Playing solo piano and you forgot to wear clothes...

[ITGITC]

 

There is an artist in my town who plays jazz piano. He's really good and has a reputation for excellence.

 

I picked up one of his CDs yesterday. I heard him playing in a restaurant.

 

When I listened to it, I was thrilled with the performance.

 

I also realized that I wasn't listening to an acoustic piano.

 

It turns out that he was recording with a Kurzweil SP88. He made the recording in his home studio and had the CDs pressed professionally.

 

Frankly, his music is outstanding. However, the instrument does not do him justice.

 

The SP88 uses mono samples and has 32-note polyphony. Plus, these samples seem to have a muted high end. They're not crisp. At times you can hear the notes cut out (just a bit) on the decay. I attribute this to the polyphony limits. Finally, he decided not to use any reverb.

 

Recording solo piano is tough. You are putting yourself out there for everyone to hear - and criticize. It's like performing at a concert in front of a thousand people and you got so excited, you forgot to wear clothes.

 

On top of that, believe it or not, there are some listeners who actually listen with headphones.

 

OK. So you want to get your music out there, but you can't afford to rent a studio and an acoustic piano.

 

Or you just don't have the time.

 

Or you want to use MIDI to edit your mistakes instead of re-recording the whole tune.

 

There are many reasons why you may decide not to use an acoustic piano.

 

But if you don't use an acoustic piano, will people notice?

 

Will it date your recording?

 

Will you hate it when you go back for a listen a few months or years later?

 

Does Your Chewing Gum Lose Its Flavor (On The Bedpost Overnight)?

 

Let me dig a li'l deeper...

 

Say you've decided that you just can't go the route of renting a studio/music hall with an acoustic piano.

 

Which alternative do you choose?

 

Vote for Ivory.

 

Vote for Kurzweil.

 

Vote for Yamaha.

 

Vote for Grandma's upright in Eric's basement.

 

Today is August 14, 2008. Your opinion will most likely change in time... so vote now.

 

 

I'm Tom... And I improved this message.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MuzikTeechur]

OK, I'll bite:

 

The question here isn't about the SP88's suitability to its intended purpose, but the recording artist's decision to use it as a solo piano on a high quality recording.

I own an SP88x and use it every weekend for gigs. Great board, a little heavy, but so far very robust under heavy usage. It's great for clubs, and stages.

 

I think that using ANY synthesized or sampled board for a solo recording project is rather stupid (lazy?). Especially when there are so many concert halls and other performance spaces with wonderful instruments that go unused for 6 of 7 days each week. Sure you may end up recording at 2 AM on a Wednesday morning, but there is no substitute for a REAL, well tuned piano in a nice hall. You can control natural reverb with microphone placement.

 

Your condemnation of the SP88 could have been levied at nearly any board as they will all show their shortcomings on a high quality recording listening with a pair of decent headphones.

 

As far as the Kurz using mono samples for the piano: when was the last time you played a stereo acoustic piano?

[MoodyBluesKeys]

I bought a SP88X at first for a home practice instrument for the family. The sounds are based on Kurzweil's old micro piano. I later found a good buy on a PC2X, bought it, then sold the SP88X. Considerably better sound (though not as good as the PC3X).

 

Low price alternatives for the player: could add a ME-1 module and drive it with MIDI, this would give the Triple Strike Piano same as the PC2 series. For that matter, PC2R modules have been showing up at attractive prices lately. Both the above would be fully hardware. Of course, Ivory running on a notebook computer coule also be used, how much that would cost would depend on just how much had to be purchased and how much was on hand.

 

My vote (presuming that I had enough money) would go for buying a PC3X and using the pianos on that. Perhaps not quite the equal to Ivory, but all in hardware in something that can be carried to gigs easily and used for everything (MIDI controller, gigs, practice, enjoyment). Oh yeah - wait a minute - I've already voted with my own money and done exactly that. Admittedly, I don't usually carry it to gigs, since my K2661 was bought just for that purpose, but I can carry it, even already have the hard case for it.

 

Jim

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave Horne]

I vote for my GranTouch ... and think a picture is needed.

 

http://www.goddesscafe.com/blogger/nude-organist.jpg

[Moonglow]

Keith Emerson used a GEM Pro 2 for piano on his Christmas CD. If I did not own one of these (and know its idiosyncrasies), I would have been hard pressed to identify it as a DP.

[Sven Golly]

As far as the Kurz using mono samples for the piano: when was the last time you played a stereo acoustic piano?

 

Every time I sit down at one... both my ears work just fine.

 

[Mr. Nightime]

As far as the Kurz using mono samples for the piano: when was the last time you played a stereo acoustic piano?

 

Every time I sit down at one... both my ears work just fine.

 

My thought exactly

 

After all, just by the nature of the instrument, the sound will move from one end to the other as you move up the keyboard. Isn't that one of the definitions of stereo?

[MuzikTeechur]

Yes, reflective, 3 dimensional sound, in a live performance, is a real thing. But we're talking about sampling, not live performance. Any "stereo" sample of one string on a piano is dependent upon two (arbitrarily placed) microphones, not upon the "stereo" qualities of a piano. They sample one note at a time, therefore moving from one end to the other is not an issue when sampling. Nor are your ears. There is no win or lose to this debate, I was merely pointing out that the piano is a monophonic instrument.

 

By your definitions, anything you hear with your ears is a stereo instrument, or if I set up two microphones and play a harmonica while walking around a room it then magically becomes stereo by virtue of sound arriving at the microphones at different times. The recording may be stereo, but they're STILL monophonic instruments, what you're hearing are the characteristics of the room.

 

 

 

[Jim Alfredson]

The piano is most certainly NOT a monophonic instrument. Monophonic means only able to play one note at at time.

[mcgoo]

The real thing isn't always better. The girl whose band I play in booked a studio to do some tracks, and one of the reasons for this particular studio was that it had both a Hammond & a piano. Silly me- I assumed that meant a B-3 & a Grand. It was a post tonewheel Hammond & a Yamaha Upright. We would have been better off using my Laptop with Ivory. Thankfully none of the tracks had the piano really exposed, or I would have been pretty bummed.

 

IMHO tracking the real thing vs digital really boils down to 2 things:

 

1/whether or not one has the instrument, mics, room & engineering chops to create a more pleasing sound than available with Ivory.

 

2/ Whether the digital can help sufficiently inspire the kind of performance a really nice grand can.

[Sven Golly]

Yes, reflective, 3 dimensional sound, in a live performance, is a real thing.

 

Not my point.

 

But we're talking about sampling, not live performance.

 

Agreed. However, a sample is meant to be used in a performance, yes? So therefore should replicate what the instrument sounds like in real life, yes?

 

Any "stereo" sample of one string on a piano is dependent upon two (arbitrarily placed) microphones, not upon the "stereo" qualities of a piano.

 

False. Firstly, I disagree with the use of the term 'arbitrarily placed'. Mic placement when sampling a piano is either in an X pattern over the harp of a grand, thereby simulating to some degree the differences heard by the player from his/her perspective, or from the side at some distance, thereby simulating the audience perspective. The latter, of course, has far more content due to the environment that the piano is in, and is for me less than useful. The former, however, is both what we as performers and the general public as an audience are most likely to accept as an 'authentic' piano sound.

 

You then run that source through effects to simulate an environment for said piano.

 

There is no win or lose to this debate, I was merely pointing out that the piano is a monophonic instrument.

 

And I was merely pointing out that you are wrong.

 

By your definitions, anything you hear with your ears is a stereo instrument, or if I set up two microphones and play a harmonica while walking around a room it then magically becomes stereo by virtue of sound arriving at the microphones at different times. The recording may be stereo, but they're STILL monophonic instruments, what you're hearing are the characteristics of the room.

 

Complete non sequitur, and absolutely missing the point. While I refuse to belabor the basics of psychoacoustics in this thread (there are numerous resources online for those interested to find and digest), I absolutely maintain that the piano is absolutely a stereo instrument, as a function based on the distance from said instrument. The piano has numerous sources for sound that encompass a relatively large area, in relation to the performer. A large chromatic harmonica, if you get your face right into it, WOULD become a stereo instrument as you played across the range, but it's too unrealistic a distinction to make, as nobody wants to get that close to the harmonica player.

 

Obviously there are instruments that are absolutely monophonic - horn and reed based instruments, smaller stringed instruments.

 

While I agree that, to the person sitting in the 15th row of the recital hall the piano appears to come from a single source, if that person was standing beside the instrument, they would absolutely perceive a stereo image based on the distance from each of the strings.

 

This seems like common sense to me... no?

 

 

[Griffinator]

Guys - it's not "monophonic", it's "monaural" - just to get the terminology straight.

[Sven Golly]

Guys - it's not "monophonic", it's "monaural" - just to get the terminology straight.

 

Sorry, I got into 'quote the source' mode... of course you are correct.

 

[Mr. Nightime]

Guys - it's not "monophonic", it's "monaural" - just to get the terminology straight.

 

Sorry, I got into 'quote the source' mode... of course you are correct.

 

Horn and reed based instruments ARE monophonic

[Dave Horne]

Bagpipes too?

[MuzikTeechur]

My bad on the monophonic. I teach a college class in Music Theory and also Music Appreciation and we discuss monophony/polyphony in both classes. I should know the definition of that term! Mea Culpa. Monaural. Duh.

 

And Sven, of course, you're right. Reading the threads here over the past few weeks I'm finding that you're ALWAYS right. Had I known that this forum was filled with such amazing gurus of all that is soundly and keyboardish I would have come here to read instead of frittering away my money on a silly college degree.

 

I shall re-align my opinions to conform to yours so that I, too, can be correct.

[timwat]

What has been seen....cannot be unseen.

[Sven Golly]

And Sven, of course, you're right. Reading the threads here over the past few weeks I'm finding that you're ALWAYS right. Had I known that this forum was filled with such amazing gurus of all that is soundly and keyboardish I would have come here to read instead of frittering away my money on a silly college degree.

 

I shall re-align my opinions to conform to yours so that I, too, can be correct.

 

I don't see you rebutting my assertion that the piano, by the nature of it's multiple sound sources, is accurately described as a stereo instrument.

 

I guess it would be rude of me to trot out the old assertion about "those who can, do...", huh?

 

[timwat]

Don't know why this is descending into a flame war (Dave's contributions notwithstanding).

 

Tom's original post, IMHO, stands and the use of a mid-level digital stage piano to produce a solo piano recording is unwise at best, and lazy and foolish at worst.

 

I don't think Tom's assessment of the SP88 as a recording source was intended to indict the wisdom of any SP88 owners - who use it as a live digital piano.

 

To return to Tom's original question - my K2600 has the piano board installed. I'd NEVER think of using any of the piano patches to record on. I think I'd probably try to use Ivory if the only choices that existed are the ones Tom offers. But in real life, if I was putting my name on a solo piano recording, I'd plan ahead to identify a great sounding piano and mic it appropriately.

[Mr. Nightime]

Bagpipes too?

 

Ok, there's always one, but, if you leave out the drone pipes, it is monophonic.

 

[Morizzle]

Horn and reed based instruments ARE monophonic

 

As long as you don't use multiphonics

[ITGITC]

 

Folks, I'm not trying to cast doubt on anyone's intelligence. I just observed something that I thought I would share, thinking that you too may have travelled down this road.

 

The musician to whom I am referring is a great player. But, like many, he may not have the funds to rent a studio or music hall with an acoustic piano for this recording.

 

I certainly can't blame a man who wants to get his music out to his audience, yet doesn't have the budget to rent a piano.

 

I don't know how much extra this would cost. However, I'm sure you would want a technician to come in and tune it first, right?

 

Plus, he did this recording in his home studio - not a commercial studio.

 

Again, this is not a put-down. We all have to make choices based on the funds we have available.

 

Listening again to the recording today I now think that it may not be note-stealing and a lack of polyphony on the SP88 that I'm hearing. Remember, I said that he made the recording with the reverb turned OFF.

 

I believe that it may be a little disconcerting when sustaining notes get stopped quickly and there is no reverb or natural acoustic clues to make you think that you're listening to a real piano in an actual acoustic space.

 

In this case, you're hearing the samples (and VAST) straight from the output jacks of the SP88 into the recorder - with no reverb to help the illusion. In my opinion, making this recording with no reverb whatsoever was a mistake.

 

Now, I don't think the effects of the SP88 are as sophisticated as the PC2 (or PC3) (or K2600). They may not have sounded good to this musician.

 

But, if he had some outboard unit available to him, he should have used it.

 

Again, I don't know what his budget was, so I can't be but so critical regarding his decision.

 

Thank you for your comments here. My point of the thread is that we're getting closer and closer to getting a solo piano sound from electronics (and software) that will fool most listeners. To me, that's the Holy Grail.

 

I don't know if the GEM could substitute for an acoustic piano in a situation like this. I'd really like to hear it. Same for the S90 and the PC3. I just can't seem to bring myself to fully trust those MP3 files on the manufacturer's web sites.

 

Tom

 

 

 

[MuzikTeechur]

Rude and incorrect. I am lucky enough to teach, and to perform.

 

As far as the piano is concerned, it is colorful, sonorous, warm, polyphonic, and monaural. Unless you have two.

[Sven Golly]

Rude and incorrect.

 

Yes you are. Apology accepted.

 

As far as the piano is concerned, it is colorful, sonorous, warm, polyphonic, and monaural. Unless you have two.

 

I bet you don't hold your wife's purse either, do you?

 

Okay, Teech... you keep your opinion, I'll keep mine. Moving on.

 

[iLaw]

OK, I'll wade in here and suggest that "stereo" and "stereophonic" are references to a recording and sound reproduction technology (as are, for example, "quad" and "quadraphonic"), and have nothing to do with the acoustic source itself. Pianos (and voices, and bagpipes, and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir) are neither stereo, nor monaural, nor quadraphonic; only recordings of them are.

 

Flame away,

 

Larry.

[Dave Horne]

What was the question again?

[ITGITC]

Pianos (and voices, and bagpipes, and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir) are neither stereo, nor monaural, nor quadraphonic; only recordings of them are.

 

Flame away,

 

Larry.

 

Oh Larry... There will be no flames here.

 

Guys, we're talking about the same thing - just different words.

 

We all know that a piano is three dimensional and when you sit down to play it, you'll hear the bass strings a little to your left and the treble strings a bit to your right.

 

Itza wonderful thing.

 

And in my original post my point was, and still is, that the new stereo samples (recordings) of the Kurzweil PC2 (among others) actually sound better than the monaural recordings of previous designs (like the SP88).

 

That's all.

 

So when you listen to a CD of a solo piano recording produced by the SP88 vs. the PC2, all else being equal, the stereo PC2 is going to sound more realistic.

 

At least to my ears it does.

 

The goal is to fool the listener into believing that he is hearing an acoustic piano recorded in a physical space in real time. And the primary reason for paying attention to the details is to not detract from the performance itself.

 

Agree?

 

 

I'm headed to the fridge. Who wants a beer?

 

Tom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[marino]

I'll try to return to the original question...

 

If I'm recording with a rhythm section, and if I have the chance, I *always* prefer to record on a real acoustic piano. A "good" one, please. But if the choice is between a so-so acoustic and a good sample, it becomes tough. It also depends on the type of music, of course.

 

For solo piano, it's a good acoustic or nothing.

 

The point for me is, would I be able to guess it's a sample by listening to my own recording? In a solo piano context, no sampled piano has passed this acid test yet.

I'm not religious about that; if a sampled piano would fool me in solo, *and sound good to my ears*, I would have no problems using it.

 

 

 

[ProfD]

OK. So you want to get your music out there, but you can't afford to rent a studio and an acoustic piano.

 

There are many reasons why you may decide not to use an acoustic piano.

 

But if you don't use an acoustic piano, will people notice?

 

Will it date your recording?

 

Will you hate it when you go back for a listen a few months or years later?

 

Say you've decided that you just can't go the route of renting a studio/music hall with an acoustic piano.

 

Which alternative do you choose?

 

I believe in using the best equipment and resources available to convey music.

 

However, the folks who buy music i.e. resulting in gold, platinum and diamond records could care less.

 

Look no further than classic monaural recordings. The performances sold them.

 

I've got some Bud Powell in the CD player right now. Inferior recording by today's standards. Excellent musicianship.

 

For the most part, musicians and audiophiles care more about the equipment and studios used to make a recording.

 

Certain sounds "date" music. Again, the performance and record sales count more than anything else i.e. 80s music.

 

If the song, tune, track, etc., is a hit i.e. excellent performance, it could have been recorded with an Ensoniq Mirage and Tascam Portastudio.

 

As musicians, we often wear many hats. Every now and then, it is a good idea to step back into the shoes of a regular consumer.

[Floyd Tatum]

for what it's worth, muzikteech, I agree with you about piano being monaural, sort of. It depends on the context, and on the desired outcome. If you're listening to a recording of a real piano, that recording could be mono or stereo, depending on the number of mics used. Stereo is nice. So, for a recording of a real piano, I'd want to hear it stereo

 

It follows that if you're using a digital piano as the sound source for your stereo recording, it might as well be a stereo dp, recorded (originally) in stereo.

 

However, for stage purposes, one could argue (and I am!) that the piano is a mono instrument. If you feed stereo digital piano to front of house, and front of house is using a stereo system, that makes your piano image what, 50' wide? Is that natural? In that situation, wouldn't it make more sense for your piano signal to be mono? Or, if it's stereo, then you need to pan it to a narrow image so that it fits into the stage image, if you will. Not to mention, that if you have a 50' wide stereo piano image, how many people are going to be in the sweet spot? not many.

 

discuss and argue.

 

Oh, and as to the original point - yeah, the guy should probably have used a real piano, if he could afford one. But maybe he couldn't, who knows.