Sophia A soap box is all I need Sophia. Heheh ..... genuinely kidding. Actually, the cat piano looks fun to play. We definitely do have it in Australia, that exact same one.

Also, genuinely, my thread here really is for enlightening. If those selected others read through carefully the points, then they will understand that Wikipedia has a disconnect between definition and types. They begin with definition (hammer and strings) and then have a following section called 'types of pianos', which has digital pianos among the 'types of pianos'. But that obviously is a hold-it-right-there situation, due to the disconnect from their hammer and string definition that they started with. That is, in section B, they acknowledge digital pianos as a type of piano. But in section A, they define a piano as being one with hammers and strings. That's a clear case of hold-your-horses.

Sophia Kinda like the argument at exactly which point Data becomes a real human... some will say he always was, others will say he never will be. Yet no one ever questioned Data's usefulness to do what he was designed for.

That is a very good thought!

Data was never a human. And Data would never be a human. But Data was quite human-like in many ways, and wasn't to be discounted because he never was human. In some ways, people may have argued that he was better than any human ever would be, not being able to incorporate the darker side of humanity into his programming (hate, jealousy, etc). He could do many things humans couldn't. Yet there were still some things humans could do that Data couldn't. Emotion never quite developed. Humor never quite developed. Those situations requiring those would not have been a good fit for Data. But other tasks requiring precision, quick decision making, speed, patience, lack of emotion, yeah, Data was a wonderful candidate for the job.

Unlike some, I have no use for a "cat piano". LOL!! But hey, if that trips your trigger, go for it! There are real acoustic pianos that I have enjoyed thoroughly (a particular 7' Baldwin grand comes to mind) and other acoustic pianos that I have not found nearly as pleasant to play or listen to (a mid-sized Steinway grand comes to mind). There are keyboards that I have (and do) enjoy (my RD-2000 comes to mind) and other keyboards I have not had much use for (a cheap Casio keyboard comes to mind). I'm capable of playing any of them. They all have "keys" and make "piano-like" sounds. I'd very likely refer to any of them as "pianos" knowing full well what an acoustic piano is, mostly as a common term that is often used for any or all of them, accurate or not.

One might consider whether an item is a "facial tissue" or a "Kleenex". There are facial tissues that are not Kleenex but I'm not going to get too excited about someone referring to a tissue of another brand as a Kleenex. It's a common term, whether accurate or not and everybody knows what is being talked about. If it is important to you to differentiate, great, do so. Most people just wanna blow some snot and don't care to use their sleeve.

Rubens Your posts are always excellent Rubens. The Blade Runner post is very nice, and so welcomed. I'm a STTNG fan too actually.

Sophia I'm way too lazy to start a new one about cute mini versions

We can split the thread if you like and if that will work best for everyone. I can fork it off at the point where we start talking about fun keyboards and select only those posts... (in the future for any such requests, feel free to Flag a post).

    Sounds good, thank you navrinda. We wouldn't want to take away from serious education and enlightenment by providing some fun now would we πŸ˜ƒ (ok sorry, I couldn't help it, below the belt I know, well I did say I'm mostly nice. I can also be a little snarky. Sorryyyy)

    SouthPark That is the exact thing. The exact thing. Notice the contradiction? If it doesn't 'matter' to someone, then they wouldn't initially say that it doesn't matter, and then follow up with a 'that said' -- and then begin to add their opinion, such as 'it's a bit nonsensical that .....'. If you know what I mean. This also goes for taushi and some others too - where they write - it doesn't matter. But then they follow-up with details that makes it obvious that it matters to them.

    Sorry, I guess I was being imprecise - rather than saying it doesn't matter, I probably should have said it shouldn't matter. I used a VPC-1 for over half a decade as my primary instrument and would happily tell people that I "play piano". Nobody asked me if I owned a "real piano" and I never once thought about whether the VPC-1 should be philosophically classified as a "real" piano. Because at the end of the day, it's a tool to make music. Who cares if it's "real" or not as long as it meets my artistic needs?

    But clearly this is a very important topic to you SouthPark, so I'm engaging with the discussion out of respect of the fervor of your opinion. This is, after all, a forum for discussing pianos!

    The best analogy I can think of to explain my viewpoint is art. Would you describe this digital image as "real art"?

    I certainly would! No one can argue that the image isn't real. Next, what's the medium?

    This image was created on a computer (likely with a program like Procreate) so the medium would be classified as "digital media". Although there appear to be brush strokes of maybe an oil-based paint, these are digitally simulated. You might also classify this as a "digital painting" to emphasize that it was made with simulated brush strokes, as opposed to other digital techniques.

    So it's real art. But is it a "real" painting? This is really the heart of our discussion. To answer this, let's think about the context for the word "real" and why someone might be asking this question.

    Suppose I was the artist, and I had this image on my online portfolio. Someone might ask if this was a "real painting" for several reasons:

    • They want to buy it, if it's a physical painting. A potential customer might want to buy a real, physical painting created with oil-based paint on canvas, to hang on a wall and appreciate the three-dimensionality of paint on canvas. In this context, it would be disingenuous, if not fraudulent, to claim that it's a "real" painting if the product is in fact digital media only.
    • They want to judge my artistic capabilities. Perhaps someone is interested in commissioning a piece of physical art, and they are curious about my experience with oil-based paint on canvas.

    In these contexts, "real" is referring to whether the painting was created with physical media. No one asking this question is attempting to engage in an ontological discussion of whether this piece of art truly exists. They're asking about the medium and whether the image was created via simulated (digital) or real (physical) paint.


    I view the use of the word "real" when describing digital vs. acoustic pianos similarly, because much like digital brushstrokes vs. oil on canvas, the sound of a digital piano is a virtual simulation of the sound of an acoustic instrument. If someone hears a recording of a piano piece and asks, "is this a real piano?", they're almost certainly asking if it was recorded on an acoustic instrument.

    But again, I don't really think it matters. Although I don't believe the phrase "real piano" applies to a digital keyboard, there's no question that a digital instrument can be used to make real music. And in many cases, you can make better music on a digital piano than an acoustic instrument. So who cares if your digital keyboard is a "real piano" or not, if you're making real music?

      shawarma_bees Thanks SB. That is fine. And that is the exact thing. If it really didn't matter to you or shouldn't matter, then you wouldn't have posted all of that ..... about nonsensical etc. After all ... my original post is supportive and unifying. So if it doesn't matter (or shouldn't matter), then either do nothing, or add a like etc.

      That art you posted is really great. I like that one. That's real art according to me. I don't care what anybody else reckons - but that one gets a 10 out of 10 from me, and both thumbs up.

      Now, with the piano thing again, one point of interest is that wikipedia etc really does define piano with hammers and strings, and that is it. And they then wormhole (tunnel) through to 'types of pianos', where digital pianos appear 'magically' ... no strings or hammers attached, which doesn't align with their definition, but yet they have digital pianos under 'types of pianos'.

      So ... when we see this sort of thing, it is then time to mention it. It actually matters from a definitions and communications and educational perspective.

        Sophia But going back to that dinky little keyboard - I'm really curious why you don't like it, @johnstaf before I waste money on something that's useless.

        It has tiny keys that are difficult to play (for me anyway). Dynamics are very difficult to control. I didn't buy it to play like a piano, and never really used the keyboard anyway.

        SouthPark So ... when we see this sort of thing, it is then time to mention it. It actually matters from a definitions and communications and educational perspective.

        Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say "educational" perspective? Are you disappointed with Wikipedia's definition and want it changed? Or by "educational" do you mean educating us on your opinion of how a piano should be defined?

        None of us have the ability or authority to change how a word is defined, and this is a topic with inherent ambiguity. Ultimately, I agree with @HeartKeys in the second post of this thread:

        HeartKeys A digital piano is a piano if you say it is. And it’s not, if you say it isn’t. πŸ™‚

          shawarma_bees Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say "educational" perspective? Are you disappointed with Wikipedia's definition and want it changed? Or by "educational" do you mean educating us on your opinion of how a piano should be defined?

          Noticing something from a 'logical perspective' does not necessarily mean someone gets emotional or disappointed etc. In this case, I feel that they have just 'dropped the ball'. And it's not just wikipedia that dropped the ball.

          The second part ... yes ... from an educational perspective. If you or anyone didn't know it before ... then you do know it now. And yes. It is about knowing the essence of piano.

          shawarma_bees None of us have the ability or authority to change how a word is defined, and this is a topic with inherent ambiguity.

          That's not true though what you wrote. Somebody in the past, at one time did after-all hijack the word 'action' if you know what I mean. But on the other hand, it may well be possible that one day, their hijack meaning might be seen in well-known dictionaries around the world.

          shawarma_bees I used a VPC-1 for over half a decade as my primary instrument and would happily tell people that I "play piano". Nobody asked me if I owned a "real piano"

          And now you know that you were/are playing a real piano all along. Not that it matters to you ... but the fact is ..... it is true ... the VPC1 when coupled to the rest of the sub-systems - forms a piano. A real piano. You were correct all along. A playable piano is indeed a real piano. As I had mentioned that an acoustic piano is truly not the only kind of piano. And any 'workable' piano ... playable with our hands in real-time ... is not merely a piano ..... it automatically is a real piano.

            I find postings like this inherently provocative. We seen this over and over, and I'm always amazed at how many take the bait. If a firestarter set someone's doormat alight and the homeowner came out and doused it with a glass of water, the perpetrator would move on to another neighborhood, or back to where they set the last fire. But, if the fire department is called, with all those lights and sirens, and neighbors coming out to see what all the excitement is, well, you can bet more matches will be struck or fuel added to what should have been doused with a glass of water.

            Some choose to stoke a synthetic controversy, like sample vs. modeling, or acoustic vs. digital, or whatever, hoping to generate activity or just to create a disturbance. Sometimes, when this kind of thing happens in conversation, people just nod and wait for the subject to change to something more interesting. This was not one of those times.

            I also don't get the concept of moving or splitting threads. It's like four guys sitting around a pub table talking about playing in bands. And two start talking about the old vans they had to carry all that equipment. Suddenly, the bartender comes over and tells them to move to another table. Isn't a thread a conversation? Don't conversations drift? For the continuity of the content, the continuity of the conversation is altered?

              SouthPark The second part ... yes ... from an educational perspective. If you or anyone didn't know it before ... then you do know it now.

              Yes, I believe we do.

              PianoMonk So are you trying to say that there's no 'problem' with the disconnect between wikipedia's definition of piano (hammers and strings) and then having digital pianos then magically appear under their 'types of pianos'?

              Also ... it's ok. We will be working on that. I'm confident that the mismatch will eventually be sorted.

                SouthPark I really don't care what wikipedia's definition about piano, pianos, digital or otherwise,or anything really, is. Wikipedia is constantly changing due to the number of people involved in editing and updating, tweaking and re-tweaking, which, to me anyway, makes it a rather less than carved-in-stone reference resource.

                Turn away, go practice the piano, or a piano, or piano-like thingy, or instrument with keys, or whatever. Close the laptop, go outside, look up and admire the clouds, listen to the birds.

                Here’s my personal approach to this thread.

                As I do with most threads on PT, I put this thread on β€œignore” so that I visit it only when I feel like it by going to the thread directly, instead of new post notifications showing on my main feed.

                I’m fine with this topic going on for an eternity. And have option to not look at it, and then the option to look at it.

                This way I can learn others’ perspectives and philosophy, and semantics, etc while also doing it in a balanced way (between completely disconnecting vs engaging super deeply).

                My two cents is: while our control within a forum is limited, we have the agency to control what we pay attention to. If we find ourselves overly invested on a topic we find heated, then going out and doing offline things is a great idea. And then if we are bored while cooking something, and wanna read these sorts of threads for community; enlightenment; entertainment; etc. then we have the agency to do so πŸ™‚

                BartK locked the discussion .
                rsl12 unlocked the discussion .

                Hello, after discussion with the Mod Team, I'm unlocking this thread. If you find this topic interesting, by all means continue discussing it civilly. If you find the topic not to your taste, you can ignore the thread. Look at the right side of this page (if you are on mobile, then look at the top of this page), press the down arrow next to the "Follow" button, and then choose "Ignore".

                Thanks to everyone for helping make Pianotell a friendly place!