Acoustic pianos losing to digitals?

[alzado]

I go weekly to my lesson at the largest piano retailer in this mid-sized city. 

When we purchased our present piano in about 1990 the main showroom was pretty much filled with grand pianos of all different prices and sizes.  The uprights were displayed in a different salesroom.

Currently, the grand showroom only has about three new grands and three or four used grands that probably came in as trades.  Most of the showroom is just empty.  The other display area -- for the uprights -- is more filled with salable pianos, although not so well stocked as was the case years ago.

I asked a long time employee why the store owners are not maintaining their inventory of grands.   I was told that increasingly families that previously might have purchased a grand -- or even an acoustic upright -- are now opting for digital pianos.  So the simple answer is -- he can't sell 'em.

I dare not generalize using a single example -- this one piano retailer -- but I would like to ask if this trend is widespread -- and if it is also a trend in the large cities?

And what this means to keyboard music for the future, if anything?

[m19834]

As a huge generalization, I would say that society as a whole is moving more and more into the digital world for many things.  I think it is in our nature to follow technological advancements, and I think ultimately it is in our best interest, too.  The issue that you are talking about seems to me to have undertones of the topic I just brought up, and a concern about what that means to mankind and in turn, what the effects of this on mankind will have on the world of music and on the life of the individual musician.

Obviously what I mentioned is kind of a huge issue so I will try to address only what I think pertains to your immediate concern.  I will start by saying that it is not new or unusual for people to follow technological advancements; we have been doing it all of our lives actually and since the beginning of our race.  What I think is important to recognize is that nothing ever truly replaces anything else. 

Let's look at something like beds and how they have developed over the ages.  It is a common idea that cavemen used to sleep on dirt and have rocks for pillows.  Well, each of us could actually still choose to sleep like this, we just don't !  That kind of "primitive" technology has not actually been replaced (as in it still exists), but the need and desire for it has; our expectations have changed and so our tools have changed with our expectations.

I think a similar process goes on with just about everything in life.  Our tools change with our changing expectations/needs.  The truth of the matter is that our entire life-experience would be different in many ways if we decided to sleep on dirt and employ rocks for pillows.  Some people even still want that kind of life-experience (and others have little choice in the matter).

My point is that these are all tools and that is all they are.  Pianos, whatever type, are just tools for artistic/musical/self-expression.  Depending on our needs/desires and what we value and appreciate, we will choose tools that we consider to be a suitable match.  If there is a good reason(s) to value and choose acoustic pianos over digitals, then of course people would be investing in acoustic over digitals.  If there is good reason to choose digital over acoustic, then people will be investing in digitals.

[lmpianist]

I bought a digital only because I live in a small apartment and would be unable to play on an acoustic here.  So the choice was between a digital, or... nothing.  I still play on acoustics fairly regularly because the sound & feel of a digital, even one of the better ones,  pale in comparison to a half-decent acoustic.  So digitals are definitely convenient in some circumstances, but I don't think acoustics will go the way of the dinosaur for serious pianists, now or ever.  Yes digitals are cheaper... but you get what you pay for. -cut-

[faulty_damper]

More people now who purchase a keyboard instrument purchase a digital piano.  They think it's the same as a real one.  It's cheaper and much easier to maintain, as well.  It's also much more portable.  Compare these advantages to an acoustic piano and I'll be looking a digital if I didn't have good ears.

[exigence]

I bought a digital only because I live in a small apartment and would be unable to play on an acoustic here.  So the choice was between a digital, or... nothing.  I still play on acoustics fairly regularly because the sound & feel of a digital, even one of the better ones,  pale in comparison to a half-decent acoustic.  So digitals are definitely convenient in some circumstances, but I don't think acoustics will go the way of the dinosaur for serious pianists, now or ever.  Yes digitals are cheaper... but you get what you pay for.

Agreed. Have had two Kawai digitals.

Cannot wait to have a 5'+ grand in my own home.

[optima]

  Pianos, whatever type, are just tools for artistic/musical/self-expression.  Depending on our needs/desires and what we value and appreciate, we will choose tools that we consider to be a suitable match. 

Couldn't agree more. For the interpretation of classical music  analog is the best choice. I am waiting my first grand piano this month 

But, as i live in an apartment  i m considering also a digital for extra hours of study...if not, my neighbor will have a nervous brakedown ( he' s close )

[hoj76]

In our shop is over 90% of our sales acoustic piano, a few select digital (which I think is good) many who buy digital return within a year or two to buy an acoustic as it is much a do not get to the digital as the normal acoustic.

[indianajo]

In the 1900's into the 1960's and even the 70's, pianos were status symbols, more frequently bought as furniture and some idea of "culture" rather than something to do.  A lot of them were bought "for the children", without any planned involvement by the purchaser than polishing it and talking to friends.  This trend is going away.  The kid's first trials at something "cultural" is being satisified with the digital instrument, and sales for status seem to be going to people that have every other hobby satisfied.   The extreme mobility of people that actually have children (lower income people) really inhibits the purchase of something weighing 250-700 pounds.  At this point, many 50-100 year pianos have hardly been used. I see piano techs on other forums warning everybody against buying a 50 year old piano because it is worn out.  15 year old school practice pianos are actually worn out- most "furniture' was hardly touched.  Good real pianos sound better than digital, and advanced students and hobbiests will continue to pay the movers to keep one. 

[faa2010]

You know, I am also thinking that now many persons prefer to have digital pianos or keyboards then an acoustic piano, but I do because of the next causes:

1. As someone said here in this thread, we are more guided by the technological improvement, searching for new forms of getting music in a more digital and technological way. (one example is the mp3)

2. The main reason, I suppose the most rational and the one that can feed the first one, is that acoustic pianos are more expensive than digital and the keyboards. I went once to a Yamaha exposition about the enterprise and the new stuff that the company had at that moment, I saw the prices of the keyboards and the electric pianos, and they were, I think, below 2500 dolars. The upright pianos (that normally are cheaper than the grand ones) surpass that rank.

You can't, I repeat, you can't put the same prices of the keyboards to the acoustical pianos, because they are not only considered musical instruments, they are also pieces of furniture, you can't separate them in many pieces and united them later, you can't easily transport them as the keyboards or the digital ones.

However, I can say that acoustical pianos are not behind in technology, because I saw some models that they have also devices in order to record, to the headphones and to make them play alone (like the upright pianos, only that in a more technological way).

Both of them, acoustical and digital, have advantages and disadvantages.  But I think that in order to get an acoustical, one needs to have enough money and space to get one of them.

[tea cup]

"Acoustic" piano is a ridiculous term, to begin with. A piano is a piano. Let the digital contraptions take the prefix. For pianists the comparison is waved away by one of their gangly hands (Gulda is an exception, but he was mad, as we all know). A digital piano, at its best, cannot even compare to the quality of a decent upright. The limitations of expression between the two is too considerable to even consider them considerably contra one another. Musicians need every ounce of expression they can get from their instrument, and the digital piano will never be able to offer the same quality of expression that a piano offers. The sound of a piano comes from the wood, the hammers, the strings... The digital piano has these sounds stored inside itself, somewhere, and plays these sounds over and over and over and over. A piano,—The vibration on the key of the hammer hitting the string, the sounds pulsing within the instrument and every part of the fingers connected to the sound, controlling it... This simply cannot be duplicated by a digital piano! Perhaps there are more digital pianos purchased every year than pianos, but so what? Does that make it better? Does that make the musicians that do notice the difference go to a store and buy one? No.

[oxy60]

Here in California 60% of us live in apartments whether bought as condos or rented. The sound of a nice big grand will go through the walls, floors and ceilings. All musicians playing acoustic instruments or singing have the same problem of disturbing their neighbors. We all would love to own a big grand, but what good is it if we can't play it when we wish?

When I had a grand I lived out in the middle of nowhere. The only possible complaints could come from the coyotes. And I could complain back at them for their howling at distant sirens, setting off the dogs and keeping me awake all night!

So here in the city I play a digital using expensive Bose headphones. It's not the same but I had to adapt or not get to play at all.

[hoj76]

What about acoustic with Silent system - that is a good thing!

[gyzzzmo]

The problem is that digital piano's are for many people more practical, and people hardly buy new accoustic piano's anymore because second hand are often just as good but alot cheaper.

[richard black]

Another part of the problem is that far too many blocks of flats/apartments are built really, really badly and sound travels far to readily from one to the next - and at the same time people are less tolerant of a bit of noise. My wife grew up in the former USSR and everybody lived in close-packed apartments, almost everybody had a piano and played it too, and no one dreamed of complaining.

I actually find the term 'digital piano' pretty annoying. There's a perfectly good term already in existence: keyboard synthesiser, which is accurate. There's not analogy with electric guitars, as they use the same tone-producing mechanism as traditional guitars. A 'digital piano' is simply not a piano at all, it's a synthesiser which (usually) aims to make a more-or-less piano-like noise.

As for cost, keyboards are only a short-term saving. Any half-decent piano will last several decades with minimal maintenance (much of which can even be done by the owner if they've a few very basic tools and an absolute minimum of instinct with mechanical things), while most keyboards are dead and effectively irreparable after 10 years.

[gyzzzmo]

I actually like the term 'digital piano' because its focussed on the piano (looks abit like an upright and the sounds are mainly piano), and synthesizers are focussed on all kinds of sounds and mobility. So its quite different than a synthesizer, maybe we should make our own pianostreet definition

[m19834]

*Geez*  When I first saw this topic come up recently, I had no idea I had posted in his thread before. What a silly post it was, too !!  Haha. Ah well, I'll leave it.

Aside from all of that sillyness (!), I can say I have no idea what sales are doing and whether digital are winning out over acoustic and such. Most of my students own acoustics, I have an acoustic and two digitals. One of my digitals travels with me and provides for me a way of practicing when I would otherwise not have one (same for at home in the early mornings).  I am grateful for that, but I have to say it's gettting pretty annoying to be practicing on !

To be honest, when I wrote that first post (nearly two years ago), I couldn't truly tell the difference in sound and touch from my Roland digital from my Yamaha C7.  I know, to some people that's horrible (and now I understand why !). I mean, I kind of could tell the difference, especially in the bass, but it was probably more instinctual for me to prefer acoustic. My point is, I suspect there are probably a lot of people who believe digitals have a great sound, they feel they see all of the plus sides to having a digital over an acoustic, so why not ?  Bleh !  

There is no comparison truly.  In my current experience, with a digital you can't even come close to getting the same kind of character in tone, you can't even come close to layering the sound in the ways most music needs it, it doesn't have the same kind of 'raw' aural appeal and doesn't lend itself to the same kind of connectedness to the sound (which means, you are not as connected to what you are playing), and physically it is not the same as connecting to the mechanisms as an acoustic and our motions are therefore not as connected to our intentions (provided our intentions have not been completely dulled by practicing on a digital for too long).

I think the only reasons a digital would ever "win out" over acoustic is if people can't tell the difference and/or as a matter of sacrifice and convenience.  In my opinion though, it just doesn't live up to the kind of Art that a truly great piece of music is and isn't truly doing a great service to classical music.  
  

[thalbergmad]

In my opinion though, it just doesn't live up to the kind of Art that a truly great piece of music is and isn't truly doing a great service to classical music.     

I do not agree, as many people who do not have the space or money for an acoustic would not be playing any classical music at all if it were not for the digital.

Thal

[m19834]

I do not agree, as many people who do not have the space or money for an acoustic would not be playing any classical music at all if it were not for the digital.

Thal

Well, that may or may not be true (I wouldn't truly know), but just because Classical music is being played more (if it actually is), that doesn't equate to its purpose as an artform or language being better served, especially if it's impossible to fulfill on the instrument, nor does it mean that people are gaining more exposure to its deeper value.

[gyzzzmo]

That sales people are selling more digitals than accoustic piano's, doesnt mean one is better  in sound than the other. It only implies that digital piano's are easier to sell with decent profit. Anybody owning a digital (including me) can confirm that a digital's sound doesnt get anywhere near a decent accoustic upright.
But i'm a happy owner of a big steinway, but i still use the digital because i bother people less with it. You pretty much only need an accoustic piano for the 'finishing touch' if you want to get a piece to performing level. For the rest a (decent) digital will do.

Gyzzzmo

[thalbergmad]

Music is not always played on the most suitable instrument, but it is better that it is played than not played at all. In an ideal world, we would all have Steinways, Fender Stratocasters & Pre war Gibson Mastertone Banjos, but this is not always possible.

Somewhere in the world, there might be a 4 year old that has just been bought a digital piano for Christmas and is just forming his/her first chords. This person could end up being the greatest pianist of the 21st century but would have never played if it were not for the digital.

Technology often opens doors to people that they would not have previously had.

Thal

[lostinidlewonder]

I agree that digital pianos have made it more accessible for people to learn the piano as thalbergmad pointed out. Also I think it has acted in making the piano/keyboard a more sociable instrument. The guitar is the king of the social instruments and it is so easy to take it around with you, carrying a real piano on your back everywhere you go is not as easy a task.

The best thing about digitals is that you never have to tune them, however the worst thing is that they break a lot easier than real pianos. I have gone through over 5 digital pianos, all end up breaking after I am through with them. Notes slowly lose their touch sensitivity. Of course I never invest in very expensive digital and that is probably why. However the baby grand piano I grew up with still plays as good as the day I first played on it, although I have probably spent countless hours touching up the tuning myself and thousands of dollars getting it professionally tune over the years.

What is bad on ALL digitals I find no matter how good they are is their ability to sustain and dampen sound. The sustain pedal never produces the same sound you find in a real piano (1/2 pedaling for instance is almost never correct on digitals), you will find a digital is unable to sustain multiple sounds if the pedal is held for a long time and will digitally shape the sound as you reach its maximum polyrhythm output, and the Una corda pedal is almost always wrong.

Digital pianos for the professional pianist can only ever be a device to practice your fingering and memory work, to craft the your ideal sound is never possible on a digital but you can get the gist of it. The physical natural of a real piano producing sound (hammer on string vibrating through the body of the instrument) is only ever replicated on a digital, experienced pianists have some affinity with the strings of the piano, you can feel them vibrate and you can feel how you can control it with the hammer. On a digital this close connection seems lost and although there is a replication of the grasshopper action of the key and hammer, feeling the hammer actually striking the string is missing and we only get an estimated reproduction.

I would say many people can't feel the difference or even hear the difference between a digital and real piano! For them at least, the digital option would be the best until they outgrow it (which may never happen).

[hoj76]

But i'm a happy owner of a big steinway, but i still use the digital because i bother people less with it. You pretty much only need an accoustic piano for the 'finishing touch' if you want to get a piece to performing level. For the rest a (decent) digital will do.

Gyzzzmo

A famous Norwegian pianist, put it this way when he visited our store.
"I could sit down to play on a digital piano, and even cuddle me a bit, but I could never have been the one I currently using the digital piano as my daily exercises instruments."
(Wolfgang Plagge)

I guess that is the essence of digital vs. acoustic piano question

[oxy60]

Music is not always played on the most suitable instrument, but it is better that it is played than not played at all. In an ideal world, we would all have Steinways, Fender Stratocasters & Pre war Gibson Mastertone Banjos, but this is not always possible.

Somewhere in the world, there might be a 4 year old that has just been bought a digital piano for Christmas and is just forming his/her first chords. This person could end up being the greatest pianist of the 21st century but would have never played if it were not for the digital.

Technology often opens doors to people that they would not have previously had.

Thal

I totally agree. Today, even that fantastic recording Thal made of the Bach is reduced to digital so we can marvel at it while sitting at our computers. Since there is little chance of actually attending one of his recitals, this is as close as we can get.

We are only hearing about a tenth of the original recording via the MP3 format. Our computers "unpack" and fill in the missing bits. If we want to really hear it as if we were sitting there while he plays it we would need to have a perfect analog chain; reel to reel tape, tubes, etc. However even in that format a certain sampling takes place as in a ratio of the bigger the heads, the width and speed of the tape to the ultimate fidelity to the original performance.

My electronic piano's sound is based on recorded samples of an "unknown" grand. When I play or "record" using the internal "recorder" I actually make a file of key strokes that trigger the embedded recordings of those notes. 

All of this without bothering my neighbors or asking for quiet while I record..

[thalbergmad]

Today, even that fantastic recording Thal made of the Bach is reduced to digital so we can marvel at it while sitting at our computers.

Would rather like to hear this myself

[m19834]

When I was growing up I had no idea what fresh vegetables like spinach and broccoli tasted like, because all we ate were canned and frozen veggies.  Back then I didn't like veggies, except for salad which was always made with fresh ingredients. It wasn't until much later in life that I had ever even tasted fesh vegetables and really started to discover what they truly tasted like, when I realized that I in fact *loved* them.  I think it can be pretty similar with canned pianos and music  . Also, I enjoy being extreme  .  Those canned veggies didn't represent the world of veggies too well in either flavor NOR nutrition, they don't do the world of veggies justice and they don't do it many favors, either.  That is fact.  

[oxy60]

Would rather like to hear this myself

Could you clarify your remark? If this floats "off topic" contact me directly.

[thalbergmad]

When I was growing up I had no idea what fresh vegetables like spinach and broccoli tasted like, because all we ate were canned and frozen veggies.  Back then I didn't like veggies, except for salad which was always made with fresh ingredients. It wasn't until much later in life that I had ever even tasted fesh vegetables and really started to discover what they truly tasted like, when I realized that I in fact *loved* them.  I think it can be pretty similar with canned pianos and music  . Also, I enjoy being extreme  .  Those canned veggies didn't represent the world of veggies too well in either flavor NOR nutrition, they don't do the world of veggies justice and they don't do it many favors, either.  That is fact.  

I take it you would happily starve yourself to death rather than go back to tins then??

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Could you clarify your remark? If this floats "off topic" contact me directly.

I have never made a recording of Bach and if i did, it would not be fantastic

Thal

[oxy60]

I have never made a recording of Bach and if i did, it would not be fantastic

Thal

So this is not you in the audition room?

thalberg
English Suite No. 2 Prelude--
English Suite 2---Sarabande
Prelude from the English Suite no. 2 in A minor.

Sorry about that. It's still a very fine recording. A lesser man would have taken the credit.

To return to the thread, the sound of that wonderful piano so carefully played is only really heard live in the recital hall. All recordings are some sort of sampling of the original sound. Sadly digital is the wave of the future.

Does anyone know which acoustic piano is used by Yamaha for sampling?

[thalbergmad]

So this is not you in the audition room?

Not me.

He is Thalberg, I am the mad version.

Thal

[m19834]

I take it you would happily starve yourself to death rather than go back to tins then??

Thal

Well, no.  However, when it comes to something like wine, for example, I would happily do without a glass at all than drink something I can't stand (which in most cases, I am learning, means poorly-made wine).

When it comes to pianos, I have even ended my being out of town early so I could return to my acoustic vs. playing anymore on my digital.  I am making more plans to replace my second digital with an acoustic (though that will take time).  There are definitely some things that I sacrifice in my personal life to put that money towards my pianoing because it's my priority.

Though I think there are benefits to having recordings and digital pianos and all of that, I don't think these things truly replace acoustic pianos and live performances.  No matter what, there is a whole world out there of piano playing that digitals and recordings just can't truly touch.  I guess I suspect that there is a very dwindling number of individuals whom truly know that though, and that is ... well, it is what it is, I guess.  Doesn't mean I will ever actually prefer digitals over acoustics and they won't ever achieve what acoustics do.  

[thalbergmad]

Doesn't mean I will ever actually prefer digitals over acoustics and they won't ever achieve what acoustics do.  

Many people have made gaffs by putting limits on what technology is capable of.

If we can put men on the moon, little cars on Mars and send a probe out of the Solar system, one day someone will make a digital as good as an acoustic.

The only thing technology will never do is to get a women to reverse into a car park space.

Thal

[oxy60]

Though I think there are benefits to having recordings and digital pianos and all of that, I don't think these things truly replace acoustic pianos and live performances.  No matter what, there is a whole world out there of piano playing that digitals and recordings just can't truly touch.  I guess I suspect that there is a very dwindling number of individuals whom truly know that though, and that is ... well, it is what it is, I guess.  Doesn't mean I will ever actually prefer digitals over acoustics and they won't ever achieve what acoustics do.   

I agree. When I started taking piano lessons as a child my teacher would arrange for all her students to go to piano concerts as a group. We all got dressed up and learned some decorum. I don't recall much about who we saw but I do remember that they were part of a "piano series" with the same artist playing two evenings and one matinee. This occurred about once a month for the entire school year. Everybody could afford to go. We had a group student rate.

Today I don't see one solo piano concert offered except for graduation recitals at out local universities. Of course our symphony features piano concertos now and then, but as far as hearing a big grand piano well played is very rare.

So what do we do? Listen to very compressed digitally recorded CD's and MP3's and fill in the missing sound from memory.

[richard black]

Listen to very compressed digitally recorded CD's and MP3's

MP3s are compressed and an assault on good sound quality. CDs aren't either (unless extremely badly made!).

[m19834]

Many people have made gaffs by putting limits on what technology is capable of.

If we can put men on the moon, little cars on Mars and send a probe out of the Solar system, one day someone will make a digital as good as an acoustic.

Funnily enough, we already have the technology to replicate what an acoustic piano is capable of; we have the technology to make it feel exactly the same, act exactly the same, sound exactly the same ... and it's called an acoustic piano  .

I agree. When I started taking piano lessons as a child my teacher would arrange for all her students to go to piano concerts as a group. We all got dressed up and learned some decorum. I don't recall much about who we saw but I do remember that they were part of a "piano series" with the same artist playing two evenings and one matinee. This occurred about once a month for the entire school year. Everybody could afford to go. We had a group student rate.

Today I don't see one solo piano concert offered except for graduation recitals at out local universities. Of course our symphony features piano concertos now and then, but as far as hearing a big grand piano well played is very rare.

So what do we do? Listen to very compressed digitally recorded CD's and MP3's and fill in the missing sound from memory.

I have recently read a book about Horowitz written by Harold Schonberg.  There was a time in his life that, after having moved to the US and having already established himself as a famous pianist, he entered a period where he stopped performing for 12 years.  During that time a whole generation of pianists developed whom basically had no idea who he was.  At some point he came back to performing and began to re-introduce himself as a performer to many people whom had never heard him play at all, but especially not live.  Though some people still knew his name and had listened to his recordings, there was one reporter whom upon his first time of hearing Horowitz play live, said to Horowitz that his recordings don't do him justice (and also informed him that there is a whole generation of pianists who don't know who he is).  

I know that people these days feel they have some kind of authority on Horowitz by having listened to his recordings and some people like to boast about not enjoying him.  There are probably some legitimate reasonings along those lines, but then there are probably FAR more individuals whom simply have no idea what his actual playing is like, partly because all they have ever heard is recordings.  That is not to say that something of value cannot be communicated through recoding alone, because I believe it in fact can be.  Reading the reviews that were written in the book I read regarding particular performances, it's actually tempting to think that the reviewers are exaggerating, and that the response Horowitz seemed to elicit from the public was somehow because of a sense of limitation in technology at the time ... that we just weren't as aware back then of just how many astounding musicians there were in the world since we didn't have the same access to recordings and YouTube and everything as we do now.  I suspect though, that instead of all of that being exactly true, there was something about Horowitz and what he was and what he represented that was indeed very special.  And, perhaps it's nearly true that his death brought the end to an entire era.

The thing is, there are still people in the world whom DO remember hearing him play, and even if technology is more advanced these days, even if there are more people whom are capable of playing with bravura and/or virtuosity, even if we know more about the human body, causing teaching and practice habits to have changed ... I still think there's something generally missing from many of today's ears, that only a few people have had the privilege of ever knowing.  If the basic principle behind music is the Art of Sound, I think it's alarming if many or most people can hardly tell a difference from one pianist to another, or even more alarming if there is not much of a difference to be heard.

It is a famous story that JS Bach once walked hundreds of miles to go hear Buxtehude play, the leading organist of the time.  Perhaps it would have been nice for Johann to have instead been able to pop in a recording of Buxtehude instead of needing to inconvenience himself with the trip to hear him live. Something tells me though that JS got much more out of that listening experience than most people would out of 50 listening experiences of a modern recording of the same repertoire played by the average virtuoso of today.  Something tells me that JS probably knew exactly what he was listening for and that he wasn't lazy about listening.  And, something tells me that somehow the very sound was a whole different experience back then.

I am not blaming one thing or another for the fact that the average listener isn't capable of hearing many aspects to music that make it what it is.  I guess that has always been the case, probably, in one way or another.  JS Bach was known to have better ears than most of the people and even leading musicians of his time as it was.  As it relates though to modern days, I suppose I feel that we are now so infiltrated by sound, that our ears and listening have been actually further dulled because of it.  That is not to say that we can't use much of what we have available to our advantage, it just takes a very smart approach.  It's more a matter of the fact that I think that particular "approach" is so ... unknown ... that I think is maybe a bit sad.  

There are particular recordings I feel I can't quite live without where I feel connected to the music and to even the performer and this experience is something I hold very close to me.  However, there is still something even more thrilling about hearing that same person on those recordings IN person, and a whole world that is communicated through that which will perhaps stand alone in my memory banks of my personal experiences of actually being there and experiencing it first-hand.  I actually feel it would be a tragedy for that Art, which is, I believe, on its own plane of existence, to be lost ... simply because people more and more value convenience over beauty and worse yet, cannot even tell the difference.

[thalbergmad]

I have recently read a book about Horowitz written by Harold Schonberg.  

Essential reading. What took you so long?

  Reading the reviews that were written in the book I read regarding particular performances, it's actually tempting to think that the reviewers are exaggerating, and that the response Horowitz seemed to elicit from the public was somehow because of a sense of limitation in technology at the time ... that we just weren't as aware back then of just how many astounding musicians there were in the world since we didn't have the same access to recordings and YouTube and everything as we do now.

 

Critics do tend to exaggerate, but perhaps with pianists like Horowitz it is understandable.                  

  I suspect though, that instead of all of that being exactly true, there was something about Horowitz and what he was and what he represented that was indeed very special.  And, perhaps it's nearly true that his death brought the end to an entire era.  

Agreed

The thing is, there are still people in the world whom DO remember hearing him play, and even if technology is more advanced these days, even if there are more people whom are capable of playing with bravura and/or virtuosity, even if we know more about the human body, causing teaching and practice habits to have changed ... I still think there's something generally missing from many of today's ears, that only a few people have had the privilege of ever knowing.  If the basic principle behind music is the Art of Sound, I think it's alarming if many or most people can hardly tell a difference from one pianist to another, or even more alarming if there is not much of a difference to be heard

Some pianists will always be instantly identifiable to some whether you have mp3, tape, LP or 78. I have some Paderewski 78's and the sound played on hundred year old equipment with a bamboo needle is better than most people would appreciate.

Thal

[m19834]

Essential reading. What took you so long?

1.  I guess I was busy developing other essentials, which some talented and gifted people whom dedicate their entire life to solely developing will still never be able to do.

2.  I was unaware of its existence in a conscious way until one particular visit to Maestro's.  I guess I found it when I could more fully appreciate its worth  .
  

Some pianists will always be instantly identifiable to some whether you have mp3, tape, LP or 78. I have some Paderewski 78's and the sound played on hundred year old equipment with a bamboo needle is better than most people would appreciate.

Thal

Well, I theoretically agree with the first part, but I am not in a position to be an authority yet.  However, I would like to have a better grasp.  Regarding the second sentence, I guess I can only say lucky you for having that at your fingertips and, a reiteration of what I basically said before, I would like to somehow better hear and appreciate the differences.  Now, what does you knowing that, and me knowing some hint of what you have help either one of us at all ?  Most of all, how does it help me get any better at actually hearing what I need to hear ?  

[thalbergmad]

 
Most of all, how does it help me get any better at actually hearing what I need to hear ?  

It does not really help you at all, but i think you need not fear old recordings as they can be very revealing. Even pre electric recordings and cylinders can tell us much. The only things you need to be aware of is that some of our long departed great pianists made recordings when they had lost much of their powers and this needs to be taken into consideration when listening to them. If aynthing, they are more "honest" than modern recordings as many were done on one take and contain errors "warts and all".

I think that your listening environment is very important as well and this is highly individual. I have to be in a slightly darkened room in perfect silence, with a pint of Guiness and plate of chocolate chop cookies.

Thal

[m19834]

It does not really help you at all, but i think you need not fear old recordings as they can be very revealing. Even pre electric recordings and cylinders can tell us much. The only things you need to be aware of is that some of our long departed great pianists made recordings when they had lost much of their powers and this needs to be taken into consideration when listening to them. If aynthing, they are more "honest" than modern recordings as many were done on one take and contain errors "warts and all".

I think that your listening environment is very important as well and this is highly individual. I have to be in a slightly darkened room in perfect silence, with a pint of Guiness and plate of chocolate chop cookies.

Thal

Okay, Thal.  Thanks .