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?
