Now, I don't mean to be critical, because I don't know excresence about this stuff, for obvious reasons.
I just gone back from going over to the neighbor's house for a few minutes; he, his wife, and three infants live six miles up the road.
In the living room, there was a brand-new upright piano, recently arrived.
Of course, I complimented it.
However.
Now, again, I repeat, I don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems to me such instruments evolved from the medieval virginal into the renaissance harpsichord, and then devolved, backwards evolution, regressed, to the piano.
I have no idea why the piano ever became more popular than the harpsichord.
It might, or might not, be a matter of hearing, or "hearing."
To me, a virginal or a harpsichord give out music that sparkles, glitters, while a mere piano gives out a flat, dull sort of sound.
I "listen" to such instruments, given the absence of ears, by standing on the side opposite the player, (a) my hands palm-down on the top of the instrument or (b) my elbows planted on the top of the instrument, my hands cupping my chin or in the case of really good stuff, (c) my arms laying lengthwise on top of the instrument, and my forehead pressing down.
It seems to me a piano is nothing, compared with a harpsichord.
I'm assuming playing a virginal, harpsichord, and piano is the same.
So why would one want a piano, when a harpsichord is more refined?
And a subsidiary question: if the choice is between an upright piano and a grand piano, why would someone select an unright piano? It seems to me a grand piano has more class, more sophistication, and is more aesthetic, than an upright piano.
I'm assuming both upright and grand pianos cost pretty much the same.
Of course, a grand piano takes up much more room than an upright piano, but on the other hand, if one is talented enough to play it, and if one has invested so much in it, a piano after all deserves its own room, all for itself anyway.
I'm admittedly a cretin when it comes to these things, so please illuminate.