Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Advanced piano on Clavinova CLP?

Hi,

This is my first post on this rather good forum,

I am currently in the progress of saving some money up for a new Yamaha Clavinova CLP-270 and I was just concerned that after reading up alot on digital pianos, concerning the advantages and more importantly disadvantages of owning a piano such as this, is it a wise choice to make considering I am a fairly advanced player and tend to focus on technically difficult and musically challenging pieces?

I was wondering if a model such as the CLP270 could handle, as it were, musically and technically pieces that I want to start playing, like Rachmaninov preludes, gaspard, islamey etc.. I am not sure if an acoustic piano is a must to have and practice pieces like this on, as I have heard time and time again.

Can Clavinovas be effectively played on to a concert standard for the more richer harmonic pieces for example?

Could the above pieces I have mentioned be effectively performed on a digital piano such as a CLP270? I personally feel I could after playing the clp270 for some time in a piano showroom, however people say there is no control over tone colour amongst other things, I dont want to buy it and regret the choice after a few years or so. Its alot of money and I dont want to regret my decision.

The reason why I have opted for a clavinova digital piano as apposed to an acoustic upright is because I need to practice silently most of the time and the actual tone of the clp270 I have fell in love with, and I find it more pleasing to the ear than alot of other real uprights I have tryed out, including a Yamaha upright worth originally five thousand pounds!!!

Please, please could people share their views and opinions on this matter, I am currently set on purchasing the CLP270 you see.

I have also heard top music schools have clavinova pianos as practice instruments for the students, so they must be suitable for performing the more advanced repertoire, the route I wish to take.

Thanks.
MWF

MWF

I have a Clavinova (forget the exact model number, but I think it's beyond the 270) and I personally have no issues with it when it comes to playing repertoire such as you've mentioned (though I've only read through Gaspard and Islamey - never really sat down to learn them... ) The only "problem" I have with them is that the sound seems to decay a bit more quickly than on an accoustic. Also, you cannot get harmonics (though I don't think those come into play in those pieces), so if you wanted to play some 20th century repertoire with those you'd be out of luck. But apart from those issues, I don't have any other problems. Like you, I need to have the ability to practice with headphones, and it works great in that capacity.

Go to a dealer and try some different models out, playing some of the repertoire you're interested in - that should give you some ideas as to the instruments' capabilities and if it will work for you.

Harmonics!! what are they then? never heard of them.

I have an older Clavinova and took advanced lessons on it at the local university and thought it was great. However, after I bought my grand piano, the Clavinova just doesn't cut it anymore. As the other poster said, mostly because of the decay rate. I can't get the beauty and subtlty out of it like the grand, but it does sound better on headphones than through the built in speakers.

On the other hand, I don't think you'll regret having the Calvinova, even if you eventually purchase another piano. It comes in pretty handy and, if you need to play a gig somewhere, it is somewhat portable.

Hi Mark,
[waves in the direction of Peterboghorror ]
I have a CLP-280 (which is essentially identical to a 270 except the wooden white keys), and it is indeed an acceptable alternative to when I cannot play my acoustic piano due to family/neighbour/time of day issues. We live in a very open-plan converted barn where it is impossible to shut out the sound from the rest of house, so the possibility of playing with headphones late in the evenings is a huge plus for me. I tend to 'turn around' after 9.30pm :




FrankIII:
I can't get the beauty and subtlety out of it like the grand

I think that the limitations are quite obvious when trying to aim at voicing certain chords, precisely how to pedal a particular passage, etc, because a Clavinova simply doesn't react like a real piano in those areas. It does a good enough imitation so as to give a reasonable indication, but I'd not recommend one for anything more than sight-reading, familiarisation and the first steps of getting to know a piece. Once past that stage, the possibilities afforded by a decent (and not necessarily very expensive) acoustic piano become quite evident.

I am not trying to be discouraging, but one should be realistic about what technology can (and still cannot) do. E.g. I recently played around for a while on a well-maintained 25 year old Weinbach upright piano, which recently cost its owner ~£1000 from the small ads in the local paper. If funds were an issue, but I was determined to learn/play advanced classical repertoire, I would consider searching out something along those lines over and above any Clavinova currently available.

Best of luck with your choice,

-Michael B.

There are some pieces that instruct you to silently depress keys so as not to strike the strings with the hammers, but to raise the dampers. Then you play other notes. The sympathetic vibrations that are generated can cause the undampened strings to vibrate in such a way to play harmonic tones. You only see this in modern music, and not often at that.

There is also a different style of harmonics possible on an accoustic in which the player opens the lid and lightly presses his/her finger on the strings while playing the key. This causes the string to vibrate differently, causing harmonics (this is similar to harmonics produced on a violin or other stringed instrument). Obviously this is not possible on a clavinova, but only on an accoustic.

However, we're talking about extended modern techniques that come up in less than 0.01 percent of any music you'll likely encounter, they're mostly a modern curiosity and don't come up all that often. Don't let that be the reason you don't go with a clav...

I have a similar setup to Postenebraslux and agree with his post. I find my clav (a 230) perfectly acceptable alternative for playing off hours, learning passages, memorizing, etc. I would say you need a model with the GH-3 action, not the older GH action that did have some technical limitations that I noticed (key repetition, for example). I imagine the 270 has the GH-3.

MWF,

More specifically about those harmonics: Depress the C below middle C silently as 8ude says. While holding that key depressed, play middle C and release it. What do you hear? You continue to hear middle C but the sound is coming from the low C string. Do the experiment again, holding low C silently depressed. Now play G above middle C and release it. High C and release it. The E above that, and release it. The G above that, and release it. The B-flat above that, and release it. Your low C string will produce all those harmonics. Now, if you hold down that low C and then play any other notes outside of that progression you'll essentially hear nothing (except maybe a little inharmonicity). Cool.

Pedalling is the biggest problem. The nuances possible on an acoustic are simply not available on a digital.

The touch is also a problem. Even though most nice digitals are weighted, the lack of a true escapement makes for a completely different feel.

I reaserched that clavanova and think that I might have played on one. They are very good pianos and I don't think that you will have a prob will some pieces but you have to think a digi piano will be lacking on some of the luster of sound as a real piano will. I practiced the song my heart will go on on a clav at my piano teachers house and I thought that is sounded ok till I played it at a recitle on a Baldwin 1904 GrandPrix and it sounded soooo much better. But when it all settles down to it SOME digis are (dare I say it) better at SOME songs than the real thing. Power to you!!

I also play on a digital piano (though given some of the threads about repertoire, not to the standards of those on here) and thought I'd mention a couple of points.

My current stage piano (RD700SX) has a "sympathetic resonance" sample for each of the notes that can be used to create the harmonic effects mentioned above. Further, it also has a half-pedal option. Obviously, neither of these effects are as good as as on a well-maintained acoustic, but they do allow an approximation.

I'm not familiar with the current Clavinova range, but the old CLP-810 gathering dust in the garage took me well past my grade 8 and into easier concerto territory - that said, the action *is* different, and I'd need to sit down at a real piano for half an hour or so before I was comfortable publicly performing on an acoustic.

hmmm...interesting, ok thanks for the replies to this matter, I still have the problem that I cannot really have an acoustic piano in my home because they are too loud, and I practice alot in the evenings you see, it will drive my family mad.

As far as the harmonics are concerned, I did not realise you meant the sympathetic resonance which the clp270 does have, so thats that problem solved.

I agree with the pedalling comments, which are less subtle on a digital piano, but the clp270 does have half pedalling also.

The touch on the clp270 is fantastic in my opinion also, and the gh3 keyboard allows fast repetition of notes like on an acoustic.

I cant agree entirely with the post by posttenebraslux, the clp280 you have is much more of a resource than just for sight-reading and memorising etc.. thats being too harsh I feel. I know the clavinova is not the real thing but its still classed as an instrument/piano, and its a far better instrument to practice piano on than other uprights I have tryed.

I think the slight aspects of piano playing only possible on acoustic pianos such as precise pedalling etc.. are not enough to put me off, and as far a voicing is concerned I dont agree that you cant voice certain chords or melody lines on a digital piano such as the clp270.

I think that one can adapt from a digital piano to a real one easily, and its possible for someone to perform a piece of music better on a digital. Does it not depend on the individuals abilities?

Digital pianos can set the player up for the real thing, such as concert grand, and if top music schools use clavinovas they must be 100% suitable for advanced playing surely.

Thanks.
MWF

Mark,

I am afraid that we'll just have to agree to disagree about touch/voicing/etc; I can only tell you of my personal experiences.

As far as 'top music schools' using Clavinovas, that is certainly news to me. At the Conservatoire de Genève[1], (where my daughter and son have studied for the past 6 years, piano and double bass respectively) they will not accept any piano pupil, unless the child has access to an acoustic piano at home: Clavinovas and the like are expressly excluded. There are also no digital instruments in any practice rooms at any branch of the organisation across the canton.

-Michael B.
[1] Perhaps not a 'top' music school in international terms, but certainly quite well-respected in the French-speaking world, and has counted some reputed figures as piano professors in the past, such as Dinu Lipatti.

Are they really that bad?

Check out the clavinova web site, the co.uk one I think tells you what the music establishments think of the clp pianos that they use.

As far as playing technically is concerned there is nothing you cant do on a very good digital piano as apposed to an acoustic, its just the more subtle aspects you cant master on a digital, but I am sure if one practices on a digital piano they can adapt the skills learnt on a digital to an acoustic and then use the acoustic to perfect your performance as best you can.

I honestly cant see practicing on a decent digital piano being a negative, I seem to be a good player and have been told I am very good, purely by practicing on a Roland digital piano for years now, and have also played many different acoustic uprights and grands in my time by adapting to them when giving a performance.

One pianist could be just as good or better than another on a decent digital piano, than a pianist who plays nothing but acoustic pianos. Or in other words a pianist who plays digital pianos could jump onto an acoustic piano and play to a higher standard than a pianist who does not have anything to do with the digital piano world, but soley plays acoustic pianos.

OK. Let's get into some detail. The CLP-270/280 has four of what are termed 'dynamic sample levels.' That is, each note has been sampled four times, for sake of argument, at piano, mezzo forte, forte and fortissimo levels. These four tones (or timbres, if you like) are then velocity-switched in four ranges across the 128 velocity values available in the MIDI specification, such that when one plays in the 'piano' range, the soft sample is used, when one plays more forcefully, the 'forte' sample is triggered, etc. For velocity values 0 to 127 the volume sensitivity can be adjusted to be more or less linear, but in general, the harder you play, the louder in volume terms the appropriate sample is reproduced.

On a real piano there is no sudden change from one timbre to another as one increases the velocity with which one plays. On a decently voiced piano you will notice that the tone changes almost imperceptibly from the quietest pianissimo through mezzo forte right up to the loudest sound possible. This phenomenon plays a large part in the expressive capabilities of the piano as an instrument. However, even on a sophisticated digital such as the 270/280, it is quite obvious when one is triggering the sample from the 'next range up or down' as it were. This is what I am referring to when talking about voicing, phrasing and dynamics. It is kind of the electronic equivalent of an acoustic piano with a pronounced tenor or bass break (where the tone characteristic/quality of the piano changes very noticeably at the points where the scale changes from single to double wound, or from wound to wire strings.) And is just as undesirable. This is all in addition to the issues concerning the pedal, or "the soul of the piano" as Rubenstein called it.

As an aside, I think it is obvious that a decent pianist will be able to get a better sound out of a good digital, than an unaccomplished or insensitive player can out of an acoustic piano; similarly, I am sure that Roger Federer could beat me quite soundly off the court, even if I was armed with the greatest racquet in the world and he had a frying pan. This however doesn't mean that a kitchen utensil is an ideal tool for learning how to play a good game of tennis .

So, to answer your question: no, that are not really that bad. They certainly have their uses and some distinct advantages over an acoustic instrument. They also have their limitations. You asked about advanced classical repertoire, and I gave you my opinion, based on owning one (alongside an acoustic piano) and playing (reasonably) advanced classical repertoire. I don't think they are useless, or I would not have bought one. Then again, they have their obvious shortcomings. I certainly cannot recommend one as a sole instrument for the purposes you describe.

I would suspect (and this is only a guess) that many of the Clavinovas in use at education institutions are used for the youngest beginners and certainly not much after ABRSM Grade 5 for example. But of course, Yamaha are not going to mention that on their website. As with most things in life, you get what you pay for, and you pay for what you get. And ~£1800 gets you the best imitation of an acoustic piano that those clever chaps at Yamaha can come up with so far. But it still ain't a real one.

My final advice would be to save up some more dough, (send your children up a few chimneys, etc) and invest in a decent upright acoustic (Yamaha, Schimmel, etc) with a silent practice option. You certainly sound like you are serious in your musical endeavours, and don't want to regret paying a still not inconsiderable amount for might be a half-arsed solution. If your true desire is to become a more accomplished pianist (and I think that the pieces you mention would heavily imply that), then I believe you will have to put a bit more folding stuff where you mout^H^H^H^heart is...

Kind regards,

-Michael B.

I can state that one of the most accomplished pianists I ever heard in person demo'd my clavinova (as well as a disklavier and other acoustics in the store) and I was convinced that it was an instrument that can handle advanced piano playing.

He played La Campanella and Feux Follets, among other Liszt pieces, which is far, far beyond most pianist's technical ability. Certainly mine.

Anyway, I like my clavinova for recreational playing and for listening through headphones.

Joel

Have you checked into any other digitals:
Kurzweil
Korg
Kawai

I just bought the Korg SP250.($899) While you are saving your money for a Yamaha CLP you could have this very portable and great sounding keyboard to practice on. Do a Google search if you're interested.

Posttenebraslux, yes there are no way near as many tonal, timbre subtle changes on a digital no, but there are enough to plan out your phrasing etc.. and how you want to perform a piece dynamically on the whole.

One such as myself can adapt to acoustic pianos and change what you cant do as well on a digital to suit the acoustic. There is considerably more dynamic sprectrum on grand pianos as you surely know as compared to digital or even upright pianos as you are suggesting I should go for. I can already play uprights well anyway, there has been nothing but positives from learning and performing music on my current digital, it is good if not excellent preperation for the real thing such as grand piano.

Your comments on the tennis comparison is a bit odd, how can you compare a decent clavinova to something like a kitchen utensil in the context of playing tennis? Ridiculous!! A racket is a racket, a piano is a piano, its not like a clavinova is a toy piano with 22 keys as compared to a grand piano or an upright with 88 keys and completely different sound coming from the instrument. In other words a tennis player obviously would not play with a kitchen utensil ever, but a pianist could practice on a digital piano if he/she had to, and it would be a fairly accurate outcome gained.

I cant own a grand piano for obvious reasons, but a digital piano such as this clavinova I feel will not be a negative as compared to buying an upright.

Oh and thats you speculating on the music establishments using the clavinovas for beginning purposes etc.. I think they are used for very high standards as decent second pianos, there is now no real need to practice on upright pianos, if you are serious about music it is more important that one practices on grand pianos as well as a second piano such as a digital, or if you like an acoustic.

I am beyond grade 8 and managed to get there by practicing soley on my Roland digital piano, I had to do some touch-ups on an upright, but I was more than capable of reaching the standard through regular practice sessions on a digital piano. So that proves you wrong, again.. The intelligent pianist knows what they can and cannot do on whatever piano they need to perform on, and thus can adapt to the piano at hand, its not like you cant play the piano very well just because you dont practice on uprights. Every upright is different to the next anyway, how can soley practicing on the same upright every day make you adapt easier to a grand?

The Clavinova will allow you to work on any advanced material you want, and you will have no trouble playing or performing on acoustic pianos, just because you practice on a CLP. My only suggestion is to spend a little more for the CLP-280 to get the natural keyboard.

It won't compete with a high quality acoustic grand costing 8 times as much, but it's a great practice instrument. It never goes out of tune, and you can practice any time you want without disturbing anyone. That's why a lot of people own both an acoustic and a digital.

Here are a few recordings I made with my CLP-175. A world-travelling concert pianist (who hates digitals) heard these recordings without knowing how they were recorded, or even who was playing. He didn't suspect it was a digital, and was surprised when he found out.
http://raktron.com/piano/

Good luck with your decision.

Haha, having a Digital piano next to a Bosendorfer..I would practice on the Bosendorfer even if it meant I'd be waking Bach up!