I disagree with that. An upright piano can only take a kid so far. At a certain point (say, Beethoven sonatas and Chopin nocturnes) students "should" be switching to a grand. I have witnessed some kids who are being held back because they are practicing on inferior instruments.

And these are kids whose parents are loaded with money. Their parents just don't think of piano as a worthy investment. I have allowed students to come practice on my grands because their uprights at home are such atrocious instruments. One parent refused to tune her piano for four years because it "costs too much."

I'll inject the obligatory warning about bandying about terms like "upright" and "grand". There are upright pianos ("it's sitting on the curb, come pick it up" craiglisters) and then are upright pianos (e.g. Bechstein). Similar (though generally not as widely varied) situation with grand pianos. The whole point is to get a good piano, "inferior instruments" come in many forms.

I do agree that students can definitely get to the point that a given pianos inability to perform at a certain level can hinder/stop progress. Hinder is a key point, since in many cases we're talking about degrees not absolutes. One might be able to attain a high level of aptitude on a given instrument, but who knows how much higher it might have been given a better instrument?

This is a claim that is often made, but I've never seen _any_ evidence to support it. Absolutely none whatsover.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that anybody's going to develop great piano skills with nothing but a roller-piano to practice on. And I'd accept that it will be detrimental to the learning experience if half your keys stick and the other half don't sound at all. Or if the piano won't hold tune or, as you suggest, hasn't been tuned for years.

But I'm talking about the (purported) benefits of a smart grand piano over a reasonable, fully-functional and well-maintained upright.

If there is any actual evidence to support the view that moving from the one to the other is _causative_ of better student progress (rather than the consequence of it), I'd love to hear it.

When AZN states that an upright can only take a student so far, he may well have had in might features a grand offer that uprights generally lack. Have you ever tried teaching a student the use of sostenuto or tone coloration using the unachorda on an upright? The unichorda is very much necessary in advancing Romantic piano literature. I know a very few high end uprights offer sostenuto capability, but these are priced more than many very capable grands, and none to my knowledge have a true unachorda capability.

I have two students with grand pianos, and they are also two of the best students in my studio. It's hard to say it's because of their piano however, because the parents are all musicians and really wanted a grand piano in their home. They are very motivated help their children to succeed.

An intangible factor here is that a Grand piano is a very special instrument, moreso than uprights, and can inspire students to want to practice it, and play it.

This is not related to how that particular piano plays and sounds, because in a fair comparison both instruments would be in good condition. Instead, I am referring to the majesty of the Grand.

When I was young, my cellist mother got rid of our old average upright that played ok, (like an old average upright), and got a nice used Knabe grand. She did so at the suggestion of my teacher.

I was so proud of that piano, it did inspire me to not only practice, but be my best.

Could I have done that on the upright? Perhaps, but the Knabe was like having a sports car, compared to an old dumpy sedan. Both cars have similar controls and operate much the same, but the sports car, even if it is a low-end model, has several somethings special that inspires.

Scientifically, I cannot put that "something special" under a microscope and prove it, but for a young boy, it was very real, and most certainly did prompt me to be my best, much more than the upright did.

What struck me in the initial post was the mention of size (42 inches). I got the impression of the idea of moving on to something nicer. Meanwhile, the parent who promised the child a better piano when the child practices more, that seemed like behavior mod (get the person to practice) and again this idea of having something nicer as a reward.

I think there is also a practical side. On the lowest end, a very bad quality piano will not allow a student to do the things that he needs to learn to do. Sticky keys, out of tune, pedal that doesn't work. Struggling is also unpleasant. The experience of struggling without results is discouraging. The worst is probably struggling with a poor instrument without a teacher. Your efforts don't get you anywhere, and you "learn" that you are incapable, and playing is a struggle. In educational psychology that's called "learned helplessness".

As you progress you will probably also learn to be doing more refined things and your instrument has to allow you to do them, or you can't.
On a personal note: I have been forced to replace my poor quality DP which (fortunately?) just died, with another digital piano, because with my thin walls and neighbors an acoustic would mean not being able to practice much. Plus a good acoustic, unless luck came in, wa$$$ unreachable. I chose the digital that I did because the keys were responsive enough for the ornaments I was playing, just like the acoustics in the other room, and the other digitals weren't. This ties in to my learning and growth.

The piano I now have is still a digital and only has 2 levels of key sensors. Therefore it won't register until the key is almost at the keybed, and this will have a direct effect on technique (what I can learn). Dynamic range, weighting (responsiveness, feel), are important, because how can I learn to do the right things, listen for the right things to produce them, play expressively, if the instrument won't produce it?

What I am saying is that size and impressive sound are not the most important factors if you are a learner. It is that the instrument will respond to the right actions on the player's part, so that we can learn and grow.

Conversely, the piano that died had an impressive sound and it was used in gigs by the previous owner. It projected into a large room and gave fantastic impressions at a distance. But it was no instrument for learning because its response was weird and unbalanced.

Hi I only mentioned size of piano as a reference for people reading the post. Yes eventually I would love to get something nicer. Not as a reward but for enjoyment and learning. Again, what I was wondering was is there a point in my learning where a higher quality instrument will be not only desired but required for the reasons you stated later in your note and which I've also quoted above.

Fair point -- I concede that you can't learn to use a feature of an instrument that your instrument does not possess.

In addition, I don't think I said -- or wanted to say -- that there would _never_ come a time when a piano student would really need a fine instrument to make further progress. I'm just doubtful that many child students would really be in this position.

In the long term, how much of a hindrance is the lack of ability to practice the use of sostenuto and una-corda effects at home? I can certainly see that you're going to have difficulty with music that really requires these factilities, of course. But, again, I wonder how many child students are going to be in this position?

There are at least two factors to consider: a grand piano being “nice” and being “necessary”. It is nice, of course, and inspirational. But for people who can’t easily afford a grand piano, whether it is “necessary” could be a bigger factor. At this I think teachers’ views will definitely vary a lot. I chatted with my children’s teacher about this (my older child is an advanced student), and the teacher’s opinion is that a grand is always good, but a well-maintained upright (with a nice tone and the two essential pedals) is sufficient.

It is indeed difficult to determine the cause and effect in the relationship between a grand piano and a student’s progress, because too many other factors are at work: family values, work ethics, whether music takes a central role in family life or whether it is one of many cultural enrichments, whether the family wants the kid to be able to pursue a career in music. It is also well documented in the past few decades that socioeconomic status has a big impact on academic achievements. It is conceivable that kids from low SES families are less likely to take private piano lessons than kids from middle-class and rich families, but all the reasons why SES impacts academic achievements could potentially also apply to piano study. And of course, low SES families (and many middle-class families as well) are less likely to be able to afford a grand piano.

One possible example might be my very recent experience. I am at the point of playing ornaments and trying to refine them. The instruments with the sluggish and relatively unresponsive action would prevent me from doing (therefore learning) much. I might also injure myself trying because when the instrument doesn't respond properly you're likely to tense up. So when you are starting to do things that demand more, then the instrument would have to be able to deliver when you do the right technique. Otherwise how do you even get at that technique?

I have found that it's very difficult for students to "pretend" to use the unichorda at practice, then actually use it in recital. They need to use it in practice to effectively learn to use it under stress; they need to hear it to judge and access its affects.

More to your point, a lot depends on the teacher and what's being studied. It's accurate to state that 100% of my 7th graders and older have music which calls for UC. As for my younger students, perhaps 15% are using it by 3rd or 4th grade.

But it's also true that many piano teachers totally ignore these features. In fact, I have one colleague who I recently discovered didn't know the names or functions of the pedals, except for the "loud" pedal (and she was a music major/grad!). And I continually get transfer students who have no idea the functions of the pedals.

I fully agree with the points you make, but I wonder if to some extent your view is based on the fact that you're training the next generation of Carnegie Hall performers? Of course students should set their sights high but, in reality, most of the piano students in my neighbour won't often, if ever, be performing to a packed house on a concert grand.

I relish the rare opportunities I get to play on a top-class instrument, but in practice my performance experience has mostly been family parties, churches, informal bands, school events, that kind of thing. Steinways have been pretty scant.

I don't know, but I'd guess that a whole lot more people play piano in the kind of environments I do, than in major concerts. Of course, I don't have any figures to back that up. But if I'm right, then perhaps teaching students to 'fake' the use of the missing pedals is a more useful, pragmatic skill than teaching them how to use them properly?

Just a thought.

I can see your point. But I'm always delighted at how much better I can play trills on a fine piano, having learned on an instrument that feels like its keys are made of housebricks.

Actually I'm exaggerating -- my piano isn't that bad. But I'd far rather practice fast passagework on my instrument and _perform_ on a superior one, than the other way around. And I rather suspect that some digital pianos with very light actions could prevent a student developing good technique in this area.

Don't know really -- if your piano's action is so heavy that you can't practice ornaments without risking RSI, that's obviously not a good thing either.

Kevin, the instrument that I ended up getting this week does not have light action. In fact, it is a bit heavier than the one I left behind. The action is balanced differently so that it has that certain change in weight as it falls and rises, close to what you have with a real piano. I suspect that this affects the fine muscles and small responses that we do naturally. When I talk about ornaments it is not a case of being able to play them fast, but to give them controlled shape. It's getting that into your hand, and if you end up straining against a poor instrument, or shrinking back (the old hyperactive strange response of the old one) then you won't suddenly play well if you get to a decent instrument. If a child is learning with a teacher, the child should ideally have an instrument that allows it to do what could be taught (at that stage).

Kevin, although I'm flattered by the complement, I'm actually training my students to learn and grasp the musical arts, to listen and comprehend to what they are hearing, to appreciate the finesse and subtleties of music. It's not much of a challenge to teach students to bang out chords and melodies, a la so much pop music. As most of my students will end up in the professions or white color skilled jobs, they will hopefully gain enough appreciation of music to become the listening audience and financial supporters for fine music, not just piano, and the arts in general, for the generations to come.

Your students might not, in practice, be aiming at the top levels of public performance, but it seems to me that you want to instill in them the notion that this is the most true and perfect outlet for musical expression.

And that's fair enough, of course. I do feel, however, that there's a whole world of musical experience between Carnegie Hall and 'banging out chords' that could usefully be explored.

When I wrote that piano students should learn to play on inadequate instrument because that's what they'd most likely end up playing, I guess I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek. But it still seems to me that, if you're not actually going to be performing in public at a high level, your life won't be significantly impoverished by a lack of understanding of the sostenuto pedal. I mean, there's a vast amount of great music that _doesn't_ require this feature.

It is both motivation and reward. My parents just bought me a grand. It hasn't arrived yet but I think I will be more motivated to waltz over to a big grand piano than a tiny spinnet. It is more fun(rewarding) to play on a grand because I can get all the nuance that is in my head to actually happen.

My parents bought me a spinnet when I first started because "they didn't think I was going to be that good"-Mom. About a year and a half into playing my teacher gave me a Mozart concerto and that was when I started to get frustrated with my piano. It's not a junkie piano- 1936 steinway spinnet that was completely rebuilt before I bought it. I use it around 21-35 hours a week so it really took a beating. It needs to be rebuilt again(hammers replaced) and the sound board cracked. So my parents bought me a grand because the cost of the repairs would end up being more than the original cost of the piano. I am so excited to finally have a sostenuto pedal- now I don't have to fake it!

Careful, you might end up becoming a piano teacher and living in abject poverty!

Off-topic, perhaps, but I doubt that the soundboard of your spinet cracked because of over-use. I understand that environment is the usual problem here (although there are proper experts around here who understand these things better than I do). If it is environmental, you'll need to be careful that your new piano doesn't suffer the same fate.