confidence

I do some piano teaching, standard classical technique based using an acoustic grand piano in my home studio. I try to help my students source decent acoustic pianos where possible but am equally happy for them to have a reasonable quality digital at home for learning up to about grade 5/6 - I normally recommend whatever is current in Yamaha P-series for this. Now I have a very good student who's just done grade 7 and wants to do grade 8, but has a really unsuitable piano (which they got for free when she was a beginner). She's hitting some limitations with technique that she really needs a better instrument to practise on and I've said they need to sort this before doing grade 8. However she's likely to be leaving home for university soon so they want to get a digital she can take with her rather than an acoustic. Needs to have built in speakers for simplicity of setup and using like a piano, and be reasonably light for transport although she's not thinking at this point of gigging etc. They haven't mentioned a budget but I suspect are unlikely to go beyond about £1,000. I don't feel the normal Yamaha P-series models like P-125 etc. would be suitable for this. I've looked at the P-515 but it's probably too expensive and is also very heavy. Right now I'm veering towards Kawai ES. I played an ES110 years ago and seem to remember the action was pretty good, but don't remember much more. I'm thinking ES520 as probably the sweet spot - can be got for <£900 now which is only about £200 more than the ES120, has better speakers and full connectivity including MIDI DIN if she wants to expand her horizons later. I haven't played it but am very impressed by the sound of demos online. And only 14.5 kg. Other possibility seems to be Casio but I haven't got to grips with their product range yet. I have a Yamaha CP4 which she's played and enjoyed, but as I say we want something with internal speakers. Thoughts?

Well yes, sure. I did say upfront that these chord progressions were in common practice before Rameau published the theoretical explanation for them, so raising that objection is a bit of a strawman. What's not clear, from my imperfect knowledge of the history at least, is the extent to which early baroque composers thought of the progressions as ii - V - I, or just happened to use progressions that corresponded to our modern understanding of ii - V - I. But either way, of course it's not going to be the case that someone just got up one day and "invented" the progression out of nothing. Which raises the question: If somebody working from a completely different angle, without any sense of harmonic function at all, combines three or four parts in such a way that at a certain point chords occur which could accurately be analysed as ii - V - I, are they a ii - V - I?

The progression I - VI originally arose out of the recognition that triads a third apart have two out of their three notes in common, so are almost the same chord and can usually harmonise the same melody notes. VI was thus an intermediate chord between I and another primary function chord, usually IV. As such it was "invented" as part of the whole codification of functional harmony in the early baroque period. I - IV - V, if you wanted to draw I out for a bit longer without it become boring, would become I - VI - IV - V. This is an extremely common progression in baroque and classical music and also what later became known as the "50s progression" due to its ubiquitous appearence in 1950s pop ballads and doo-wop - eg the tune-over-repeated-chord-progression that every pair of children plays when walking into a room with a piano, but which I shan't name due to its unique capacity to turn me into a homicidal psychopath. VI could also appear as a substitute for I, for example in the well known interrupted cadence, where a phrase expected to end V - I instead ends V - VI. What's interesting and instructive about common practice harmony, however, is that I - VI only ever appears in that order - the progression VI - I NEVER happens. This is because of the importance of the root note in defining the progression to a new chord. I and VI may have two notes in common, but the new note you hear on VI is the root, and that makes the progression clear to the ear. By contrast, if VI progressed to I the root of the new chord is already present in the old chord. It's then unclear whether it's actually a progression or just an inversion of the same chord, maybe with a 7th added. Baroque and classical composers didn't like this kind of uncertainty and blurring of the sense of harmonic impetus. Romantic composers less so, but the one who really turned this on its head was Debussy, who used progressions by rising 3rd all over the place, as that uncertainty and floating feeling was exactly what he was looking for. Trance music using I - VI over and over again is obviously not working functionally, but just oscillating between I and "not I" as a very basic kind of contrast, probably partly inspired by the minor quality of VI which gives it a little sense of darkness or gravitas.

The answer to the question is Jean Philippe Rameau. The key point that distinguishes the II - V - I from other kinds of harmony is (a) the concept of chord roots, as independent to the chord bass, and (b) recognition of the natural sense of "impetus" in the progression of roots descending by 5th (natural because of the 5th being the first harmonic after the octave in the harmonic series, thus joining two chords a 5th apart in a "home-away" or "parent-child" relationship). That's why it was so central to the musical language we now call "functional harmony" that was the basis of western classical music from the baroque to the late Romantic period, and of popular styles like mainstream jazz derived from it. The first thorough and systematic description of this way of looking at harmony was Rameau's Traité de l'harmonie réduite à ses principes naturels (Treatise on Harmony Reduced to its Natural Principles), published in 1722. It was considered revolutionary in its time. Up until then, a keyboard player playing chords A-C-F > B-D-G > C-E-G would have been primarily aware of a bass part going A > B > C, and various options for harmonising it mostly involving adding 3rds and either 5ths or 6ths above. Thus the figured bass notation that would have been used at the time: 6/3 > 6/3 > 5/3. Rameau made the radical leap of recognising that the first chord is not actually generated by A, it's generated by the root F but just happens to occur here in inversion. Similarly the second chord is generated by the root G but is also in inversion. The most important aspect that determines the underlying sense and impetus of the progression then is not the bass A > B > C, but the root progression F > G > C. This (IV - V - I) was already in practice the most common cadential pattern in baroque music, but Rameau provided the theoretical and scientific framework for it by relating the F and the G chord to the C by the all important interval of the perfect 5th, or second harmonic. He then went a step further and recognised that because chord IV (here F) has two notes in common with chord ii (D minor), they function similarly as dominant preparation giving options such as ii - V - I, iib - V - I, or the ii7b - V - I that is most common in the Bach chorale harmonisations. And that once you look at it that way, ii is related to V by the same descending 5th root progression that relates V to I. You can then exend this logic all the way back to the complete cycle of 5ths (eg Autumn Leaves).

I had a PC-based rig back in the day when it was uncommon. It never fell over in a performance (did once in an audition, which was a bummer). But for me, the problem was the amount of time and hassle it took to keep it from doing that, and the constant gnawing sense of insecurity that it might, that detracted from my focus and enjoyment of playing. If I were to do it again, it would be as an add-on rather than a replacement. One board with decent action and sounds for security, and MIDI out to a laptop where you can go nuts: set up anything your heart desires, because if it fails (or you just get bored of setting it up), you've still got options. In fact given that you need at least a controller board to play your laptop, I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't do this. All it costs is the difference in weight between a controller and a board with sounds, and while that may be considerable with a Fantom, it's much less so with a Kurzweil PC4 or similar. Then you can judge for yourself what role the keyboard plays - whether most of the bread and butter sounds, or only there as a backup. You can even decide this according to the requirements of different gigs, how important absolute security is etc. Life's too short to give yourself stress you don't need.

Yes Forte 7 is what I meant, obviously. It's no more expensive than the Nord Piano 5, I think. But I didn't realise it was that heavy. Must be those extra three keys make all the difference.

That doesn't make sense to me. While there will of course be other variables involved, surely if you compare two boards of similar size and one is much heavier than the other, then all else being equal that would suggest that the heavier board is more sturdy, better engineered, whereas the lighter board is flimsier and more prone to breakage. (For example the heavier board's likely to include more metal and the lighter board more plastic). It would therefore make more sense to do the opposite of what you suggest - be relaxed about carrying the heavier board in a lighter case, while making sure to properly protect the lighter board with a heavy one. Another vote for the Yamaha CP4 here. I have some reservations about the piano sound but that is subjective at that level. The action is the finest I've ever played and the weight very manageable. CP88 might have better piano sound with as good action (I haven't played it) - very small palette of other sounds though. I've also played the Nord Piano 5 88 version and loved it, so the 73 would seem like a great contender if you're up for the price. Surprised noone has mentioned Kurzweil Forte 73, which has a great action and excellent piano sound (plus others), in 73 key package. I found it frustrating when I was on the same hunt because they're rare as hens' teeth here in the UK. New, they seemed to cost as much or more than the 88 and had to be specially ordered, and second hand they just don't come up. Hence I eventually gave up and got the Yamaha. Maybe that's not a problem where you are though.

Cool. As I said, my preference would have been orchestral and brass, of which there's almost nothing (or was when I tried the board, anyway). But I gave in and bought a second hand CP4 as one was going cheap. Seriously happy with it - good range of sounds, mostly of stunning quality. Fantastic action. The updated interface on the CP88 might have been nice, but not much use if the sounds just aren't there to use it on.

Wow that Zarenbourg sounds amazing.

Must admit when I tried a Kronos out in the store, the fiddliness of the touch screen (sometimes too small to operate accurately, sometimes just not seeming to accept my input until I jab the hell out of it) was one thing that put me off. People have managed playing electronic keyboards for plenty of generations without such things: either give us one that works properly, or don't bother!

I just read that entire page and I still don't understand what the box actually is, what it does, where it sits in the setup chain or how it interacts with everything else. Is that bad advertising or am I just dim? You don't have to answer that question.

I'm pretty sure that's impossible, due to the limitations of USB. Does your controller also have a MIDI DIN output? The only solution I can imagine would be to send that to a MIDI merge/splitter unit or some such with two outputs, and then each of those to a separate MIDI interface attached to each macbook. It adds several steps of gear and cables though.

Wouldn't the logical thing then be standard MIDI cables and plugs from the players to a multi-port MIDI interface or merge unit located FOH, and then USB or whatever's easiest from that to the computer - where it's safely tucked away with only a short cable needed, won't get knocked etc.

In terms of general retail law I'm pretty sure the answer to that is yes. For example I buy a lot of clothes online, and the deal is always that you can try them on and return if they don't fit or you don't like them, but you can't wear them for extended periods, out of the house etc, to the point where they look like they've been worn. All the tags etc. have to remain intact so the retailer gets them back as new. It's pretty much like going to a shop and trying things on in the changin room, but the changing room is in your house. Now I don't see any of these retailers selling B-stock clothes, so I can only assume the ones they get back get resold as new. I'm not aware of any specific laws pertaining to musical instruments that are different to anything else.

45 day return policy from online shops, it now becomes B-Stock, open box, etc. Most have 30 days here (14 is statutory), but it's always on the basis that you send things back in completely new condition, as they arrived. The minor marks etc. that would result from a couple of gigs would be enough to invalidate your right to do that. There'd be some discretion in whether retailers actually enforce it - but I wouldn't want to spend that kind of money on the off chance. I do buy things, try them out and send them back, but I'm extremely careful when doing so.

How do you return something after playing two gigs on it?

LOL, you know you're going to buy the Stage 3 you're just looking for permission. You came to the right place. We give you permission.

Ipads are indeed computers. It's perfectly normal and unremarkable for files intended for one type of computer to be unopenable on a different type of computer.

I don't think economy is the reason that Gershwin sounds good (I've only listened to The Man I Love at the beginning). It sounds good because he makes subtle, musical and interesting chord choices and voices them with sensitivity to the instrument. Somebody who did all that AND had real jazz chops with more ease and flow and ability to incorporate a wider technical vocabulary, would probably sound even better.

Many fewer sounds, though. That's what ultimately stopped me going CP88/73. Just one example: one of the great things about the CP4, for me, is the quality of the brass sounds. Not that they're particularly fantastic (and they're obviously not as good as what's available in software), but they're much better to my ears than what you usually get on even quite expensive keyboards. I actually feel like I'll be able to use them without apologising. I think the CP73/88 has what, two bras patches? I'm sure they're very good, they may even be better. But it's not enough.

I still have an Oberheim MC2000EX (with onboard sounds) I bought it years ago on a whim as I always heard how good they were. Only started using it now 10 years after buying it (for my wife to use to teach her grand daughter occasionally). As far as semi weighted keyboards go it's not bad at all but the onboard sounds are ...well.... But far too heavy for me to gig with. The onboard sounds can be upgraded; the board has a socket that takes wavetable-style cards like the one Yamaha used to make that piggy-backs on your PC soundcard. When you buy the EX version it just means Oberheim have fitted their own board to that socket instead of leaving it blank, but you can remove their board and fit a different one easily enough. However there's not really anything available in that format that's any good by current standards. I've gigged with mine and yeah, it's a stretch. I'm certainly no "whippersnapper" as you put it but I can manage it. Can't deny that losing 10lb or so with the move to CP4 will help, but that's not actually my main motivation for decomissioning the Oberheim. I'm just bored of having to hook up a MIDI controller to modules or computers and deal with two pieces of gear rather than one. I want to be able to switch one thing on and "just play". Got the Hammond for the unweighted organ side of that, and looking to the CP to do the same job on weighted piano side. Obviously with a much more appropriate action than the Oberheim, too. The Oberheim's an awesome controller though, beyond anything available now that I'm aware of. If I had more space in the studio I'd probably find a use for it. Might even stick it in the loft and see what happens rather than selling it, as it probably wouldn't fetch much. Amazing to think I've had it close to 20 years as my main/only board. That's got to be some kind of record in this game. I actually picked up one of their MC3000d desktop controllers - the one that has all the functions of the MC3000 but no keyboard - as it was going cheap and I thought I might want access to the functionality after changing boards. It's pretty bulky though and weighs a ton, so would probably only be worthwhile in an old-style rig to bring together loads of boards and modules.

That's what I thought too. Can't see why you'd want to get a CP88 when you already have the CP4, unless it's for the extra onboard controllers (which, given your stated approach to the instrument as a "pure" acoustic piano replacement, I suspect it isn't). I'd probably spend the money on a completely different brand of stage piano so you have options.

I've always been impressed by this ability.... Not only does the keyboard know that there is only one jack being plugged in, he knows what to do in both cases. Believing your keyboard is a sentient being may be an indication you've been doing this too long . . .

Yeah. The magic in the sound of some of these instruments is undeniable, but the practicalities of keeping them in reliable playing shape were a PITA. I had a Rhodes, also back in the day, that had one note insanely brighter than all the others. It was the B over middle C. I fiddled and fiddled with it, changed the tine position all over the place, damped various things etc. but for some reason was never able to fix it. No internet for finding stuff out in those days, and I didn't know anyone techy near me for advice. Eventually I just learnt to play solos without that note in them.

I'd be nervous taking a valuable board out in a soft case. Especially one rolling around on wheels.