I suppose my scientific upbringing as a research chemist contributed to my appreciation of technology and what computers (even many years ago) can achieve. My first electronic instrument was a Yamaha GS2 keyboard, which weighed a ton (!) but was able to produce sounds like none other at the time. For some of my church work, I use a now rather ancient (15 years old) but still very serviceable Ensoniq KS32 keyboard.
What little composing I used to do was laboriously written out by hand. Then I discovered music notation programmes, and now am quite fluent in Finale (I have never liked Sibelius, for some reason). There is no way I would go back to handwritten music.
The advent of MIDI allowed me to use the KS32, in conjunction with appropriate software and sound cards, to develop orchestral arrangements that to most peoples’ ears sounded very close to the real thing. But there was one thing I was never happy about - the ability of these machines to accurately reproduce the sound of an acoustic piano.
It doesn’t matter whether you use FM synthesis, sampling etc – the touch, feel, responsiveness, tonal range, volume and so on just isn’t there. Recently, I’ve looked at http://www.pianoteq.com, who have developed what they term a 4th generation physical modelling synthesis which claims (and I have no reason to doubt them) to reproduce a piano sound much more precisely than has been possible in the past. They are able to record any piano (including vintage and historical instruments) and reproduce it almost exactly. Whilst this is all well and good (and obviously from a software perspective extremely sophisticated, and of course is much, much cheaper than acquiring said pianos), there are still a number of issues I have with any attempts to reproduce piano sounds electronically.
Firstly, the keyboard touch. No-one has yet developed a keyboard that can accurately reproduce the force feedback mechanism of the piano action and link it precisely to the appropriate reproduction of the sound. Weighted keyboards only go part of the way – no matter what their manufacturers may think.
Secondly, the variability of the piano sound. A computer can only reproduce what it is told to reproduce and will produce exactly the same sound over and over again – the concept of vertical colour as previously discussed would be impossible to achieve since colour relies on combinations of sounds and very subtle but important aspects of the structure of the piano which not only vary from piano to piano but also over the time that the sound is being produced.
But my major objection – no matter how close they may get – is that such things are imitative of human endeavour and do not drive the design of the instrument. Certainly electronic music has its place – but such techniques cannot build a better acoustic mousetrap. They can only imitate and modify what is already there.
Convenient? Yes, electronic keyboards take up less space. Cheaper? Yes, they can be mass produced and computer circuitry is cheap these days. Useful? Undoubtedly, but only up to a point. They will never surpass the acoustic instrument as an acoustic instrument per se, they will only modify and imitate.
Undoubtedly they will get even better, and good luck to them. I will follow their progress with interest. But they will never replace the innovation and development of the genuine article. That’s one reason why the Stuart piano is so important – it redefines the instrument and invites others to keep pace and imitate its advances.
Mainstream manufacturers not only have to look to competition in their own acoustic piano industry, but soon electronic keyboards will become much more viable – indeed for relatively simple piano music they already are. The Stuart piano’s position within the industry is such that it is, I believe, protected to a large extent from these problems. I wonder if I can say the same about Steinway, Bosenyamaha, Bechstein etc?
I don’t think I can.