Piano

Quitter with a couple notable exceptions

I have tried both the Kawai CA99 and Nv10S in a dealership. I was really impressed by the sound coming from the CA99 with its soundboard and not so much from the NV10S which uses speakers. Of course I could not fault the NV10 action. No doubt both would sound great through headphones.

Could I ask if there are any other PT members who share or would like to comment on this impression?

I have nothing to add to the discussion about what constitutes a “real piano” because it’s been argued ad nauseam, both here and elsewhere.

But we do need a point of correction around the historical definition of a piano - as ultimately these forums may be used by students or those doing research, and factual errors may negatively inform their studies or research.

The idea that what makes a piano is merely its dynamic ability and keyboard layout is false. It is also not true that there was no other method or technology for a keyboard instrument to achieve variable dynamic control. The piano was NOT the first instrument with both a variable dynamic range and a 12-note-chromatic/“seven-plus-five” keyboard. That honor belongs to the clavichord.

Nearly 300 years before the historical piano was created, the clavichord existed, and had a variable dynamic range AND a 12-note chromatic keyboard in the seven-plus-five layout.

The definition of a piano was never MERELY its ability to variate between soft or loud and its keyboard layout, as the clavichord contained both those defining features 300 years before the piano ever existed.

So, if your definition of a piano is an instrument that can be soft or loud and has a traditional 12-note-chromatic/seven-plus-five keyboard layout, then that wouldn’t be accurate. And, concurrently, the idea that any instrument containing that keyboard layout and dynamic variability, is therefore, a piano…would also be inaccurate.

By that logic, digital pianos and keyboards could equally be called clavichords, since clavichords contained those same features long before the piano. Further, by that logic, a piano could be classified as a clavichord, since the clavichord came first by centuries. And that is not so. No more than a clarinet is an oboe, is a piano a clavichord, or vice versa, despite similarities.

_

It’s also a bit of an error to assume that “pianoforte” was the original name of the instrument or even the true focus, per se. If we go back and look at the definition and description that the inventor of the piano, Bartolomeo Cristofori, gave, it becomes clear what he considered a piano to be: “Un Arpicembalo di Bartolomeo Cristofori di nuova inventione, che fa' il piano, e il forte, a due registri principali unisoni, con fondo di cipresso senza rosa”

So, the inventor of the piano, considered the instrument to be: “A harp-harpsichord which plays soft and loud, with two unison principal registers (two sets of unison pitch strings) and a bottom/foundation (soundboard) made of cypress without rose”.

To the inventor of the piano, it was not about merely the keyboard layout or the dynamic ability. It was the strings, the action (which was revolutionary), the body of the instrument, the soundboard as an important element of sonic projection, the mechanisms, etc. The inventor was very clear on what, in whole, defined a piano. Now, was the dynamic range important? Yes! It was a defining feature, as it was one of the first keyboard instruments that could compete with an orchestra and be featured in a large hall. But that alone was not the sole import. The tone/timbre of the instrument, the method of sound production, the construction of the instrument, all those things mattered.

As for why the name became shortened to fortepiano, then pianoforte, then piano, it was not because the only thing that mattered was the dynamic range, but because of linguistic issues and for promotional purposes. Cristofori’s inventions actually took off in Germany, when Gottfried Silbermann was introduced to them through Italian trade papers as “gravicembalo col piano e forte”. There’s an issue of translation from Italian to German. A choice was made to abandon the “gravicembalo” part altogether (which is how the design was introduced to Germany) and the original “arpicembalo” that Cristofori wanted, and to focus on forte and piano, terms already familiar in Germany, and terms that could highlight the loudness of the instrument compared to the harpsichord and clavichord.

But what a made piano was never merely its dynamic variability or its keyboard layout. So, to use that as the means of defining a “piano” would be inherently wrong, as a clavichord shares those characteristics, and possessed them first.

_

Now, again, as I said, I’m not going to argue what a “real piano” is or isn’t. Everyone has their own opinions on the subject. But I do think it would be a mistake to define digital instruments as pianos SOLELY based on an inaccurate interpretation of what defined the original instrument.

And I think it’s important that we’re accurate with the historical facts of the instrument as this site may be used as a resource.

johnstaf Well said! I had an acoustic for the first 30 years of my life. Now, I have a digital which serves my needs perfectly, and I probably will never own another acoustic. Even so, if someone were to ask me if I have a piano at home, I would automatically answer, "Yes, but just a digital, these days" Old habits, die hard.

SouthPark And since they (digital pianos) are pianos, as the word really is in their name, then it's clear that they're really ..... pianos. And automatically ... they're obviously all real pianos.

That line of reasoning doesn't make sense. Is an earwig a real wig? Is a honeymoon a real moon? Is a fake Rolex a real Rolex?

Pallas

I’ve never said a digital piano is not a piano, and certainly never referred to it as a “piano shaped object that isn’t a piano”. And that’s the problem with how the OP has framed this thread. Perhaps it’s because I’ve seen the OP have this very same discussion on two different sites countless times over the past two years, but I’m very clear on their view, and the point of contention between them and others is never just the word “piano”, but the word “real”. Their contention always arises when people point out the differences between acoustic pianos and digital pianos because they wish to believe that digital pianos are 100% equivalent to acoustic pianos in every way, contrary to the prevailing view.

The OP is couching one point behind another. The OP asked “is a digital piano a piano” and gave their opinion yes. Then, threw in “it’s a real piano”, as if the affirmative of the first statement also somehow affirms the second statement they threw in. Here’s the problem with that. That’s two different points (is a digital piano a piano VS is a digital piano a real piano), yet the OP affirms the latter with the former. You can’t do that. Different points require different qualifiers.

Is a digital piano a piano? To me? Yes. The word “piano” has migrated and evolved, and it now is generally used loosely to describe acoustics and digital approximations of the acoustic. I myself loosely use the term “piano” to define my digital piano.

Is a digital piano a REAL piano, which is what the OP’s point of contention really is? No.

Adding the qualifier “real” pulls us away from the general/loose/colloquial use of “piano” and causes us to go back to the facts to make the decision of what qualifies as “real”. How do you measure what “real” is. Logically, we look at the history, abilities, and purpose of all these instruments. And the fact of the matter is, digital pianos were built as an approximation of acoustic pianos, which for 200 years have been the definition of piano. Digital pianos contain extremely limited snapshots of the sound acoustic pianos make. Digital pianos are even advertised that way: approximations of acoustic pianos. In dictionaries, encyclopedias, in theory among professional and advanced musicians, and even to digital piano makers like Roland and Kawai and Yamaha and Casio…a “real piano” is the acoustic instrument, and a “digital piano” is a digital approximation of the real instrument.

Loosely, you can all them whatever you want to call them. I certainly just say piano all the time. But, in threads where we’re talking about these instruments in great detail, and breaking down their capabilities and features with a level of specification, there will be instances where we delineate the digital piano from the “real” acoustic piano, especially when we’re talking about how the digital emulates an acoustic.

The reason we’ve gotten to taxonomy and strict adherence to fact is because the OP’s is asking for that, but wanting it to be based on their ideas about the history of the instruments, which were inaccurate, and seemingly skewed toward their perception.

I think comparing children to pianos is a bit of a false equivalency.

A piano is an object. It has no feelings, emotions, consciousness, or intelligence. No matter what anyone calls your piano, it won’t have ears to hear it, or a mind to be hurt by it. It has no need to be classified a certain way to feel value, valid, or loved. And I don’t understand why a person would be hurt by proper classification of instruments either.

I own a digital piano as my main home instrument, and I don’t understand why recognizing the reality that a digital piano is loosely/generally a piano, but not a “real” piano, would offend anyone’s feelings. I don’t understand the personal sense of value or worth or validation anyone would put into that. I don’t understand how it would make one love their instrument less, feel they are less apart of a community, feel they are less of a pianist, or feel any personal lack.

And I think people who are doing that should sit with why they are doing that, because I’m not entire sure that it’s about the definitions of these instruments.

For the record, although I’m clear on what I believe, I don’t pressure anyone else to feel the same. The thread purported to be asking for opinions. I gave my opinion: that the historical data being presented and being cited to support the view was factually inaccurate. I also said that people can feel however they want to feel, though, and that my point of contention was with the inaccuracy of the facts. The same has not been the case from everyone.

Frankly, I don’t truly have a great interest in what anybody calls their piano. I don’t understand the vitriol.