Has it begun again? (long)

[Robert Goodale]

Stephen Birkett wrote:
>
> We cannot escape the fact that the modern acoustic piano is an incredibly
> non-ergonomic device. Children can become frustrated with it for
> good reason. Similarly many adults can't, or don't want to, invest the
> enormous amount of time required to overcome these physical difficulties
> that have nothing to do with making music.
> 
> The alternatives - keyboards, electric home organs, etc - simply can be
> played much more easily by children and amateurs. I've seen the same with
> children who get a chance to play harpsichords or early pianos...the
> universal response is "why aren't pianos made this way now?" - "This feels
> and plays great" etc. Obviously the answer is complex, but clearly a
> radical re-design of the acoustic piano is necessary, at least if this,
> the bulk, of the market is not going to be lost. Even the professionals
> are complaining finally. Why else would we see the likes of D. Stanwood.
> Listen to the consumer...it's their money.  There is nothing quite like
> the complacency of the piano industry. And few better illustrations of the
> "snooze you lose" principle in action.


Uhhhh..... No, I must disagree.

A piano is a piano. A harpsichord is a harpsichord. An organ is an
organ. A digital piano is not an accoustic piano. These are different
instruments and not interchageable. Are we to encourage kids to learn on
a digital because "It's Easier". What did kids do before digitals were
invented? Do we encourage kids to do poorly in school "Because it's
easier". If someone wants to learn how to play a piano they had better
darn well learn what a piano is. If they want to play a harpsichord,
(which uses a completely different technique with no velosity
expression, might I add), then they need a harpsichord, not a piano. If
they want to learn organ, they need an organ, not a digital piano, etc.

Rob Goodale, RPT