I think weâre getting pretty deep in a rabbit hole of semantics, which can lead to talking in circles 
I once asked âwhat does love mean to youâ in a non-piano forum before, and it went berserk.
Ultimately I donât see anyone here changing their opinions here per se.
johnstaf Is a curate's egg a real egg? Is an Easter egg a real egg?
Let's put it this way ... you don't qualify to ask any more 'dumb' questions. You get the hint.
HeartKeys Ultimately I donât see anyone here changing their opinions here per se.
It's fine HK ... I won't be responding to him on here or at PC. So it will be ok now.
It is an interesting discussion. It kinda reminds me of that old TV commercial, "Is it live or is it Memorex?"
Iâve never said a digital piano is not a piano, and certainly never referred to it as a âpiano shaped object that isnât a pianoâ. And thatâs the problem with how the OP has framed this thread. Perhaps itâs because Iâve seen the OP have this very same discussion on two different sites countless times over the past two years, but Iâm very clear on their view, and the point of contention between them and others is never just the word âpianoâ, but the word ârealâ. 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 âis a digital piano a pianoâ and gave their opinion yes. Then, threw in âitâs a real pianoâ, as if the affirmative of the first statement also somehow affirms the second statement they threw in. Hereâs the problem with that. Thatâs 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 canât do that. Different points require different qualifiers.
Is a digital piano a piano? To me? Yes. The word âpianoâ 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 âpianoâ to define my digital piano.
Is a digital piano a REAL piano, which is what the OPâs point of contention really is? No.
Adding the qualifier ârealâ pulls us away from the general/loose/colloquial use of âpianoâ and causes us to go back to the facts to make the decision of what qualifies as ârealâ. How do you measure what ârealâ 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 CasioâŚa âreal pianoâ is the acoustic instrument, and a âdigital pianoâ 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 weâre 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 ârealâ acoustic piano, especially when weâre talking about how the digital emulates an acoustic.
The reason weâve gotten to taxonomy and strict adherence to fact is because the OPâs 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 wonât 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 donât 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 donât understand why recognizing the reality that a digital piano is loosely/generally a piano, but not a ârealâ piano, would offend anyoneâs feelings. I donât understand the personal sense of value or worth or validation anyone would put into that. I donât 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 Iâm not entire sure that itâs about the definitions of these instruments.
For the record, although Iâm clear on what I believe, I donât 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 donât truly have a great interest in what anybody calls their piano. I donât understand the vitriol.
Taushi they wish to believe that digital pianos are 100% equivalent to acoustic pianos in every way, contrary to the prevailing view.
That's untrue taushi. I don't wish to believe that digital pianos are 100% equivalent to acoustic pianos. I'm just saying that digital pianos and acoustic pianos are pianos. They're both real pianos, which is obvious. It's obvious because it's true that both digital pianos and acoustic pianos are indeed pianos. And if you can play them in real-time with your fingers etc, and there's adequate soft-loud control, then it's a piano --- which is then automatically a real piano.
The contentious thing about your posts - which you do - and there is a pattern of it, where people can see, is that you throw in essay size posts (where post size is fine in itself) where you lace them with your flame-baiting superiority complex ingredients --- the 'digitals are never as good as the real thing' or 'digitals will never sound as good as the real thing' and all that purposeful flame-baiting nonsense.
And it is after-all a digital forum, where all people - piano players and any other people - are welcome obviously. Although, because you purposely lace your posts and embed within it flame-bait high-horse superiority/inferiority-complex material to stir up digital piano fans, will just have to call you out on it. If you want me to link all the posts where you do that - then I can do it. It's all there at PW in the archives - preserved for all to see. And you have already started doing it here as well. All you have to do is to go ahead and make my day.
In relation to this thread topic - there was a time when I thought about it -- as in for example Wikipedia etc - where they have a 'definition' of piano, where wiki etc provide a 'definition' as such, involving hammers and strings - and that is it - that is where it ends. And then they start getting into 'types' of pianos - in which digital pianos, electric pianos, acoustic pianos are always shown under 'types'. And then - I was questioning --- then why? - if they only define piano with strings and hammer etc, then how do they then magically proceed/jump to the next type/category stage, where digital pianos etc are mentioned under 'types of pianos'. So there obviously was a disconnect between definition and the 'next' set of information.
And then I thought about it. And the answer is - digital pianos are indeed pianos, just as acoustic pianos are pianos. That is why us people call them all pianos. Because they actually are all -- pianos. Real pianos.
So basically - the teachings from this are for enlightening us all - myself included of course. The answer had been sitting in front of us all this time. And it is obvious, after thinking about it.
Taushi Is a digital piano a REAL piano, which is what the OPâs point of contention really is? No.
That's where you are totally wrong. Digital pianos are pianos, which automatically makes them real. Same for acoustic pianos, which are also pianos, and they are also real.
I have you on Ignore, but I will take a moment to briefly address you, as kindly and openly as I can. And I wonât address you any further after this.
Nothing I say is âflame-baitingâ or with the goal of stirring up anybody. I own a digital piano and have owned everything from a Yamaha P125, to a Yamaha P515, to a Yamaha Clavinova CLP-785, to a Yamaha N1X, to a Casio GP-310. It would make no sense whatsoever for me to be attempting to âstir up digital fansââŚwhen I am a digital fan.
That said, although I am a digital fan and user, they are not the holy grail to me that they seem to be to you. I am a classically trained pianist who performs advanced works and composes. My needs are specific and may be different from others who may play other genres/styles, be at different levels in their journey (higher or lower), or have different needs. I do not think there is a digital out there that is as good as an acoustic. Period.
The true question, though, is why does this offend you so? Why are you so upset that I donât like what you like? That my needs are different from yours, and that what you consider excellent doesnât meet my needs. Why does this matter to you? What impact does my opinion have on you? Do you look at your P525 differently because some random person on the internet doesnât like it? I think you need to sit with why that is. Your emotional response to my opinion comes from within, and you need to sit with why your sense of validity, value, worth, enjoyment is impacted by someoneâs different opinion. Your response is to attack people or aggressive equalizely everyone and everything with yourself and what you like, but that is not helpful.
In this thread alone, youâve called johnstafâs questions âdumbâ, declared his take was wrong, quoted me numerous times even as I intentionally ignore you, accused me of having ulterior motives, declared that you had some great revelation after reading a Wikipedia article that differs from even what digital piano makers believe, and announced that you can âenlightenâ everyone here, including people who have played longer, studied wider, and reached more advanced levels than you. Does that seem conducive to healthy interactions to you?
You were banned from Pianoworld multiple times, before being permanently banned. You were nearly banned from Pianoclack for the same reasons. You should step back and do the work to realize that the problem is not everybody else, and that the plethora of negative intentions and ulterior motives you assign to people are not true.
You have a remarkable opportunity to not have the same issues here that you had on other piano forums. And youâre already becoming the central source of contention. Please take a step back.
I have you on Ignore, and will be placing you back on it. I strongly, strongly encourage you to do the same. That way you wonât see my posts which offend you so.
SouthPark I'm sorry, but there are all kinds of lines being crossed here. I would like to ask you to keep these conversations civil and sincere. I see others are engaging in good faith here.
--
Beach L168, Wish, baCh, WOW Petrof, Fake Steinway, VS
TIME
PianoTell is very much like PianoClack and PianoWorld. I saw many posts when I came here about being inclusive. I hoped it would be different. It's not. Unfortunately, this forum, like the others I mentioned, has too many elitists.
According to many on this forum, there is classical music and non-classical music. That is not at all how the rest of the world separates music into genres. It's insulting to folks who primarily listen to and play other genres. All genres should have equal standing if we are inclusive.
Piano hierarchy: This is the feeling I get from reading the posts in this and the other forums I mentioned.
Do folks here not see the prejudice in threads like "Can even the top end hybrids really satisfy a grand player?" or the popular "will practicing on a digital ruin me?"
I used to have photography as a serious hobby. The film vs digital was the same thing there. "REAL photographers use film". "I can tell photographs taken with digital cameras. They're awful." "Digital will never equal film."
I'm going to be true to my name "Quitter". I don't think this forum has much to offer me.
P.S. I really enjoyed the "Alfredos" and like threads on PW. Great people, and enjoyable interactions. Not much of that here though.
Studiologic Numa X 73, Pianoteq, Mac, Motu M2, Kali LP6 Monitors and WS 6.2 sub
Quitter Unfortunately, this forum, like the others I mentioned, has too many elitists.
I see no elitists here.
I only see people who have studied long and hard, and often made sacrifices to attain the highest level they can achieve, and as a very lazy, mediocre player myself, I have great respect for them.
I also respect those who are just beginning on their piano journey, and admire their enthusiasm and willingness to learn about all things piano.
If some people are not comfortable in their own skin, regarding their personal level, quality of instrument, etc., then that is very sad, as whatever our 'level' it is still possible to have a lifetime of enjoyment playing music for ourselves, or for sharing with others. Nothing more, nothing less.
I see this forum as a breath of fresh air, a new start if you like, and a place to let go of the past, and I hope it stays that way.
So a couple things. Pianotell and Pianoclack are off-shots of Pianoworld. For both PC annd PT, the primary user ship comes from PW. So, youâre not going to find anything particularly different on either one.
Pianoworld is the granddaddy of all these sites. And, it was always hugely classical-based. Classical, classical, classical. Period. Everything else was often an afterthought. I donât agree that that should be the case, and I have called out the elitism which sometime shows there. Unfortunately, thatâs the way the classical world is: highly (and undeservedly) elitist. Thatâs the nature of it. We have to remember that classical music, as beautiful as -some- of is, was entertainment for extremely rich âsavoir-vivreâ people. They were the cream of the crop: rich and thick. Not particularly or overwhelming intelligent, but wealthy and powerful enough to convince themselves that they are the only ones with class and value and that everything else is just simple âfolkâ music for the peasants. In many ways, that ideology has persisted in classical music, even today. So youâre always going to have an upward battle when youâre in a classical heavy space.
That said, itâs up to us to be the change we want to see. Pianotell is in a nascent stage. Thereâs a great opportunity here to create a space in the image of what you want it to be.
If youâd like to focus on music that is non-classical, you can do that. Navindra seems very open to encouragement and guidance on new sections of the forum, new topics. I donât think anything is set in stone. If youâd like to see more genres and spaces for other styles, I think you should reach out to Navindra, or create a thread and say âHey, we need more than just stuffy classical people ranting about Brahms and Beethoven all day and proclaiming that everything else is inferior.â Goodness knows Iâd welcome it, and Iâm sure many others would. Maybe we should even have a Classical only section, and then a section for modern music, and even break that down into genres as necessary.
What happens at PW or PC doesnât have to be an indicator of what happens here, if people want more.
The piano hierarchy youâve shared is what youâll encounter often, among those who play music with advanced technical requirements. Because itâs true. The more advanced and complicated the music youâre playing becomes, the more you need an action that is super responsive, super fluid, with super repetition speeds, and proper balance and regulation. And unfortunately, it tends to follow that acoustic grand actions tends to be the ones with these abilities the best, because of simple physics and the technology and mechanisms that have been refined over three centuries by dozens of genius technicians to create actions that meet this standard.
Upright actions were a compromise on this, and use a slightly slower mechanism, typically have less regulation, and, because theyâre often cheaper, arenât always made with the best materials like their grand counterparts (which also vary in quality as price goes down).
Then of course hybrids, which are essentially these actions minus the hammers.
And then digital actions, which originally, were pretty bad. Now weâre getting to a point where theyâre improving drastically, and may even be preferable to bad acoustic actions. But, still, some are not yet âthereâ.
And you may harm your technique or miss out on building your technique if youâre not practicing on an acoustic or an action that properly captures the mechanics of an acoustic, because if youâre playing certain genres, like classical or complex jazz, that music was created on actions that had particular qualities, so reproducing it requires a similar action.
So I get the validity of those arguments, and even would teach them myself.
But I guess my feeling is still the same as it is in my previous reply. Why does this matter if YOUR needs are met? If you have no need for some super sprightly action, and the action in your digital is just fine for you, thatâs all that should matter. It might not be âsuperbâ to a user who needs something different, but if itâs good for you, thatâs all that matters. Itâs your journey, your fingers, your needs, your standard. If for the genre you play, the level youâre at, the technique you possess, youâre realizing your goals, then you have what you need.
The hierarchy of piano actions doesnât translate to the value/worth/validity/skill/talent of the people using them.
I consider Elton John and Stevie Wonder among the greatest musical minds of the 20th Century, but goodness knows they donât care about the action anywhere near the way someone who plays Liszt or Monk or Tatum may care. But does that make them less than either of those names? No.
I feel like we need to realize that hierarchy doesnât always translate to value/validity. Itâs just about which actions are more capable at certain requirements, and whether those requirements are apart of your genre
As for PianoteqâŚlisten, if youâre a fan of that, youâre going to have an uphill battle. Itâs probably the most hotly contested VST out there, because of how it creates sound. For some, itâs wonderful, for some it suffices, for others itâs dreadful. I liken it to alternate sweeteners like Stevia or monk fruit or artificial sweeteners. Some people love it and swear by it, and even prefer it to the standard sugar. Others can tell the difference and just want their good old fashioned sugar!
But, again, if you like it, forget those people.
Sure youâll have people like me who donât like it, but Iâve tried my best to keep my tuckus out of Pianoteq-centered threads, because I know I donât like it, and thereâs no reason for me to be in there spreading discouraging thoughts about it. If you encounter people who canât keep their beaks out of Pianoteq-centered threads, tell them that. You have a right to like what you like.
I think we have to create the spaces we want to see, especially when those spaces are in nascent phases and open to development.
Quitter High end digital with grand action --- sort of OK, but ONLY for practicing for when you will play a real piano. An acoustic grand
How is this elitist? I use my digital only for this. Should I use it differently? Nobody has said (or implied) that this should be the case for anyone else.
Other people's use of the piano can be different from yours.
The only music I play on the piano is classical. Is that elitist?
I have synths and guitars for other music, but playing non-classical piano music doesn't interest me.
Come on guys, let's not be snobs. There is a place for that and it's not here 
Do let's all jump down from those soap boxes and be friends... it's getting a little silly now, no?
Anyone who still continues this crazy argument about what is a piano and what is not is a dunce, don't let it be you
I use a Roland digital piano. I have seen Roland criticised heavily on forums. Should I be upset about it? Why would I be offended by other people's preferences? It's the same with Pianoteq. I don't like it. Some people dislike the stuff I use. I want to hear their opinions. I want to hear people's opinions on Pianoteq. My favourite piano is Vienna Imperial by VSL. Nobody has been more critical of VSL on forums than I have. I don't identify with the gear I use, and I'm not offended when people criticise it.
Better still, I have teenage Kittens. They are crazy as heck and my husband just read the riot act about them wrecking the piano... I might just ship them to the first one who continues this silly banter.
Their piano (of any kind) will never be the same afterwards 
@johnstaf I told my husband that when I want his opinion, I'll give it to him. Didn't work 
Shall we start a pillow fight instead Pallas? Or mud wrestling? That might provide some fun excitement...
When someone posts something that I don't agree with, I don't have to reply and let the world know that I disagree. I may reply if I think I can write something helpful that would be well received. Otherwise, I do not engage.
Sometimes when I get angry I write an email or a text or a post... but I never send it. In my experience communicating electronically while angry just makes whatever I'm angry about worse.
@Quitter I'm sorry if anything I have written on this forum comes across as elitist. As far as I'm concerned, if you are having fun playing the piano you are doing it right! The fun is the whole point, not the genre, technique, piano type, or virtual piano.
Let's keep PianoTell friendly and fun!
