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

It's like trying to talk to a brainwashed
cult member when you try to talk
about digitals pianos with
these "acoustic-pianos-and-
nothing-else-is-a-real-piano"
people. Nothing gets through to
them unless it's about acoustic
pianos.

You're totally misunderstanding my point. I can produce elements of tone on my digital. It's interesting to see how much variety remains possible, when you are playing with neutral, pre-recorded sounds. However, it is not possible to contrast between ugly sounds and beautiful ones in the same way.

You can approach the keys of a digital however you like and it will still sound nice. That doesn't prepare you for real pianos.

Perhaps it's 'close enough' for you, but have you considered that this might demonstrate that you do not possess the range of sounds that thousands of professional musicians (for whom it is not 'close enough') do? Judging from your comments, it's obvious that you're not interested in terribly much beyond learning notes in the right order. Stick with the digital alone and you'll never get any closer to something beyond that.


PS. Considering how many people can consistently spot the difference in blind listening, it's pretty obvious who are the 'cult' members here. My own criteria are simply those of sound and response. The day a digital piano can match up to what I require, I'll say that they are 'equal' rather than merely a substitute.

Well, to summarize your argument:

- It's possible to produce an ugly tone on an acoustic
- Nobody would take an ugly tone for a sample, so all of the tones available on a digital are "good" ones
- So a digital player on an acoustic may find himself producing ugly tones, which his digital couldn't make.
- Therefore, studying on an acoustic is better.

I can see the logic of this argument, but it certainly doesn't convince me that an acoustic is a "better" instrument. It does suggest that a student should try to get exposure to acoustics during his learning, but I never argued that was a bad idea. And your continued insistence that digitals are second-rate instruments still sounds like snobbery, rather than fact-based argument, to me.

I attempt to exercise as much tonal snobbery as possible when I play (discriminating against ugly sounds in cantabile lines), so perhaps it's indeed snobbish of me to expect an 'equal' instrument to a piano to teach you how to do that. Also, a digital piano has quite a pleasing tone, but it won't give you the tone of a Gilels. Not a chance. Only on a real piano could you so much as hope to approach that.

Approach it however you will, the point is this: you can learn how to play any instrument well from a competent piano. You can learn how to play a digital piano well from a digital piano. What more need be said? It's not 'equal' if they are not interchangable.

Gyro, aren't you flattering yourself by insisting on saying you play "big-time pieces like" Chopin's Op. 14, when in fact it's the only one?


It obviously serve some agenda to depict the situation as between warring, us-versus-them factions.

I wonder what it's like trying to talk to you in real life! No one in this entire forum is as dogmatically insistent about his own version of reality, something that could be said to be a characteristic of a "brainwashed cult member."

Steven

I'm sorry, but I still don't see the ability to sound bad as a big advantage for the acoustic side. I guess you'll argue next that acoustics are better because they can be out of tune (and frequently are...)

Yes, a student should try to study acoustic as well as digital. But either one is fine to play and is a valid musical instrument.

I'm always amazed that when these debate come up, the biggest difference seems to get neglected:

The sound from a digital piano comes out of *speakers*

The sound from an acoustic does *not*

That's pretty much all I care about.

It seems as if there are soooo many factors that make the acoustic vs. digital argument such a convolution.

- Age of pianist
- Ability of pianist
- Financial means of the pianist
- Cultural background of the pianist


I grew up with piano lessons but we were pretty poor. My mother saved for the $5 weekly lesson from the grocery budget. My father found a $300 spinet. It was by far the most expensive piece of furniture in the house. It was never tuned (I played for 8 years) and I never knew that it wasn't tuned and after 8 years of lessons, I always thought that I was a terrible player because NOTHING I played sounded any good.

Fastforward 30 years, my mother buys me a Yamaha digital piano (space issues) and I am SHOCKED how beautiful my playing sounds. My teacher says I play too well to play on digital, for precisely all the reasons stated before, touch, finesse. I love playing on her grand. BUT, we would need to move in order to go acoustic AND I am aware of how much upkeep an acoustic piano requires. I can budget in the tunings and I can save for a quality acoustic. But do I think that I'm hampered by the digital? Not at all. So much of the conversation on this thread is laced with privilege -- educated parents who know about music and understand the investment value in their children's music education. My cousin paid 2K for his daughter's beginning flute -- she stuck with it for three months before moving onto the oboe.

Unfortunately MOST families don't have that kind of cash . I understand acoustic preference, but I'm of the mind that these preferences (acoustic or digital) should never be imposed on anyone else. They are highly personal and THAT'S where it should stay. Obviously the original poster wants to give his son the very best and can afford it.

But most folks don't have the option. And while we lament that music and art are the first things to be cut in hard budgetary times, the fact of the matter is that all those things COST MONEY. And if digital pianos open up that love of music for a child, then it's worth it's weight in GOLD. I'm the kid that couldn't do most things because of equipment costs and was often told, you won't be any good because you don't have the "best" fill in the blank. In my parents' mind, they had bought me the BEST piano.

You can't make any blanket statement about touch settings, because each DP is different. I own an old Clavinova, and NO setting works. Medium will not produce ff without hitting the damned thing with a hammer, and you still can't control the other end. Nothing works on it. "Light" allows very "powerful sounds", but they still aren't under control, and trying to play softly, with control, simply results in some notes not sounding at all.

The heavy setting makes it possible to control rought pp through mf, but there you have to exaggerate. You have to change everything you do to "adjust" to the totally artificial feel of a totally insensitive keyboard.

On the other hand, I have played at least one Yamaha that played rather nicely on the "heavy" setting. The reason is that the default was so exaggerated that it was much too easy to play loud passages (no effort), while control in soft passages was poor. The heavy made me work roughly the way I would on a good grand, meaning that I had to use some "effort", but then I also found it rather easy to get much better control on the other end.

I'm being very sloppy with my descriptions and terminology. My point is that if a teacher gets to play an individual DP, I would trust the teacher to make a good judgment about which setting is better. It is different on different DPs.

Now, about your link to Cyprien Katsaris. I don't know how much time you've spent working with different DPs, but it's very important to make a differentiation between action (which varies greatly from instrument to instrument, for obvious reasons) and the programmed sounds. I thought this ultra-expensive instrument sounded absolutely horrendous. To me it was shockingly bad, thin, one-dimensional, lifeless, and CKs playing sounded so glib that I couldn't help but think he was playing too fast and distorting things to attempt to mask the obvious shortcomings of the instrument.

So if I used this recording to make a blanket judgment about DPs, my conclusion would be much like yours. However, I have heard DPs for well under $1000 that sounded no worse than that over-priced (and badly adjusted???) instrument. I could not believe how thin and lifeless the sound was. Listening on my cheap laptop speakers, I can't always tell, in a matter of seconds, the difference between a DP and an acoustic. Usually it is the "too-perfect" sound that gives it away (no false beats in the treble, everything is too smooth in a way that is not natural), but in this awful recording I was aware of it in about three seconds.

Two thumbs up!!! You summed up the bottom line very nicely

Susan, I loved what you wrote!

Don't forget kind of music played. Ask any pianist who has to "gig" if he (or she) would prefer to play on whatever acoustic is available rather than use his own DP, and I'd wager most would prefer the DP.

The exception would be a "steady gig" where a good piano IS available and in tune.

Another factor is turning. An out of tune instrument drives me absolutely insane. I actually destroyed the pinblock of my second upright by fine tuning it daily (the unisons), which I admit is extreme. (It is also a good way to make sure that eventually the pins will be too loose to hold at all.)

My learning to tune my own instrument was the only way I could stand to make recordings, since when we hear recordings of excellent players, their pianos are always tuned to near perfection.

That matches my own experience as a teacher…

Isn't it horrible? But most likely there were equally bad things going on. If the piano was never tuned, it was most likely out of regulation. I have played on student instruments that were so bad, I was embarrassed by the sounds I was making and afraid that people listening would think that I actually played that way.

The number one issue is privacy. People who have it will never understand that others live in places that prevent practicing on anything other than a DP with earphones. The freedom to play a good acoustic without bothering neighbors is a luxury that some people take for granted.

I agree. Ultimately the parents of talented young pianists will usually be able to find a way to buy a good acoustic IF they live in a place where it will not disturb others, but some of my parents have found weighted keyboards, 88 keys, for under $500, and there is no way I am going to tell them that they have made a wrong choice. IF the children of these children really advance—and I still think that is more to do with will, desire and hard work than in having a "perfect instrument"—then these same parents will usually consider an acoustic within a reasonable amount of time. But getting to that "second step" is taking longer in the current economy.

I think parents are wise to listen to us (the teachers) when we recommend choice A over choice B, when both choices involve about the same amount of money AND when other problems (such as privacy) do not make one choice "not doable". In other words, if a family is about to consider a DP that costs almost $2000 and I, as a teacher, play on an acoustic that I think is going to be better, I think that family is foolish not to listen to me. However, I am also USED to adults not listening to me.

And I have quite a few young students who I feel are just like you. Without a DP, to "get them in the ball game", they would not even have a chance. So yes, I think a lot of this is about people with money and advantages not fully understanding what it is like for people who have less and who have to make sacrifices.

HOWEVER: if you read many posts here, you will also read about families who have a ton of money who refuse to invest in anything better than a cheeap 61 key DP, so there is another side to this story.

[/quote]

Good point. Although the more relevant statement for most of us who use digital pianos because they allow us to practice when we are able to practice is that the digital piano sound comes out of *** headphones *** bothering no one, while the acoustic piano does not and is therefore completely unusable during at least half of the 24 hours in a day.

That's pretty much all that matters when you want to play but an acoustic is impractical.

You've left yourself an enormous amount of wiggle room, haven't you? And invoked the "no true Scotsman" argument?

You haven't defined competent piano.

And acoustics vary enormously. I used to do my practice for Sunday services on a digital. Sunday morning I had no trouble with transfer to the grand we used in services. But the clunky old upright in the rehearsal room downstairs? No transfer, and if I warmed up on that one I was facing a shock on the grand upstairs.

We have to reword your sentence a bit. Anyone who practices on the average unmaintained home acoustic piano can transfer to a digital with no problems.

Let's face it, the average beginning piano student has access to an acoustic that is levels of magnitude worse than a modern digital.

If we compared high quality acoustic to equivalent quality digital, I'd give the edge to the acoustic. But we're not going to do that. In the average seven year old piano student world, we're going to compare the acoustic that they can afford with the digital they can afford. And now I think the edge goes to the digital.

In fact, playing on an acoustic is more than impractical when it simply can't be used. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

Case in point is wanting or needing to practice at hours when other people are asleep, which where I live not only includes my own family but also neighbors.

I agree, and I use my digital for the same - when work must be done silently or when an acoustic is not available. When I've done gigs that require keyboard work, I'd practice it on it to get acclimated to the feel.

Also, I occasionally use my DP to record my students. We'll use backing tracks and I can plug the DP directly into the mix without the need for all the microphones and cables. It can be a lot of fun, and the students enjoy the change of pace.

I agree!

Yes, and midi can be an excellent tool to show people, visually, what is actually happening.

For one thing, as you mentioned, recording is simple and instant. No setting up. In addition, and I do this a lot, you can PROVE that what is too slow now is actually correct and will result in a good effect by simply speeding up the playback.

It's also incredible, for showing what really happens, by playing (real-time) something that goes very fast in the sound equivalent of "slo-mo".

Things that sound very accurate at full speed prove to be much more uneven, at 1/4 speed. What is most impressive to students is to have the opportunity to hear that the unevenness that shows up when things are slowed down simply can't be heard when full-speed is resumed.

It's much like "seeing is believing", only in this case it is "hearing is believing".

Not for anyone who wants to play in public. Keyboards do not sound good in a hall- regardless of whether a pianist is good or mediocre. That's without even mentioning the limitations to expression and dynamics.

Essentially, a keyboard makes a poor pianist sound better and a great pianist sound worse. That's why it's not 'equal' to a piano. If someone wants to limit themself to 5 tonal varities (if they own a top of the range- more likely no more than 3) and 128 different volumes, they are going to be limited to the limitations of that instrument. Again, that serves to illustrate that there is no 'equality'. Digitals ARE a simulation- just like flight simulators. It's quite similar- a flight simulator is a useful way to train, without having to have a commercial airliner at your disposal 24/7. But I would never trust a pilot who had never previously flown a real plane to the highest possible standard.

As I already stated, learn to play a piano well and you can play ANY digital to a high standard. Learn to play a digital well and you will likely sound awful on a real piano (unless you stumbled on the technique required for sound-production by pure luck). Even if there were little importance in the other various factors mentioned (which is not the case) this alone would be of paramount importance. If you refuse to acknowledge both the pros and cons, you're simply trying to will a dream into reality. Technology may one day get there, but there is no hint of equivalence between a top of the range keyboard and a similarly priced upright. Not in our current times.

Let's come back to the golf analogy. Would indoor golf alone equip a young golfer to win a professional tournament on real turf? If anyone seriously thinks they can reach the highest standards of playing an acoustic grand (via practising solely with the limitations of an electric), they can forget it. Both can be useful. I stress that as much as anyone. But only the acoustic trains that which makes a real pianist.

A spinet doesn't sound good in a hall either, especially one that is out of tune and needs other work.

Let me make clear that the last time I played in public, in a situation that was important to me, I played on a first class concert grand. We all know that the best pianos around are "the best", for that reason. However, few people have such pianos to practice on daily, and some of us who live in cramped conditions have to make huge compromises.

I agree with the second part, not the first. I think a poor pianist sounds just about as bad either way.

Only a GOOD acoustic trains a pianist the right way. That's the problem. There are poor kids, trying to learn to play well, who are stuck on "beasts" at home. For some a good DP is a step up. Not where we would like them to get to, ideally, but at least the action is relatively even, no missing strings, no keys that stick down, etc., and the blasted thing is not a half step below pitch. A lot of these pieces of junk are in such bad shape that no technicain on the planet could make them work or sound right, but the parents don't yet have the money to buy another instrument.

For any student who has serious ambitions (plans to major in piano performance and so on), my goal will always be to help the family, when they are able, to find a grand. For others with less talent and less lofty goals, I don't think the instrument matters nearly as much.

I prefer my Steinway B greatly, but my Clavinova CLP 240 got me started and I still like playing with non-piano voices and instant recording. Both have a place, but I did notice a lot of improvement in my playing after a month or two of practicing exclusively on the grand. There is a difference. But I agree with Gary, I'll take a good DP any day over a crapola acoustic that's better off in a landfill.