It’s a matter of fact that acoustic instruments are superior to digital equivalents, at least when it comes to practicing and performing classical music. But for the purpose of practicing at home there are a few advantages of the digital piano which the acoustic piano falls short on:
1. It’s always in tune.
2. It’s (more) portable.
3. The volume can be turned down or headphones used when practicing.
The two latter is of course only practical issues but the first is directly related to the sounding music.
Most piano teachers would agree on the importance for student’s of all levels to focus on listening carefully to the sound they create in order to deepen the awareness of the music, get more qualitative and colorful sound out of the instrument and make a performance communicate more intensively with the listener. Most piano teachers would also agree that an acoustic instrument is therefore far superior option as a practicing instrument since it’s natural and richer sound is better stimulating focused listening than the digital piano’s artificial sound.
But, what if the acoustic piano is very out of tune?
One could assume that the more out of tune an acoustic piano is, the less appealing and stimulating is it to listen intensively to it and below a certain limit of “in-tune-ness” the acoustic piano falls behind it’s always-in-tune digital friend.
The conclusion is that an acoustic piano is a better practice instrument than the digital piano, but ONLY if it is in tune.
With this important insight in mind, how much did this vital part of the campaigns (see video below) affect the US election results?
Obama chosed to go for a high end digital “grand” while McCain made a more conservative choice and picked an acoustic Steinway B (although quite out of tune towards the end of the campaign).
Did Obama win simply because he always plays perfectly in tune while McCain does not?