Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Weak fingers & digital piano

I have been in trouble here before for my opinions of digital pianos.

It is one thing to say a student uses a digital piano because they can’t afford an acoustic or have room for one but I am hearing that you are asking which is better. Acoustic or digital. You came for advice and my advice would be to avoid a digital.

I am not one of those teachers who refuses to learn anything about digital pianos. I have played them extensively. There is a place for digital pianos. In my church enabling a sound man to balance other instruments and voices is a benefit and can only be done on a digital. As a teacher however, I insists on a piano. The touch is different- Not just how it feels but how the sound responds to the touch.

Consider that you are not actually making a tone on a digital piano. . When you play that digital piano, you are playing a RECORDING of at piano tone through a speaker. When you play a chord you are not getting a true harmony in terms of sound waves and physics. It is not true harmony.

I might change my mind if I ever see a concert performance played on a digital piano. Get an acoustic.

A sound man can easily mic a piano and put it into the mix with other things. I had a church gig where we used an acoustic all the time.

Agreed!

I agree that it can be done. I always prefer the real piano and a good sound man. But pianos are harder to find in churches. There is also argument that pianos have to be tuned but the Kurweil at church has had some costly repairs. Nothing more frustrating than right before a sevice the keyboard stops working- or starts doing CRAZY things.

As any technology, I do not believe a digital Piano holds its monatary value long.

Mrs. A, I don't believe you when you
say you've played digitals "extensively."
Trying one out in a store--with a
mind set completely against it--is
not playing a digital "extensively."
If you knew anything about digitals,
you couldn't say the things you did,
because they are more than capable
of taking the place of an acoustic piano.
Certainly a big-time classical
concert could be played on a state of
the art digital today. All that's
preventing it is people in the
piano establishement like you,
who won't have anything to do with digitals.

I've been playing digitals extensively
since 1989, hard playing of the most
difficult classical repertoire, like
the Chopin op. 14 Concert Rondo,
for example. So I know what they
are capable of. I suppose you
would consider silent keyboards--
which you know nothing about--
as something to avoid too, even
though Arrau used one all his life.

Digital pianos have literally been my
salvation as a pianist, and have
enbled me to progress from a
run of the mill terminal advanced-intermediate player to
an advanced-intermediate player
who can tackle the most difficult
concert repertoire.

And I don't care if you play a digital
at church. Your attitude is so
set against them that you must regard
that time on the church digital
with total disgust, and so you can't see
all the benefits digitals
can offer.

I would also prefer that my students have an acoustic piano. However, the reality is that most students have pretty cr***y pianos. They get them for $500 in the newspaper, Craigslist, from Grandma, at yard sales, even off the side of the road for free (as one of my students bragged about... ughh:( ). How many teachers actually know what kind of piano their students practice on at home?

I gave a makeup lesson to a student and went to his home, as it was close to mine. I was horrified at their piano. It sounded like something in a saloon, 3 notes didn't even play... but they loved it because of the ornate woodwork, go figure.

The argument that 'acoustic is always better because it's a REAL piano' doesn't fly, in my opinion. I would rather students begin on a digital (or even a keyboard, for that matter) than a horrible acoustic. There are teachers who will say, "but of course, when I say acoustic piano I mean a GOOD piano", but the likelihood that ALL of our piano students own a quality acoustic piano is slim to none. Good pianos don't cost the same as digitals; they cost more. Yes, there are wonderful gems-of-a-deal to be found here and there, but they are rare.

Gyro, it sounds like you have the same bias toward acoustic pianos that you mistakenly assume others have toward digitals. Who else would describe the sound of an acoustic piano as "cacophony" from which one's ears and nerves must be shielded?

I'd like someone to offer an explanation of how and why a "silent piano" would be in any way useful. Without auditory feedback, how would one know one is playing wrong notes or with suitable dynamics and articulation? It makes as much sense as playing air piano.

Steven

Horowitzian -

Thanks again. And I know what you mean. . .

Joan

Them's some mighty fancy magic powers you got there that let you make such extreme, dogmatic assertions about an instrument you've never played or even seen. What's your next trick, stock market predictions based on hearing an mp3 of the opening bell?

Thanks again for all the comments and the discussion.

My son's problem is not because he can not control his power, but that he simply does not have enough power to produce the loud sound while maintain his normal action. I have since tuned down the touch to the normal position from the "heavy 1" setting. I can immediately hear the difference it makes.

I will read Larry's book first, and begin my searching for a good acoustic piano. During the buying process, I probably will have more questions and I will come back and ask your guys for advices. Anyway, we will keep the digital piano too, so my son can enjoy the benefit of both sides.

I have a CD set of Glen playing the Goldberg variations. Well, of course I have other CDs, piano and instrumental; I just listen to that one fairly often.

Guess what? They are ALL digital recreations of a tone, played through a speaker.

So unless you are such a purist that you never listen to anything but live music, I think this particular criticism is misplaced.

Gyros,

First of all, I have played digital pianos for large churches and praise and worship bands for 20 years.

You said "If you knew anything about digitals,
you couldn't say the things you did" What did I say that was so incorrect about digital pianos? Backup your responses with specific. You also said digitals are more than capable of replacing acoustics. HOW? Again, you post flaming generalities and no specifics.

I always assumed digitals were not used in concerts as they were not good enough.....It never occurred to me it was a big conspiracy theory. Thank you for enlightening us.


I am so glad for you Gyro that your secret to your success is your digital piano…..I will pass this amazing discovery on to my colleagues in the “establishment”

Why would I want to play or even see a $20,000 piano that sounds like a MIDI playback within the first few seconds? If I had that kind of money to burn, I'd buy a piano that is actually a 'hybrid' (not merely one that is referred to as one) between both a genuine upright and a keyboard. And I would literally burn the rest. At least, I'd sooner do that than waste it on something as primitive as a vibrating keyboard.

Quite how hearing something and deciding that it sounds like a heap of [censored] has a thing to do with predicting the future of markets from audio files, I'm at loss to discern. The failings were so characteristic of the typical 'digital piano' (or rather 'keyboard') sound I could have picked it out as being fake within seconds, even if I had never been told what I was listening to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKktyeuIs1U

Try it for yourself. His sparse pedalling in the Chopin Waltz reveals the limitations in an instant. Long notes also reveal how the tone merely drones- rather than blossoming after the instant of sounding. Any serious professional would smell a rat in an instant (unless paid as well as Katsaris blatantly was).

If this can even be called a 'piano', it's a poor man's piano masquerading as a rich man's one (and worse, literally being sold at the price of a rich man's piano).

PS. Regarding 'bias', I personally forked out over a thousand pounds for my own keyboard. It's useful for practise purposes, but a person who restricts himself to that alone can only be poorer for doing so. Sorry for being harsh, but if a person cannot discern what cannot be produced from a digital piano (but which can even be produced from plenty of acoustics that are in rather poor condition) it only serves to illustrate that they have not learned how to approach tone-production to the high standards which acoustics permit. Perhaps that's the reason why some people prefer digitals- because they prefer the guaranteed tone-quality to the ugly tone that ensues if you use poor technique on acoustic? As I say, sorry for being harsh, but if anyone seriously thinks that a Horowitz or Cortot would not have been frustrated by the prerecorded (as opposed to personally instigated) tone quality of any digital, that's only a reflection on their own limitations as a pianist. Stick with digitals alone, and you'll never come to understand why you can't access the greater possibilities that even a lot of very cheap uprights can open up.

Frankly, your bias is showing.

Even a $1,000 digital piano sounds better than a MIDI playback, to my ears. Maybe your ears are different.

Seriously, your position is that a 7 year old beginner needs a top of the line grand. How can you defend that, given what Bach, Beethoven, and Chopin learned on?

For one thing, it might actually allow you to make an informed judgment instead of just sounding like a pompous ignoramus. And of course we all know that youtube represents the very pinnacle of sonic fidelity.




Um, I've actually tried the real, non-youtube variety AvantGrand for myself, thank you very much. Why don't you do the same - it might not change your opinion, but it would make it a tad more credible.



And when exactly did I or anyone, with the possible exception of Gyro, ever say that one should restrict oneself to digitals.



Gee, thanks for your concern. I've been playing acoustics for over 50 years, many of those years professionally. I like to think I have some modest grasp of the possibilities, but I'll certainly work on those limitations and that ugly tone that you heard in my playing out there in your magical universe.

Good Gracious…..

First of all, my comment was not a criticism. I was stating a fact. A digital piano produces a recording of the tone. The harmonies are not true.

If given the choice, I would rather hear a live acoustic performance of the Goldberg variations over a CD digital recording through a speaker anytime.

Oh and yes I have a collection of CD's.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Any given piano note has the same overtone series whether produced by sampling, modeling, or an acoustic. How can the harmonies not be true? Of course some digital pianos do a better or worse job of this creation. Some add in additional factors like string resonance, etc. Actually I wish digitals were not as realistic. Those screechy tinkly notes at the top of an acoustic keyboard, or those growly pitchy ones at the bottom? I'd prefer those sound more like the midrange.

Perhaps you are objecting to equal temperament. Digitals are always in tune, but unless you choose a historical temperament (try THAT on an acoustic) they are always in tune to ET. Acoustics start detuning immediately after a tuning session, and that contributes to "true" harmony.



Well, I like live performance too. Imagine, I'm stupid enough to pay for concert tickets for a piece of music I already have on CD and can listen to free! How dumb is that? <grin>

But on a pure sonic basis, it is rare to find an acoustic environment where a live performer sounds as good as a CD recorded in a good studio. I'm not talking about the performance itself, which sometimes is better live, feeding off the audience energy, and sometimes is worse, due to nerves, etc. I'm talking about the acoustics of the hall, or church, or bar, and the ambient sounds of coughing, echoes, drunks, trains passing, etc.

My point is that the CD sounds good. And it is a digitized recreation through speakers.

I would say that Bach, Beethoven and Chopin probably didn't learn on digital pianos.

My position is that a 7 year old beginner should learn on a cheap but competent piano. What on earth makes you attribute such a ridiculous strawman argument to me? A top of the line grand is the only alternative to a keyboard now, is it? I'm simply criticising overpriced keyboards.

Apologies if I'm showing my 'bias' towards $20,000 instruments that cannot even compete with a cheap upright.

Precisely. The fact that it's so easy to spot the difference, without even having the benefits of optimum sound quality demonstrates just how easy it is to pick out the limitations. I haven't yet heard any recordings from real pianos on youtube, that sounded like they were digital pianos. So, I wonder- was it the fact that it was on youtube, or was it the fact that it doesn't sound like a real piano- that meant that it didn't sound like a real piano?

I don't think that exactly takes a genius- any more than it takes a Horowitz to realise what digital pianos are unable to offer...