hilarious jokes the brand of his piano was less important musically, because he did not play serious piano concertos with orchestra. He called his Bosendorfer "a Rolls-Royce of pianos," which is probably true in relation to prices. Leif Ove Andsnes got himself a 225 Bosendorfer in the 1990s for practice at home; he also made some solo piano recordings on a Bosendorfer, albeit he still chose a Steinway for Rachmaninov's piano concertos with orchestras, such as with the St. Petersburg Philharmonic with Yuri Temirkanov, see [3], and [4], or his recordings with the Berliner Philharmonicker for EMI, just like Rachmaninov himself, who owned several New York and Hamburg Steinways D-274. A shining example of clarity and beauty of a Hamburg D-274, in spite of limitations of youtube, is this concert performance by Andsnes: [5]

A smaller size new Bosendorfer model 214 is a fine piano, it is designed to compete with the Steinway B 211, but sales oriented dealers do not display the two pianos together. For many reasons almost all piano makers are avoiding displaying their pianos next to a good Steinway. Some Bosendorfers made today can sound nice in small ensembles where the powerful projection is not needed. Oscar Peterson switched to Bosendorfer in his later years, albeit he could not surpass the level of his performances on D-274 in the 60s and 70s. 290 Imperials and 280 and 275 concert grands are sometimes used by opera houses, such as Sydney Opera, as well as by some smaller venues for chamber music and accompaniment for vocalists. A detailed comparative research was written by Larry Fine (pianos), it is available in his Piano book. Although pianists do not talk much about their reasons to chose this or that piano, average pianists do not have a choice and have to play any piano, regardless of discomfort and quality, while better pianists know that their choice of piano is important and shall be honored (like some people chose to deal with many different pairs of shoes, or dresses, or different cars, for different situations) 95% of major concert halls have a pair of Steinways, that should be ideally no older than 7 to 10 years, to keep the perfect crown to deliver the full beauty and power of sound, and for satisfaction of all sides - the players and their audiences. Steveshelokhonov 09:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Steve, I think the reason that showrooms around the world are avoiding putting their Post-WWII Steinways next to most any other piano is because they are generally inferior and not worth the inflated prices Steinway USA is insisting on charging. Many independent technicians, Larry Fine in his book included, agree now that American-made Steinways are generally inferior in both construction and tone quality to 1st-tier instruments such as Bosendorfer, Bechstein, Bluthner, Fazioloi, Shigeru Kawaii, etc. I for one, certainly think they don't sound nearly as good nor do they even have the same projection as the best Yamahas, which BTW are not at all my favorite instrument. Laguna greg (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This essay is very misleading, and sounds like an ad for Steinway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnstaf (talk • contribs) 12:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to remove the sound description from the first paragraph of this article, "Bösendorfer pianos are noted for their dark, full-bodied sound compared with other top models." Sound perception is such a subjective subject and I dread going there... But I don't believe "dark" or "full-bodied" are accurate assessments of most Bosendorfer pianos. It's dangerous to put a label to a stereotypical sound for any piano model because there are so many factors involved with each piano such as environment, tuning and voicing. Just my .02. NorCal Bosie (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur. It may be appropriate to note this elsewhere in the article, especially if we can cite a reference, but it definitely doesn't belong in the lead paragraph. (Your proposal probably should have its own section on this talk page, but I'm feeling lazy.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. Feel free to remove anything that is not sourced. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The sound is certainly distinctive. In my living room, I have an Imperial Grand sitting next to a Steinway D, and the differences are notable (and yes, my technician, Yoshi Nishimura, and I have discussed and adjusted voicings, etc.). I don't think discussing the sound of a piano is any more difficult than discussing the features of a bottle of wine - certainly difficult to put into words, but doable nonetheless. I'd be willing to do some work to improve what's there in the article now, or to move it, etc., but I think the sounds deserves a mention. I agree that the current description doesn't have the right words. Danfreedman (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be great for the article but must bear in mind the basic policies of no Original Research (can't be in your own words), Verifiability, Reliable sources. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. I think that might be difficult. I recognize and have respect for these policies. However, I believe the utility of the articles to readers is the ultimate standard by which any edit or addition should be judged. In other words, the dogma is ok, but pragmatism should win in a fight with dogmatism. With some work, hopefully there won't be a fight, but it will take longer to find credible references describing the sound quality. In the mean time, the question is ... would the article be more useful with less content? Danfreedman (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Giorgio

Several people, including Giorgio and Ferdinand Alexander Porsche have designed pianos for Bösendorfer.

Does this Giorgio person have a surname? If he's a famous enough designer, his wikilink should lead to an article, but it doesn't. Lontano 01:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

More on those low strings

Rather than referring you to a book, how about I describe a couple of simple experiments you can try yourself on any piano (ie: doesn't need to be a Bosendorfer or have extra keys):

First, to convince yourself that lower strings can resonate sympathetically when higher strings are sounded:

1) Gently push and hold down C below middle C all the way, but not hard enough to cause the hammer to hit the string. Keep this key pushed (don't release it). At this point, with this key held down, the piano is making no noise whatsoever.

2) Without releasing the key from step 1, strike and release the middle C key. Although you don't need to do this very loud, the louder you strike middle C, the more easily you will hear what comes next. Note, when I say "strike", I mean that you should cause the key's hammer to hit the middle C strings so that you hear the middle C note.

3) At this point, you are still holding down C below middle C, but you have released middle C. However, you will not only still hear the sound of the middle C note, but you should also be able to hear the sound of C below middle C. This sound is not coming from the middle C strings (which you can dampen with your hands if you wish to be sure). The sound is coming from the previously-silent C below middle C strings, which are resonating sympathetically.

Second, to convince yourself that the presence of low notes creates more sympathetic resonances right up the harmonic series, try the following. Once again, any piano will do:

A) Play an interval whose fundamental is present in the low end of the piano. For example, play the C above the lowest C on the piano, and at the same time play the G above that. For this interval, the lowest C on the piano is the fundamental. On any reasonable piano, this interval will sound fairly clean or crisp. Note that you are not playing the lowest C, or even holding it down. You're just playing the two notes of the interval. Now move down by a semitone and try again. Again, it should sound fine. Eventually, you'll work your way down to A and E. This should sound fine too. Now go down to A-flat and E-flat. You'll find that this sounds much less crisp. Note that this can be a bit tough to hear on a poor piano, since the low end is often very muffled anyway. But try it on a decent piano and it will be immediately obvious. Even on the Bosendorder, playing an interval where the fundamental is so low that it's off the keyboard results in a noticable muffling of the interval. Admittedly, it's so bloody low that it's harder to hear, but it's there.

I'm sorry I can't point you at an academic article for this, but I can tell you I first learned about it in college where I studied piano, and have found it useful information to have when composing for an ensemble. I'd appreciate it if you'd give it a try before deleting the information. I did come across a Wikipedia article on Sympathetic string which you may find interesting.

Danfreedman 09:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that sympathetic resonance causes strings that are undamped to sound, but strings have to be free to vibrate for that to occur. We're talking about notes that are not overtones and are not being pressed down. Your second to last paragraph is the only part that addresses this, but you only talk about muffling, not filling in notes. The reason I was taught intervals sound muddier the lower one goes is because of overtones and critical bandwiths in the brain. I don't see why A and E sound good if they don't have their fundamental. But even if what you say were true, how could a piano tell the difference between G7 and Db7 if I just play F B and E? How could it know which tonic I want to hear and subtly fill in that one? Or do we get a nice tritone down in the bass because it's confused? How about if I play C E and G. Am I playing C major or Am7? Or Fmaj7? A piano cannot tell what chord you are playing, especially if you are leaving out the tonic. Even if all the bass notes were undamped and free to vibrate, the missing tonic would be the least likely to be emerge from these depths. Where did Oscar Peterson and Tori Amos say that this is the reason why they choose the Bosendorfer Imperial? -Bob

More on missing fundamentals

Hi Bob

Sorry if it sounded like I was saying the piano "knew" which fundamental you wanted to hear. It was not my intention to imply that. You are correct when you say that the piano will resonate at all of the fundamentals for the interval or chords being played. You ask why A and E sound good. The reason is that the fundamental for that A and E is still present on the piano (ie: the lowest note on a normal piano is A). Going below that (for example to A-flat and E-flat) takes you into territory where the fundamental note is no longer present -- except in those few pianos (including for example the Bosendorfer Imperial Grand) where additional strings are present, and therefore able to resonate). Even on the Bosie, eventually you run out of strings, and mud results.

You also ask about G7 and Db7 if you just play F, B, and E. In fact, these two chords are often substituted for one another in jazz because they sound so similar. So, a chord progression of Dm-G7-C is often played Dm-Db7-C in jazz. If the tonic is omitted (for exmaple if you play these notes: E/C/A/F for Dm, E/B/Ab/F for Db7, D/B/G/E for C) you get a nice progression. If you happen to be holding the damper pedal down while playing these harmonies (but release the pedal between each chord), you can do a similar experiment to the one in my previous posting: having played the chord, silently press one of the fundamental notes for _any_ of the intervals being played (doesn't matter which one - they'll all sound since you're right in saying the piano doesn't "know" which one to sound). Then while holding the silently-played fundamental, release the damper pedal. You'll hear that the fundamental note is still ringing. If you do this with other (non-fundamental) notes, you'll hear that they do not ring (unless they are notes elsewhere in the harmonic series of the intervals being played).

Truly, it helps to sit at a piano and try it.

Note that this is a completely separate effect from the case where the brain fills in a missing fundamental. In what I'm talking about, the strings actually do resonate.

Danfreedman 17:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My mistake on the A and E thing, I am embarrassed to say I momentarily forgot what the lowest note on the piano was and was thinking of it as C. But I don't see how your experiment has any practical application in performance. You said that the strings help fill in missing tonics. If the pedal is down, all possible tonics will "sound" equally, which is not desirable. So how does this work, does the player silently depress the tonics he wants reinforced within the context of a song? That seems to be the only way they will vibrate. -Bob

Well, this actually is desirable. Note that you are correct when you say that all possible tonics will sound. The word "possible" here means those related to the intervals being played while the damper pedal is being held down. However, they don't all play at the same intensity. I am not sure what the mathematical relationship is, but I can tell you that in terms of the harmonic series, the further away from the tonic that an interval is, the quieter it will sound. So, if you play a C7 chord (C, E, G, Bb), you'll get the following. The C and G are the first and second harmonics of the C one octive below the chord. So, that lower C will be the loudest. The C and E are the 3rd and 4th harmonics of the C two octives below the chord. That note will resonate but quieter (try it with the "silent" method I mention above if you like). The E and G are the 4th and 5th harmonics of that same C (two octives down), but cause it to resonate quite a small amount. The G and Bb are the 5th and 6th harmonics of that same C (two octives down), and once again add a little to its resonance. The E and Bb aren't themselves on the harmonic series of any tonic, however, their own overtones are. But these overtones are so far up the harmonic series that any resulting resonance of their tonic is very small indeed, perhaps not even enough to be audible. The C and Bb are also not on the same series, but the first overtone of the Bb (ie: the Bb up one octive from that being played) is on the same harmonic series as the C being played, and the tonic is the C below the C being played, so once again there's a little bit of reinforcement for that lower C.

I may have missed a couple, but as you can see, virtually all of the harmonic relationships between these notes result in resonance of the C one or two octives below the C being played. Yes, there are other resonances occurring too, but the intervals involved in those resonances are a long way up the harmonic series, and therefore don't contribute much in the way of resonance back to their tonics.

I have always found this to be a fascinating subject, so am happy to continue talking it through. Have you had a chance to actually try this out at a piano yet? It's the ultimate convincer.

Liszt, Bechstein, and Bosendorfer

At the moment we claim that Liszt said only Bechstein and Bosendorfer could withstand his vigorous playing. Unfortunately the written records seems to contradict this: Liszt wrote to Steinway to tell them that he was rewriting two of his works to accommodate their new piano, and wrote again to say "Your new grand is a glorious masterpiece in power, sonority, singing quality, and perfect harmonic effect". (Source Susan Goldenberg, "Steinway & Sons: From Glory to Controversy", p. 31 -- a far from positive book about Steinway). Liszt was also enormously fond of other pianos, like the Chickering. I think we either need to find a quotation from Liszt to confirm the present entry, or consider deleting the passage altogether. Alexrexpvt 00:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed, until reference can be added: One of the earliest and most important artists to be associated with Bösendorfer was Franz Liszt, who found that their pianos and those of the Bechstein company were the only instruments capable of withstanding his tremendously powerful playing. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Found ref - added back in. Appreciate your input. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The name's interesting

Bösendorfer means "Evil Village" in German. Which is interesting, and where the word "village" stems from is even more interesting.71.37.21.160 21:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm... what?!? "Bösendorfer" means "someone or something from Bösendorf". "Bösendorf" would either mean "evil village" or "village of evil or angry people". Most likely it's an old placename, but I couldn't find any mention in modern maps. As for "village" being "interesting"? Huh? Lots of places in the German speaking world have "dorf" in the name. -- 92.104.215.72 (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Unverified claims

Classical music typically does not omit the tonic note (at least not for very long), and so derives a smaller advantage, if any, from these extra strings. Removed: As a result of this acoustic behavior, many jazz pianists such as Oscar Peterson and artists in the pop genre such as Tori Amos have chosen the Bösendorfer for this reason, while it has not distinguished itself nearly as much in the classical world.

Oscar Peterson's article does not mention the Bosendorfer, and while the reference provided for Tori Amos does substantiate that she uses the Bosendorfer, it does not support the claim that she chose this piano "as a result of this acoustic behavior". The artists listed known to have used the Bosendorfer mention this piano and link to this article. Therefore, Amos was added but Peterson was not. If a reference can be provided for Peterson, please add him back in. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Other concerns

Quoting from the article:

Music written to include rich harmonic colorations, such as bebop, is often written in such a way that the player plays the upper parts of a musical chord's harmonic series (3rds, 6ths, 7ths, 9ths, 11ths, and 13ths, for example) without playing the tonic note of that chord. In these cases, it is up to the listener's ear to "replace" the missing tonic, revealing the chord's basis. However, the Bösendorfer's additional strings generate - albeit at low volume - the tonic by vibrating sympathetically with the played notes, contributing further to the fullness of the sound.

That is incorrect as far as I understand it . If you have a 20 hz string and you play 80 hz and 100 hz, it will stimulate the 80 and 100 hz harmonics of the 20 hz string, but nothing will vibrate at 20 hz. (Unless there was some sort of nonlinear mechanism perhaps?) If the extra strings are just sitting there, you should get extra resonance with some of the notes you play, but no new frequencies.

I'd be suprised if a piano was even capable of radiating sound at the fundamentals of the low strings anyway. --Howdybob (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

References

For Howdybob

Hi Howdybob

About the resonance thing (where playing a note causes the string an octive down to radiate at its own fundamental frequency). This does indeed happen, and I would encourage you to sit down at a (non-electric) piano (doesn't need to be a Bosendorfer) and try it out. Danfreedman (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Friedrich Wührer, Bösendorfer User?

Friedrich Wührer spielte auf seinem eigenen BECHSTEIN , den er auch in die Konzertsääle mitnahm ! Does anyone out there know whether Friedrich Wührer habitually played Bösendorfer pianos? Given that he was Viennese and that he achieved that unusually deep, rich left hand sound in so many of his recordings (sometimes at the cost of a certain lack of animation), I've often suspected that he did, but I've seen no documentation on the issue. As the originator of the English Wikipedia article on this artist, I'd love to be able to add that detail if true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drhoehl (talk • contribs) 00:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference Required for Awadagin Pratt, Bösendorfer User--Why Not Others?

I see that my contribution naming Pratt as having recorded on the instrument was stricken for want of a reference. Sorry if I transgressed; for all that I've been actively contributing to Wikipedia here and there for some time, I still would not claim to be other than a neophyte. Nonetheless, I'm somewhat perplexed. Reviewing the references cited, most of which go to the Bösendorfer company site, against other artists listed in the same section of the article, I find confirmation some have played, or at least owned, Bösendorfer pianos, but, unless I missed something, several (Brian, Joseph, Rübsam, o'Connor, and May and Mercury) are nowhere to be seen. (I'll leave aside that the names listed in the article are by no means all as distinguished as some omitted there but appearing in the references!) Perhaps more to the point, I also see nothing to substantiate the claim that Bösendorfers figured in the albums "Punch the Clock" or "Up," although Peter Gabriel's name did appear in a referenced site. So why is specific annotation required for the Pratt album, a classical album, which is the context in which I suspect most pianophiles would expect to find a Bösendorfer, but not the pop ones? For what it's worth, I own the Pratt CD in question, and its booklet makes quite clear that Pratt recorded it on an Imperial.

By the by, for the record, while I have heard Pratt in concert with much enjoyment, I'm not trying to plug his Bösendorfer recording. I remember his live "Pictures," in particular, as far more compelling than the rather heavy account on the CD. I added the reference because I thought it would be useful in pointing to a specific, readily accessible recording of the piano in large-scale mainstream literature for those who want to hear its unique voice. Drhoehl (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I removed it, I do think Pratt's addition is perfect for this article. I researched the people/articles listed in that section and they at least mention and link to this Bosendorder article, where Pratt's did not. But, you have solid album notes which is perfect reference and so this fact can be added to Pratt's article and to this one. Please see Template:Cite album-notes and add this information back in. Thank you for your contributions. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and for restoring the passage. I'm not quite sure how to incorporate a template (as noted, I'm still pretty new at this game), but, my own disc now being copied to my music server and placed into somewhat inaccessible storage for safekeeping, I dug out the title and catalogue info from Amazon and added it to the article manually. Oh, and I should add to my comments above that while I wasn't entirely sold on Pratt's "Pictures" recording, I think his Bach transcription is quite impressive and really shows off what the Bösendorfer can do. Drhoehl (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions I Don't Know How to Answer

I just gave the article a bit of an overhaul and spotted a couple of issues I don't know how to resolve (and don't have time to research just now). First, is the outgoing Austrian owner BAWAG or BAWG? Both spellings appeared in the article before my revisions. Second, the article describes Bösendorfer as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Yamaha, but it also indicates that consummation of the sale will likely take place in 2008. Is the first statement presently true in light of the second? Drhoehl (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work! It's BAWAG. In 2002, Kimball sold Bösendorfer to the BAWAG-P.S.K. Group (Austria's third largest banking group). However, in 2006, BAWAG was bought by Cerberus Capital in Dec. 2006 [6]. The Yamaha takeover was completed on January 22, 2008 [7]. I believe Bösendorfer was sold to Yamaha and is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of Yamaha. Will need to look into this further. Yamaha has stated they would keep Bösendorofer production and headquarters in Austria. Hope this helps... NorCal Bosie (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the enlightenment! Good to know, too, that Yamaha plans to take a hands-off approach, although I wonder what the life expectancy of Bösendorfer's home-grown reproducing system will be now that the company belongs to the developer of the DisKlavier, or however you spell the thing. Drhoehl (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sound Characteristics of Bösendorfer

Moved sound characteristics discussion to a new section.NorCal Bosie (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to remove the sound description from the first paragraph of this article, "Bösendorfer pianos are noted for their dark, full-bodied sound compared with other top models." Sound perception is such a subjective subject and I dread going there... But I don't believe "dark" or "full-bodied" are accurate assessments of most Bosendorfer pianos. It's dangerous to put a label to a stereotypical sound for any piano model because there are so many factors involved with each piano such as environment, tuning and voicing. Just my .02. NorCal Bosie (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur. It may be appropriate to note this elsewhere in the article, especially if we can cite a reference, but it definitely doesn't belong in the lead paragraph. (Your proposal probably should have its own section on this talk page, but I'm feeling lazy.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. Feel free to remove anything that is not sourced. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The sound is certainly distinctive. In my living room, I have an Imperial Grand sitting next to a Steinway D, and the differences are notable (and yes, my technician, Yoshi Nishimura, and I have discussed and adjusted voicings, etc.). I don't think discussing the sound of a piano is any more difficult than discussing the features of a bottle of wine - certainly difficult to put into words, but doable nonetheless. I'd be willing to do some work to improve what's there in the article now, or to move it, etc., but I think the sounds deserves a mention. I agree that the current description doesn't have the right words. Danfreedman (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be great for the article but must bear in mind the basic policies of no Original Research (can't be in your own words), Verifiability, Reliable sources. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. I think that might be difficult. I recognize and have respect for these policies. However, I believe the utility of the articles to readers is the ultimate standard by which any edit or addition should be judged. In other words, the dogma is ok, but pragmatism should win in a fight with dogmatism. With some work, hopefully there won't be a fight, but it will take longer to find credible references describing the sound quality. In the mean time, the question is ... would the article be more useful with less content? Danfreedman (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I checked out a few other Wikipedia piano entries (Fazioli, Bechstein, C. and Steinway) and didn't see any reference to sound characteristics. I wish there was a way to describe the special sound of a Bösendorfer in a Wikipedia entry, but seems problemmatic. It should be pointed out in this article that Bösendorfers are one of the few pianos (except Fazioli) that are still mostly built by hand. Perhaps a reference could be found (from a piano tech manual? other sources?) that tied together high-quality construction details with its specific sound characteristics (just brainstorming here, OK?). NorCal Bosie (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a useful link for anyone interested in a "blind taste test" of sound. There are six piano models of three manufacturers (Bösendorfer, Steingraeber, Steinway & Sons). I don't have any affiliation with Hurstwood Farms Pianos. I'm simply sharing something that might be helpful in describing a Bösendorfer's sound. http://www.hurstwoodfarmpianos.co.uk/listeningzone.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorCal Bosie (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the recordings

Another user is deleting the section on recordings in its entirety, without discussion, citing "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and a broad claim of lack of references. Please permit me to offer a case for retention, at least in part. First, "indiscriminate collection" is not, by its own terms, directly applicable; it enjoins against including plot summaries, lyrics databases, long and sprawling lists of statistics, and news reports--none of which is a relatively compact listing of recordings illustrating use of a somewhat exotic musical instrument that is the subject of the article in which the listing appears. Second, the deleting editor also takes issue with a lack of references. That problem is true of most entries in the popular section but of only one or two in the classical section, suggesting that tarring both sections with that brush is excessive; if unreferenced entries are the problem, the solution is not to delete the referenced entries along with them. Moreover, at least some of the classical entries illustrate features unique to the Bösendorfer, as with the Beethoven sonata cycle recorded with assistance of its proprietary computer playback system, while others point to the piano's involvement in recordings/performances of historical significance. Again, if the problem is a listing with less significant entries, the solution is judicious paring, not wholesale deletion.

OK, that's my view. I would suggest that discussion is in order. Meanwhile, I have again restored the section to preserve its content pending development of a consensus among contributing editors. Drhoehl (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Recordings section

I just deleted the recordings section. How many people showing up to play how many pieces on how many pianos will be enough? These lists adds very little, if anything, to the article. Influential events should be discussed in terms of their effect, not simply listed as having happened. Everything else should be deleted as trivial.

The section is deleted. None of these bullet points imparts any encyclopedic information about Bösendorfer; this is largely promotional.

See also Talk:Steinway & Sons#Pop culture section and [8] about a completely similar problem. Fanoftheworld (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. The difference between the friction over at Steinway and the section here is that the Steinway one was unfocused. At WP:TRIVIA, it says A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. The section over at Steinway was a bunch of random live performances and piano appearances, ones in which a piano was featured, and ones in which it was a triviality, with little importance.

Here, the list is focused solely on Bösendorfer recordings. At WP:TRIVIA it says However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information. I see this difference as strong enough to restore the Recordings section. Binksternet (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the second attempt by this user to delete the recordings without first seeking consensus (see the entry immediately above), although at least this time he served notice on the talk page. As I noted the first time, I see value in retaining the lists; thanks for restoring them. That said, even then they seemed in danger of beginning to sprawl a bit, and of course since then they've only grown larger. Might some careful sifting be a good idea? I can't speak to the popular examples, but in the classical list I can say that I added the Bruno Canino entry when the list was much shorter. Today, I'd probably think twice, because we now have other recordings that go beyond a mere "X played something on a Bosendorfer," including multiple "composer's complete piano music" boxes and the Silverman Beethoven cycle taking advantage of the reproducing system. I'd say the two uncredited Demus recordings raise similar issues. The Lousier is a compendium disc, and here I'd think we might prefer to list one or more of the originals from which it draws. Anyone have other thoughts about what should stay and what, if anything, should go? Drhoehl (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you have the issue well in hand. I defer to your judgment. I will be taking this page off of my watchlist. Ciao! Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Acting on our above discussion, I've removed a few classical recordings: the Bruno Canino; two by Jorg Demus on a minor European label; the Jacques Lousier for the reasons noted above; and the Andras Schiff, as one volume from a cycle doesn't make sense unless the others do not feature a Bösendorfer, in which case the entry should so state. I'd welcome new entries for the last two artists if they can be adjusted to offer information beyond individual outtakes from larger bodies of work. Drhoehl (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Brendel photo

I'm wondering if maybe we should do away with the photo of Brendel. He is not mentioned anywhere in the article as especially associated with Bösendorfer, and, at least on my monitor, it takes some pretty close inspection to determine that the piano is a Bösendorfer at all; that label on the side just doesn't show up very well. Moreover, frankly, the photo looks like a piano that has sprouted a head and hands, or maybe a guy with a piano for a body. Alternatively, if Brendel does have an association with Bösendorfer justifying retention of the photo, the article should be revised to put that information adjacent to it. Thoughts, anyone? Drhoehl (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

@Drhoehl 2400:2653:E240:B000:A16C:B543:D346:372C (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bösendorfer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111181650/http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/model-290-imperial.html to http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/model-290-imperial.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bösendorfer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312070603/http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/ceus-reproducing-system.html to http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/ceus-reproducing-system.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111210247/http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/limited-edition.html to http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/limited-edition.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070306062730/http://home.earthlink.net/~marnest/remarkrosen.html to http://home.earthlink.net/~marnest/remarkrosen.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bösendorfer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407030042/http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/special-models.html to http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/special-models.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110103224248/http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/archived-news.html?page=1453 to http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/archived-news.html?page=1453
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140830003549/http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/archived-news.html?page=3023 to http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/archived-news.html?page=3023
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230235033/http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/boesendorfer-owners.html to http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/boesendorfer-owners.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/archived-news.html?page=8051

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Problem with timeline

The following has a problem with the timeline: "After the release of the Microsoft Windows v3.1 operating system, the 290SE could be attached to a PC computer for recording, editing, and playback. The 290SE system was the first commercially available computer-controlled "player piano" capable of accurately reproducing both the notes and intensity of a performer's playing. Unfortunately this system was not further developed or patented due to its high cost. Competitors soon introduced patented reproducing piano technologies such as the Yamaha Disklavier in 1982"

Windows 3.1 was introduced c1990. The Yamaha Disklavier could not have come after it if the date is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwy47 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)