Hi everyone,

I'm getting back to teaching after a coupel years off and teaching mostly from music schools the past decade. So, I need some help getting started. Here's my question:

I want to purchase a good digital piano to teach on as my home is not big enough to accomodate an upright. Do you guys have any recommendations - what models by which companies? I would want to spend max. $2000, though all suggestions are welcome as perhaps I could get a more expensive version used.

I teach Royal conservatory and want to get something that will allow me to teach up to at least grade six well enough. And maybe in time I can find a way to get an upright.

Any ideas? Does anyone here teach on a digital/electric piano?

At what grade level do you think it's absolutely necessary to get an upright to maximize learning?

Thanks!

Hi kaye

I'm not a teacher but I can't help but wonder how, if your home is not 'big enough' for an upright, you are going to accomodate an 88 key digital piano? Unless, of course, your ceilings are extremely low!

Again as a non-teacher, I think it's imperative that the teacher, at least, has an acoustic piano at their disposal.

...just mho

Hi Cruiser,

I'm not sure I understand your question. A digital piano is just long and not bulky, whereas an upright has a full back and takes up far more room. As well, to have an upright, you need a place that is sound proof enough not to bother neighbors, whereas digitals can be played with head phones etc.

Of course an upright is preferable, and I respect your opinion and it is also mine. However, with beginner level students, many start out practicing with a digital/electric piano at home for the first couple years and so to teach them on the same is fine for the first little while IMO. It's really when students begin to get higher up that they need to get an upright. I'm just wanting opinions on when the cut off point would be re. needing to transition to an upright, and not whether or not I should or shouldn't teach on a digital, because again, that is my only option right now. But thanks for sharing your opinion. I understand an upright is ideal.

In the long run, I am making my way toward an upright I hope, but for now, trying to find the very best alternative I can. Sooo...

Anyone else? I'm not looking for opinions on whether or not I should teach on a digital/electric, but rather for those who have done this or if you had to do this, what would you recommend?

Thanks, Kaye

The Montreal conservatory only favors the Roland HP-207 as the closest thing to a real piano there is... if that helps.

Many thanks Strat! That helps. I have been leaning heavily toward getting a Roland in fact, so this is good info. Thank-you.

Kaye

I don't have a brilliant upright - It's...okay.
I prefer to play my Yamaha P-140, but I always choose to teach on the the upright over it.
I think my yammy sounds good and feels pretty good too. My only concern would be that my pupils wouldn't develop the strength they needed to play a real piano if they had to.
But I know you're not looking for a should I/should I not opinion.
So my only advice is to look at the yamaha. No matter what anyone tells you about the P120 being very similar, they're not being truthful. The P-140 feels farrrrrrr more like a piano.
I think it'd work out about $1000 or something like that. Maybe a bit more. Though your budget stretches a lot further than that, so maybe you'd be looking for something better.

http://www.soundslive.co.uk/product.asp?name=Yamaha---P140S&ID=4406

kaye, it's also the piano I'm heavily leaning on getting for myself, too. But being able to compare both the HP-207 next to a grand and feeling a "close enough" action between the 2 was a real eye-opener.

I would look into the Roland FP-7. I played it and liked the action on this much better than the action on the Hp-207 or HP-204. Roland tries to mimic the piano action, but IMO it ends up being a bit weird. The FP-7 doesn't have this escapement "feature" which actually is a good thing. It doesn't come with a cabinet or stand, but its a nice instrument and slightly less expensive than the HP line. I would go to a dealer and play both of them side by side if possible, and decide for yourself what feels the best.

edited to add: I just thought about your limits in space, and the FP-7 on a good stand would take up less space than the HP, but probably not enough to worry about. When I started teaching I also worked on a digital, and had no problems with that. Kids enjoy playing on both as long as they work well.

Hi again, Kaye

It's simply not true that an upright takes up "far more room" than a digital piano (I'm not talking about toys here). Take a tape measure and find out for youself.

The point I was trying to make is that there is very little difference in the floor area taken by an 88 key digital (like my Kawai CA 91) and the floor area taken by most uprights. Indeed quite often a dp can be larger in this respect. The main difference - and not in all cases - is the vertical dimension and hence my flippant remark (with a winking smiley) about the height of your ceilings.

The sound (noise) question is altogether a different matter and this is where I agree that a digital comes into its own. But, you did not mention this in your original post.

As a 'serious' student of the piano I would not take lessons from a teacher who did not have an acoustic piano at their disposal but I take your point about teaching children who only have a dp at home.

Hi guys,

Thanks for your input.

I actually tried the Roland FP 7 and really liked it. I actually almost bought this earlier in the year. I agree, it is a great option.

I believe I tried the Yamaha P-140 as well. It's nice to know what I felt were good picks wasn't just my opinion, but others here also liked them.

I have a casio px 120 which would be fine to teach beginners on, but I have wanted to be able to teach the more intermediate levels also.

I went to town yesterday evening and tried the ROland HP - 207. I found the touch very similar to an acoustic - but more like an older acoustic piano, than a contemporary Kawai or Yamaha acoustic feels. I could see how you find it a bit 'wierd.' I sort of felt like when I played the keys didn't 'give' enough back on the action, but you sort of hit the ground with a plop when you press (though not enough to totally make me discount it as it does perform well overall). Sot I decided to go over our budget and get it because it will do what i need it to do, even if not quite perfect, it's close.
And the store owner worked out a great price and payment plan for us, so it seemed like a good investment as well.

Cruiser, thanks for sharing your perspective. It sounds like you are a really dedicated student and it's great you have an upright on hand. I wish you all the very best in your studies.

Oh, I almost missed your reply Strat. Yeah - the 207, I hear ya, because for me it was the 'close enough' feeling that led to me decide to go for it. There was a real acoustic there for the same price and I did sigh a bit as I look forward in hope to having an acoustic again. But you know, I really wasn't disappointed with the HP - 207. The keys are wood or like wood, so my fingers won't be slipping off the plastic anymore when I do my G flat major arpeggios! And the touch is close enough that I can get back to learning more advanced pieces again, working on the nuances etc. ANd it just looks really pretty too! lol!

The store also threw in gently used headphones and almost new padded pench, so I'm very happy. :0)

Thanks again for the helpful replies,

Kaye

Thank you Kaye. I in return wish you every success in your teaching activities, whether it be by means of a digital or an acoustic instrument. I've no doubt that your skill and dedication will more than compensate for any perceived disadvantages in not having a 'real' piano to teach with.

edit: congratulations on choosing your new Roland HP 207!

Mike

What kind of a human being what possibly try and teach students endevouring to learn the art of playing piano on a fake piano?!?!

This is like a driving instructer who teaches his students how to drive using his child's powerwheels(a tiny motorized children's car).

To initiate a young student into the art of piano using a digital piano is truly a crime against that student, one of enourmous proportions.

This is by far the most disturbing post I have yet encountered.

Your middle name wouldn't happen to be Gyro would it? Unhappily, I find myself agreeing with PPM1994. How much lower can our art get? Will I have to go to the cornfield?

Thanks for the kind words of encouragment Mike. That was so nice to read and I value that. In fact, I believe that your heart of encouragment as well as your keen insight and attention to detail that's come through on this thread are gifts that will be wonderful assets when/if you start teaching!

Thanks again for taking time to share your thoughts on things.

Kaye

Nice one!

Seriously, though, I've seen several "music schools" in my area that have nothing but electric keyboards in their studios--Gyro will be delighted to know. And those schools have students lining out the door. Have you ever witnessed a group lesson in the keyboard lab? It's quite a sight. A bit scary, if you ask me.

I know of two colleagues (private teachers) who teach on keyboards. They also have a grand in the studio, but that's for the teacher to demonstrate. They both have more students than I do, but we end up teaching about the same number of hours per week.

In my experience, students who practice on keyboards at home tend to be learning piano "just for fun." They (and their parents) are not serious at all about piano. Fortunately, as of last month, all of my private students have at least an upright piano at home And the last person who switched to an upright has already shown tremendous improvement. Maybe it's one of those "Gee! My mom actually got me a real piano! I guess I better start practicing!" situations.

Basically it's a cheap alternative. I can't think of one student at my school who has a piano - I even have a small group with nothing at home! Real music i.e. live concerts, individual lessons, quality instruments, is still only for the well heeled.

Or families who have the foresight and judgment to make the right choices in life. Nine times out of ten, show me a family who can't afford a piano and I will show you a family who has chosen not to be able to afford a piano.

That was mine!

Hi there, PianoPlayerMan1994,

This is Kaye's husband.

I think you need to be "tuned." I will oblige by by a reply to your extreme and insulting comments.

A normal person with a normal life, who has humble means but a deep passion to teach. She still creates excitement and passion in her students, and they learn music as well as about themselves.

First of all, not sure what level or what country you teach in, but here, people who start learning music as children don't want to learn the "art" of playing piano. They rather long to be able to play, and play well the music they are learning about.

Hmmm... nope. It's like a driving instructor who uses a used car that's in good shape because she can't afford more expensive cars. Her teaching makes all the difference in the world, not the car. The student doesn't need to brag about the car he or she learns on. But has to pay attention to the lesson and not be distracted by exercises in futility.

What an uncalled for insulting remark coming from someone who evidently lives in an ivory tower. Mind your manners, sir.

An acoustic piano is essential at a certain level, not essential for beginners, but if the parents can afford it, and if the piano is gong to be treated well, in a room that's well tempered, and tuned regularly, then why not. But if the parents can't afford it, it is no reason to shut the door to piano lessons to that child.

I'd say you need to get out more often and hang out with real people.

Millions of people around the world are learning music on plastic electronic toys/keyboards, and many have digital pianos because of how practical that is for low income families living in apartments of townhouses.

Learning piano on an acoustic piano is not for everyone: price, and environment count. However, I deeply disagree that the piano makes the student, just as saying that the piano makes the teacher. I know piano teachers who can't tell when their piano is out of tune until it's way out of tune. It's all relative.

Not all children have the ability or passion to become concert pianists. A good teacher will discern that and not abuse the student with extreme demands on him/her or his/her parents.

Painting my wife as a criminal and talking to her as if she's an idiot, betrays a disturbed view of the world and a disproportionate view of yourself, in my opinion, and I wonder how you can't see that you lost something along the way: humanity, decency and a sense of measure.

I wildly hope you realize by now that this conversation has little to do with digital vs acoustic pianos, but has a lot to do with personal opinions, experiences, and maybe even about the art of being a teacher.

So, no need to be rude.

This being said, no one would dispute that having an acoustic piano is best for students of a certain level and caliber. It becomes more than just about notes and sound. For these, the decision rests with their parents.

Obviously, some people do not think that misery or poverty exists, and that many families make huge sacrifices just to buy a digital piano between $1000 and $2000. To put an added burden on them out of snobism would be heartless.

Finally, my wife didn't say she believes a digital piano was better than an acoustic, just that it's what we can afford right now for various reasons alluded to above. So breathe deep before you trigger rude comments next time.

Thanks to all the others who have been civil. It's enriching to be able to have adult conversations with our peers.

My .02

Regards,

Andre Lefebvre

Well said, Andre. Just be aware that there are several other members here who share ppm1994's obnoxious approach to other human beings. But that's the price we pay for freedom of speech so just ignore such ignorant rants.

Good point about the studies, but did you realize there are two statements there?

Acoustics become essential at a certain point. Digitals are adequate before that point.

I am relatively sure you were saying there are no studies to support the second statement, but it would apply equally to the first. If you're going to insist on good quality scientific evidence, that is.

If we're going back to common understanding, realizing that the data may not fully support it, most of us myself included probably believe an acoustic is necessary for learning the fine nuances necessary for the serious conservatory bound, concert pianist intendee.

And if we're honest, that is such a tiny percentage of the piano student market that it is kind of silly to let it drive the entire field. Most students will never become professionals and will never understand the fine nuances but will derive enormous benefit from their study.

And now I would re-ask the evidence question: where is the evidence that the digital is unsuitable for that vast majority of students? (And consider that many of the great composers lived before the modern piano was developed, and never played on anything close to what is available today.)

There's probably no real data, but there's probably just as solid a common sense feel that the digital is adequate as there is a feel that the acoustic is better. Except for a few wackos on both sides, of course.

Scheesch Kaye, you could have warned us you had a big brute of a husband lurking behind you! PPM1994 is well rude which is, well, rude. But I still agree with him. Our children deserve better.

(Andre again - waiting for my registration to go through)

Thank you Bart, much appreciated...

And just so everyone understand our position: we don't believe a digital could ever "replace" an acoustic. It's a question of common sense. I believe teaching and learning on a digital piano has its differences.

You can't beat having over 20 tons of pure raw tension from the piano stings, and interacting with this massive power with hammers of felt, from a whisper to a roar, from a minimalistic ambient angle to a full-on explosion of sound.

But teaching and learning on a digital because that's all you have at the moment isn't a sin. It would be terrible to keep a child from learning piano just because the teacher or the parents own a digital piano.

And I'd rather have a student learning on a digital that's "relatively tuned" than on an acoustic that doesn't keep its tuning because one lives in a house that doesn't have automatic sustained regulation of humidity levels and uniform diffusion of heat/cool, the absence of which would more than likely affect negatively the otherwise wise and important investment of a piano.

One final note: if we look at life through the lenses of all things ideal, of course parents can $ave for years, or put an instrument on credit if they have access to it. I'm quite sure however, that children would much prefer learning to play the piano than obsess over whether or not they have the "right" piano.

So digital pianos, just like studio-size pianos or "baby grand" (commercial and practical solutions diminishing a true piano for the sake of functionality) have their utility.

But again, sadly, judgment can come easy for some who forget to pay attention to life's lessons and have a responsive heart. We do what we can with what we have, and work toward a better life, not despising the days of small beginnings.

It's snowing outside today, it's beautiful in freezing Alberta...

Regards,

Andre
Music for the Broken-Hearted

What's gonna be your tag 'Papa Bear'?

message moved

Could be...

(Andre here)

So far here is what PPM1194 has said:

"What kind of a human being... on a fake piano?!?!"

"To initiate a young student into the art of piano using a digital piano is truly a crime against that student, one of enourmous proportions."

"This is by far the most disturbing post I have yet encountered."

I can't agree with these statements. They have little to do with the topic of digital vs acoustic. They are base personal attacks.

Also, PianoWorld has forums for digital pianos as well as acoustic, then it must be assumed that for the forum's creators and administrators, digital pianos are deemed to be "pianos."

But I would again say that neither my wife or I even hinted at suggesting that a digital piano is a real piano. It's a clever computer using lesser quality mechanical copy of a piano action to try and emulate a REAL piano.

I worked in a piano repair shop, tuned pianos for years, sold acoustic and digital pianos in a music store, and never once encountered a digital piano that could make me forget it was a machine. (Technics digital pianos were rather amazing I must admit, but only the real thing is the real thing).

Regards,

Andre

PPM1994 is a very disturbed young man but sometimes out of the mouths (even foul) of babes sometimes comes truth. A DP is a digital (not even analogue!) recording of a piano. I'll say it again - our children deserve better. Hey I just had a thought - or otherwise they may all grow up to be like PPM1994!

And welcome to PW styzer!

Thanks keyboardklutz...

On that 'note,' I've heard samplings of grand pianos that were pretty darn good. But only a listener could mistake that for a real grand piano. Because the sound isn't all there is, it's a whole package...

But I truly enjoy that amazing sound. I know the piano isn't real, but the experience of its sound is real. But that's outside of the teaching context...

Regards,

andre

I am the founder, host, and owner of Piano World.

You can see my personal piano in the following picture...



Yes, it's a digital (Yamaha P-80).

Would I prefer a nice acoustic grand, sure. But I have neither the funds nor the space.

At least the keyboard is velocity sensitive, and has an ok action. Plus I can play whenever I want without disturbing anyone (I'm in a condo now) using wireless headphones.

Frank, do you teach piano? I'm a student, I also have a digital, and I have no choice. The concern is a) financial - I got my DP second hand from a friend for under $500 b) noise and neighbours (When I work on the computer at night I turn on the kitchen fan to block the sound of upstairs snoring). But I also don't teach. I have not written in this thread because I will not be presumptuous about this teacher's circumstances and real choices.

Oh heck, should I get my coat?

Frank, if you ask over on the piano forum I'm sure plenty of people will convince you that a 7 foot grand would fit nicely in that space.

Thank you Frank, good post...

keystring: I think it's OK to engage in conversation even if we don't think we could have all the answers, what counts n my book is the exchange of ideas and experiences. I dare say that's how we can best learn ...

I'd like to share a story I read about a unique composer, Olivier Messiaen, which, to me, illustrates that music can transcend instruments:

"The story goes like this. Olivier Messiaen - mystic, troubadour, lover - was minding his business one day, during World War 2, when the Nazis suddenly picked him up and threw him in a concentration camp.

The world about Olivier was beset with darkness. Jews were being murdered, land was being stolen, lives were being cut to ribbons and blown to the wind and a great many decent, intelligent people were seriously worried that all of the good things in humanity and earth were going to be permanently destroyed.

In this situation utter despair, imbecilic rage, or cold apathy were understandable responses. But not for that great frenchman Olivier Messiaen. Right in the middle of the citadel of darkness, using only a few instruments that came to hand, he composed the Quartet For The End of Time.

And by doing so he destroyed the spirit of Naziism, vindicated humanity, and spoke a strange deep word to his God. The music is full of an alien loveliness. Its beauty is not bourgeois. It is free and even terrifying. It wrestles with the powers of murder and despair and overcomes them in a way that is hard to describe.

On one level the music almost ignores evil. It floats free from it and like a shaft of emerald fire it burns through cruel time into the heart of a calm but taut eternity.

On another level the music could very well be called "The Transmutation of Unease". Pure distress is not abolished but seized by a calm but powerful hand and pulled into a realm where it becomes something aureate.

All of Olivier's music is a heroic endeavor but in a certain sense it begins with the Quartet. Messiaen permanently takes us in all of his music to a place where the voices of birds are as terrifying as angels in a light that destroys evil by it transmutation."

And that neighbors will enjoy hearing the piano any time of day.

My living situation is about like Frank's. Even small spaces are VERY expensive in this area. You have to be very rich to afford enough space to have anything that is close to privacy.

When we visit Connecticut, it is a total shock. There relatives live in houses that so far apart that you can't hear anything coming from the next house or family.

That's all I've ever heard Horowitz play. Same for Glenn Gould.

Never met either in person. But I own their CDs, digital recordings.

Very few of us ever have or ever will hear the masters of the piano in person, live on an acoustic. 99.99% of the piano music we hear every day is in the form of a digital recording. Just like a DP.

So, you're not interested in hearing the one person you could hear in person?

No doubt.

When I sold pianos and the customer said "I can't fit a ... piano in my house" I'd say...
What if someone gave you one for free?
Well, I guess I'd find room.

Unfortunately, even if I wanted to, it isn't my condo, it's my sister's. Temporary arrangement while I figure out what I want to be when I grow up.

I'm gonna be a moderator when I grow up!

An interesting point, however this is where they differ: Let's say on that Glenn Gould recording he plays C4 (middle C) 100 times (any note really, doesn't matter). Each time he plays it, it will sound different. On a digital, you can play that C 100 times and it will have 3 different sounds (not 100). There is a difference. I suppose if you get Ivory or something along those lines you're getting more samples, but other than that that's what's going on.

Also... one important difference between acoustics and digitals is that a digital cannot sound truly bad. On an acoustic there are various tones depending on how you play, how firm etc. A digital will have 1 of 3 tones no matter how you play the keys, albeit at different volumes, but the tone is the same. Hard to get good at producing a good tone if your instrument isn't capable of a truly good tone or a truly bad tone.

I am aware that if not for digitals a lot of kids would not take piano lessons. I wonder if digitals were never invented what the numbers would look like...

A normal person with a normal life, who has humble means but a deep passion to teach. She still creates excitement and passion in her students, and they learn music as well as about themselves.

First of all, not sure what level or what country you teach in, but here, people who start learning music as children don't want to learn the "art" of playing piano. They rather long to be able to play, and play well the music they are learning about.

Hmmm... nope. It's like a driving instructor who uses a used car that's in good shape because she can't afford more expensive cars. Her teaching makes all the difference in the world, not the car. The student doesn't need to brag about the car he or she learns on. But has to pay attention to the lesson and not be distracted by exercises in futility.

Kaye/Kaye's husband,
PPM1994 has no right to be rude. He has been told this repeatedly ever since he joined this forum.

You will find that almost every classically-trained pianist, on this forum or not, will agree that it is unacceptable to teach piano on a digital piano no matter the level of the students.

Despite my sympathy towards your financial situation, the fact is that the difference in price between a good digital piano and a decent used acoustic upright is slim.

It is wonderful that you have a passion to teach. You AND your students deserve a piano. If you want to teach, you must save up until you can afford an acoustic.

When teaching children, it is of the utmost importance that they are taught early on how to create a beautiful tone. This cannot be done on a digital: the sounds that the digital can produce have already been created.

PPM1994's analogy was rude and uncalled for. However, it is in fact closer to the truth than your own. A driving instructor with a used car is a piano teacher with a used piano, NOT a piano teacher with a digital.

Please do not take offense to my post and remember that the price gap between a digital ($400-2000?) and a decent used upright ($500-5000?)is small enough that ANYONE wanting to teach piano should be able to afford the latter.

I don't disagree, although I would say as technology improves the difference continues to shrink.

My point was only that to assert the mere fact of being digital and recorded as obviously bad, no need for further argument, is wrong because most of the piano music we listen to IS recreated by digital recordings. And it's as good as the speakers we can afford.

Why listen to recorded piano music?

TimR,
The difference between listening to a performance coming from a digital and the sound coming from a recording of an acoustic is vast.

There is no subtlety available in a digital when compared to a grand. The subtleties present in a great performance on a grand piano can be captured fairly well in a recording, especially if high-end equipment is used.

A pianist playing on a digital simply cannot do the things he or she would be capable of doing on a grand.

I hope this clears things up.

Pardon me for interrupting again but there are several points of misunderstanding that I must clear up. Mr. Tim said that most piano music is recorder on digital pianos, the is abesolutely not true- a digital piano is no the same thing as a disc klavier(at least that's what yamaha's version is called). A disk-clavier(or whatever the propper term is) is a real piano integreated with digital funcationality- and when I say aa real piano i mean it has string, wooden hammers, etc...


As to the car analogy- you could not possibly argue that a digitial piano is akin to a used car for one reason, as digital piano is by no stretch of the definition a piano in an way. If anything one could make a better argument for powerwheels being more closely related to a car than a digital paino to an acoustic.


A true digital piano is something else entriely- and is in no way comparable to the disk-claviers used for many recording( essentially digital player pianos).

The price issue has already been corrected, but I will just mention is again. A little console/spinet in the 600-2000 dollar range is nearly always preferable to a "digital" cmoparable in price(yes of course exceptions exist.

The point of introducing a new student to the touch of a piano has also been mentioned but I will just elaborate a bit on it anyway. One cannot underestimate the importance of the development of beginner's touch on a real piano. This begginer's aquaired "touch" is the soil from which all of his advancement in the art of piano will flourish, and for this reason it is abesolutely crucial that touch be cultivated on a real piano.

Also, as to the cries of victimization, I would only say that my words were never intended to insult or belittle- I was merely trying to communicate, in a concise manner, the dangers of teaching students(especially early students) on a fake piano.

I hope this fallacy is now cleared up.

He didn't say that, so I think the misunderstanding was yours.

Steven

Well then, I will try and be a bit more precise so that forum trolls such as sotto don't come along and parse the language of every post down to the finest hair with the sole intention of antagonizing.


The poster whom tim quoted and seemed to basically agree with.

No, you misunderstood what he wrote.

And what happened to "words [that] were never intended to insult or belittle"?

Steven

So, based on your theory, an electric guitar is not really a guitar, because it isn't acoustic, and an electronic organ is not really an organ, because it doesn't have pipes?

I agree that there are digital keyboards that play like an organ, and therefore have no "touch" or action.

However, digital pianos with weighted actions, wooden keys, and velocity sensitive response actually do approximate some of the characteristics of touch in a "real" piano.


As to who is being divisive and who isn't, I'd be careful if I were you PPM1994, you've already racked up a number of complaints from forums members.

Q.E.D.

Thanks, Frank!

Let me just preface my response by saying that I've actually owned and played exclusively on a yamaha clavinova(one of the upper level ones though i forget the model) for a period of 6 months during my past before I became serious about playing the piano. I've played on many many digitals, mine had the weiughted velocity sensative, etc.. keys.

I would totally agree with the idea that good digitals are marvelous little devices that mimic a real piano far better than most people would expect.

As to your point about an acoustic guitar versus and electric guitar, I would just say that this seems to me mostly a semantic issue and is not really worth addressing. I think though that just about everyone on this forum would agree that there are certain fundamental differences between a digital piano and an acoustic piano.

And as to being devicive, you seem to have attached to this word a negative connotation- because the word itself has no such connotation. Let us not forget, Martin Luther King, Jesus, Ghnadi, Richard Nixon, Bethoven, Aristotle, all of these people were considered devisive figures during their time- they all disrupted the respective status quos of the societies in which they lived. So, if I too have upset the status quo on these message boards- and you seek to make an example out of my by issuing a ban on my account, by all means do so.

The status quo on these boards was civility. Your own posts have been singularly incendiary, condescending, obnoxious and arrogant with a preponderance of words like "ignorant" and "foolish" cast toward others without any provocation. I don't think any of the historical figures you cite besides Richard Nixon (who is quite out of place on that list anyway) behaved that way, and the comparison is baseless.

And I can't believe how your writing skills (if not the spelling) have improved since your debut here seven months ago when you said you favorite songs were Rachmaninf's 3rd and List's La Campenalla and that you had learned a Handel sonitina. I thought you were far younger than 14 even, and here you are now writing like a grown-up!

Steven

Ok Frank I'm looking at your pic..I have a Yamaha P60 ..and a Peavey guitar Amp..what do I plug into what? where? and will my DP sound better?

You hit the nail on the head here. The first thing I thought when I read his post was "...his style's starting to break..."

I guess he can't argue his points with such a limited vocabulary after all.

Originally posted by PianoPlayerMan1994:

[QUOTE]What kind of a human being what possibly try and teach students endevouring to learn the art of playing piano on a fake piano?!?!

This is like a driving instructer who teaches his students how to drive using his child's powerwheels(a tiny motorized children's car).

To initiate a young student into the art of piano using a digital piano is truly a crime against that student, one of enourmous proportions.

[END QUOTE]

To return to comparing the digital to the acoustic instrument, I am more inclined to think of the difference as between a simulator and the real thing. I note that commercial pilots learn first on simulators, and they go back to simulators when they need practice without the expense of a real aircraft. Similarly, subway train drivers learn first on simulators. And both of these operators of large public transit conveyances, who first learned on simulators, end up with peoples' lives in their hands. I'm glad they have been well trained, even if they started on simulators!!!

Ahhh... maybe you actually do have a point here. Since we are training tomorrows young transit system artists using transit simulations, why not do the same thing with endevouring young musicians using fake pianos. We beter not let the young ones loose on a real piano until they have become well-aquanted with the fake one first. Actually, on second thought, that's an utterly foolish idea- why would one do such a thing unless they were trying intentionally to prevent the young musician from growing musically? Also I can't help but to notice the parallel(as I'm sure others will) between the kind if thing your suggesting and what the Nazi's did with the Nazi youth movement in the '30s and '40s- the victims in such a circumstance are not the young, but rather art itself.

Ok, I've changed my mind, you're just annoying.

You can give it a rest now.

Richard Nixon?

And to think people don't take you seriously…

There is a world of difference between electric and digital. I used to practice on a Rhodes. There, real hammers hit real bars i.e. you create the sound. Same with an electric guitar.

You need to see what's happening to the world. We've gone from live to vinyl to tape to CD each a poorer format than the other and now the poorest - mp3. TV and film is now digital and eventually won't need actors. Education is increasingly using computers. Do you see it? Young people today rarely encounter the real thing instead they are fobbed of with a simulation. Why? It's cheaper.

... and more convenient. And less of a bother to housemates and the neighbors, and more entertaining with all those cool sounds and drum sets and backbone styles and you can practice at 2am if you want. And easier to play and get earlier results with less work. And ability to record your left hand while working on your right hand and vice versa or just to hear how you really sound to others. And lower cost to maintain without needing tuning. And easy to take on holiday or move to another room. And ability to split the keyboard for teaching or to play as if your own jazz trio. And able to connect to Sibelius for composing or doing music theory homework. Or ability to connect to Ivory, PianoTeq, Garritan etc. to play with samples/models of other great instruments.

Gee, why on earth would someone choose digital over the "real" thing???

They would say that wouldn't they. You mean Mozart missed out?

Mozart is just another red herring in this discussion.

Purists, often without realizing it, have a vested interest in keeping the piano as unsuccessful as possible by narrowing the definition of what is acceptable.

Better to embrace the new technology to cast the widest possible net of new players and let that population self-select into the the ooh-acoustic! crowd or perhaps continue into a more electronic, composing route (ok, I'll bite, Mozart would not be insisting on crappy fortepianos if alive today) or simply become normal people -- but with the one exception: that active music making (on a discount store Casio keyboard or a Steinway D for all I care) is an integral part of their life.

In my Gandma's day there was a piano in every house. So, you think ...... (insert your favourite pianist/composer here so there are no red herrings) missed out?

Well, we are not living in your Gandma's day. We are living here right now with all the advantages and disadvantages that the reality of our age brings. Wake up.

Mozart may indeed have been thrilled at the prospect of lodging in a neigborhood of such an (now bygone) age. However, JS Bach himself thought that the piano was a lousy instrument; history has proven him wrong but that doesn't make him any less the composer.

We too are on the cusp of a new age where music making might be transformed through new capabilities such as offered by digital instruments (or more likely where music-making will be professionalized and turned into a packaged-to-be-passively-consumed consumer good depriving millions of the opportunity they may never hear about to make music themselves).

We can fight a futile fight to (re-)create an idealized vision of the past or we can create the future in which we believe in the power of making music.

No, you wake up! My point is we are increasingly living in a virtual reality. That is wrong in anyone's book. By the way, Bach changed his mind.

See, even Bach can change his mind. It is not too late, kbk. BTW, Our world is always a virtual reality. Our world is nothing more than the virtual synaptic representations of our sensory input registered in our nervous system and brains and 'presented to us' casu quo experienced through the illusion of what we call consciousness. You have the right to make your real virtual world as small or narrowly defined as you want. Others may make other choices.

Yes, your nervous system is the ultimate transducer. Even more reason for the highest quality source for stimulation.

I like this analogy a little bit, however I feel it is lost on the piano. The reason pilots, train drivers, train on simulators is because it'd be WAY too expensive to do otherwise (price gap between digital and acoustic pianos is not the same as that price gap).

Also, and here's perhaps the biggest difference: Simulators are designed to simulate EVERYTHING yes? I.e. you can fail a simulation. On a digital, it is not POSSIBLE to produce a bad tone so you really don't learn how to play with a good tone. Your tone is basically chosen for you, this is basically the biggest flaw I would say.

I can't speak for PPM1994 but an electric guitar and electric organ is still an analog instrument that produces sound. Digitals don't actually produce sound, they call up recordings of sounds that were produced on analog instruments.

My thinking as well. For me also... at least with organs and rhodes, they are electrical instruments designed for the electrical age where the sound comes from their amplification. A piano, where does the sound come from? Sound board, below, above, through you, everywhere, yes? Harder to recreate digitally these sounds. Another thought.

Exactly. A string vibrating in your room is exactly that. Is that important? Yes, for those who want to encounter the real world. And who's to say what the benefit is? Best to err on the reality side.

Ummm, cause it sounds WAAAY better? and feels WAAAY better. For ability to play as if your own jazz trio, there's aebersolds, band-in-a-box, and you can play along with recordings of great jazz artists (the bulk of my current practice).

Recording yourself? I bought a cheap $100 MP3 player with a built-in mic... not great quality but does the trick for learning purposes. You can use this to record your L.H. as well. Want to use a keyboard for sibelius? Well since it's just note-inputting, you can probably get a cheap 49 key controller and use that if you're desperate.

For me the pros of a digital (very little once you realize you can get it all other places) are far outweighed by the con that it doesn't contain near the subtleties of an acoustic.

Digital pianos do not belong in the teacher's studio. End of story.
Plus, who would ever go/send their children to teacher who doesn't even have a real piano?
In order for something to be a musical instrument, the player has to be able to produce a sound.
Playing a note on a digital is not producing a sound. It triggers a prerecorded sound. This is NOT an acceptable substitute for the incredible complexity between the pianist and the strings, no matter if it has "fully weighted wooden keys" or not.
Saying that we are in the digital age, the information age, the 21st century, etc, is NOT an excuse for anyone to think that a digital is an acceptable alternative to a piano for a student learning to play the piano.

All of the conveniences associated with digital pianos-as wonderful as they may be-do not change the fact that a digital piano is nothing close to a real piano. In this day and age, everyone wants convenience, and they don't seem to care what has to be sacrificed in order to attain it.

Major piano conservatories, universities and music schools around the world would seem not to believe this dogma. Some of the top professors in piano performance and pedagogy have Clavinovas in their offices and studios.
My guess would be many, many hundreds of thousands of people around the world from third-world villages to first-world cities for reasons as varied as the world is multi-faceted.

I know of at least one music school in hot, humid, un-airconditioned Puntarenas, Costa Rica that never has had nor never will have any acoustic pianos and whose digitals are very "last year" to be polite. They still are teaching the gift of music to generations of children and have had students progress on to lessons on an acoustic and successful conservatory studies. Perhaps they should have listened to dogma instead and just told these kids to forget about music?

My best piano teacher in Holland never touched a piano nor a weighted keyboard until long after he was quite proficient in playing some of the most difficult fugues and toccatas in the repertoire. His early years of formation on a synth-style keyboard did not prevent him from graduating summa cum laude in piano performance from a major conservatory followed by a varied and successful performing and teaching career.
Following this argument to its logical extension, I am surprised you or others might stoop so low as to play the piano at all. After all, once the key is struck the hammer action does all the work. Oh, so much nobler 'tis to play a wind instrument or stringed instrument where the player REALLY is responsible for the tone of individual notes and must have an ear to realize an effective intonation; one where one can actually play a crescendo or vibrato. Playing piano whether on the most expensive acoustic grand or digital piano or throwaway keyboards is really just so much busy-body button pushing in comparison.

Better to create a generation of turned-on growing musicians with affordable instruments and affordable lessons -- many of whom, just as their traditional acoustic piano student brethren will never make a career out of the piano -- on a digital than a bored-out-of-their-mind traditional student from a stuffy, excruciatingly slow "it's about the tone" acoustic piano teacher giving lessons in a black/white my-way-or-the-highway fashion.

Is a virtual gift a real gift tJ? Saying that, I did forget the 'poor, starving, third world' argument.

And what makes you assume that every such student is bored out of his mind? Different strokes for differnt folks, perhaps.

Where did I use the word every? I just said that if you had to choose between the two, I know what I would choose. It is a false dichotomy though I realize. More likely for countless (potential) students is that the alternative to expensive lessons on an expensive acoustic is: no lessons in music at all. I can imagine why both kids and parents can be turned off by piano lessons even if they were originally turned on about the piano and/or making music.

I do believe that the militant attitudes displayed sometimes on Pianoworld are a direct reflection of how some teachers and industry professionals actually do treat their prospective customers -- as they drive them to the exit door, never to return. Even the longest journeys can start with small, even less than ideal, steps.

Goethe writes a lovely little story in his autobiography about being turned on to music as a child. Would you like to hear it?

Only if you promise to type more than two sentences at a time of said story.

Here goes from 1762-

Nothing close? Look, a little hyperbole for the sake of the argument is okay, but that sentence is demonstrably false. They are not just very close in key feel and sound (depending of course very much on the speaker system available.) They fall within the range.

Probably, almost certainly, you do your playing exclusively on an exquisitely maintained concert grand, most likely a Bosendorfer or better. So from your viewpoint I can see where you'd come to that comclusion. If I had your experiences I would not only agree with you but be mystified by anyone with a different opinion.

However, the real world pianos that I play fall into a very large range of key feel, tone, and sometimes functionality. Good digitals are not at a separate level. They fall inside that range. They are not as good as top end. They are better than bottom end.

Playing a single note, you can't tell a good digital from an acoustic. Playing in context, some do a better job than others at modeling the additional resonances. I would think that given decent sound reproduction from both, an expert could reliably tell the difference, but that gap continues to shrink.

And that brings us to the real issue: the expert.

Let's be honest, much of this is snobbishness. We all concede there are real differences in nuance between the best digital and any acoustic above midgrade. (maybe all but gyro <grin>)

Can we all tell the difference? Or is saying I prefer an acoustic really the same thing as saying I am skilled enough, musical enough, sophisticated enough to hear differences that you probably can't? Simple one-upsmanship?

I would like to see some good double blind studies done to see how many people can discriminate between digitals and acoustics. I suspect there might be some surprises.

Personally I think I could tell the difference with 95% accuracy. If it's in tune, it's a digital; if not, an acoustic. PS this paragraph is humor, but sadly true humor. 5% of acoustics would fool me into thinking they are digital.

:rolleyes:

TheJourney,
Let me know when Veda Kaplinsky and Gary Graffman begin using Clavinovas in their studios......

Have fun with your digital pianos guys, I'm done here. You just don't get it.
TimR, just for the record, I don't really like Bosendorfers.

I am neither an expert nor a snob. There IS a difference. How can there not be? How can you duplicate the texture of sound physically spread across the instrument's body and parts, the subtones and various vibrations. It is three-dimensional and it is even felt vibration. If you have ears to hear and and fingers to feel it, you do feel it. I prefer an acoustic. The digital piano plays itself for me. I am not interested in what *it* can produce. I want to know what *I* can produce. And as a student I want to develop, not just produce music. I have a digital, so the question is moot.

There are students, myself included, who cannot afford an acoustic or who cannot get one into the house without dismantling the house, or who have neighbours. There are teachers in circumstances who really don't have access to an acoustic for whatever reason. There are people for whom the choice is a digital or no instrument at all. But all things being equal I would like to learn on an acoustic, play an acoustic, and definitely be taught on one.

Well dayum, look what I awoke to!

Isn't the only relevant thing here the extent to which the difference matters, and up to what level? It's hard for me to understand why an 88-key digital with weighted, velocity-sensitive keys would not be okay for elementary instruction up to a certain point. Doesn't it make more sense to question what that point is rather than debate the respective merits and shortcomings of digitals versus acoustics?

I think the biggest concern is that wide acceptance of "good" (i.e., full-featured) digitals in teaching could open the door to keyboards that are neither good nor appropriate. Of course, I'm thinking of the village idiot (who is thankfully not a teacher) who advocates that a 61-key keyboard with unweighted keys is just fine for learners (because, after all, any skilled pianist should be able to play big-time repertoire on it, right?). Reduced to the absurd, we would have teachers using strips of wood or cardboard with the keys painted on.

Since students never stop learning, when does using a digital instead of an acoustic make a critical difference in musicianship?

Steven

Digital piano can completly "destroy" talent.

The only excuse you can have about buying a digital instead of acoustic, is money.

Space? Come on! Have you ever seen an acoustic upright piano lol?

Day one.

Originally posted by PianoPlayerMan1994:

Quote

Originally posted by Brian Taylor:
[b]

To return to comparing the digital to the acoustic instrument, I am more inclined to think of the difference as between a simulator and the real thing. ....

Originally posted by PianoPlayerMan1994:

Quote

Ahhh... maybe you actually do have a point here. Since we are training tomorrows young transit system artists using transit simulations, why not do the same thing with endevouring young musicians using fake pianos. .... [/b]

To make myself clear: in my post as quoted above, I was dealing with the unsuitable use of analogy to convey an idea. A fake analogy used to disparage fake pianos is an intellectual inconsistency. The size of a child's powerwheels in relation to the size of a real car simply does not compare to the physical dimensions of a full-sized digital keyboard in relation to the size of an acoustic instrument keyboard.

For the record, I have just sunk myself into several thousand dollars' debt to supply my students with an acoustic 6'8" grand, which I chose not only over a digital instrument, but also over an acoustic upright. I am not arguing the relative benefits of digital vs acoustic. I am responding to a use of analogy which is so inappropriate as to verge on bullying.

Really?
Hmmnn, so the more I play my digital piano, the less talent I have? Now you've gone and made me feel bad.

Space the same you say?
Let's see you do this with your acoustic when you aren't playing it...




To be honest though, I do have a digital now because of space and money constraints, but I spent the first 40 years of my piano playing primarily on acoustics. And yes, I learned on an acoustic (even if it was an old upright).

I do think digital pianos have their place, but would agree that an acoustic would be better for developing technique and for ear training.

Do you have a source or link to back up this opinion?

Hehe, I am as given over to the use of hyperbole as anybody else, but I wonder how many others could agree with that. I think that's as extreme a position as saying that advanced repertoire could be learned and performed on an unweighted keyboard.

How could it possibly matter when one is at the stage of learning posture, what the notes are and plucking out Mary Had a Little Lamb? Why?

Steven

Just because you can name two who do not, does not mean there are not many others who do.

I would say that these two individuals and the pianos in their lofty studios are irrelevant to the business of 99 % of the teachers on this board and 99.99% of the world's piano students.

Denying a musical education to children because their parents don't (initially) buy an acoustic piano & sign up for a commitment to a life career in piano with an assumed stop at Julliard, Curtis or the Paris Conservatoire along the way seems a bit extreme.

I am sure that generations of organists are worried out of their minds that advanced repertoire will always remain out their reach because they do not play on piano weighted keyboards. :rolleyes:

But we're not discussing organ technique or organ repertoire here, are we? :rolleyes:

Steven

Acoustic vs. digital seems to be a topic that is often mentioned on this forum, but mostly it's about whether students should get acoustic pianos or whether digital pianos are enough for their progress. Both camps seem to have strong opinions. I'm in no position to provide informed opinion, but would like to point out that, if a teacher teaches on a digital piano, all students will be effectively practicing on digital pianos even if some have acoustic. This is because if there are certain things that can only be brought out on an acoustic piano, the teacher will not be able to demonstrate them on the digital. If you believe digitals are just as good as acoustic pianos, by all means, teach on a digital. If you believe students should practice on acoustic pianos if at all possible, you should probably teach on an acoustic. And hopefully your students and parents agree with you.

Hey buddy, this ain't Organ World!

There seems to be a point made by some that if you play on a digital piano or unweighted keyboard it will destroy your technique to be able to play on an acoustic piano and that they are unsuited for learning music and to play keyboard instruments including the piano.

There are kids who start on organ and pick up piano as a second instrument later who have no problems developing piano chops or going back and forth between the two instruments.

Why couldn't kids start on a digital or digital at home and acoustic on the studio and achieve similar results? Many in fact do. Let's give the human body and mind some credit for flexibility and adaptability. A truly skilled pianist should be able to make music not just out of perfectly regulated and tuned concert grands but on the typical uneven and moth-filled upright one finds neglected in homes and small venues, and increasingly today, also on digital instruments.

No, a digital piano is not the same thing as an acoustic. For most serious teachers and students it will never be a (long term or exclusive) substitute for an acoustic piano. But they do have very exciting roles they can play in music education which can also help to save the piano from going the way of the harp. But to strictly vilify digital pianos and their proponents seems both unfounded and counter productive if not also a bit arrogant & ignorant.

Is that a reference to the hilarious line spoken in the dark during the "Hernando's Hideaway" number in The Pajama Game?

"Hey, buddy! This ain't Poopsie!"

If not ... well, this ain't Show Tunes World either.

Steven

Is that what playing any instrument is about? Plucking out a sequence of notes? That is the most superficial aspect of playing music.

My earliest memory of any instrument was exploring the richness of their properties, vibrations to the fingers, characteristic of their tones, sensations. Out of these tones came explorations. Formal things, melodies and such, were also in there. (Remember, I had no teaching) but they were intermeshed with this).

I am mentioning childhood experiences since my actual lessons were as an adult, so you know there were such experiences.

When I took my first formal lessons ever, it was as an adult, on violin. The very first sensations were similar to that of childhood: surrealistically strong impressions - the playing the G string was like pulling a toboggan over gravel, while the E was like sliding over water-coated smooth ice, and sound textures. The first sensations and sounds of the instrument formed a rich basis for the advanced playing that would come later. When you begin the subtleties, where does that come from?

At some point I became aware of how the first things form us for later on. Those first strong impressions fade because you get used to the instrument. I'm not sure that you will then know how to listen for these subtleties, if you begin with an instrument that does it all for you in bland approximation. Or you will have to work toward finding them and getting past your first impressions.

When I got my digital last year I could feel what was missing. I could hear what was generated to make it sound impressive from 3 feet away. I reached for things in the instrument that were not there. The sum result was that part of my ear and something in the fingertips turned off because of this absence and artificiality. I am learning very basic things right now: legato vs. detache. This forms the basis for what comes later. I can get no true feedback to my actions. I am concerned about setting up that kind of foundation of blindness as it feels.

That is why I think that having an acoustic from day 1 is preferable. Not for playing Mary Had a Little Lamb, but for exploring what a piano is and does, for those first deepest impressions.

Who the heck's Poopsie? Or shouldn't I ask?

At the earliest stage of learning, for the overwhelming preponderance of people, yes.

Steven

Just a kitten who got lost in the dark—a curvaceous blonde sex kitten, that is, in a dark nightclub who has strayed from her boyfriend (who, to the startled displeasure of some in attendance, is trying to locate her using the Braille method).



We now return to your regularly scheduled program.

Steven

Doesn't anyone play around with the instrument, explore it? Especially at the beginning? Does that not come first? Should it not? Yes, we pluck out a sequence of notes, but is that all we do?

...what concerns me most about this thread is the inexplicable absence of the 'Gyro factor'

I think PPM94 had an interesting effect on Gyro.

So very effective...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/189/452532096_64ea87c835.jpg

Sure, we all agree on this. We've accepted it as an article of faith for the purpose of the rest of the discussion.

What, precisely, is it that can only be done on an acoustic? Seems like somebody should be able to articulate this so I can understand it.

I would note that if a teacher CAN demonstrate something only on the acoustic, we also require the student be sophisticated enough to hear it, or it makes no difference.

And finally - it has been alleged here in the past that there are some things that can only be learned on a grand, so at that point you're going to have to change teachers anyway.

Thanks. Moral of the story? Perhaps one of these:

Always take one or more test-run lessons with a new teacher.

Never sign a contract for monthly or yearly lessons, etc. When they stop delivering, you stop going.

If the Harpsichord was good enough for Goethe, certainly a state-of-art digital piano is good enough for >80% of students starting out.

I've already mentioned that I'm not in a position to give informed opinion. I've never used a digital, and I'm by no means an experiened player. I was simply pointing out that, if digital/acoustic has a real impact on student learning (and note the word "if" in this post and the previous one), the impact might be greater coming from the teacher.

As for whether students can perceive the subtle differences, I think they can, through training.

Personally, I think it's easy to accept a statement such as "I don't think digitals are worse than acoustic pianos, therefore I use a digital to teach". It's harder for me to accept "I teach on a digital because I can't afford an acoustic". (If someone really believes that an acoustic piano is the way to go, there are some possibilities to explore I'm sure.)

There's more: So, if a piano wasn't good enough for Goethe...

That makes sense. If those limitations exist, which hasn't been fully established, the teacher would inevitably instill the same limitations in the student that he or she has, and the cycle would continue. (If the teacher demonstrated much anyway; mine did not. But she taught on a mediocre spinet)

I agree, the affordability should be more of a factor for the student than the teacher. Perhaps not obviously, when it comes to income potential the digital far exceeds the acoustic, of course.

Long live vivacity (although we might prefer vivaciousness in everyday usage).

Imagine the world that might have opened up to Goethe upon realization that he could have both the harpsichord and the piano...he may never have gotten around to writing and we might not have been reminded (particularly apropos for the other thread on doubting adult beginners) of:

"Thinking is easy, acting is difficult, and to put one's thoughts into action is the most difficult thing in the world."

and

"Character, in great and little things, means carrying through what you feel able
to do."

and

"Talent is nurtured in solitude; character is formed in the stormy billows of the
world."

and finally:

"There is nothing by which men display their character so much as in what they
consider ridiculous...Fools and sensible men are equally innocuous. It is in the
half fools and the half wise that the great danger lies."

-- Goethe

Not to mention "What the devil, Faust!"

Or "Hey Werther, why the long face?"

When you are playing it, it still dont take less space than upright. If someone will receive money for teaching, he surely shouldnt have to think about space. I mean upright is fits in every corner and unless you are living in toilet size apartment, space is not a problem.

Beside, moving piano away after you stop playing it is the waste of time, unless you practice only once daily. I return to piano at least 5 times each day and beleive most of us do...

It wont destroy your talent, i was overreacting, but you will never be as good as you could be if you would practice on acoustic...

Yes at the early stages it is mostly note picking (the way most teachers teach, and the way I was taught and have to learn how to not teach). The problem I feel as stated above is the lack of tone, and yes I understand that at the earliest stages most teachers don't work on tone (too much other things to work on... to my thinking it should be addressed early on, but as to how that's another discussion. This isn't meant to demean, I don't teach tone often enough, but I digress...), but I feel like even though they may be just playing Mary Had a Little Lamb the sound of the instrument will get in their ear and they will get used to it. Getting used to an acoustic would be preferable to getting used to a digital, no?

Alright so you figure that investing in an acoustic right off the hop might be too unrealistic? To be honest I'd be inclined to agree (assuming a young child) so the question for when the switch? To my thinking it's more age-specific than ability-specific. It's likely easier to make the switch when the student is younger rather than older... since a lot of our learning tends to happen in our younger years.

Tone man, do you not read the posts? Earlier I posted (among other things):

Digitals are not pianos. They don't respond like them, they tend to be tri-sampled. You hit a key and it has basically 3 sounds, at different volumes, meaning there's a quiet sound, a medium sound, and a loud sound. Basically, it sounds like they (Roland, Yamaha, etc.) sampled the note being played at 3 different velocities (loudness, hardness, etc.) and so the tone and timber of the note changes abruptly.

What can be done on an acoustic that can't be done on a digital? You can get more than 3 sounds per note. You can have bad tone. You can have good tone. How can you practice producing good tone on a digital? A digital produces only one tone no matter how you play it. Strike a key REALLY hard on an acoustic piano... it has that ping sound, hard to describe in words... it's when you strike too hard and the note tends to sound almost plucked, it's not a good tone. Hard to demonstrate that on a digital.

I have a student who plays on a digital. I don't teach him tone... how can I? You learn tone by simply playing a note or chord over and listening to all the different nuances... how can he do that on a digital? The nuances don't exist.

And that's a whole other discussion, too (for better or worse).
GreenRain, you have a way with words!

When I lived in New York City, people would tease each other about having apartments the size of phone booths. It was certainly more genteel to say that than "toilet sized," but, dang, now telephone booths have become nearly non-existent. (Tiny apartments are still quite prevalent, though.)

Steven

Couple of things, and forgive me if this has been brought up already (as I might have missed it in these 5 and counting pages).

First, it seems like once again all "acoustics" are being glommed together as if "an acoustic" had specific criteria that must be met. Simple fact is that I've seen/heard teachers acoustics that were pure garbage. Ear achingly out of tune, horrendous actions, just plain bad. We've also encountered acoustics that, while not as bad as mentioned (e.g. in tune), we'd still prefer to utilize our newer digital. So I would imagine that if a teacher is so much on the brink that they are considering getting a decent digital vs a crummy acoustic that they can't afford to tune and regulate, we'd prefer to see the digital.

Second, that being said, from our own personal experiences, it doesn't take too long before it starts to make a difference. All students vary, and I don't necessarily agree with keystring's "day one" comment, but that time does come and it can come far earlier than many might realize.

And lastly I think it depends on the teacher and the type of studio they have. If you are supposed to be teaching the cream of the crop, then obviously a digital won't fly. However if the preponderance of your students are 4-6yo's who are simply testing the waters and/or the parents are only looking for a little bit of music appreciation, then a good digital will likely get you a lot further.

So if we were to magically have a third kid and wanted to start them on a different teacher, would we be turned off by one that had a good digital, no, not at all. Would we stay with them beyond a year or so if they still only had a digital, not likely (unless they were a simply awesome teacher, and I mean awesome).

You can play 128 different levels of dynamics on any digital. If you want to make finer discriminations than that you're out of luck.

There aren't 128 levels of tone available. So it does not exactly match an acoustic in that respect.

But an acoustic would not actually change tone detectably for every one of those 128 changes in dynamic level either.

You should be correct. Since a digital must have a finite number of tone samples to correspond to those various levels of volume available, due to memory space, there should be areas where it sounds "off." Where you play a note louder and it should have had a noticable tone difference, but it didn't. It should be. But in practice, given human hearing, the ambient sound environment, etc. it rarely if ever is detectable.

Now, if you're going to claim that on an acoustic piano you can play two notes with the same volume and different tone, then I'm going to throw the BS flag. This has been disproven thoroughly over and over. To claim otherwise is to show ignorance about the physics involved in piano playing. But I will certainly agree with you, the digital cannot do it. Either.

In that with a piano you are playing the entire instrument including mechanism and especially sound board, yes. What's a BS flag?

Something like this, I reckon:



Steven

Or this?


I believe mine's bigger than yours!

No I'm not saying 2 notes same volume different tone is possible... it isn't. What I'm saying is there's a difference in tone in an acoustic when there are slight differences in volume, whereas in a digital, because it's a sampled note that literally has its volume increased or decreased, the tone is the same.

As for the tone difference issues being audible/not audible: I notice it. The more I play my digital the more I notice it. I notice the jump in tone that's unnatural. I notice it, therefore everyone notices it, even if only subconsciously.

You know when a pianists makes mistakes or doesn't play as well as they like and people say "oh well the audience doesn't know the difference?" I do not believe this. I believe they feel it, though they may not articulate the difference between a good and bad performance, I believe they do know, deep down. It is due to this thinking that I feel digitals are inferior to acoustics, because even though the average person might not be able to immediately tell the difference, I believe they feel it.

Digitals have come a long way in the last 20 years or so, and it does take me longer on newer digitals to get sick of the piano sound, but it is inevitable.

I like the way it unfurls, too (and such a lovely shade of lavender!).

Steven

You have a great deal more faith in the average listener than I do.

Could there also be differences in the general level of music acculturation between Manitoba and So. Fla. that could account for the difference in critical listening skills?

Well, let's take a poll in both areas and find out how many people think that Lang Lang is the greatest pianist alive today.

oops

...or how many when hearing "lang lang" think it is a general comment summarizing certain teachers' student recitals... :p

Now, this I can understand. Finally somebody is making sense with something specific other than "digital bad, real piano good." Thank you. What you are saying is that for any given note, as you increase dynamics you change the pattern of relative strength of the overtones, and if plotted as a mathematical function a digital would have a slightly different curve than an acoustic.

Further, that this difference is audible at least to you, and lends an artifical quality at the inflection points. Theoretically if you did all your learning on a digital the acoustic should sound artificial at the same points.

I think you're probably right. I suspect that for practical purposes most students can't tell and will never reach a level of sophistication where they can.

Audiences? Nah. Not in any real life acoustical situation. Ambients drown this kind of thing out totally. You're lucky if they can tell loud vs soft; in fact some of the studies claim more than three levels of dynamics (loud, medium, soft) aren't audible.

Question: suppose you can't produce 128 levels of tone difference on a digital. But you can produce 128 levels of volume difference, and your teacher insists on it, and you work at it. Doesn't that remove most of the handicap? I'm thinking that if you are teaching on a digital you may want to focus more on listening for dynamic changes than listening for timbre changes.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Discotheque:
You know when a pianists makes mistakes or doesn't play as well as they like and people say "oh well the audience doesn't know the difference?" I do not believe this. I believe they feel it, though they may not articulate the difference between a good and bad performance, I believe they do know, deep down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This I agree with. No matter how subtle the nuances of a performance, those nuances are actually there, they are part of the actual experience of this performance given to this audience/listener, they are included in what the audience/listener is on the receiving end of, and they do not cease to exist merely because the audience/listener is not explicitly conscious of them or able to articulate the difference between what is present and what is absent.

When I got my digital, I played it and an acoustic back and forth, back and forth. I bought the digital because that was all I could afford and was available to me.

The sound on an acoustic is multidimensional. Strings vibrate. The sound board vibrates. The wood vibrates. The location of these vibrations is diffuse and broad, and emanates in that manner. The location of particular tones within these vibrations is very specific. It's like eating a meal with subtle flavours, sudden tangs, and perhaps ice cream on top of hot pie to give dual sensations of hot and cold. Digital pianos are like the lot of it stirred together, served warm enough, with tons of MSG to even out the flavours in one mass that is pleasing enough.

You cannot duplicate that 3-dimensionality, the specificness and diffuseness, in a digital, because it comes out of one or two boxes called speakers. Nor, for that matter, has there not been a loss as well as a gain, in digitally recorded music. But it's possible that we have lsot the ears to hear it.

I agree. Playing my grand piano invariably leads to much greater sound being produced (89 db(A) anybody?) than the digital. This sound is indeed also much more rich and complex and dynamic than that produced by one of my digitals.

An even more important difference can be noticed after extended play on the acoustic grand: then one can also hear hard knocks on the wall, angry telephone calls or, theoretically, police sirens.

Don't underestimate the role that digital pianos have in bringing new and keeping old pianists playing in this day and age, especially in countries not so sparsely populated as large portions of Canada and the US.

I'm guessing you'd have to. If you did all your learning on a digital, I suppose it would sound normal to your ears, and to me that's why I don't agree with it. The lack of tone creation, true dynamics, etc. would become the norm, you'd have to relearn them on acoustic.

A lot of the arguments of digitals vs. acoustic, from my view, tend to stem also on when you should teach something to a student. Most teachers aren't really that good of players or teachers and tend not to address things like tone or technique properly, this is at least my experience with past teachers. Out of the 18 years I've been playing I've had 3 really great teachers, and they've only been recently, so I've had to try and unlearn bad habits, which is not fun. I feel like starting on a digital is setting yourself up for unlearning a bad habit, so if it must be done at a young age, the switch should probably happen very soon as well.

I teach on a good digital (Yamaha Clavinova CLP150) and feel that it has more to educational benefits to offer my students than if I had an acoustic. (Though I would like an acoustic grand if I had a bigger house!) Most notable in terms of my teaching on the digital I think is that it constantly has an audio input into my laptop which means it is VERY easy to record during lessons which my students find (although not always at the time) to be of benefit in appreciating their own progress week on week!

Hi TimR -

I have to disagree with this. I still feel very much like a beginner (about 1.5 years of lessons)... so I'm not sure I can adequately describe the differences I've noticed, but I'll give it a shot.

1 - There is one very obvious thing that my teacher has shown me that is impossible to do with a digital. If you very carefully press down (softly, so that they do NOT make a sound) some keys and hold them - and then play certain notes (loudly!) - as the note that you play fades, you hear an echoing sound. How nice (or awful!) it sounds seems to depend on the overtone relationships between the note you played and the ones you were holding down.

My teacher has demonstrated this with very basic notes (holding down the first couple overtone notes, and then playing the root) and also with very weird, complex chords. It was interesting, because the chord itself was pretty hideous sounding... very clashy and loud... and then this very beautiful after-sound rose out of the piano!

He said this type of thing is used often in some music (Rach?) though I am not at the point that I've encountered it in the music I play.

This is *impossible* on a digital. I don't know if you'll think it's trivial, but it shows that there ARE easily-demonstrable you can do on an acoustic and not on a digital!

- I have a digital at home (Yamaha P120). When I started lessons, I really didn't notice much difference between this and the acoustics in my lessons. At some point (6 months - 1 year) - I became aware of the differences, and was frustrated by the digital (I'm now ready to buy an acoustic, just trying to figure out my budget!!!)

I don't know that I can articulate the differences clearly though, it's alot of subtle "how it feels" stuff.

One thing I noticed was that the bass notes I was playing (just two notes an octave apart) were bigger and boom-ier on the acoustic. I was trying to get them to sound big and scary on my digital for the piece I was working on, and I couldn't. I got to the point that I felt I was slamming on the digital (not good for me or it!) but it sounded the same! On the acoustic (I take lessons at a church, and am able to get some practice time in there!) - I did not have to SLAM to get BOOM. The sounds just were big and boomy and appropriately scary sounding, even when they weren't loud.

It was honestly a huge difference in sound to me, very eye-opening (or ear-opening, I suppose!). And for that piece, where I needed boomy-scary, it was just sooo effortless and there, exactly how it needed to be, on the acoustic - and so lacking on the digital.

I've also noticed recently, we are working more on dynamics and expressiveness on some pieces. And I can not practice these on my piano. I try, but I just don't get the levels of responsiveness that I do from the acoustic. For one thing, the volume is capped (depending on where I put the volume slider!) - beyond a certain volume, it doesn't matter how much faster/harder I play - the sound just isn't there. As I've had hand/arm trouble, this is really hard for me, because the inclination is to keep pounding harder (!) but you get no results.

There's something else though with the feel of the keyboard, and I'm not sure how to say it, other than it bugs me!

My teacher has also commented that the pedal is "not a true pedal" on the digital, but I'm not at the point yet that this bothers me - probably because I'm not crazy about pedaling in general

So, I think most beginners won't notice the difference, but if they take lessons on an acoustic and play on a digital, I do think they eventually get to the point they can feel/hear some difference between the two.

Knowing that, I wouldn't recommend a beginner to take lessons from someone teaching on a digital - I think that (assuming they are also practicing on a digital) - they'd miss that learning opportunity. If that's all they ever know, I don't see how they could have that "a-ha" moment.

The problem is, when I was beginner, I didn't know that - I honestly thought, "digital, acoustic, what's the big deal? They seem more or less the same". A beginner just doesn't know what they don't know yet - and if they NEVER have a chance to play/practice on an acoustic, how will they ever get to the point they can feel/hear the difference?

(For me, it really was surprising when I could actually feel/hear differences.)

Just my thoughts, anyway. Gosh, now I want to run out and go buy an acoustic piano - right now!

Take care.

It is my opinion as a teacher that you should have at least one well tuned and regulated acoustic piano - preferably a grand, but a good upright is fine.

One differnce (of many) that I notice with students that practice on digitals is that they treat the pedals like an on/off switch. Are you going to teach advanced students as well? There are many fine points that a good pianist must be acutely aware of, and those points just don't seem to translate to digitals that well.

Just my humble opinion, worth approximately .2c

Impossible on some digitals, but quite possible on others.
Some high-end models have "string resonance".
The Roland HP-207 and the Yamaha CLP-270/280/380.
Probably some others, too.

True, however, it's simply a mathematical approximation of the "real thing."

I teach with a digital. Never had a problem.

-----------------------------
Play New Age Piano
http://www.quiescencemusic.com

When I was growing up, my (fourth) piano teacher taught on a Kawai grand. It's not a great instrument, but at least it was in tune. Then she had to relocate her studio, and she ended up having a Yamaha upright. The difference between the instruments was immense. Even as a 9th grader I could totally tell the difference.

A year later, I switched teachers. I'm sure the piano had something to do with it.

Now, as a piano teacher (of _serious_ classical music), I would never ever teach on a digital. Even if I suddenly have an influx of beginner students who play the piano "just for fun," I would still allow them to have the opportunity to make beautiful music on my (two) grands.

Fair point. What I meant was that no matter how good it is, it's still an imitation coming from speakers and lacks the depth, feel, sonority, and personality of an acoustic piano. There's science in art, but art isn't a science.

I don't think those digitals can do what saerra was talking about. They have string resonance in the sense that when you play with the sustain pedal down the strings resonate the same as they would on an acoustic if the sustain pedal was down. If you did what saerra was talking about the digitals would not behave the way an acoustic would.

Discotheque,

There was a thread that went on at length in the digital forum about this exact phenomenon. I believe there may even have been some sound samples posted that demonstrated this.

Rich

saerra - there are some great early intermediate pieces by Seymour Berstein, The Birds, which use this technique. They are a fun set to both teach and for students to play.

I have been teaching on a Yamaha CVP-105 for years. Never had any problems, and students are actually glad they are playing on an instrument that is always in tune.

Moreover, the ability to MIDI it to my desktop computer to use music programs, is a godsend.

Of course we can debate about the pros and cons of digital vs. acoustic till the cows come home, but that would be an utter waste of time. We each have our own tastes.

Ooh neat! Thanks for the recommendation John, I'll have to check it out!

I have to give this observation high weight for credibility. Most of the rest of us have only opinion, including myself, having never taught on a digital. This teacher has, and with good results.

We need a contrary opinion from someone who has done it and failed, any takers?

What results are being aimed for?

Any results that satisfy teachers or students, or that do NOT should be valid when weighing options.