Hi Hye-Jin

In general, as a member I would support an acoustic piano rule, but I'm also mindful that you and a few others here have produced marvelous recordings using digital pianos. If a change were to be made, there might be a way to "grand-father" those already existing members who usually submit digital piano recordings. That way you and those other members would not be "expelled" and we could continue to enjoy your fine music. So I would think that the phase-in of a rule, should it come to pass, would apply to new people submitting to Piano Society. I think that would be fair in protecting the current members.

These hoaxsters that have appeared here lately annoy me and even anger me--and others too. As serious pianists we all "labor in the fields" doing conscientious practicing and making recordings to the best of our abilities. So when someone enters this website having created a midi recording with mere clicks on the computer, it's really an affront to those here who are so diligent in their art. So from that perspective, probably something needs to be done.

David

Yes, that is a good idea. Let's go with that from now on.

We must also write up something in the fine documentation, maybe even in the terms of service when they sign up. I'll need to chew on that a bit.
Again, any input and suggestions from our members will be most welcome.

Personally, I don't see what the problem with digital instruments would be. I have a nice acoustic instrument to record on, but that's because it's at my parent's house (I myself practice and make video recordings on a digital in my apartment). But many pianists don't have the option to record on an acoustic, let alone a nice one, and in my limited opinion digitals can in fact sound much better than a whiny old upright or B-grade unrefurbished grand.

In any event, I think it should be abundantly obvious when a recording is being digitally manipulated. I haven't listened to this particular one and don't want to, because the result is always painfully apparent, no matter how much these computer geeks think they're fooling us. The Guybacos Chopin Etudes, for example, were risibly mechanical and tinkly-sounding, without a shred of real legato, natural phrasing, pedalling effect, or dynamic subtlety (maybe this michaelrose is yet another member of the Bacos fan club ).

In the end, it's all about the pianist, whether playing a digital, the finest Steinway concert D, or a box-o'-wood spinet. Digitals don't go out of tune, of course, but every other aspect of an honest performance will come across as human on these instruments as on everything else, the rhythmic glitches and overpedallings on the bad side as well as the rubato, dynamic range, and array of touches that only an infinitely fallible but nuanced being like man can create.

Anyway, I'm sure you can trust your instincts to reject something as actually digitally manipulated, and I do agree 100% that MIDI and such similar recordings have no real aesthetic value -- nor value of any type that I can perceive besides flattering the ego of the wannabe or sometime pianist turned techie -- and should not be accepted.

Just my two cents FWIW.

Joe

Wait for me!

Uh, ... all the good stuff has already been said.

Maybe change the name to Pianist Society, so that any hint of engineered performance is rejected out-of-hand without a video to substantiate. Any recordings submitted on digital pianos will naturally give us a higher index of suspicion, unless the performer is already known to us. Just my 2 cents.

Allowing current digital pianists but insisting that new members submit only acoustic recordings is the best policy. If it means that a pianist has to go and find a nice piano to play on, then so be it. We all have to sacrifice at times...

(funny, Eddy!)

Not sure why that's the best policy. I've heard lifeless, uneven, technically incompetent performances on digitals just as I have on acoustics. Of course, e.g., Alfonso and Hye-Jin are existing members, but my worry is that you're potentially depriving the site of future performances and pianists that are on that level.

I keep finding it difficult to decide. With the ever dwindling number of members/posters, the last thing we want is discourage even more people from joining and posting recordings. It is inevitable that many people play digital these days and do not have the financial and/or logistical means for a real instrument.

Yes, a good point. And you also had no problem discerning that these latest recordings by Bacos and Rose were invalid. Usually after a bit of questioning of the "artist," that seems to become even more apparent.



Exactly. For people who live in apartments and don't have space or money for, or otherwise have access to, a nice instrument, that is what they are consigned to. Again I would ask whether it isn't obvious when, as was noted in the Bacos thread, something sounds completely mechanical or "too nice."

I can always tell if it's a digital piano, no particular digital piano has ever fooled me. And when I hear a recording on one, even it's music very well-played, I can't get out of my mind that that person is sitting at a small plastic box and looks silly.

I'm sure you can, and thus I believe you can also generally, if not always, differentiate between a recording that is digitally made by a computer and one that is on an actual digital instrument. For me, at least, the difference in sound is immediately apparent. I do wholeheartedly agree that if you even have any doubts about whether this is the case, the doubts are probably valid and you should simply reject the recording out of hand without further questioning or discussion.

Does this look silly to you? http://www.kawai.de/ca91_en.htm

It sounds like you really have no idea what's out there. But if you want to restrict yourself to acoustic pianos that's fine with me. I uploaded this because I thought it would be fun to become a member here but as it looks like I stepped on everybody's toes I would ask you to delete my account.

Yes, I use modern technology to record my music. That includes playing an expensive high end digital instrument, recording on a high end digital hardware and software platform, editing and cleaning up on studio level production software. If that leaves too clean a piece of music that's at least debatable and you should let people have their own opinion. Unfortunately to me it looks like you don't want to allow this kind of thing and that's fine, that's your choice. But to me it's like fighting over whether a photographer these days is allow to use photoshop to improve his results.

Michael

A serious pianist playing one of those still looks silly to me. But you're right - I didn't know they make a digital keyboard with a real wooden sound board. That's good! Still doubtful that the sound would fool me, though. Anyway, Michael, yes this forum is not a good fit for you. I give you credit for not 'attacking' us like the last 'Guy' (pun intended) did. Good luck with your music producing.

Sorry, but this sad-sack passive-aggressiveness is so uncannily similar to some posts on the Bacos thread that I just can't resist replying to it, since I held my tongue on that one I don't believe you've stepped on anyone's toes here; you've just dishonestly presented a recording as legimate and, potentially, yourself as a real pianist.



This fatuous analogy has become such a cliche that I think any reasonably intelligent person could recite it in his sleep. The fact that such manipulations, and even photography itself, are not art is immediately apparent to anybody that has studied traditional philosophy. In short, photography is not timeless and universal but a modern machine, just as is a car, a screwdriver, or any other technological innovation that man has devised to facilitate a process. That is, a photographer merely reproduces or manipulates a scene that is already there, created by God, for his own ends. Painting, on the other hand, goes back to the time of cavemen and has always been produced through sheer talent, sweat, and toil coupled with the most basic substances and tools that man has to create his own vision of something. So too does the pianist performer. Since music is an abstraction, the substance and intention of the notes in a work having no larger meaning apart from the life they are given by the performer, the pianist is involved in the creation of the work, as if it is happening for the first time. The photographer is merely capturing, say, a sunset, which has plenty of meaning in itself apart from what he can manipulate it to look like.

I've known people that can't draw at all but are damn good at the technical skill of photography, which is on the artistic level of being a rock DJ or a race car driver. Just as there are people who can't play the piano at all but think they have a wonderfully unique conception of a work and who are manipulating computer programs to achieve it. They might think it sounds wonderful because they're narcissists, but the rest of us hear it for what it is: vapid tripe. Sorry, but there really isn't even any opinion about this. It isn't art; it's chicanery pure and simple.

Joe, that is a wonderful flurish of aesthetic thought. Vivre la philosophie toujours!