Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum FAQ - Piano Forum How good does a "starter" have to be?

I'll agree that many old verticals are money pits.

But I also believe that there are still decent old starter pianos out there, you've just got to pick and choose a bit.

Don't we do our new memebers a disservice, however, when we immediately condemn every old piano?

I have an old Briggs, that while not the equal of a new 131 Petrof, can still whomp lots of new pianos.

One can't make a definitive call that something is junk, until you've seen the junk.

If a piano's keys all work, if the pedals all work, and if the piano can be tuned to A440, isn't that good enough for the family only wanting to spend a few hundred dollars?

The problem is that most old uprights cannot hold 440 and most have cosistant action problems.

If Van Cliburn were to play on a piano of poor quality, it wouldn't have an effect on him as a pianist. He would recognise that the inhamonicity and lack of good response is due to the piano's condition. If you put a beginner on a poor quality instrument, it often deters enough from the learning process that they lose interest and quit.

As you can see, I am NOT the Defender of the Landfill Piano.

I think one has to be careful when defining *how* the keys work. My church had received well-meaning donations of tiny Chinese pianos made in the 1980s that actually hurt the hands to play. The keys all moved up and down and made the appropriate sounds, but the action (if you can even call it that) cannot be condemned enough. I truly pity those children whose parents had bought those pianos for them to learn on. It is no wonder they all gave up and the pianos landed in the church.

Last year when my church underwent renovation, I managed to persuade the worship director to throw those pianos out together with the rest of the renovation debris so that we did not have to pay for disposal. He actually wanted to see if we could give those away to parents who would like their kids to learn the piano!!! He was well-meaning but had not actually played them himself.

I donated my mid-1970's Yamaha P-something to the choir room and the pianist was ecstatic

How old are your "old pianos" ? I regularly encounter 1900 - 1935 European pianos that I pitch raise about a semitone.

Even though people often say that a good upright will be better than a lesser quality grand, that is very debatable. As a pianist, starting with a grand that does not sound all that great due to its size is far superior than having the inferior touch and mechanism of an upright. Overtime, one's technique will not develop as much on an upright, and the quality of sound on a grand piano can always be made better later.

Jolly,

I would tend to agree with you. However, when people come onto the internet asking what we think of some old piano or another we can't examine it. So the opinion tends to default to what we most often see in real life--- the oldie is probably a junker. Even though occasionally one is pretty serviceable. But the safest bet is it's the most common thing. What do people expect-- that we can telepathically know how good the piano they are looking at is??

Regards,

Rick Clark

I thought all good techs were telepathic.

All good techs ARE telepathic, (or is that pathetic? )

Don't know about techs, but given the occasional ads I've seen over the years on the tube by dealers (including the one I participated in eons ago) I say they are tele-pathetic.

HH

I can't comment from the perspective of a tech, but I can comment from the perspective of a former adult beginner. I think that a starter piano doesn't have to be that good, really. So long as the keys and pedals work, you can sacrifice quite a lot in tone in the beginning, in my lay opinion.

An equally relevant question might be whether a poor quality upright that works but sounds bad is better than starting on a digital or electric piano. I don't know for sure (I started on my pre-landfill piano), but I'd think it would be hard to learn to play with expression on anything but the finest digital piano.

But then again, you folks are much more knowledgeable. What do you think? Pre-landfill piano vs. digital?

Cindy

My simple answer: A starter piano should be good enough so that playing it is pleasure, not torture. That makes it still very subjective on the part of the player, but I don't think that this can be quantified. A "good enough" piano for one player may not be "good enough" for another. As long as the instrument does not in itself become a disincentive or impediment to practicing, learning and playing, then it's good enough for the person that plays it. Anything less isn't good enough.

I cringe everytime I hear the words "starter piano". The term itself implies that someone just beginning doesn't deserve a good quality, or otherwise functioning piano.

I'm of the belief that if you want to excel at anything, you learn on the best equipment you can.

Michael Schumacher didn't learn Formula 1 driving on a Big Wheel.

The thought that a beginner can't learn to identify a quality instrument is silly. Of course, the longer that a beginner plays on junk, the harder it will be for them to recognize a good piano when they find one. But someone starting on a good piano will learn very quickly what consistent touch is, and what quality tone is. This person is more apt to enjoy playing, and even more, enjoy practicing. This is the person who will put in more time, and consequently excel much faster.

CrashTest:
You mentioned cheap grands being preferred over "good uprights". But the problems you mentioned being in the uprights, are specifically addressed in what I would consider a "good upright". A good upright will have a very consisent touch, and a very controllable touch, comparable to many grands, especially the cheapies.

Rick:
I agree completely with your post. We comment on what we see most often. The old pianos I've seen that were "good" stick out in my memory. This means that there weren't many of them. Every time I'm called to work on an old upright, I know before getting there what I will see. And if I'm wrong, then it's a pleasant surprise.

KlavierBauer

I've still got my first acoustic, it's awful. Never realised just how bad until I got the Aeolian. Practice time has quadrupled.
If I convert the birdcage to digital and weight the keys, will it be "suitable for a beginner"?
(The action will be disposed of.)

As an intermediate player who has had nothing but pre-landfills and digitals, I overwhelmingly endorse the latter over the former. I have a Roland FP-5 (upgraded the F-90) and find it much, much more enjoyable and expressive than my Wurlitzer spinet or my parents' old Kimball, both of which fit quite well in the landfill category.

That does not mean, of course, that a 5-octave Casio with unweighted keys is a good choice. You need to go at least to the level of a Yamaha P80 or a Roland FP3, which will run you in the low $1000+ range after adding speakers.

KB wrote: But Dale Earnhardt learned to drive on a junker. Not race, perhaps, but drive.

I don't know about parents in other regions, but I think I have a handle on the retail market down here, and for a lot of kids, it's either inexpensive piano, or no piano at all.

So if the starter piano must exist, should it not exist above a certain baseline?

I'm with Klav unless price is the overwhelming factor.

If all you can afford is a landfill piano, it is better than nothing, but not much better. I too, would rather have someone learn on a weighted-key digital than a typical old upright or spinet.

I don't even buy the price issue.

It's a matter of priority and nothing else.
It IS that simple.

We might have to agree to disagree, but I just don't buy it. As long as there are people choosing to buy a new car rather than a new piano, I won't accept the "can't afford it" excuse. Buy a $10k car instead of a $20k one, and you have enough money to buy a Sauter upright.

Of course I realize there are exceptions to every rule, and I understand there are people who truly can't afford a piano. I just thinkt hat the majority of people who say it, are really saying that they would rather spend their money on other things.

KlavierBauer

At least it will be a pleasant disagreement.

I look at it in a totally different light.

Most people, especially those that do not play, will not pay for superior performance in a piano. For those people who do not play, and who are not going to spend the money for even a decent Korean vertical, yet still want their children to be exposed, and enjoy music, has it got to be all or nothing?

Maybe I'm foolish, but surely there must be a starting point, besides a 4 or 5k vertical? And while I'm running against the tide, wouldn't it be better to start with an acoustic, than with a digital?

Must be a man thing. I've seen homes with a 20 year old vacuum cleaner, and hubbie proudly proclaims how reliable it is, no need for a new one. Of course he's not the one who uses it.
Then his power drill breaks, (used twice a year,) and he buys the coolest toy he can afford.
Now if the dealer hands him the remote control to a player piano and says "Check this out Sir, I think you'll find it's suitable for a learner."

I'm with Klavier..

You want to learn tennis, you go get a nice racket, not a 60 year old wooden peice of junk sitting in your attic.
You want to be a runner, you go buy good, expensive running shoes (not moth-eaten dried-up workboots sitting in your basement)
Think of all the great composers, how many would have been unjustly slighted if their parents only gave them a 60 note keyboard, or one without a sustain pedal...

My personal theory about Scott Joplin is that the reason he could only compse Rags is because his piano was a square grand ))

Manitou