Composers' Forum

Music Composers Unite!

This is sort of a continuation from a different thread.

I have purchased this piano and I'm very happy with it. This is the latest technology in digital piano making. Would be interested to hear different perspectives about what people think about this instrument and whether they believe that instruments such as these do justice to music and music making in general. My personal impressions so far are very positive. One thing is for certain that technology will never be able to accurately create what an acoustic instrument can do, but the truth is that many music colleges are taking up these Yamaha instruments to their schools and are incorporating them in their every day teaching, composition, and performance series and projects.

Here's a short video that showcases the piano I purchased, I personally love this instrument very much. Besides its amazing capabilities and dynamics it's also so beautiful and refined. Retail is $8,995.00

Best Wishes,

Saul Dzorelashvili

Views: 237

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The Yamaha is 300 pounds not 80 ...

And its the final sound that you hear and it has been taken directly from the acoustic instrument through means of technology innovation research and talent.

Lawrence Aurich said:

In the left corner we have a nine foot Steinway grand weighing in at 900 lbs. with 25 sq. ft. of soundboard, price tag $100,000. In the right corner we have a three foot Clavinova weighing in at 80 lbs. with two sq. ft. of speakers, price tag $8,000. Who's going to win this fight?

Let's consider how the sound of each instrument gets to the brain of the listener. The strings of the Steinway vibrate, which is converted to air vibrations, which is converted to ear drum vibrations which is converted to electrical impulses which the brain interprets as sound. I count three conversions of energy.

In the Clavinova: The strings of the piano from which the samples are taken vibrate, which is converted into air vibrations which is converted into microphone vibrations, then to electrical impulses, to digital signals, back to electrical impulses of the speakers,

to speaker vibrations, to air vibrations, to ear drum vibrations, to electrical signals to the brain. I count nine conversions of energy. The question is, how many conversions can take place before the signal becomes junk?

Saul,

"And its the final sound that you hear and it has been taken directly from the acoustic instrument through means of technology innovation research and talent."

I think the point people are making is that the sound that is coming from the Yamaha is not a grand piano. You said it yourself, the sound is taken from a grand piano. I'm sure they sound and and play well, but the Yamaha is an electric amp that produces a piano sound. Yes there are practical reasons to have one.  But as a serious replacement, we aren't there yet. And why would we need to be? I ask, but don't anticipate an answer.

Because sound is not 'fake' it can't be fake. A sound is a sound and if its beautiful, sounds great and pleasing to the ear then I believe we shouldn't care so much how the sounds enters the ear, as long as it enters, its fine in my opinion.

An analogy:

You got to read the letter that was sent to you by the king. The original letter was in paper and ink, but you happened to read it off your computer. The idea of the king was passed to your mind regardless, and the effect was empowering and inspiring. 

The suggestions that some make is that the king's authentic message was distorted because it was not accessed in the original medium aka, paper. I say this is true only with physical things, not with spiritual things. The main objective of the king is to pass over the information to the reader, how he reads it will not change anything to the essence of the information. 

So too is with music, where it traveled, how it reached your ear through what medium is not what music is all about. Its about the content of the music, and as long the content is there, that's what really matters.

Regards

I went to as planetarium show. the night sky was projected on a dome. It looked very real. As they simulated the sunrise the finale of the Firebird Suite was played. It was very enjoyable. But it was all fake. There were no real stars, and no orchestra. 

The problem I see is that too many people think that listening to a recording of someone playing a piano is just as good as actually listening to someone play a real piano. They both might be beautiful, but one is a fake. A musician never plays a piece the same way twice. For the musician, music is a living thing. The recording is static, unyielding and predictable. I'm pretty sure most composers that write for real instruments want their music to be alive.

I would have no problem with music written to be performed on the Yamaha. And if I'm in a band that needs an electric guitar part, that's what I'm going to play the part on. 

And there is so much more to a letter than it's content. If I know the writer, that will help me understand the content. If I don't know the writer, I might not get the meaning of parts of it. The original hand written letter can be analyzed in many different ways. The paper, ink and style of penmanship tell us volumes about the author, time, and place the letter was written. 

If you wanna go that far, whatever you see the real sky and the real stars and the real everything if you look into its fabric they are all composed of atoms and molecules moving very quality from one point to the next. The reason you see sky moon and the stars the way they are is because the atoms and the molecules are moving about under very strict parameters to create this illusion. Everything else besides the sky the moon and the stars are composed by the same ingredients its only their unique parameters that determines what you see in the end, but all are the same. 

Music can be created by many different mediums. When we walk at the shore, the sounds of the waves can be fitted on the musical scale and that can be music as well. Unintentional music, but music nevertheless. The music that travels from an acoustic piano or a Digital one is generated differently but once it departs that medium it is Sound nevertheless. Its the sound that we are celebrating, not the cooking equipment. 

Yet its possible that the taste of the food will vary based on the cooking equipment. 

Two different pots make two different meals, both can be done very well, but the argument can't be made that just because these are two different pots, one food must be delicious and the other tasteless. I think that both can be delicious, but that depends also one how good is the cook...



Bob Porter said:

I went to as planetarium show. the night sky was projected on a dome. It looked very real. As they simulated the sunrise the finale of the Firebird Suite was played. It was very enjoyable. But it was all fake. There were no real stars, and no orchestra. 

The problem I see is that too many people think that listening to a recording of someone playing a piano is just as good as actually listening to someone play a real piano. They both might be beautiful, but one is a fake. A musician never plays a piece the same way twice. For the musician, music is a living thing. The recording is static, unyielding and predictable. I'm pretty sure most composers that write for real instruments want their music to be alive.

I would have no problem with music written to be performed on the Yamaha. And if I'm in a band that needs an electric guitar part, that's what I'm going to play the part on. 

And there is so much more to a letter than it's content. If I know the writer, that will help me understand the content. If I don't know the writer, I might not get the meaning of parts of it. The original hand written letter can be analyzed in many different ways. The paper, ink and style of penmanship tell us volumes about the author, time, and place the letter was written. 

If you will actually read my comments you might read that I enjoyed the planetarium show. I said that music, no matter how it is produced, can be beautiful. I see no reason why music played on the Yamaha couldn't be enjoyed. Your OP asked for opinions of said Yamaha. You have mine. 

Thanks Bob

I think perhaps you should reword this topic! You really do appear to be taking different perspectives as attacks and reacting quite unprofessionally if I may say so. For all I know you are a Yamaha employee given your dismissal of any and all critiques and usage of their own marketing copy in defence of your purchase and it undermines you being 'interested to hear different perspectives'.

Your recordings made with it do not sound as good or as "real" as you seem to think. They sound fine of course but nothing that stood out as worthy of the price tag. An electric keyboard loaded with samples and speakers costing $9000!!! I'll take my church upright. Thanks Charles

Thank you everyone for sharing your opinions, I do value each and everyone's opinion.

With Best of Wishes to All.

Saul

So here is the future of the piano:

     Piano teacher:  Johnny, this is a Clavinova.  It's sounds just like a piano.

     Johnny:  What's a piano?

     Piano teacher:  You know, like a Steinway.

     Johnny:  What's a Steinway?

     Piano teacher:  About 16 ounces.  (Ya little twerp)

It's true that some instruments have carved out a niche, for instance the electric piano goes well with electric guitars. If I go to a seedy bar to hear honky tonk I expect to hear a key board or old upright, not a Bosendorfer. Yamaha is happy to sell many more portable keyboard instruments for your local rock band, but this Clavinova is made to sound like the real thing, (something Yamaha could never do with an acoustic piano). Saul also makes the point that it weighs 300 lbs. This means the keys are weighted and the frame is strong enough to take the full force of a pianist playing triple forte. A key board player plays with his fingers, a pianist with his whole body.

The question is whether it will be accepted by the general public. For instance will a university trying to save money, retire their old acousticals and put Clavinovas in their practice rooms? The university might be tempted, but the piano professor will likely say, “Over my dead body.”

But we can only speculate. My gut says that Clavinovas won't replace acousticals because it hasn't happened with other instruments, with one exception, we have electronic organs in churches. This is where the new technology would greatly improve the sound in your local church.

In the end the market place will sort it out. If the Japanese can make a fake Bosendorfer for $8,000, the Chinese can certainly make a fake fake Bosendorker for $800, In this era of fake news, fake boobs, and fake birth certificates, it's hard to know whats real.


 . 
Bob Porter said:

.

I would have no problem with music written to be performed on the Yamaha. And if I'm in a band that needs an electric guitar part, that's what I'm going to play the part on. 

Charles,

I am not aware of any churches replacing their old electronic organs with a computer playing samples from the great organs of Europe or from the Morman Tabranacle.  It seems like this would be very inexpensive and greatly improve the sound.  It would be the equivalent of going from a keyboard to a Clavinova.
 

Your recordings made with it do not sound as good or as "real" as you seem to think. They sound fine of course but nothing that stood out as worthy of the price tag. An electric keyboard loaded with samples and speakers costing $9000!!! I'll take my church upright. Thanks Charles

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sign up info

Read before you sign up to find out what the requirements are!

Store

© 2018   Created by Gav Brown.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service