Nathanael Iversen
Pursuing Musical Excellence
Living in a Box?
6 years
Although I first saw their work in a magazine in 2018, I recently re-discovered the work of architects Luke Ogrydziak and Zoë Prillinger. Together, they form the San Francisco based firm OPA. They have an advanced, geometrical understanding of space, and are clearly taken with patterns that emerge from seeing space from multiple angles, and using both repeating and unique mathematical structures to enclose space. Their houses all have very interesting angles and shapes. Their stand-alone homes fit into their environment in a way that eclipses even what Frank Lloyd Wright did with famous homes like “Falling Water”. Consider their “Dune House“.
I find their work immediately interesting and challenging. It confronts me with the simple fact that I have lived my entire life in boxes. I live and work in a set of nested boxes, and even when I travel, all the hotel rooms are nested boxes. And yet, there is nothing about a box that is uniquely suited to housing humans. There is no inherent “rightness” or “morality” to 90 degree angles vs. others. Building boxes may be more convenient, and therefore less expensive. But their work confronts me with the obvious notion that other shapes are possible.
This leads to the thought that if other shapes are possible, are they preferable? I don’t know what it is like to live in a triangle, or a cone, for example. But I have been in a geodesic dome – they are visually interesting, but have very undesirable acoustic properties. Boxes are familiar, but it is completely believable that other shapes could be better. It might also be the case that different shapes optimize different human activities, which seems quite reasonable on the face of it. Nature is wildly diverse, and yet our spaces are not so. It is certain that living in other shapes would feel different in some way. After a life lived in various sized rectangles, more complex shapes would feel different and that might well be welcome, once past the initial unfamiliarity.
We humans have a fairly well understood physical envelope. Our height, weight, arm span, stride distance, peripheral vision, visual acuity, hearing range, etc are all well characterized and exist inside predictable ranges. And yet, this does not by itself suggest how to best enclose and shape the spaces that we inhabit. What I do notice in modern, architect-designed luxury homes, is that although they are predominantly intersecting and stacked boxes, the enclosed spaces are large enough that the box is not as apparent. It is almost as if open floor plans and angled interior walls are there to obscure the typically box-shaped shells. But creating spaciousness or intimacy has as much to do with the limits of our senses (like peripheral vision) as it does with the shape of the shell. OPA seem to have taken this observation much closer to its logical conclusion. Indeed, why have a box at all? All the design goals related to human factors can be met with other shapes and arrangements,and perhaps even better optimized.
Nature has a complex relationship with symmetry and scale. A forest is regular at a distance, and trees have a self-similarity in the same species. But up close, each trunk and branch is unique. Similar, yes, but the symmetry breaks down into localized, chaotic complexity. We find this beautiful. There is the familiarity of seeing a “tree”, but the visual interest of the infinite complexity of each living, ever changing branch and leaf maintains our attention much more than man-made identical symmetry. I find OPA’s work interesting because it plays with notions of scale, symmetry, complexity, and perspective. In the developed world, we all understand rectangular perspective well, spending much of our lives in stacked and adjoining boxes of various kinds. But OPA’s work offers a different vantage point. There are regular principles of geometry at work – the structures are not random. And yet, they are not perfectly symmetrical either. Regular and ordered, yes, but not symmetrical. Nature is like that. Their spaces sustain more visual interest due to the extra surfaces and perspectives generated from various points inside the spaces. Often, the internal architectural forms and geometrical large-scale similarity opens directly on the biological complexity we still do not have access to in our building materials. Consider this view from “Shapeshifter”.
We are still not close to being able to create the diverse, ordered complexity of the natural world in our man-made structures. Until we can “grow” a house or an office, this will remain elusive. But I do think that OPA’s work provides a richer and more engaging experience than the nested boxes that dominate our lives. These homes offer a more complex vision of regularity, and higher-order concepts of what it means to organize space. Our modern understanding of geometry reveals many interesting and beautiful ways to explore regularity, complexity, symmetry, and variation simultaneously. OPA seems intent on exploring this in a residential context. We are surrounded by complex algorithms whether biological or man-made, and so why not explore them? Additionally, in our modern world, we regularly need to see issues, ourselves, and our communities from multiple perspectives. The truth is more multifaceted and brilliant than we often understand on casual examination. Living in a space such as the one shown above more than suggests these ideas. Consider how just repositioning oneself in the room shown above changes one’s understanding. Do we not regularly need to do this in our own lives? Can architecture be a reflection of our own need for self-examination, or seeing beyond our limited experiences and beliefs?
Homes like these are uncommon. It would be easy to believe that it is due simply to cost, but a drive through any exclusive subdivision of individual, architect-designed homes will demonstrate that there are many more equally expensive conventional homes. It might also be explainable through a lens of tradition vs. avant-garde, but I find this lacking. Certainly these homes are radical in comparison with average. But if explored as an expression of ideas and ideals, these architectural innovations merely move us closer to expressing in buildings what we know to be true in our rich inner and outer experience.
The human experience is neither traditional, nor avant-garde, it merely exists. We struggle for meaning, acceptance, place, purpose, and more. At all ages of time, we have been surrounded by nature and what it teaches us, and yet, we have been incapable of designing anything with that kind of intricacy, interest and beauty. Work like this expands the envelope of the possible to encompass a broader expression of our human experience. And ideas like that are timeless. We will have no choice but to express ourselves through the limitations of our own experience and learned history. But the ideas contained in this work are timeless, and so, I find it most likely that these homes reflect a commitment and alignment of thought that are often not connected to merely functional views of one’s home. Home is supposed to be safe. Familiar feels safe. So should home therefore be familiar in a traditional way? This is our unstated status-quo. It is how things “are done”. But why? Couldn’t something be safe, welcoming, and many other things while also speaking to deeper meaning? I think so, and apparently one can indeed express many things on a canvas as large as a home.
This architectural work is more complex than a tract suburban home. But everyone living in that suburban neighborhood is actually far more complex and interesting than the house they inhabit, or any they can inhabit. OPA’s homes exploit that tension by moving our expectation of the possible further towards our true complex, nuanced identity and further from our basic membership in the human race. We can only partly express our humanity in any work of art. Architecture says one part, music another, poetry yet another and on it goes through all the many expressions of human art and genius that we know. But, the work of Mr. Ogrydziak and Ms. Prillinger provides a clear statement that more is possible. We don’t have to live in boxes. We can reflect a more nuanced, thoughtful, complex and yet still beautifully ordered understanding of our humanity in the spaces we inhabit. We can do our best work as humans, and still integrate into the natural world. We can mix our best work and that of nature in a stunning expression of fresh possibility. This is a world I want to live in.
I still live in a set of nested boxes. But I can’t avoid the questions raised by their work. What would it be like to NOT live in a box? What shape should I live in given who I am, am becoming, and am challenged to be? These are worthy thoughts, and I am glad to have been challenged by their art to take a more considered view of my life and how I live it. Clearly more is possible if I question my previously untested assumptions and see the world from the vantage point that Mr. Ogrydziak and Ms. Prillinger provide through their art. As a musician, I think of art as something I make for others to experience, but their work opens the door to thinking about where I live as art for me to experience. It asks if I would elevate my understanding of home to expressing much larger ideas than shelter and safety, or even bigger ideas than beauty, luxury, or style. It is an alluring invitation, and reminds me that I want to be the kind of person for whom living in boxes doesn’t make sense, and for whom complex and nuanced expression is truly home. Bravo and well done!
A Listening Tour of World-Class Pianos & Construction techniques
7 years
by Nathanael Iversen
in Piano
There has never been a better time to be a pianist and to love acoustic pianos. While sales have fallen off dramatically from their peak one hundred years ago here in the USA, manufacture has never been of higher quality at the high-end of the market. Manufacturers have adopted CNC and other technologies in the places that it can do the most good and kept the human touch and ear in all the places that it matters. The result is pianos of exceptional execution from makers both small and large. And while the piano is definitely a “factory” instrument, in a way that the violin often isn’t, there are new small manufacturers turning out pianos of the highest caliber, and even pushing the boundaries that have defined the instrument for since the late 1890s.
Wayne Stuart and Stephen Paulello both make pianos with 102 keys, and a host of other innovations including special piano wire, bridge agraffes instead of bridge pins, frames with reduced or eliminated frame bars, extra pedals and more. Stuart & Sons recently completed the world’s first 108 key piano – one note short of 9 octaves! This stunning technical achievement adds almost two octaves of notes to a traditional 88 note instrument. But it isn’t just about keys. Both the Paulello and Stuart & Sons instruments have engineered their pianos so that there is greatly reduced downforce on the soundboard, and they have reduced or eliminated the frame bars on the plate. These changes, along with others, cause these pianos to project and resonate in a way that traditional pianos simply can’t.
Others have written at length about why this is so, and my purpose here is not to explain the engineering that others, including the manufacturers have done. All these are pianos, and internationally known artists play piano music on them, affording us the best possible way to evaluate these instruments – listening.
The best part is that we can all participate by listening to recordings of an identical work performed on a variety of pianos! I will offer no conclusions about what you should buy or prefer as every piano used for these recordings is a “dream piano” for someone. But they are also all clearly different in their harmonic structure, resonance, treble and bass tone, and more. Obviously this essay cannot say anything about the finger-to-sound connection and what they are like to play, though I have played examples of several of these instruments. We will confine our interest to that which can be clearly audible in easily available recordings.
Beethoven’s piano sonatas are rightly renown in the piano literature. They cover a wide range of emotions, range of pitches, volumes, tempos, and techniques. They do not use modern techniques of directly plucking, rubbing or manipulating the strings, but if can be done with keys, these Sonatas certainly exercise a wide range of possibilities. Their popularity with recording artists leaves us in the happy place of being able to compare several performances of the same work on different pianos.
In this case, we will be listening to Beethoven’s Opus 31 No.2, his 17th sonata nicknamed “The Tempest”. This piece is perfect for auditioning pianos, and recordings of this piece are available for Steinway, Bosendorfer, Fazioli, Stuart & Sons, and Stephen Paulello instruments – all professionally recorded with well-known and respected artists playing.
Of course, the pianists differ from recording to recording and performance to performance. But due to the high quality of each of these performances and recordings, you will not have to worry about performance quality, and the recorded tonal quality of each piano is immediately distinguishable. We cannot speak to the visceral playing experience of each, but the recorded tone will still provide rich insight. Let’s meet the pianos, pianists, and recordings that provide us this opportunity.
Stephan Paulello 102 key piano – David Bismuth – Beethoven et ses Maitres
Stuart & Sons 102 key piano – Gerard Wilhelm – Beethoven: Complete Piano Sonatas Vol. 2
Fazioli – Angela Hewitt – Beethoven Piano Sonatas Vol 7.
Bosendorfer – Andreas Schiff – Ludwig Von Beethoven The Piano Sonatas Volume V
Steinway – Helene Grimaud – DG 120 – Concertos 2 (1994-2016)
Of course, there are many other fine pianos that are not represented in this list that are as rare, valuable and for some, even preferable to these. But this list allows us to observe the newest and most technically innovative pianos available against several pianos which historically command high regard on international concert stages. These are well-known pianos that can be auditioned in many major cities in the first world. And yes, all are expensive in absolute currency, but that cannot be helped and is outside our scope. These pianos are typically purchased by institutions for concert stages, though some sacrifice to have these at home or in a studio.
All of these recordings are available for purchase through Amazon or other retailers. All but the Angela Hewitt recording are also available on Spotify (links above), and the differences we are interested can be easily discerned using the “high-quality streaming” option available in the “Preferences”.
So, for this piano listening exercise, I would recommend focusing on each of these areas in a separate session. Listen for treble tone, or resonance, etc to the exclusion of all else. Listen to whole movements, and isolate portions that particularly demonstrate the trait under consideration. Because the timings are broadly similar in each of these performances, it will be easy to move back and forth between passages. You will no doubt have preferences, perhaps even immediate that will not change with further listening, but that is not the point of this exercise. Focus on each of the following characteristics and learn to distinguish the pianos by them. Then consider how the characteristics and strengths of each instrument apply to this work and others that you may be familiar with. In this way, you will develop more than a preference, and an appreciation for piano tone and why certain instruments may be favored for certain pieces, genres, or musical situations.
Pianists are often used to just using whatever is available since the instruments are hardly portable in the way that a guitar moves easily. But, when we chose instruments for our home, studio, or even a piano sample for digital production, we can make tonal choices that suit ourselves and the situation.
Here’s what to listen for:
Resonance – How long do notes sustain? Does the tone quality stay constant, or does it shift or degrade over time? How much “air” is around the notes, particularly in the high treble where there are no dampers? With the pedal up and down? This piano sonata is a perfect test case for this, as it opens with long ringing chords and slow single notes with the pedal down. Clear differences exist in the first 60 seconds of the first movement. Listen to the “space” around the note – that’s the resonance at work.
Treble Tone – Are the highest notes clear like a bell? Metallic or crystalline? Listen to softly played notes and loudly played notes. Does the tone quality shift? how? Does the tone ever get “hard” or piercing? Do high treble melodies sing out over the instrument? What kind of work would these characteristics be good or bad for?
Bass Tone – As lines descend into the low bass, what happens to the tone? Does it get dark and mysterious? Does the fundamental disappear into a low growl or bark? How well do bass melodies carry against the rest of the instrument? Does it sound like a separate register of the instrument, or is it a fully integrated sound that gradually just gets lower? Where would you want to use these qualities?
Mid-Bass Clarity – In the octave and a half under middle-C, many pianos can be muddy with close voiced chords. It is the simple physics of the strings getting thicker and producing more harmonics. These cloud the fundamental and can clash with each other due to the inharmonicity of the metal strings. There are exposed passages in this sonata that clearly isolate these areas and distinct differences exist in how harmonies in these areas sound. Some of these pianos are rich and full, some have more or less harmonics, some lose clarity, and others display a shocking level of clarity, setting new standards for the instrument. Again, beyond personal preference, what could you do with an instrument with exceptional mid-bass clarity? When would a darker, and less clear rendition work well?
Harmonic Complexity – What is the balance between fundamental and harmonics in the core tone of the piano? All of these pianos have a clearly recognizable piano tone and fall well within norms for the instrument. But they are also clearly different. A sound with more harmonics in the treble will be brighter, and may have a slightly “metallic” sound. You may also be able to hear the harmonics beat against each other in slow sections giving chords a spicy pungency. In the midrange, its more of an ‘edge” or “forward quality” to the sound, and again, you may hear the tangy rub of harmonics against each other on held chords. In the bass, harmonics cause the sound to “growl”, or to be “dark and mysterious”. One of these pianos has this character as its calling-card and is justly famous for it. A piano with less harmonics in the bass will have less “growl”,but the notes will be distinct and clear instead of just a “low tone”. All of these pianos will thunder when pushed, but ascertain the degree to which they do and what happens when they are pushed.
There are other things you will pick up from doing this exercise, but completing this amount of listening will easily delineate each of these instruments along reasonably objective lines. We all hear slightly differently, and will all have different preferences.
If you actually completed the listening, congratulations, you are a true piano-loving geek also! I spent several hours across a full week listening and re-listening. I used $100 typical studio headphones as well as high-quality studio monitors. I had no trouble in distinguishing the character of these instruments using either method.
Of interest to those fully participating in this exercise, the new construction techniques used by Stuart and Sons and Stephen Paulello can be directly evaluated.
The Stuart and Sons piano has a cross-strung bass. This means the bass strings angle over the mid-bass strings, and it should look familiar, as this is the standard arrangement. The Paulello instrument, however, his Opus 102, has two significant innovations. First, the strings are parallel – they are not cross-strung. Second, he has eliminated the frame bars that tie the plate by the pinblock to the plate by the rim. Most pianos have four or more of these braces – my Kawai RX-7 has four. If you watch this video carefully, you can see that the piano Mr. Bismuth plays doesn’t have them. The claim is that this improves the tone at “the break” since there isn’t one anymore!
The claim made for cross-stringing is that it makes the mid-bass more complex and adds harmonics. The claim for straight-stringing is that it improves mid-bass clarity and provides a more consistent transition between ranges. Can you corroborate these assertions from your listening tests? The Paulello is the only straight-strung instrument in this comparison, so comparisons with it and the Stuart and Sons are especially interesting and fruitful since they share so many other design similarities.
Both the Stuart and Sons and Paulello instruments eschew bridge pins for terminating the speaking length of the string on the bridge. Pictures of their bridge agraffes are on their respective sites, and while different, both have the effect of eliminating down-bearing pressure on the soundboard. The “crown” and “down bearing” feature prominently in traditional piano advertising, along with devices to ensure that despite the enormous pressure exerted, the soundboard will still retain its crown and vibrate well. The claim made for using agraffes and eliminating down-bearing is that sustain will increase dramatically, and that harmonics will be much more clear since the wood can vibrate more freely. Do your listening notes match this assertion? Do the Paulello and Stuart and Sons piano resonate more freely than their traditionally constructed counterparts?
Both the Stuart and Sons and Paulello instruments use Stephan Paulellos’s “XM” piano wire. It is nickel coated, eliminating any concerns about modern performance techniques that leaves sweat and oils on the strings. This wire is essential for the extra treble keys. It is also claimed to have a beneficial affect when scaled properly across the piano in evenness and tone. Do you like the tone and evenness that these pianos have? How are these pianos different from each other and their more traditionally constructed counterparts?
There are many other recordings of each of these pianos. Each of these recordings was made by a different team in a different space. Some clearly use close mics, and at least one (the Andras Schiff recording) was done live, and may not have used any close mics. But, the essential character of each piano clearly emerges.
For me, as a composer, my piano is a personal instrument. It is where I think, explore harmony, and work out ideas. I love to improvise, and freely explore wherever my fingers want to go. And while I can and do record my Kawai RX-7, it was not purchased with that as a primary concern. I do not have to care a whit about international piano fashion, artist rosters, or who is playing on what these days. I do have to afford pianos with my own money, like most people. And for that reason, I have sought out the finest instruments so that I can calibrate my own understanding of what the instrument is capable of and what I prefer as an ideal to strive (and save) for.
There are no “bad choices” at this level of piano shopping. I have had wonderful and inspiring experiences on all three of the traditional pianos listed here, and as well as with anything 228cm or longer made by Fazioli. I have not played the Paulello instrument, but I have played the Stuart and Sons piano, and found it to be the finest piano I have ever played by a significant margin.
There are substantial sonic differences between the traditional pianos and these new designs. The new construction techniques applied by Stephan Paulello and Stuart & Sons clearly open a new understanding of what is possible for acoustic pianos and create additional possibilities for composition. In fact, these instruments are so resonant and clear that they can pull off things that would be muddy and indistinct at best on traditional instruments. They suggest and demand a new approach to composing for them. And best of all, the Paulello and Stuart and Sons pianos each have a distinct voice and vision for advancing piano tone. The world is better off having these alternatives to the standard recorded piano tone, as clearly demonstrated in this comparison.
We live in an amazing time. The piano, after 100+ years of more or less static definition, has begun to evolve again into something new and even more beautiful and capable. At the same time, traditional piano manufacture has never been more consistent and capable. It is a great era to be a pianist as we are blessed with so many amazing instruments. And while not inexpensive, they are available and can be procured with dedication and savings. To all who aspire, these are wonderful times!
Stuart & Sons 102-Key Piano Review
7 years
My day at Wayne Stuart’s home and piano factory was a highlight of my piano experiences to date. It was one of the most enjoyable days of my musical life. It started with driving on the left side of the road for the first time on the 2.5 hour trip from Canberra to Tumut! I had to pay extra attention, but it wasn’t too bad and I was safe in both directions and never scared myself or anyone else. I arrived mid-morning per arrangement and was promptly served a proper British tea after meeting the family. As someone with a strong preference for tea over coffee, this couldn’t have been a better start. Fine Earl Grey tea with toast, fine cheese, etc was quite special, and made all the more delightful by the happy interjections of a bubbly 4-year old grand-daughter who wanted to meet the tall stranger from America. We just don’t do tea like that here in the US to any appreciable degree and it is a such a wonderful thing.
Following tea, Wayne spent some time explaining the instrument to me. While it is plainly playable in the exact same manner as any other piano, the innovations he has included make a much broader range of possibilities available. I was grateful for his orientation as we talked through design choices he made for the plate, bridges and strings. Pianists have a tendency to focus just on the playing surface, but the choices made inside the piano determine what is possible from the keyboard. Wayne’s design eliminates any sense of the“tenor break”, and one can play back and forth across the area without being able to discern any shift in tone. Apparently this comes from the decisions taken regarding the plate construction and bridge termination. Even the size of the piano has been carefully considered and Wayne explained that the correct scaling for a concert instrument needs to be longer than 9’ to fully develop the potential of the instrument. His 108 key instrument is a full 3m long (about 9’10”)! When Wayne started talking about the subtle things they do to fit the plate and how that alters the sound, I knew that even for a piano nerd, I was getting well out of my ability to have a useful opinion – this instrument has been thoroughly considered!
In addition to the macro design factors like scale, plate and bridge location, the bridges themselves terminate the speaking length of the strings using patented bridge agraffes instead of the traditional bridge pins. The agraffes keep the string vibrating in a single plane and eliminate the traditional down-bearing on the sound board. This removes about 2,000 pounds of pressure that constantly compress a typical piano soundboard. You can imagine how much more freely the wood can vibrate without all that pressure! The Stuart & Sons instruments resonate freely and chords will sustain over a minute with the dampers raised. Because the sound board is not stressed, the high harmonics are not immediately damped, and this means that the piano can go significantly brighter and louder than other instruments. The piano tone is much more complex and interesting as it decays due to the extended involvement of the higher harmonics. You can hear it clearly in the recordings that accompany this review.
He also discussed and demonstrated the 4th pedal and the options for how it could interact with the una corda or “shift” pedal. This fourth pedal raises the hammers so they are closer to the strings. This reduces the volume and the attack transient. The fourth pedal is continuous, not an “on/off” switch, so near infinite tonal shadings are possible when applying this pedal. The fascinating thing is that because it is all mechanical, one can still play the keyboard vigorously and get louder notes with the 4th pedal depressed. The timbre is slightly different, but you can easily make a melody float on top of a soft bed of chords or arpeggios. The effect cannot be obtained on a regular 3-pedal piano, and is quite musically useful. Because the una corda pedal is directly beside the 4th pedal, they can be played simultaneously, reducing the volume and brightness yet again. When both pedals are used, the piano can be played right to the edge of silence, remaining fully controllable at velocities that would not even trigger a sound on my Kawai RX-7. One of the largest pianos in the world can also be the quietest. The resulting dynamic range is huge. If you watch carefully in the videos, you will see me use my left foot to operate this pedal, and there are several points where I used it to make significant dynamic shifts instantly. Obviously at others, it is more blended. The important thing is that it is completely controllable. It is a bit like having a filter cutoff knob on a synthesizer to adjust the overtone output of the instrument.
In addition to playing softer and louder, the 4th pedal/una corda combinations also vary the amount of overtones the instrument produces. It will play soft and warm to bright and brilliant and everywhere in between. The ability to take the pedals together or separately also generates useful timbral shifts that expand the instrument. For improviser or performer, this aspect of the piano challenges you to improve your technique, and to think about tone color in a way greater than is possible just at the keyboard alone.
As Wayne talked and demonstrated, I was free to walk around and listen carefully from multiple positions. It is a stunning experience to be standing 15’ in front of the instrument while a huge crescendo builds and builds until the whole thing just roars with rich color and sound! The added tonal color, options, and dynamics were immediately apparent and set the piano cleanly apart and above anything I’ve experienced before. This difference is immediately apparent to non-musicians as well, judging from the overwhelmingly positive feedback to the piano sound I’ve received from the YouTube videos. People notice the difference and like it immediately.
I had brought along camera and audio recording equipment to document my experience with this piano that I had been admiring from afar for about 10 years. I brought a tripod for the camera, but not microphone stands, and Wayne was kind to provide them. Instead of headphones, he brought out a set of Adam monitor speakers to check the recordings. My Sonosax SX-4+ recorder is equipped with the optional analog outputs from the mixer section, so I was able to directly connect to the monitor speakers with some XLR cables, and an exceptional 4-channel recording studio was assembled on a table just out of camera view. We experimented with Wayne’s Earthworks mics first. We put the PianoMic system inside the piano using a special extension Earthworks made to compensate for the increased width of his pianos compared to 88 note instruments. At the side, we did some additional micing using his QTC50K omni microphones (Improv #1). After trying the QTC50K’s, we switched to the Josephson 617SET microphones that I brought, and they provided a more open, spacious and compelling sound, so I stayed with them the rest of the visit (Improv #2 and #3). I experimented at the end with the DPA 4099 Piano system that I had brought for a coincident capture inside the piano, but didn’t do any extended work with that configuration to make a full comparison – that will have to be explored another time.
I spent most of my time playing a stunning 102-key concert instrument clad in Indian Rosewood. Where he found perfect veneer that wide and in that quantity, I’ll never know, but it is a real showpiece in person. It is a very refined and elegant looking piano that despite its size, radiates beauty from any angle. I also played the smaller 97-key studio grand they make. It is visible behind me in the videos – clad in Sassafras – an Australian native species with a distinctive light/dark grain pattern. I spent most of my time on the large concert piano, and it is without question the finest piano I have played in my life. I got to see the first piano Wayne made, and to admire several 97-key concert instruments clad in Huon pine, Australian cedar, and a special Art Deco maple finish you can see on their website. It is pretty amazing to be looking at a piano clad in wood that is up to 4,500 years old! Due to a special arrangement with the Australian government, Wayne is able to use some of the fallen timber of these otherwise protected trees to clothe his pianos. As another piano lover who enjoys wood grain over plain black ebonizing, I appreciated the fine finishes and interesting grain patterns. When you realize that a single piano is over a year of work, and there are a half a dozen of these magnificent instruments in the room, you realize just how ambitious a dream it is to make a world-class piano, let alone to innovate at every opportunity, build a company and factory and operate for a lifetime.
With the piano described and some of its technical innovations explained, we should turn our attention to the sound and playing characteristics. I will attempt to point out the musical implications and possible uses for the observed capabilities of the instrument. I believe that the instrument has important implications for performers, improvisers, and composers. All benefit from most of the ideas mentioned below, but each group would likely weight them differently in importance, and I will attempt to suggest the significance of the instrument to each type of use. Let’s continue to the primary experiential factors noticed when playing the 102 key Stuart & Sons concert piano.
Extended Compass
Using the extra notes is immediate, natural, and easy. I didn’t feel like I had any adaptation to the extra notes. All the times when one wishes for an extra octave of keys at the bass end of the instrument? Now they are just there! Stretch for the octave, and it just happens, no looking required, and no hitting the end block, when all you wanted was the last note. And at the top end, all the arpeggio runs can end where you want them, not when you run out of keys. Because the piano has such exceptional range, one can actively manage the overtone series and how it is expressed at the instrument. The piano goes low enough that one can gap the overtone series significantly between low bass and melody. Extended harmonies can work in interesting ways over a very low bass. This is quite useful to the improviser for exploration. For the composer this simulates very low string or woodwind lines with delicate parts soaring above. This piano manages that in a full and complete way, rather than generally as on a traditional instrument. The feeling is far more accurate to what happens orchestrally.
Obviously, I have a standard 88-note instrument in my studio, like everyone else with a grand piano. But after playing the 102-key instrument for a few hours, I moved over to the 97-key studio grand. I immediately ran out of keys on the bass end! When I mentioned it to Wayne, he simply observed that once you have them, you don’t ever want to go back to not having them. I found this to be entirely true. Having the entire orchestral range available is clearly ideal for the composer, and luxurious for the improviser. For the performer playing already composed works the extra compass is only useful if playing an extended work.
Usable Fundamental all the way to “C0” (16Hz)
I have already mentioned how the Stuart & Sons piano provides a clear fundamental across its entire range. This is not particularly common since the wound piano strings provide progressively more and more metallic, inharmonic sounds as the pitch descends. But with this instrument, the fundamental is always present and audible. This provides a clarity and solidity to the sound that makes it feel whole and complete. The piano is clear and musical and doesn’t dissolve into a wash of metallic inharmonicity unless that is the effect wanted. Especially when played softly, the fundamental carries and supports whatever is being played. Modern music utilizes the entire range of human hearing. Synthesizers regularly fill in the sub-bass down to that sub-contra C in genres as diverse as EDM, Rap, and film music. This piano provides that same full pitch spectrum with a breadth of tonal color, making it fully ready to support the frequencies used in modern music making settings.
For the improviser, the presence of the fundamental in the bass transforms the instrument and what can be said on it. The bass is clear throughout its entire register, and the mid-high bass is not congested the way it is on most pianos – even expensive ones. This means that the harmonic series can be developed starting very low, which provides a rich, warm foundation for the upper harmonies. It is very possible to anchor a very low, soft note and then place clusters of color and harmony high above it. This creates distinct layers that the ear can keep separate or unite as appropriate.
For the composer, this usable fundamental makes it easier to work out orchestration and harmonic interplay. Standard pianos can be harsh and metallic in the last octave, and string basses just aren’t – they are warm and full, dark and brooding, but not metallic or harsh. This piano has fundamental down there, and can also be warm and full – almost more felt than heard. This makes it easier to work out where you want doubling and what that will do. The clarity in the mid bass shows more clearly what will happen with lines and harmonies. This piano is more “orchestral” than any instrument I’ve played.
Incredibly Even Sustain
Held chords will ring out for over a minute. This happens even when played at lower volumes, as this is an instrument build to resonate and sing. The bridge agraffes function as designed and advertised. Less damping of the soundboard lengthens and enhances sustain. This is immediately musically useful, especially for transitions while improvising. A finished idea can linger while a new one enters, the pedal deciding the transition duration. The bass notes sustain a rich full fundamental, even struck softly. The high notes also sustain the fundamental and the harmonics. This latter is significant. On a standard soundboard, the high harmonics barely last longer than the transient onset of the note. On the Stuart & Sons instrument, the harmonics ring and then gradually fall off. This makes the sustained notes far more interesting as the harmonics decay at different rates. This adds interest and color to the notes. This benefits all uses of the piano. More interesting notes are more appealing. Being able to hold notes longer is useful. Having even sustain from top to bottom means that on big crescendos the whole spectrum is activated, and builds and builds into a gloriously huge roar. The sustain keeps more of the sounds going for longer and this helps big flourishes to land with full impact and weight.
Highly Controllable Harmonic/Overtone Structure
The timbral variation under player control exceeds that of any instrument I’ve encountered. The piano can be soft and dark, or bigger and brighter than any other piano. When speaking softly with the 4th pedal and una corda depressed, the instrument is gentle, soft and round. Slower hammer velocities release more muted overtones. In higher dynamic playing, the focused fundamental provides a “core” to the note, to which overtones are added as the velocities increase. The sound will build and build until the piano roars with life and vitality. Prior to visiting, I had shared a recording with Wayne that I had done on my Kawai RX-7. As we were talking about this aspect of the instrument, he observed that, “When I listened to your piano, I could tell that you wanted more volume and brightness, but despite playing harder, you didn’t get it, it just got metallic and muddy”. This doesn’t happen on the Stuart & Sons instrument. By using the pedals and the limitless-feeling sustain, the amount of light and dark can be controlled to a degree that is impossible on any other instrument that I have played. For the improviser and performer, this is a very big deal. A wider range of tonal color is available and remains playable through the use of the 4th pedal and una corda combinations we have spoken about. They serve as a multiplying factor to the precision of one’s finger technique and allow a much finer gradation of color in any circumstance. This is as relevant to interpreting historical canon as it is to improvising freely. A composer also benefits from having a more complete representation of the harmonic color possible in an orchestra. This piano gives much more the sense of size and complexity or small soft beauty than a traditional instrument.
Extended Dynamic Range
Because the una corda and half-blow pedals can be taken together, the piano can be played right to the edge of silence. Velocities that would not make a sound on my piano are controllable and expressive here. In these more contemplative pieces, you can hear this to excellent effect. The piano is musical and sings beautifully, even when played softly. On the upper end, the piano gets louder and brighter than any Steinway or even a Bluthner with the extra bright treble that is often unbalanced against the bass. This 102-key instrument would dominate a concert stage like no other, easily singing out in large halls and in front of a large, powerful orchestra. For performing the big piano concertos, I cannot imagine a better instrument for the kind of dynamic expression concert pianists are looking for. I have watched pianists putting maximum force down, trying to get the last bit of projection, and this piano would ease the task and just play bigger, louder and brighter on request. These same capabilities allow an improviser to say more at both louder and soft dynamics, expanding the range of emotion that can be expressed. It is magical to combine soft, low held notes with clear notes singing out far overhead. This instrument provides the true definition of a pianoforte – literally the “soft loud”. Composers would be able to take note of this and could confidently write for ppp and fff dynamics and have a reasonable expectation that they mean something different than pp or ff. When writing, this extra range reflects the real range of sounds other acoustic instruments create and offers a full palette for exploration.
Expressive and Extended Treble
The piano doesn’t just have additional bass keys. It also extends up to F8 above the C8 that terminates a normal 88-note instrument. First, this provides the keys to finish out arpeggio runs. It is somewhat common in the literature to see piano runs that end or reverse before the progression or pattern would normally indicate. On this instrument, the last tonic is likely accessible. Second, the harmonics can bite and ring, or be more muted. This piano would best any traditional piano for brightness, but it isn’t implicit – it is an option available if and when wanted. Thirdly, the top end can keep up with the prodigious bass. This is a balanced instrument, even as the sound builds to a massive crashing finale or crescendo. Modern music often uses synths that can arbitrarily control the harmonics through a tunable filter. This piano has much of that same capability. The pitch is always there, resonant and singing, but how much harmonic content should each note have? It is expressive and under direct finger control in a way that synths simply cannot muster given current synth actions. I believe this piano would be an excellent partner with modern synth-driven music for exactly this reason. It offers the kind of harmonic complexity that we associate with a modern sound, but can still sing and whisper softly. The treble on this instrument is resonant well above the tinkly “dead” notes that are often at the top of a standard piano. The high end sings and sings. It is one of the first observations my daughter made when listening to me working with the recordings to prepare them for publication.
It Encourages Improvement in Technique
- The interplay between half-blow and shift pedals offers a full range of dynamic and timbral shading. From full, bright, open volume, down to near-silence, the sound changes dynamically and timbrally under complete control. Even with the half blow depressed, a melody can ring out over soft chords. It is intoxicating, and under continuous control which offers much opportunity for new technique development to get this exactly right.
- The sub-bass extended notes are very touch sensitive. Obtaining the exact ratio of fundamental and overtone color is possible, but depends on excellent technique to play the lower octave lighter than the upper in the left hand. Too much low octave and the dark overtones take over, but played lightly, a subtle boost supports and warms the already low upper octave position. When it is just right it is magical and so full and satisfying!
- Builds can be more dynamic. The piano will respond to high velocity playing almost infinitely. Wayne played more forcefully than I could, and he admitted there was more for a fully trained concert pianist to extract. The sound was already bigger than anything I’ve experienced. Building from silence to the biggest, brightest sound would involve three pedals and all the finger/arm technique one can perfect.
- Soft cantabile playing can occur well below any other piano, and at useful musical tempos. The finest, most delicate, and light touch works here and can be developed to an extent not possible on a traditional instrument. Perfecting fine expression on this piano can be more precise and intentional, and will reveal new possibilities even in known works. There is much for the sensitive interpreter to explore.
- The nickel-coated piano wire is impervious to skin oil. Touching the piano strings to explore extended modern techniques will not damage the strings with corrosion. This piano encourages and thrives on experimentation on the keys and under the hood. I didn’t ask if Wayne has build any pianos with the white and black colored dampers that allow for easier navigation when playing directly on the strings with objects or fingers, but I would imagine it is available on request given the custom nature of the instruments.
It Thrives on the Finest Microphones and Recording Equipment
The physical size, frequency range, harmonic content, and dynamic range are demanding. The instrument is wide, long and extends over the entire range of human hearing. This piano easily separated the QTC50’s resolving power as less than the Josephson 617SET’s. We recorded four channels, but could easily have made use of four more. In a proper acoustic space, additional room mics would further develop the sound. Capturing all this instrument offers is possible, but requires the most transparent, linear and distortion-free equipment. The additional transient brightness on offer suggests that microphones (like the Josephsons) with exceptionally high sensitivity should be utilized. This is not the best place for highly colored recording equipment that rounds off transients. Preamps should be fast and clean. I used the superb Sonosax preamps built into the recorder and run from battery power, eliminating contamination from the power supply. Dual-gain range analog-to-digital converters are also recommended for their extended dynamic range. Sonosax, Merging, DAD and others utilize this technique to offer 130db+ dynamic range. All of these devices integrate preamp and AD into a single unit, increasing performance and reducing electronics and noise. Microphones from Josephson, DPA, Brauner, and the Neumann D-01 digital microphones would be my first choices, with the Sanken omni microphones as a option for capture out to 100Khz. These captures with Josephson and Earthworks mics into the Sonosax SX-4+ are essentially noiseless, and the tonality and transient response of the piano are beautifully preserved. Highly recommended if you are in the fortunate position to own or record a Stuart & Sons concert instrument. Listen to Improv #2 and #3 on good speakers or headphones and this will be easy to observe.
It Deserves an Excellent Acoustic Environment
Because of its size, it can energize a significant volume of air. A hard reflective floor and appropriate reflective and diffusive surfaces will develop the room tone most effectively. It takes space for that sound to develop, particularly the lowest fundamentals, and space for mic stands placed well away from the instrument. While it could be placed in most rooms, it will thrive in spaces that accommodate its sonic generosity.
Conclusions
I opened this review stating that the Stuart & Sons 102-key piano is the finest piano I have ever played, and it is true. The instrument is “more” in every objective dimension. More keys. More dynamic range. More tonal color. More expressive potential. In all the playing attributes that matter to performers, improvisers, and composers, the piano simply offers new and enriched capabilities without removing any capabilities present in traditional instruments. Wayne Stuart set out to end 100 years of static sameness for piano manufacture and has succeeded brilliantly. While I understand the business dynamics that have this industry locked in a stranglehold of sameness, as a musician, it seems to me that these instruments should be widely distributed and well-known. If I was recording a solo piano album, I would be looking to book the recording session at one of the places that have one. It is simply a superior instrument. Of course, there are many other fine instruments – even dream instruments. But ignoring all the smaller pianos and focusing just on concert instruments, the Stuart & Sons instrument gives up nothing to any other contender. At this level of play, all are big, beautiful, well regulated, and most are fully concert-grade instruments. But this piano distinguishes itself in every way, and against all comers.
I have owned a Steinway “A” and currently play a Kawai RX-7. Both are quality instruments that I have deeply enjoyed. Both offer more than I am capable of extracting as a pianist. But the interesting thing is that I can do more on the RX-7 than on the Steinway. It is a better, bigger piano with longer keys and a better action. The pedal work is better designed and more sensitive. The piano has more dynamic range, and I am more expressive playing it. The reality is that a better piano helps make a better pianist. And on the Stuart & Sons instrument, my modest technical ability could execute more than I am capable of on the RX-7. Whatever your ability, the Stuart & Sons piano will maximize what you can do and encourage you to do better.
The playing experience can only be described as complete and rapturous. This is a big concert instrument. It develops a full, rich effortless bass. The strings have less over-winding on the bass strings. The scale and bridge terminations are radically improved through computer modeling and experimentation. The sound field surrounds the player in a 3-D, all-consuming experience. Wayne tells me that the new 108-key piano is even better because they angled the plate ever so slightly to reflect a little more sound back to the player (1-2dB). They extensively measured the sound field and many points around the piano and have worked to have the player position be a richly rewarding “office”. As a player, what I want is to sit at an instrument and immediately forget it, finding myself lost in the sound and experience. A sublime experience awaits the player when seated in front of 9.5’ of Stuart & Sons finest. The piano is better than I am, and makes everything I do sound as good as possible. The clarity of the instrument demands clarity of thought and execution. You will want to play better, and find yourself able to do so on this piano.
I had one day with this treasure of an instrument. I barely scratched the surface of what it can do. There are places in the recordings where my lack of skill with the 4th pedal or an over-anxious left hand in the low bass causes something to “poke out” of the texture. I knew there was no way I would cover the entire instrument in a day, or master it on first impression. This is an instrument for a lifetime of exploration and music making. As an improviser and composer, the Stuart & Sons piano sets the standard by which all other pianos should be measured. It offers the widest palette, and greatest range of expression. While others are welcome to their preferences, I do not believe there is a better piano anywhere in the world. When I first heard the recordings published on the Stuart & Sons website, I recognized the best recorded piano sound I’ve heard. The clarity, bass extension, and sustain all leapt out of the speakers at me. Playing it many years later has only confirmed and extended my appreciation for Wayne Stuart’s life work. He and his family have done the piano world a tremendous service in pushing piano design and construction forward significantly.
His recent achievement of a 108-key piano truly crowns his efforts. Nine octaves – the full range of the orchestra. From C0 to B8, and running right up to the physical limits of currently available wire metallurgy, this is the ultimate expression of the piano. I was not able to play one, but Wayne tells me that by slightly lengthening the piano to 3m and making other small adjustments it is noticeably better than the 102-key that I played across its entire register. While believable, I had such a good experience on the 102-key instrument that it serves as much to demonstrate the strong ambition and striving for excellence that clearly characterize Wayne Stuarts life and work as much as it improves the instrument. Wayne has added 20 keys to the instrument, an extra pedal, removed 2000lbs of down bearing, and in the process made the most expressive piano ever made.
He hasn’t paid me to write this review, and I played the pianos without promising to buy one, though I certainly would if I could. These thoughts are my own. But as a musician, the transcendent experience I had demands to be shared and to be preserved so that others can seek out, purchase and play these worthy instruments.
You can learn more about these amazing instruments at: https://www.stuartandsons.com/
Playing the 102 Key Stuart & Sons Piano
7 years
by Nathanael Iversen
in Piano
Last week I had the opportunity to play the Stuart and Sons concert piano at length. I have been interested in the piano for about 10 years, since first stumbling across them through a PianoWorld posting, I think. Wayne Stuart has recently completed work on the worlds first and only 108-key instrument – a full 9 octaves! On my visit I played a studio grand with 97 keys (F-to-F), and the full 102-key concert instrument. I spent most of my visit on the large piano.
It is, without reservation, the finest piano I have played in my life. It has more compass (notes), more dynamic range, and more timbral range than any other piano that exists. For an improviser and composer I cannot image a more rewarding instrument.
Wayne has innovated all over the instrument, but I’ll try to call out the big ones that I know about. Perhaps the biggest innovation is the bridge agraffes that keep all string tension from pressing down on the sound board. This makes the instruments radically resonant. Chords will sustain over a minute with the dampers raised. Because the sound board is not stressed, the high harmonics are not immediately damped, and this means that the piano can go brighter and louder than other instruments. But, Wayne’s design for the plate and bridge location means that there is no “tenor break” – you can’t find it no matter how hard you listen. The piano also always has a core fundamental supporting the sound – even on the very lowest bass notes almost an octave lower than an 88 note keyboard. Huge crescendos put a massive grin on ones’ face – the piano simply roars in a way I’ve never experienced. The piano also features a 4th pedal that shortens the hammer blow distance. The 4th pedal is continuous, not “on/off”, providing near infinite shading. This pedal can be used independently or in conjunction with the “shift” (una corda) pedal. Practically this means that the piano can be played to the edge of silence with complete control. Playing that would not trigger a note on my Kawai RX-7 makes real notes and tone that can be controlled at musical tempos. The piano is just stunningly expressive, and offers a near infinite range of light and darkness. I have played many of the finest piano brands in the world. All pale next to what is possible on this instrument.
I took high-end recording equipment with me to document the experience. The videos below were recorded with a Sonosax SX-4+, and a combination of Josephson, DPA, and Earthworks microphones. No EQ or compression has been added. I did add a tiny amount of hall reverb to “gel” everything, but it doesn’t change the tone. The original recordings were 192Khz/24-bit. I uploaded 96Khz AAC2+ to YouTube, so it is as good as I can make it.
I chose to improvise entirely on this visit, which this piano rewards thoroughly. There is very little piano music composed for extended instruments. But for improvising, all those colors and extra notes are immediately welcome and useful. These improvisations are what I would term a “Piano Diary”. They are not jazz standards or standard forms, but literally me listening, playing, and reacting in a linear stream. This is me “thinking out loud” on the piano. More like an artist sketch than a gallery showing – these are not “performances”. I didn’t get the piano fully wound up to maximum crescendo, but the overall tone and use of the pedals are fully demonstrated. My thoughts are in the last two videos in this playlist. You can decide what you want to watch, but the three improv videos are about 30 minutes total. The talking bits of analysis are about 6-7 minutes each.
It was a very special day, and Wayne and his family were gracious hosts. I can’t say enough nice things about them or their instruments. Truly world-class and an absolute to delight to play a truly modern piano that vastly improves the instrument in every way.
Here’s a link to the playlist of videos on YouTube.
Making a Scene
7 years
One of the benefits of being a composer is being able to make a scene. I don’t mean that in the sense of creating a public spectacle, though I suppose that is an option if you feel deprived of attention! I mean it in the sense of attracting and organizing artistically compatible people into a local scene that supports, encourages, and nurtures creativity.
If you look back at history, these “scenes” have been the birthplace of many great movements . There was nothing glamorous about the Impressionist painters at the beginning of their meetings in shabby rooms and cafes in Paris. They were rejects and failures in the eyes of the establishment professionals. But artists, musicians, poets, authors all hung out, supported each others work and journey. A revolution in art-making occurred. Similar things happened in jazz clubs across the country – regional sounds developed because players mixed across groups, gigs, and time to explore this new music and try to make it even better. Motown was a scene, developed around a recording studio and record label. It only lasted a few years – but changed the world. The “Wrecking Crew” was part of a scene in Los Angeles involving studio musicians who played in a certain group of studios with a certain group of engineers and producers. In our present day, Snarky Puppy came out of a scene at University of North Texas, and arguably is now their own scene, with a rotating cast of players, a record label, with wildly creative and prolific bass-player/composer/producer Michael League leading the way. In every case, informal, but serious associations between people led to potent and sustained expressions of human creativity.
I believe composers have a unique ability to contribute to a local scene.
1) Active composers are constantly writing, and this is attractive to certain groups of other people – namely everyone who doesn’t write, but needs music. Players who don’t write are looking for people who do, and for new and interesting things to play. Community dance and theater groups prize new music as a differentiating factor, yet have little ability to create it. The better you write, the better players/dancers/actors will be attracted.
2) A composer can work with anything. I might not choose to create an ensemble with only a harp, a trumpet, a violin, and an electric guitar, but I could write music for that ensemble. Piece after piece – featuring each one in new and interesting ways. Similarly, a composer can write for any difficulty level. If there are players of differing abilities, a composer can account for that and give everyone something they can be successful with and shine at playing.
3) A composer can work across many disciplines. Concerts, bands, dance troupes, quartets, jazz trios, horn ensembles, wind bands, it is limitless. Unless it is a covers band, composers can write new music for any of these, and in any combination. This versatility is quite useful, especially if it spans genres and styles.
4) Some instruments are most often experienced as ensemble instruments: acoustic drums, bass guitars, trombones, etc. Most monophonic and rhythmic instruments are this way. Composers organize sound, notes, and structure into something that ties these disparate instruments into a single expression. This ability means a composer can work anywhere – with what is at hand, and make something of it.
5) Writing involves the creative act of making something from a blank page/canvas/etc. We share this ability with writers, painters, sculptors, choreographers, poets, etc. Those who create have an affinity for those who create. There is a shared language, experience, and understanding between people who create. If you create and are pushing to improve, you will find the others in your community who are pushing and improving. If you have a daily practice of writing, you will be welcomed by others who have a daily practice of writing – even if they write words, or paint instead of arrange notes on a page. These are people you want in your scene. They would likely welcome a composer to theirs.
What kind of scene can you make, contribute to, or join? If it doesn’t exist, would you create it? If we can organize notes on a page, we can help organize a scene. Who do you know who works on their craft every day? Start meeting for coffee once every two weeks. See what happens. Bring new work each time. Find another creative in another discipline and start exchanging work and supporting each other. Make a scene. At the very least, you will get support and find friendship on the journey. But, it might change the world if you stay at it long enough.
Using the Solaris to Model Other Synthesizers
9 years
John Bowen’s Solaris synthesizer is an amazingly flexible machine. While most playable keyboard synthesizers have a fixed (and simple) signal path derived from old analog synths, the Solaris is a semi-modular design. Like a real modular synthesizer, you can patch its various components together in flexible ways. It is not as infinitely flexible as a modular, but for practical purposes, there is little you can’t do.
The key to this flexibility are the four mixers. While the synth has “hard-wiring” from OSC-Mixer-Filter-VCA by default for each of the four voices, this is not a path you have to follow. The mixers are each capable of taking sound from four inputs. These inputs can be anything that makes or processes audio in the synth from oscillators, to rotors, to filters, to insert FX, to the VCA’s. This means that you can reconfigure the signal path in almost any way, and blend any combination of feedback or sequential processing you can think of. Each mixer input (and the master out) can be modulated by any control parameter of the system, enabling full control of any of these audio signals.
This flexibility is dizzying at first. Every section of the Solaris is full of options, and then you can combine them in almost any way. How do you learn to use this beast? Well, one easy way is to arrange the signal path to mimic a successful historic analog synth. The Solaris can easily create the signal path of almost any synth you either owned or always wanted to own. This is easy to believe if we pick something simple like a MiniMoog, or a Jupiter 6, but the reality is that the Solaris has resources to be far more ambitious!
Let’s consider the legendary Yamaha CS-80 polysynth, which is perhaps the most desirable analog polysynth ever made. Functional used copies sell for upwards of $20,000 if you can find one at all. Maintenance is not cheap or easy. The synth provided 8 notes of polyphony and full polyphonic aftertouch. The Solaris can mimic the architecture and provide 10 voice polyphony, with polyAT (though you might need a Roli Seaboard to get the PolyAT going…). Here’s the voice architecture of a CS-80 – Yamaha was kind enough to print it on the top of the instrument.
There are two identical voices that can be programmed, so in effect there are two of this signal chain to represent. The Solaris does not perfectly re-create this, but it can get very close (it even includes ring-modulation in the Amplitude Modulation section!). Of course, it’s modulation matrix is vastly more capable than the CS-80, so it is actually far more capable than the CS-80 in most respects. Let’s see how we can lay this out in the Solaris, using the mixers to bring the Solaris components into the right order.
This layout recreates the modulation control present in the CS-80. If you want access to the Ring Modulator in the Solaris, it is available in either Mixer. The Ring Modulator is in the AM1/AM2 section of the synth (hit the MORE button on the global screen). You then access the audio by selecting AM1 or AM2 as the input to one of the four mixer channels. In most patches, I’d replace the Noise input with the AM1/AM2 input, but this is clearly flexible per voice and per patch. I highly recommend adding a bit of the Ring Modulation – maybe 5% strength, modulated by the wheel, and then mixed in at low volume, maybe 3-5 in the Mixers. It really adds a nice subtle harmonic complexity that changes wonderfully with the wheel.
The Solaris has near infinite modulation possibilities beyond this, but this patching arrangement will allow the exploration of the core CS-80 sound palate. What I did is set this up, and then I saved it as a patch. I don’t edit this patch, but use it as a template for other patches.
Clearly, this same approach can be taken toward other classic synths. If we can model a CS-80, Jupiter8’s and many others are all possible. In fact, this is a great way to learn the Solaris. Every component of the Solaris is more capable than the CS-80. The oscillators are capable of digital wavetables, the filters have many different types compared to 12/24db HPF/LPF, the modulation matrix and control inputs are many times larger. But the synth voice architecture is proven and will produce playable sounds at every turn. The wonderful thing about doing this exercise on a Solaris is that you can start with a known, proven architecture, and then when you want more control, use the extra facilities or the Bowen to modulate the attack portion of the envelope with velocity, or use the rotors, etc.
I’ve never owned or played a real CS-80, and may never get to. This post is not arguing that the Solaris is going to produce so authentic a sound that CS-80 ownership is rendered moot. Instruments have a gestalt – including the Solaris – that isn’t going to be recreated on something else. What this post does suggest is exploring the sound space that instrument was capable of making, and then using that as a point of departure to do things that the CS-80 was never capable of. By replicating, and then exceeding the architecture of previous synths, it is possible to creatively explore new territory.
George Howard on Bitcoin, Blockchain and Music Entrepreneurialism
11 years
This is not a post with a lot of my own thought attached. I referenced George Howard’s work earlier this week. This content was originally published on Forbes, I believe. This is some of the best thought that I’ve seen printed about how a future can exist outside the current mega-label hegemony. Those of us who are not selling – and may never sell – millions of records are not well served by the existing royalty, tracking, payment and rights administration schemes. What is proposed here would be transformative for composers, song-writers, indie labels, and just about anyone who makes things that exist in digital form. I don’t know how close or far this is, but the ideas are important and worth discussion and advocating for.
Without further ado, here are links to the articles. Personally, I wish George Howard & Imogen Heap success in what they are championing. It is refreshing to see new thought on these subjects that is not just echo-chamber material.
Part 1:The Bitcoin Blockchain Might Save The Music Industry…If Only We Could Understand It
Part 2: Bitcoin Can’t Save The Music Industry If The Music Industry Continues To Resist Transparency
Part 3: Bitcoin And Music: An Interview With Artist And Composer Zoe Keating
Part 4: Imogen Heap’s Mycelia: Creating A Fair Trade Music Business, Inspired By Blockchain
Part 5: Union Square Ventures’ Andy Weissman On The Blockchain And The Music Rights ‘Nirvana State’
Part 6: Imogen Heap On Mycelia: A Fair Trade Music Business Inspired By Bitcoin Blockchain
Stimulating Interview with Composer Morton Subotnick
11 years
This is not a new interview, but I just came across it and found it to be insightful and challenging. You can enjoy a transcript here and then watch the video:
A Better Way to Market Music
11 years
George Howard is on a roll over at Forbes. His latest set of articles on the interplay of music and commerce are not to be missed. He recently sat down with Ryan Leslie for an hour long interview. This is well worth the time. Ryan is a musician, entrepreneur and generally well-thought out young man. George’s interview is insightful, thorough, and gets to the meat of the issues surrounding releasing music, building a fan base, being able to market one’s music, etc.
Refreshing a Leslie 222’s Tube Amp
11 years
Though a friend, I was notified of a Hammond organ and Leslie that were free for the taking about a year ago. It turns out that the instrument was a Hammond H-100. This was a “home” version of the B-3. Like the B-3, it has a full set of tonewheels. Unlike the B-3, it adds several “orchestral voices” that are really not very emulative. The organ from a monetary standpoint is worthless. While it does the tonewheel thing just like the B-3, it is not really a B-3.
The Leslie is an interesting beast. It’s a Leslie 222. This is the “home” version of the 122, and is laid out horizontally instead of vertically. The treble rotor is beside the bass rotor, so the whole thing is about the size of a standard high-boy Leslie turned on its side. This one is finished in “Provincial Walnut” It has a tube amplifier that looked as new as the day it was built when I opened it up – not a speck of dust inside.
The Leslie was very noisy with static, pops, and a hum too! After 40 years, all the capacitors were quite shot, so it was time for a rebuild. I ordered a rebuild kit and instructions from here. They have rebuild kits for organs and Leslie speakers of all types. Their 122 kit had everything needed to fully refresh the amp.
So, after storing it in my studio for a year, I got tired of looking at it and decided it was time to move it along. I followed the directions and replaced all the capacitors with fresh modern ones (that’s all the Orange Drops in the picture). One of the power supply diodes was also fried, so I replaced all four of those as well.
I had a frustrating go at first until I put a bigger tip on my soldering iron. The old leads were kind of chunky and just needed more surface area to transfer the heat. Once I was going, it went pretty quickly. The nice thing is that the schematic is printed on the side of the amp, and it is also available on-line. This made verifying all the parts and their location very simple.
The amp worked correctly as soon as I turned it on. All the magic smoke staying inside, and it is ready for another 10-15 years of service.
There is something to be said for the serviceability of a fine tube amplifier. All the parts are readily available, often with better parts than were available at the time of construction. The work is simple, and anyone who can solder can easily complete basic maintenance.
The organ and Leslie are on their way to my neighbor, who used to play, but hasn’t had a instrument in years. It will be good to move this out of my space and onto its next owner. I will certainly be glad to have the floorspace back.
For my own use, I think I’ll just stick to emulators. There is magic in a perfectly maintained and updated tube Leslie matched with a fine and fully restored B-3. There are also not that many of them, and they require maintenance. B-3 maintenance is a whole different level or maintenance than a tube amp. Not really being a Hammond player at heart, the emulations are frankly good enough for my purposes. I’d rather spend my instrument maintenance budget on my piano. Putting a screaming organ behind some distorted guitars seems to work fine with VB-3 or the B-3 emulation built into Apple’s Mainstage. Both are quite serviceable. There is a bit of magic that happens with the sound bouncing around inside the room, but not having ever played the real thing, I don’t miss what I don’t have muscle memory for.