Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum FAQ - Piano Forum Help! Clueless Dad just getting started

Hi everyone,

Before I get started, this is a little long and if there have been previous posts that answer my questions (didn't find any in the first few pages), I will be happy to look them up. TIA.

My 8 year old is about to start piano lessons, offered in conjunction with the school. The program is MIDI accompaniment based and is supposed to be lots of fun.

1. Does anyone know anything about these types of programs? I was a very good trumpet player and the teachers seemed to say some good things.

2. The cost is about $300 for 3.5 months, student:teacher ratio of 6:1. Is this about right?

3. The digital pianos they are touting have FDDs and rent for $90 a month (which is the way we will probably start out to see if he likes it). The use the Roland KR-3 (purchase about $2600)

4. Growing up my sister took piano and we have a couple Baldwin uprights in the family. I found the Kawai pianos to have a much more realistic feel. CP110 is their lowest new model with a FDD. Does this matter? Can anyone make some comparisons with other models?

5. The used market here seems pretty lean, and I have no idea what models are what as they seem to change model numbers every year. Can anyone suggest anything?

What am I missing? What should I know that I don't? Any and all advice is welcome at this point.

Thanks.

Though I think group keyboard lessons are not always a bad thing, I firmly believe they are not as effective as private lessons.

I also believe you should explore the option of a real piano in lieu of a digital keyboard. The keyboards are a lot of fun but ultimately they are not a piano in sound or touch.

I am pleased to hear that your child will be taking up lessons. If you decide that you would like a private instructor I would be happy to provide you a list of teachers in the Greater Houston area. Just give me a shout.

I assume FDD means floppy disk drive. Is this feature necessary in your search for a piano, be it digital or acoustic? I know you can use it to record and playback music. But really, learning how to play is mostly doing it yourself. Although I'm sure a part is also listening to the song as played by someone who knows how it's supposed to sound.

Kawai acoustic pianos are very good, and I really like the touch on them - so I'm sure if you like their digital pianos you should get one. They do sound really good nowadays. Back in the 80s they never really approached the sound of an acoustic piano. Now it's pretty hard to tell, of course my ears aren't the best.

Thanks so far.

The floppy disk drive is essential to the learning process in this program. Stand alone Midi players with FDDs are expensive. And for an eight year old, I see the digital as the way to go for interest level and cost.

Dave, I know where your store is at, drive by often. I will qualify your answer with the fact your business sells pianos in a large, posh store in a high dollar area, and even if you sell digital, acoustic is much more expensive and probably equates to higher commissions and profits. I found the Kawai digital to have great sound and the feel was equivalent to a top piano, much better than a used Baldwin upright, for the same price (you are right about the feel of the Roland). Please convince me that you don't have a conflict of interest.

If there are equivalent digital pianos for less, or better quality for the same prices I am interested. Also, where to get the best deal.

I think you will find that many posters here would agree with Dave.

Dave doesn't have to convince you. Take a bit of time and read back through most of the old threads on beginner pianos. This bunch, taken as a whole, is pretty conservative towards the piano, and feel that the acoustic is the best way to go.

As for Forshey's - we have had an overexuberant salesperson from them on the board before, but it wasn't DaveS. The dealership is pretty well regarded in the piano world, and has been written up as one of Steinway's better dealers.

Yes, Forshey's has expensive pianos. But Forshey also handles less expensive lines as well. And until you walk in the door, and see for yourself, I don't understand how you can make a blanket statement about how high their profit margins are.

To address group lessons: I think they are good for learning some basic aspects of music. I feel that if the competitive enviorment is harnessed properly, it can be an advantage. At the end of the day, however, if your daughter aspires to be a pianist, an acoustic piano and private lessons are mandatory, IMO.

As an accomplished trumpet player, I took eight years of private lessons. 1:1 private lessons are a must, I agree, and we would go that way fairly quickly. I also certainly know the value of a quality instrument. However, as an 8th grader, I competed with and beat out senior HS players in a very competitive Jazz environment for 1st chair with a beginner trumpet. My parents were poor. A Bach Strad would have been a dream (and seems to be a standard at local HSs now), but not necessary to develop my love of the instrument. I was probably 15 before it made a real difference.

However, my child must learn to love the instrument, show talent and develop a commitment, before I will consider the possibility of becoming a concert pianist or paying $10k for a piano. Frankly, I don't have a desire for a piece of unused furniture. I am just hoping he likes it enough to keep going.

Just as $200 Adidas Predators (cleats) for a budding youth soccer player are a waste of money. They make no difference in the ability of an eight year old to develop skills over a $50 pair. I intend to avoid the cheap $25 pair, but don't see the value in the added cost.

Prove me wrong, please.

i have no vested interest. and if your interest is in your child developing a love of the instrument, an acoustic piano is a must. there is no way to "prove" you wrong. this is a matter of opinion and values, based on experience and knowlege.

most of us learned instruments as children, too. one thing i learned as a child musician is there is no substitute for starting off with a good teacher and a good instrument. to do otherwise is to create bad habits and handicaps that cost the child a lot later on, and may ultimate kill the child's desire to play.

you are right that you don't need a $10K piano to start. but you can get a really decent console or studio vertical on the used market for far, far less. it will serve a young beginning pianist far better in the long run than a digital. unless of course, you want them to fall in love with the digital as an instrument. imho, a digital is a digital, not a piano.

reading the piano book by larry fine and reading the previous threads on this forum should help shape your decision as well.

Hi TX,
You may have seen stand alone MIDI sequencers and not a MIDI file player. There's a significant difference between these two devices. Sequencers are built for recording AND playing music via MIDI and have elaborate editing capabilities. Sequencers also don't usually have a sound source built-in. If they did, they'd be quite pricey.

MIDI file players are just that -- they are devices that play MIDI files. They are very simple to use and have no recording features. It is possible to customize the MIDI file on playback. You can change tempo independent of key, and key without changing tempo. You can even change what instruments are being heard.

This might be of interest to you as it opens your search up to include digital pianos or even acoustic pianos without a floppy drive. Who knows -- you might even save money!!! My personal opinion is that you should consider the Roland MT-90S. Sweetwater, an online music store, has them for less than $400. Here's a link:
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MT90S/

Disclaimer: I have no association with Sweetwater other than being a frequent customer. I do work for Roland occasionally as a clinician/consultant, although I am not an employee (I also work with other manufacturers in similar non-sales capacities and have no stake in what brand you purchase).

A few opinions:

1. I am a person of modest means. I own one of the least expensive new grands on the board, but I searched like a maniac until I could find a piano with the performance characteristics that I would accept in my price range. If I couldn't have found it, I wouldn't have bought it, and I would have had to increase my budget. At no time did I consider a digital. Digitals are nice for their MIDI interfaces, and for the multitude of samples available - but I've never found one you could coax, nudge, pound, bend sound out of like an acoustic. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that the way an acoustic produces sound is mechanical, and the player has much more control over it.

2. Both of my kids started on piano. Neither considers the piano his primary instrument. My son has a performance scholarship in college (percussion), and my daughter is a first chair high school flutist since eigth grade. Son also plays guitar, daughter doubles on sax. But I still find them coming back to the piano, from time to time, as I suspect they will all their lives.

3. The above are just reasons to play piano, not a digital vs. acoustic argument. In your shoes, I might consider the digital starting out, myself. Two opinions I have: A)Digitals depreciate faster than acoustics, and eventually become obsolete. IMO, 10 years is the life of a digital. and B)If your child takes to piano, you will be buying an acoustic in about 36 months, if you wish him to progress as a pianist.

I can understand starting out on digital if the price were less - that's the usual scenario facing parents. At the price levels you were talking about ($2500ish), though, an acoustic and private lessons could be a viable alternative.

Ahhhh, "I see", said the blind man.

Yes, I can now understand that it could be very difficult to get a range of softer and louder out of a digital piano. Never thought of that, and it's pretty basic stuff.

Am I missing anything else?

Thank you so much for the help so far.

I don't know Jolly, but I like him. His posts are always well thought out and seem to come from a genuine desire to help people -- not just to spout off. He also doesn't seem to have that need to defend his own purchase decision at all costs like some people have. His most recent post here is no excpetion -- very helpful -- good post. That said, I want to provide an alternative view to what he expressed.

I grew up playing a lousy Everett baby grand that was built somewhere in the 1930s or 1940s. All the keys worked, but the tone and action were hideous. To better illustrate, I actually preferred a beat-up Yamaha spinet that was in a classroom at our church to our Everett baby grand! That was my only piano for over 15 years (my parents still have it!!!).

Today, I make my living in the music industry by playing, composing, arranging, programming, consulting, etc. The point is that it is indeed possible to overcome the limitations of a lousy piano. I'm fortunate to have a wonderful instrument in my living room today. But I'll also say that I'd take my $2500 digital synthesizer over the Everett I grew up on. The touch/tone on my synth is actually more responsive than the Everett. I have not played every entry-level piano. But I can tell you that I'd rather have my $2500 digital than any of the acoustic pianos that I played on my piano search that were under $10k. That's not to say that they digital is better. I'm saying that the price/value ratio is better to me. I can think of lots of other things my $7500 can do (unfortunately, so can my wife!).

I also am not quite as sure about the statement that digitals depreciate faster than acoustics. Are we talking a $2500 digital vs. a $10,000 acoustic? I can't imagine a $2500 acoustic piano holding its value for any significant time. Also, the life span of digitals is short, not necessarily because of malfunction, but rather because of technological advancement rendering them obsolete. But what about the lifespan of a $2500 piano? I can't imagine that instrument being a viable one 10, 20, 30 years from now. But then again, I could be wrong.

Bottom line: The digital that I now own is a superior instrument than the instrument that I grew up on, and would therefore not impede my ability to excel in music at a serious level (although I'm not always very serious).

I enjoyed reading of Jolly's piano quest and mean him no disrespect. I never did play a Nordiska and will take his word that it is a good instrument.

whew -- that was a long post! You'd think I was getting paid by the word...

FYI -- digital pianos (almost any manufacturer) have a loudness/softness range of 128 increments.

There's a lot of music in those 128 levels...

(I'll stop now)

So Steve,

Are you saying that as hit the keys softer and harder you get different volumes? I really am clueless as I didn't think to test that aspect.

Thanks so much.

I am a strong advocate of the acoustic piano and for many applications would choose a digital over an acoustic in my personal use. However I must disagree with the comment made above.

If TX's ultimate goal is that his child develops a love for music/music-making the particular instrument on which this is done is simply a vehicle. It could be an acoustic, digital, trumpet or trombone.

If the digital piano is viewed strictly as a less expensive substitute for an acoustic, then surely it will fall short in the two areas of importance, touch and tone...but then so does a trumpet when compared to a piano. However, when seen as a unique, individual instrument with multiple capabilities: keyboard, sequencer, composing tool, ear trainer, theory trainer, etc. I think most would agree that a digital is far more versatile than an acoustic.

As for obsolesence, even though the pace of change in technology is rapid, the instrument is only obsolete when the user receives no utility from it. Just as the ancient uprights many of us first learned on were not obsolete, (even though they wouldn't hold tune, had chipped key covers, sticking dampers, and any other myriad of problems), the digital will not be obsolete if the player enjoys playing it.

Group lessons vs. private study. Group lessons provide an educational and social atmosphere. The environment may be competitive or it may be a nurturing one where the less-than-average students learn not only from the teacher, but the other students. My opinion is that group lessons for children helps make music more fun. Isn't that the goal for the vast majority or are we striving to raise prodigies only and forget the average and below students?

Oops! Sorry my first sentence should have read..."for many applications would choose an acoustic piano over a digital..."

I guess that blows the legitimacy of any of the points I was trying to make. DOH!

Dear Jolly,

I'm sure he's a great kid--but I hope he went away to school.

TomK,

He's been at home on break, and I am very fortunate my neighbors are wonderful people who live at least a half mile away!

SteveY,

I think you have the best handle on the ins and outs of digitals, since for you thay are a working tool. So yes, for digitals, I cede the last word to you, and gladly.

michael p., not only are you not a careful writer (switching digital and acoustic to change the meaning), you are not a very careful reader, either.

you say you disagree with my post because a child can learn to love music through any instrument. but that is not a contradiction of my post, which you quoted and then failed to address accurately:

[/b]

i specifically said if he wants his child to fall in love with the instrument i.e. the piano. you don't fall in love with the piano by playing the trumpet, or the digital piano, for that matter. you yourself go on to say the digital is an individual instrument in its own right that helps a child learn about music. there is nothing contradictory about this--it is still not a piano!

and when you say a digital is more "versatile" that really depends on the kind of versatility you are looking for. if what you want is to have the capability of playing chopin with sensitive musicianship, the digital is definitely NOT more "versatile."

also, private lessons are not just for prodigies. i'm sure you didn't mean to imply that. group lessons may be OK to start, but they may also be a breeding ground for bad habits and can be a poorly laid foundation for future learning. it all depends.

personally, i'd go with a good private teacher and start my child off right so they have every chance of learning the instrument well. that is the best hope for them sustaining interest.

perhaps what matters most is how important music is to the parent. if music doesn't have a lot of personal meaning for them, then i can see why they might think a digital and group lessons are good enough. it wouldn't be for my child, but that is me and nobody else.