Hi. I've heard that students can outgrow the smaller upright pianos at some point in their learning/playing journey. I'm wondering what exactly does that mean and at what point would that happen on average for the following scenarios:

- a 7 year old just starting piano lessons?
- an adult student just starting lessons?
(but with some prior organ experience as a kid)

I know this is pretty subjective but maybe if it can be answered in terms of years and/or grade levels that would be really helpful to me.

I just got a 42 inch upright piano and am already dreaming of my next piano assuming of course some level of advancement or technical need. For the most part, the classical learning route is the route we would be taking. Thanks!

Well...take the best piano you can get whenever you can. I don't really think there's any definite point where anyone can say "Oh! You just played this piece well, it's time to get you a new piano!" I mean, it's definitely sad for any serious pianist to be playing on a super bright upright (unless they like that sort of thing...?) but you know, if you're a beginner and someone is offering to buy you a grand or baby grand (haha if only) you go right ahead and take up that offer!

As for the age estimate it really, really all depends on the person: how fast do they learn/improve, how much do they practice, how well do they practice, the teacher, natural abilities/musicality, etc.

A better piano gives more feedback to the pianist; you learn to listen and play accordingly to what you hear. A better piano can help develop your ear, technique, etc. etc. but the piano is only part of it; practice, your teacher, experiences, that sort of thing

Ahh good luck! I hope this helps or makes some sense.

My parents' rules with me was:
a) you start with an electric piano
b) when you practices more than 30-45 min you can have an upright
c) when you practice more than 1.5 hours/day you can have a grand
It was all basically about how dedicated I was. I started at age eight and didn't get a grand piano until I was about 12...

Hi You are a lucky person to have a grand from when you were so young. Obviously you deserved it! As for me...I am the parent! I just wondered if from a teacher's perspective if there was some point when a better instrument is needed in order to continue to advance?

One objective reason to move to a grand (rather than a subjective, "you're playing more intricate pieces now which would sound so much better on a grand" etc - all good reasons though) is the escapement of a grand. You can play repeated notes much more easily on a grand than on an acoustic. Someone else here will be able to add a more detailed explanation of this (since I don't really know that much about this) but I think the point is that when you start to play more advanced repertoire that contains quick repeated notes, without moving to a grand you will probably not be able to play them properly. At that point I think moving up becomes less of a luxury and more of a necessity.

I'll be moving up in about 5 years then. .

But having a grand may be, in itself, a great motivator. At least it works that way for me. I look at it and think "I will conquer the beast!"

Zoe, as a very general observation, my students with grands generally out perform those with uprights, who in turn, out perform those with keyboards. Whether having a superior instrument serves as motivation, or serves as reward, is difficult to determine. Most likely, there are elements of both present. After all, playing on a grand is rewarding acoustically and physically, and that reward can certainly serve as motivation for continued practice.

While I don't for a moment doubt your observation, the cause-and-effect relationship, presumably, is hard to determine.

For example, perhaps your students who make most progress are the ones who are most highly motivated, and there the students who think (or whose parents think) that additional expenditure on a good instrument is worthwhile.

If that's the case, then _buying_ a better piano will have little or no effect on a specific individual, and will just be a waste of money.

I imagine that a number of factors are at work here, and it could be quite hard to disentangle them. And that's a shame, because a top-quality piano is a major investment for most people, and it would be good to be able to unequivocally that it is a good investment in musical terms.

I've only had one student who had a grand, and she is the only student I've ever asked to leave my studio. (For a variety of reasons; not practicing was the least of them.) So my data point of one says grands are not magic.

But I agree that grands can be motivating and rewarding. A year ago, I had a student move from a keyboard to an upright, and she has just taken off. Also in the past year, I had a student move from a broken upright, with keys that didn't play, and wasn't tuned, to a working upright. She also has been newly inspired, and her parents say she practices continually. And I have a student with a spinet that was tuned for the first time ever (not tuned in 20 years at least). She is also doing well. She is actually looking into getting a keyboard because the headphones would allow her to practice more. This is not to replace the acoustic, but to supplement.

I would dearly love to have a grand, and it's been at the top of my Christmas list for many years. But my husband says 3 pianos are too many, so I need one of my kids to take my spinet or my upright grand first. My own kids grew up playing the spinet - including the one who has two music degrees from Juilliard (albeit not in piano.) While I wish - and wish and wish - we had a grand, I'm grateful we had something.

Uh, what I just said!

I am so happy to hear you have a piano...in my opinion there is no such thing as a "starter piano". You have done the right thing!

You either have a decent in tune acoustic piano or a digital piano with weighted keys. Anything else is a toy and a waste of time and money.

I would LOVE if parents STARTED their kids on grand pianos. Do we give budding basketball players rocks to dribble? Or aspiring marathoners house slippers to run in?

I don't believe there is a need to have a grand and that a good well maintained upright will suffice. There are many advanced pianists with "only" an upright.

It also very much depends on the individual themselves. My best student only had a keyboard of less than 88 keys and played in the air when needed. He managed to play on an upright for a recital without a hitch; he was early-intermediate. If I had been in his shoes, I would be stumbling around.

This question may not actually have a definitive answer. I've heard teachers who persuade parents to buy a grand piano as the student enters intermediate stages. I've heard teachers who only require a well tuned acoustic piano of any kind for advanced students. A good instrument will help but it's only one of many factors that determine how well a student will learn. Most informed parents will choose the instrument that fits their budget and their perception of the role piano lessons have for their kids (cultural enrichment or professional aspirations, for example)...

Well, I had a student in my English class about 5 years ago who was an absolutely brilliant pianist. Virtuoso level. When he heard that I was taking up piano, he offered to sell me the small upright that he had learned and practiced on because his family was moving up to a grand.

By that time he was already one of the principal pianists for the Lehigh Valley Orchestra here in Pennsylvania.

So, yes, he did finally outgrow his piano, but it took a while.

I'm guessing that outgrowing a piano is not going to be a concern for the OP for some time yet. Of course, if you can afford it and have the room--go for the gold.

Hi and thanks for all the great answers. I have found each of them enlightening. I have been happy with our new for us 'little' piano! It has quite a nice sound that will only be better once the tuner comes next week (yeah!). I'm pretty sure that there will be some piano upgrades as we move along our piano journey and perhaps that will be a bigger upright or maybe even a smaller grand. It is nice to know that the grand is not a must have but one of many options (and from what I've read/seen we better start saving!!) We have the space for a smaller grand piano now and of course I am dreaming of that day but will make baby steps along the way as we feel is necessary.

I could understand the post about how a really good instrument can be motivation to play. For us it has just been the fact that the new piano is acoustic. It has had my boys constantly going to it because it feels different on the keys and they can 'feel the sound' differently (i.e. no speakers). I feel differently playing too and I think I realized within the first few hours of owning this piano how people get really attached to their instruments and are constantly seeking the next 'right' one! You would think I was talking about a grand piano already and you know I'm not. It's just that we have already come to appreciate what we have and the magic that this instrument holds. As of yesterday we've only had this piano for 2 weeks and for some reason it has felt as if we've already had it for years.

For now we will play, practice and enjoy and know that we can only go up from here. Yes, I really wish we could make the jump now but as we learn and grow on the piano we will be that much more informed and ready for the next one.

I actually taught two families whose kids started on grand pianos!!

Yes, well, sort of... it read to me like you were assuming that having a good quality instrument would be beneficial, but for a cause that was hard to determine. But I was arguing that, in fact, being a naturally talented or diligent student might be the cause of ending up with a good instrument, rather than the effect.

But I might simply have misunderstod what you wrote.

It seems to me that I will have 'outgrown' my modest piano when even a very able and experienced pianist cannot make it sound any better than I can. I don't think I'll _need_ a new piano until that happens, and I don't envisage it happening any time soon.

But even at my modest level of skill, my playing sounds better on a fine instrument. I'd certainly have one if I had the money and the room.

But I don't think that's the same as saying that I _need_ a new piano, or that I expect to need one. I'd be amazed if any piano student of intermediate standard was held back by the quality of the instrument, so long as it held tune and all the notes sounded. That doesn't mean, of course, that an upgrade would be a waste of money.

I think it really depends. I think that students do outgrow keyboards and digital pianos fairly quickly, as well as lower-end acoustic pianos. I always ask that parents purchase a quality acoustic piano prior to beginning their child in lessons, so that their progress isn't hampered by the limitations of a keyboard or low-end acoustic piano. I don't think there is really a 'growing out of' an instrument, as long as you've got a high-quality one and take care of it properly.

How does that happen? If a student is talented and diligent, does the piano sprout money? Do vendors decide that they don't want profits and will they sell their grand for a fraction of its cost? If the parent or older student cannot afford the expense, then neither talent or diligence will change that.

@John, I thought that you would say that a poor quality instrument will not allow a student to practice the things that the instrument won't do. If the keys are sluggish, how do you do fast ornaments? If the instrument won't produce dynamics or is unbalanced, how does a student develop a good touch and work on interpretation? I agree with motivation in the sense that if you struggle continuously with a poor instrument that is hardly motivating.

I must be slipping! You are of course, correct with your observations. However, motivation is a very important factor, and playing on a well-maintained grand is simply a better experience than playing on a similarly well-maintained upright or a keyboard. But knowing which is the cart and which is the horse when dealing with personal motivations is difficult at best, and I think that's where Kevin & I were coming from in our original posts.

Carts and horses - chickens and eggs. You have a point, John.

In some cases it's about setting priorities. “Do we get a grand piano for the kid or do we buy a new car for daddy to replace the 20-year-old truck or repair the roof?” There are studies out there of accomplished pianists. Some of their families (that had very limited financial resources) did make huge sacrifices so that the pianist always had money for music books and a good instrument during childhood. One such study is in the book Developing Talent in Young People. If the kid is an average piano student or doesn’t have a passion for it, most families would not make this kind of sacrifice.

deleted.

Reason: the post that I replied to was deleted.

That's a sort of Monty-Python image -- a piano sprouting money. But I'm not really sure what you mean by it.

My experience is that whether one can, or can not, afford something is rarely black-and-white. I could raise the money to buy a top-quality piano over the course of a few years by, for example, taking my kids out of independent schools, never getting my car serviced, cancelling our medical insurance, and never taking a holiday.

If my kids were hugely talenent, and mad keen on playing the piano, then I might be moved to make those life changes. But in fact they, like me, are only modestly talented, and will skip practice if they have anything better to do. So a top-notch piano is nowhere near the top of our spending priority list.

My point is that if you're a parent, most likely you're always going to trying to make a limited budget stretch further than it wants to. Whether you stretch that budget to a fancy piano rather than something else depends on your priorities, which depends on whether you think your kids have the talent and dedication to make use of it.

I'm glad you said rarely black-and-white. What about the people whose children aren't in independent schools, who don't have a car or medical insurance, or who don't take holidays? Not so extreme a scenario, where I live, anyway. When I was growing up the little my parents might have been able to save from not getting the car serviced and cancelling our cheap and infrequent holidays would have needed a lot more than a few years to grow into the sort of sum needed for a top-quality piano. Perhaps this is what keystring meant.

It is always a balance for all families I believe to stretch the family budget whether that family is a family of one or 3 or 4 etc. I believe if a child is super talented all parents will do whatever they can to help their child excel. But don't we all need a place to start? Don't we also want to provide good opportunities for the kids to get to experience music at whatever level they can. Of course as with sports you want to get the right equipment. Something that will help you child experience this, be protected, and of course to grow. And so it is with music. You want to get the instrument to help your child have the experience, not be hindered by things like broken keys, not enough keys, etc. So just as you can get your kids $500 skates you can get your kid a $20k grand. But to start something new won't something that meets minimum requirements and cost much less do the trick? I would think so. From what I've read here there seemed to imply a jump from an upright to a grand. But on the flip side the grand is not absolutely necessary. Thankfully there are not just too extremes (not good enough to perfect) but many options along the way. (basic, intermediate, advanced). I think if somebody was super talented and gifted nothing would stop them from shining just as long as they had a good start.

Oh wow. That's really nice. I started out on a junky old non-weighted keyboard. The only reason I have a real (small upright) piano now, is because my grandparents gave me theirs.

Indeed. And I tried to ammend my post to point out that I understood that, but it got all garbled up. I don't know if it's the form software or my incompetence.

Politicis and sociology aside, I think I'm just trying to point out that buying your kids a smart piano won't necessarily make them better pianists, despite John's observation that his best students have the best pianos. If there _is_ money in the kitty, then you're more likely to disburse it in the direction of a fancy piano if your kids are keen and talented. And if they are keen and talented they might be at the top of the class whatever piano they have.

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.