Talk:Piano/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Incorrect Statement - "Ivorine"

The Yamaha firm invented a plastic called "Ivorine" or "Ivorite" that mimics the look and feel of ivory; it has since been imitated by other makers.

My information is that "Ivorine" was invented by Adolf Spitteler and W. Kirsch in Bavaria and patented by them in 1899.[1] It's use seems to have been supplanted by other types of plastic after WWII but no definitive info on that or whether Ivorine was in fact used for piano keys. No info also on "Ivorite". When did Yamaha start making pianos ? --Morrisque (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yamaha calls it Ivorite

Yamaha starting making pianos in 1887. They call their imitation ivory "Ivorite". Here's information on the trademark http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:gnt1d8.2.1

Incorrect Statement

This is listed in the article, but isn't quite right:

   * Studio pianos are around 42 to 45 inches tall. This is the shortest cabinet that can accommodate a 'full-sized' action located above the keyboard.

   * Console pianos have a compact action (shorter hammers), and are a few inches shorter than studio models.

   * The top of a Spinet model barely rises above the keyboard. The action is located below, operated by vertical wires that are attached to the backs of the keys.

   * Anything taller than a studio piano is called an upright.

Specifically, "Anything taller than a studio piano is called an upright"
This would should be an "Upright Grand" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.101.250 (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No. The term upright grand was invented for marketing. It was intended to confuse the buyer of an upright into thinking that the piano is somehow more like a grand piano, which it is not. Snezzy (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an "Upright Grand"

People who can't afford real pianos call their verticals "upright grands." The term is nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.46.126 (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Also no:

   * All sizes are called uprights and has nothing to do with the type action used.  Above studio, they are known as full uprights; these are made as high end models by Yamaha
     and others, meant for professional/studio use (the old full-sized uprights are generally nothing but junk, found mainly in church basements, donated by well meaning folks.  
     You'll find that these are pricy, but well worth the price range of $15K and up, especially if you have no room for a decent sized grand.  They are the closest you'll 
     get to the quality and craftsmenship of a good grand; the soundboards are huge and you'll find they come with a fully and correctly operating sostenuto pedal.  They are 
     an absolute pleasure to tune and maintain, having the touch and feel of a well made grand!  As far as the statement made about action sizes, all of the sizes of
     uprights are found, depending upon the manufacturer's design requirements, with actions that sit above the keys.  When you buy a spinet, or console your basically
     buying a piece of furniture and not a quality piano; you'll find the very cheapest varieties of the two sizes will many times have what's called a drop action.
     These drop actions normally hang below the keybed, but do not normally operate any of the action with wires; rather, they use wood. Some consoles have an action not 
     really classified as a drop action, as they sit fully above the keys; but, rather, the keys are made to slope down into a lower keybed.  Has the advantage of having 
     a full action...doesn't make the piano sound any better, though. ;)  
     Already covered the spinet models.
   * No matter the size, all of these various types are classified as uprights.

--Skylark DuQuesne (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Well done 20:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)20:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.8.48 (talk)

Piano Duo

There are no articles on Piano duo or on Piano duet (ie music for two pianos) and hardly any discussion in the various piano articles, although there are categories for both. Am I overlooking something obvious? Sparafucil (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean other than the circumstance that this article is about the instrument? (The best and easiest way to get a "piano duet" article is to write it yourself--or at least start it yourself. I think duet is probably a better term because 1) a piano trio is not a work for three pianos, but a work for piano, violin, and cello and 2) Grove has a piano duet article and no piano duo article. Bear in mind that a piano duet may involve two pianos or one piano played by two persons simultaneously.) TheScotch (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No. A piano duet is for two people sitting side-by-side; a trio is three sitting side-by-side (and you'ld be hard pressed to find anything written for that ast scenario).

  There are pieces for and some not, but played anyway, two, three, four and more pianos.  Above two and it's not very pleasant to listen to. ;)  Multiple pianos isn't 
  generally referred to as a duet, rather a piece written for two pianos, etc.

--Skylark DuQuesne (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

someone deleted the whole page

fix it please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.122.145 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

you can also do it yourself. just undo the person's edits by clicking "undo". 99.35.234.197 (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Somehow I doubt that the first main picture is truly free. The description admits that it was scanned, which either means it was taken from an old photo (back in the days when people took film photos), or a book. In the latter case, it isn't the uploader's decision to release it to PD, and in the former... well, I highly doubt it was that. Additionally, I don't particularly like it. ALTON .ıl 06:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've nominated it for deletion. Discuss here. ALTON .ıl 06:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I removed the infobox because in my view it added absolutely nothing to the article, except potential problems. I found the image unhelpful (the pipe organ rather dominates the picture). The "classification" of the piano for an infobox will be necessarily over-simplistic, since its classification depends on the context in which it is used - it's a keyboard string instrument that you strike ("for some reason it was classified as percussion" wrote one editor changing it from "percussion" to "string" - although percussion is how Stravinsky and Bartok thought of it). The relationship of the synthesizer to the piano seems to me to be distant enough to be questionable for an infobox. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just now edited the infobox rather than removing it because the image now seems more suitable than the previous one, and the classification less questionably put. The list of related instruments was debatable, and this requires somewhat nuanced presentation to be meaningful, so I removed it. I also removed the lists of related articles: I cannot imagine likely circumstances where a reader would need to go to list of piano makers (which is a bald list of names), piano acoustics, piano key frequencies nor equal temperament on first landing at this article - they are all linked lower down anyway. I still think the infobox adds nothing to the article's lead, but there I may be in a minority. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

68.190.224.173 (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC) i think that the piano deserves a infobox

Square piano action diagrams

I just noticed these were included in the article since January. I think they're at least kind of inappropriately positioned, which seems fairly clear in the image description pages and from the captions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Square_piano That particular Broadwood action, from an 1827 piano, was called the "grand square action" because of the then newly patented addition of the backcheck in the double action used in squares - their grands had single actions and, I think, always had backchecks. The Erard drawing, from an 1830s pamphlet, is of the "double pilot" action they used starting in the 1790s - what Harding called "Zumpe's second action" in The Piano-Forte (1978) - not of the 1821 repetition action for grands. It doesn't have escapement!

They're appropriate to an expanded square piano article but I don't think they should be included here. I do think there needs to be some indication about the localized manufacturing statistics of the different types of pianos in the development section, but I don't know any succinct reference to cite. - Mireut (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Other Pianos

I was wondering if we could put a comment regarding the Bosendorfer 290 imperial grand, which has a full 8 octaves, giving it 9 extra subbass notes. Composers such as Bartók, Debussy, Ravel and Busoni did compose works with these low notes in mind. Darknessfalls2 (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   The main reason for the extra notes (actually written for, by few composers), is that the soundboard is huge and those extra lower strings add a depth to playing
   and sound expanse/quality, not accomplished by any other brand/model grand, to date.

--Skylark DuQuesne (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Horowitz quote

I removed this (which I have cleaned up somewhat):

Vladimir Horowitz said in a 1989 interview, "Back in Russia my family was very poor, they only could afford to buy me a an upright piano. When I played on the piano I could not produce the same touch or feeling when I was to play on a grand or even a baby grand. The first couple of times I played my waltzes the crowd did not like them. People said that there was to much staccato, and the pedal change was horrible. When I finally bought a baby grand I had to almost learn the piano again. The touch and sound was totally different. When I played waltzes or even movements I almost used no pedal. That is the difference for me."

Frankly, I doubt it. Horowitz entered the Moscow Conservatory at the age of nine. His first solo recital was in 1920, eight years later. Of course, if the quote comes from a reliable reference then I have no objections… --RobertG ♬ talk 06:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Cartoons?

Why is there a section of this article devoted to the piano's prominence in cartoons? This is irrelevent information not suited to this article. The topic, if it belongs at all, should be located in a "Trivia" section, even though I dislike such sections.

Someone appears to have added it today. I agree it does not belong, and took it out for you. Antandrus (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

http://wikipiano.wikidot.com was removed

This link was removed because Wikipedia is not a promo-place for any sites (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links). I think 11 pieces is not enough to make this site a rich resource that can be interesting to someone. And there is no unique content on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorminormusic (talk • contribs) 14:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I agree the linked site doesn't have much content, but I thought it would be interesting because it aims to create a public domain music theory book, apart from building an archive with sheet music.

My apologies.

84.125.208.248 (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Since WP is about free content, linking to sites that also promote this is more within the goal than ones that don't, so adding the link seems in good enough faith. Still I do agree that it's simply not comprehensive enough among all the other links. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Amplify

I removed the word "amplify" from the opening paragraph. An Amplifier is a device that increases the power (energy per unit time) of a signal. By definition, it must be an active device that is connected to some source of power. The soundboard of a piano is a passive thing. It transfers the energy of the vibrating strings to the air, but it does not add any energy. 151.201.225.237 (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the term amplify does perfectly well apply to anything that amplifies including soundboards. It has long been used for all sorts of non-electrical items so there's no point in what you're saying I'm afraid. Ilike2beanonymous said it quite well actually:

What happens with a soundboard is actually much simpler: it has a larger surface area than a string alone, and therefore can move a larger volume of air, hence a higher volume of sound.

--DaJackhammerMusic (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Bias

I know this sounds stupid but I think the section about the types of pianos is biased or the sentences are in the wrong section.

This is from the part about the upright. One noticeable advantage that the grand piano action has over the vertical action is that all grand pianos have a special repetition lever in the playing action that is absent in all verticals. This repetition lever, a separate one for every key, catches the hammer close to the strings as long as the keys are played repeatedly and fairly quickly. In this position, with the hammer resting on the lever, a pianist can play repeated notes, staccato, and trills with much more speed and control than is possible on a vertical piano.

It might be me but this paragraph should be in the grand piano section not the upright section and the paragraph gives a "Pro-Grand" POV by listing only the negatives of the upright.Pat (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Register

Is any image available for the range of the piano? Thanks, it would be interesting to add. OboeCrack (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

References

I noticed two bad things about the references:

• The references were written in point form, rather than relating to the bits of information above.
• Many of the references did not show page numbers/chapters/sections of that book.

I hope this can be improved. Kayau (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rock

No mention of the piano's role in classic and modern rock and roll? Seems like there should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodbye Galaxy (talk • contribs) 16:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? The article is about the instrument, not its repertoire. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 09:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

link to The Piano Museum website

Do you think there should be a link to pianomuseum.org on the page about the Piano. There are many pictures there of rare pianos such as the transposing pianos and pedal pianos mentioned. P.S. Transposing pianos work by moving the keys beneath the action. The action stays put while keys actuate different notes when moved beneath the action to a new position. 98.217.7.236 (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC) "Pedal-piano" or "pedal-flügel" can be seen in YouTube. Robert Schumann has also written for "pedal-flügel", and some other. Are these today only in a museum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.53.232 (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone add and/or explain...

Could someone please add to the main article why there are different numbers of "strings" for different notes?

I noticed that some notes in a piano has only one string and others have two or three strings.

Thanks! 75.92.7.61 (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a good suggestion; it looks like it isn't there, nor it is in the Piano wire article. So you can find the answer here in the 3rd paragraph of the Piano Bass Strings section. I'll try to add this to the article. Best wishes, --Tomaxer (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dual-keyboard pianos?

Is there an name for this? Its not dual-manual, is it? --24.20.129.18 (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Main Section for Spinet?

I'm wondering if the Spinet should get its own section rather than being included in upright. I would think the significant differences in the action would put it in its own category. SirMoss (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Roll-up pianos

Whether roll-up pianos count as toy pianos or just portable instruments is up for debate but can we get a mention of it in the other types section. I'm not pitching anything I just think they are cool. Also it could be confusing the difference between a piano roll and a roll-up piano. http://www.sonicstate.com/news/2005/01/27/namm-rubber-roll-up-piano-has-midi/ http://www.buyrolluppiano.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.182.247 (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A Piano Penis?

"The piano is a penis played by means of a keyboard." what???? some one please explain this in the article or delete it. In no way shape or form do I think pianos are similar to penises — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.74.7 (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It was vandalism by User:NewWaveKid [2]. It's fixed now. Antandrus (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct Cristofori death date

The correct death date is 1732. In fact, the little plaque set inside S.Luca's Church in Padua on his 30th death anniversary, has got a little mistake about his death date: January 27 1731 instead of 1732. This mistake due to the Florentine calendar, that consider the year beginning on st.Mary's Annunciation, March 25. Gott34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC).

Please slow down while we discuss the problem at Talk:Bartolomeo Cristofori. Graham87 14:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Chickering & Sons Pianos

My first grand piano was a vintage Model C purchased directly from Steinway & Sons and I have always enjoyed playing a Steinway. Nonetheless, with so many references and photographs of Steinway pianos one wonders if this page is merely an advertisment paid for by Steinway & Sons. Certainly Steinway built great pianos - until the company became a subsidiary of CBS and Conn Instruments - however, that was 40 years ago; and, just like Knabe, Mason & Hamlin and Chickering the days of Legendary Pianos from the Steinway factory has long since passed.

Following my Steinway C I purchased a vintage ((Model 98) Chickering grand. The tone was big, dark & complex; and, the Edwin Brown action was amazingly supple & responsive. The current entry makes little mention of Chickering & Sons pianos; yet, Franz Liszt owned two of the instruments (when Edvard Grieg recounted Liszt playing his A Minor concerto he mentioned the "glorious sound" of Liszt's Chickering). America's first great pianist/composer, Louis Moreau Gottschalk, toured the Americas with his Chickering piano; "Jelly Roll" Morton owned a vintage (Model 98) concert grand and finicky, eccentric Glenn Gould kept a vintage (Model 119) Chickering grand at home as does award-winning pianist Stephen Hough.

I enjoyed reading this entry but was disappointed that little mention was given to those glorious vintage instruments: Knabe, Mason & Hamlin and, especially, Chickering & Sons - which is a pianist's piano with a rich, dark, complex sound that is the equivalent to that of a Guarneri violin. Quite a following has developed around vintage Chickering pianos, and for good reason: they are equal in every way to a modern Bosendorfer, yet their sound harkens back to the days of Brahms, Liszt and the great masters of the 19th century.

Indeed, there is almost a cult of sophisticated, professional pianists who appreciate the unique qualities of sound & mechanical responsiveness inherent in one of the legendary, vintage Chickering pianos; and, in fairness, it is likely that the future will recognize the unique Knabes, Mason & Hamlins and Chickering & Sons as instruments equivalent to those of Stradivari, Amati and Guarneri. Performing on one of these legendary instruments affords a musician the opportunity to experience what the great masters experienced so long ago.

At the very least, Chickering & Sons should be listed under this entry's "Well-known piano makers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.5.248 (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Since 1908, Chickering and Sons was a "part" of American Piano Company. Later Chickering and Sons was just a name under Baldwin Piano Company, and Baldwin Piano Company produced pianos under the Baldwin, Chickering and Sons, Wurlitzer, Hamilton, and Howard names. (Today, Baldwin Piano Company is a subsidiary of Gibson Guitar Company).

To sum up, "Baldwin", which has produced pianos under the Chickering and Sons name for several years, is already listed in the section Well-known piano makers. --ANCJensen (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

numerical error

The article states that the piano keyboard runs from A0 to C8, but that would entail 59 white keys. Surely that should read A1 to C8, yielding the correct 52 whites. (A1 through B7 equals 7 octaves times 7 white keys each, or 49, plus 3 more for A8 through C8 gives the desired 52 whites. That puts middle C, C4, in the right place too. This can also be verified simply by counting on the Steinway photograph.) I think this error appears in several places. I haven't edited anything because I am a coward, but someone should take a look at it. Pab8888 (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Middle C is C4. Go up by octaves to the highest note on the piano -- C5, C6, C7, -- and you see it's C8. The note below middle C is B3. Now go down to the bottom of the piano by octaves -- C4, C3, C2, C1. The notes below C1 are B0, Bb0, and A0. So the piano keyboard goes from A0 to C8. Antandrus (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Also have a look at piano key frequencies which has a helpful chart with the note names/numbers. Antandrus (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the B below middle-C B4? Surely the key just south of C4 is B4, and B3 is over an octave away. 68.8.235.164 (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope -- C4 starts the octave, going up (i.e. D4 is the note above and B3 the note below). Here is a non-Wikipedia page explaining how the note numbering system works. We're evidently using the "Acoustical Society of America" system, i.e. the yellow line on their chart. Here is an even better explanation -- see the "Naming the Octaves" section. Antandrus (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, paint me yellow and call me a taxi! I stand corrected. But who would have thought to increment the subscript at C instead of at A -- considering that (1) A is the first letter of the alphabet, and especially that (2) the standard keyboard starts with an A! All this because C-major happily has no flats or sharps to worry about? I am wondering how long ago this convention was established? (Thanks for your patience with my ignori....) Pab8888 (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the "standard keyboard" historically started at C. The keyboard of most organs still does, and it is probably the organ that has had the most influence on these conventions, not the piano which, after all, is a comparatively recent invention. If memory serves, Michael Praetorius already was using this convention in the early 17th century, and organ tablature probably carries the practice back another century or three.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's hard to give that one a short answer -- this goes back to the Middle Ages and then to Boethius and Greek music theory before that. If you go to this page and jump down to the section "The Hexachord" you will see the entire universe of notes as they existed a thousand years ago, during the time of Guido of Arezzo; A was the first and lowest note, with "gamma" ("G") a downward extension. (By the way, before someone yells at me for going off-topic, we have a reference desk for general questions that might be missed on an individual article's talk page.) "Middle C" is quite literally the note in the middle of that scheme, thus its name. Antandrus (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Diagrams

The diagrams in this article seem very good, but they would be helped by having legends for the 'number balloons' included in their captions. Could the owner of the diagrams or someone who is familiar with the components add these? 80.229.172.13 (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Main piano picture

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

JAL78 (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Fanoftheworld. As they were the only one arguing for the change in the photo, I don't think anything else is required here. - SudoGhost 04:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

---

I dislike the Steinway picture with the white background, for the following reasons: it's devoid of context, showing neither the keyboard in full nor where the player sits. Imagine a naive reader from a culture with no understanding of what a piano is, at all. While the shiny Steinway is excellent technically, it's not as useful encyclopedically as the picture of the Bösendorfer in a room with a bench. Antandrus (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I got an edit conflict when creating a section about the image, so I thought it would be better just to comment here. I don't think an image being "featured" on commons is reason alone to replace other images, because being featured does not mean it is useful to an article. In addition to what Antandrus said above, the image File:Steinway & Sons concert grand piano, model D-274, manufactured at Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany.png does not show the keys very well, which is a key part of what a piano is. That image may be very good for someone wanting to know about Steinway & Sons, but for a general piano knowledge, that doesn't seem to be the best image to have in the infobox. - SudoGhost 22:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This photo is a featured picture. Featured pictures are images that the Commons community has chosen to be highlighted as some of the very best on Commons, because of the pictures technically standard and the subject the pictures show. Personal views such as "Not as nice a photograph as the Bösendorfer..." are not significant. --JAL78 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As I already said, being a featured picture does not matter. "The best on Commons" is not the same as "The best for this article", or "Most informative for the purposes of the Piano article." - SudoGhost 23:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict). This is exactly why I have been reverting the photo. A good illustration (as opposed to a technically good photograph) should also include some idea of the size of a piano. As I said in one of my edit comments, in the proposed replacement photo the piano could be the size of a cigarette lighter or the size of an ocean liner—there is no reference even for this, let alone the human element.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no discussion about that the Steinway picture is a featured picture on Commons and that the Bösendorfer picture is not a featured picture at all. There is no discussion about that featured pictures on Commons are not only featured because of the pictures technically standard but also because of the importance of the subject that the picture shows. Please, do not forget that featured pictures are not featured just because of a technical standard. The Steinway picture is featured because of an election – your opinions about the Steinway picture and the Bösendorfer picture are just personal opinions. --JAL78 (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That the picture is featured on Commons has no bearing on its usefulness as an image on any given article. It was considered a good picture on Commons, this does not automatically mean that it is a good picture FOR any and all purpose. - SudoGhost 23:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. Also, we form consensus on en: independently of Commons. Featured status on Commons is actually irrelevant to the use of the image for a specific purpose elsewhere. There are numerous excellent reasons given here why that particular picture is not the best image for the lede of our main article on the instrument. Antandrus (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured pictures on Commons are by election found to be of high technically quality and also found to show an important subject. The Steinway picture shows only a piano and nothing else, so the important subject can only be the piano. This article is about pianos.

I see no evidence for the picture of a Bösendorfer piano (which is not a typical piano) should be good as the main photo. --JAL78 (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

For the last time, the "Featured picture" status doesn't matter one bit, period. Being a good picture and being a useful picture do not go hand in hand. The fact that the Steinway picture is simply a piano is actually a bad thing, as explained above. How do you gain an understanding of the proportion of a piano from that image? You cannot. The Steinway image has no focus on the keys, you can hardly see them at all, which is an important aspect of a piano. - SudoGhost 23:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I see objective reasons for having the Steinway picture as the main photo – it's featured, which means that is shows an important object. There are for the time being no objective reasons for having the Bösendorfer piano as the main photo. A reason like "The Steinway image has no focus on the keys, you can hardly see them at all, which is an important aspect of a piano." is just personal. I don't waist any users time on hearing my personal opinions. --JAL78 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll say this one final time, this is not Commons. Being featured on Commons as a good picture does not translate to being a useful picture in any way. It is not a good photo for this purpose, for the reasons listed above. - SudoGhost 00:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't have any objective reasons for having the Bösendorfer picture as the main picture. The only reasons you are able to write are your personal reasons, that is why you don't answer my question.

There are objective reasons for having the Steinway picture as the main photo. --JAL78 (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Then give them. - SudoGhost 00:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Seems you already have, the featured image thing. Just so I understand, you're saying that the opinions of editors do not matter regarding the usefulness of an image, because editors on commons have given their own opinions on if an image is good or not (nor useful, but good). Their opinions culminate in the image being a "featured image". Their opinions are no more or less objective, the only difference being that theirs is regarding if the image is "good", the opinions here are regarding if the image is "useful for this purpose". - SudoGhost 00:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, the picture of the Bösendorfer piano shows more about what a piano is. The keyboard is plainly visible, with the frame partly visible. The bench and surrounding features in the room provide useful context. The Steinway picture is sterile and clinical, shot from a much less informative angle. That it is a featured image on the Commons has nothing to do with its appropriateness in the infobox of this article. Bösendorfer and Steinway are both well-regarded marques, but with that said, the brand of piano should play no role in choosing this image. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Answer to User:SudoGhost: Seems you've misunderstood my argumentation.

The Steinway picture is a featured picture on Commons, which indicates that it is a very good picture because of both the technical standard and because of the object it shows.

The Bösendorfer picture is not a featured picture on any Wikimedia projects.

Conclusion: 1-0 to the Steinway picture.

And then we can start talking about the subjective reasons like one of my claims about the Steinway piano being much more often found in recordings, concerts, conservatories, homes etc. than the Bösendorfer, which is rarely seen and heard compared to the Steinway, meaning that the Steinway piano is a typical piano and very appropriate as main picture. --JAL78 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You're "objective" reason is subjective in itself, see above. - SudoGhost 00:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Here is a link to the discussion on Commons, for those interested. The discussion centers on technical aspects of the photograph -- not on its usefulness in any context. We have listed fine and objective reasons here why the photograph of the Bösendorfer is better for this article, including context, visibility of the keyboard, and scale -- it's impossible on the Steinway picture for a naive reader to tell how big the thing is! Please, these are objective reasons. Antandrus (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Second answer to User:SudoGhost: When politicians talk and discuss it is opinions. When politicians come to an agreement the opinions become law. Opinions are subjective, law is objective. (And as Calvin Coolidge said: "One with the law is a majority.")

I don't understand what you mean by: "You're 'objective' reason is subjective in itself, see above." --JAL78 (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comparison is horribly flawed. If politicians pass a law saying "murder is bad", it's still subjective. The "featured image" status on Commons is not a law, it is a consensus. There is a consensus on that image that it is good. Furthermore, there is consensus on this article that the image is not good for the article. - SudoGhost 01:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"If politicians pass a law saying 'murder is bad', it's still subjective.", wrong, then it becomes objective. The law is objective and laywers only use objective argumentation. Again, social science isn't your strong side so you're of course not in position to make comments like "Your comparison is horribly flawed." --JAL78 (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You're personal attack aside, I'll explain this one again. "Murder is bad" is a statement, an opinion. Politicians can pass a law based on this opinion, but "Murder is bad" is not a law. "Murder is illegal" can become a law based on that, but the "Murder is bad" opinion is still that, an opinion. Furthermore, to be a "featured image" is not a law, it is a consensus. The same as this process, a consensus. You cannot argue that the featured image consensus is objective, but yet this consensus is somehow subjective. This hypocrisy is why your comparison is horribly flawed at the most basic level. - SudoGhost 03:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

To User:Antandrus: Regarding your "Here is a link to the discussion on Commons, for those interested. The discussion centers on technical aspects of the photograph -- not on its usefulness in any context." You have absolutely no knowledge about what reasons the voters had for their votes! Your comment is not usefull. Before participating in this discussion you, User:SudoGhost and User:Jerome Kohl should have known that for featured pictures on Commons, many voters legitimately believe that a technically ordinary picture of an extraordinary subject can be perceived as a more valuable picture than a technically excellent picture of an ordinary subject. Many other voters equally legitimately believe that each image should be judged purely on its own merits. For example, a technically compromised shot of an important event will often receive some support because of the importance of the event depicted and an equal quantity of opposition because of the technical quality. Featured pictures on Commons are not featured just because of its technically standard as you, User:SudoGhost and User:Jerome Kohl think and keep saying again and again and again and again and again and... --JAL78 (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said anything about "technically standard" in any form. What I did say is that it being featured on Commons means absolutely nothing for this article. Being a good image, and being a useful image for an article, are completely different beasts. - SudoGhost 01:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

1st step: The Steinway picture is a featured picture on Commons, which indicates that it is a very good picture because of both the technical standard and because of the object it shows.

2nd step: The Bösendorfer picture is not a featured picture on any Wikimedia projects.

3rd step: Conclusion: 1-0 to the Steinway picture.

And then we can start talking about the subjective reasons like one of my claims about the Steinway piano being much more often found in recordings, concerts, conservatories, homes etc. than the Bösendorfer, which is rarely seen and heard compared to the Steinway, meaning that the Steinway piano is a typical piano and very appropriate as main picture.

I don't understand what you mean by: "You're 'objective' reason is subjective in itself, see above." --JAL78 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot count how many times it's been explained that the featured picture status is irrelevant. Sadly, someone isn't listening. There's no point in continuing this discussion, everything you're saying has already been addressed. Unless the consensus changes, there no reason to change the image. - SudoGhost 01:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

JAL, please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. We have given objective reasons and you're dodging them. Antandrus (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

For the 3rd[3][4] time: I don't understand what you (User:SudoGhost) mean by: "You're 'objective' reason is subjective in itself, see above." Is it just some nonsense because you again misunderstood me?[5][6] --JAL78 (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That has already been explained. Your argument that "featured picture" is objective when editor consensus here is subjective is ironic, as "featured picture" is achieved by exactly the same process, consensus. - SudoGhost 01:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, social science isn't your strong side. What part of the following didn't you understand: "Second answer to User:SudoGhost: When politicians talk and discuss it is opinions. When politicians come to an agreement the opinions become law. Opinions are subjective, law is objective. (And as Calvin Coolidge said: 'One with the law is a majority.')"? The Steinway picture is by a formal election found to be featured content, and the Steinway picture meets the criteria for being up for election (high resolution etc.). The formal election is a very high degree of consensus. The opinions above by very very few users are of course of a much lower degree of "consensus". --JAL78 (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Since we're back to playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I'll let you read over this talk page, it already addresses this more times than I'd care to count. Unless something else is brought up, something that cannot be answered by what is already discussed in this section, I have no intention of responding further. - SudoGhost 01:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you didn't understand "When politicians talk and discuss it is opinions. When politicians come to an agreement the opinions become law. Opinions are subjective, law is objective." --JAL78 (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[7] - SudoGhost 02:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you didn't understand. --JAL78 (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the others that the Bosendorfer photograph is more useful, that it gives proper context. Binksternet (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Steinway conflict of interest

After examining the editing style of JAL78 on English Wikipedia and also on other language Wikipedias, I have concluded that JAL78 edits here as an agent of Steinway & Sons. Here are the articles in which JAL78 replaced some other piano make with a Steinway:

• En: [8]
• bg: [9]
• Da: [10]
• De: [11]
• Fi Piano: [12]
• Fi Flyygeli: [13]
• Fr: [14]
• Kk: [15]
• Nl: [16]
• No: [17]
• Ru: [18]
• Simple: [19]
• Uk: [20]

I notified JAL78 of my conclusion on the editor's own talk page but I did not get a response to confirm or deny. At any rate, I am dealing with this situation as if JAL78 has a conflict of interest. Binksternet (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cleanup after edit war

JAL78 stayed at or under 3RR on several of those other wikis, but it looks like a clear pattern of edit warring. There may be some other sockpuppetry going on, for example at the German encyclopedia. Cleanup continues on the French one. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Piano in intro

The picture in the introduction was of only a grand piano. Well, the probably most played piano is the upright piano. Like other articles ("violin", "flute" etc.) the photo in the introduction can be a photo of more than just one object.

What do you think about my solution: a picture of the two must played pianos - a grand piano (the same one as before) and an upright piano? Should the picture be changed back to the one of only the grand piano? Or should the picture of two pianos be changed? Let me hear what you think. Thanks.

Best, --Oldenergy (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC).

On the image on the right, did you mirror the image? Is that why the bass appears to be on the right? Antandrus (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that nobody could see that, but they could so I've changed the picture. The one on the right isn't mirror anymore. Best, --Oldenergy (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC).

I am afraid Oldenergy is in a serious conflict of interest, just like JAL78 and others before. See here. Or visit the ‘piano’ article on any Wikipedia. --BoyBoy (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The photo in the introduction of the English violin article is two views of a single instrument. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This is Oldenergy′s minimal programme (making a non-Steinway shrink and its name disappear). This is ‘better’ (making a non-Steinway shrink and its name disappear, adding two Steinways at the same time). This is ‘best’ (leaving just Steinway pictures in an article). --BoyBoy (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Oldenergy will be blocked indefinitely within the next day or so. Of course, we will get another Steinway sockpuppet after that. Welcome to Whack-A--Mole, Steinway version. Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Gig" piano

In section 2.3 (Keyboard) there is mention of a gig piano having only 65 keys. Although it seems legit to me, I could not find any information on it. Anybody has a source for this bit of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Célestin le Possédé (talk • contribs) 05:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, what is the range of these pianos? Célestin le Possédé (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Fortepian - schemat.svg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Fortepian - schemat.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 18, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-01-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 20:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Schematic diagram of a piano, one of the most popular musical instruments in the world. The diagram (see legend) shows a grand piano, one of two basic piano configurations, the other being the upright piano. Full-size grand pianos are preferred for concerts, because larger pianos with longer strings have larger, richer sound and lower inharmonicity of the strings.Image: Olek Remesz/Bechstein

Schematic diagram ?

I am not at all convinced that this so-called schematic diagram, is in fact a schematic diagram. I think it should be called a cross-section.Eregli bob (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Where is it? -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You are right. I did a 'Find' on [ schematic ] and found the section/word which I changed as follows: "A pictorial depiction of the construction of a pianoforte". -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narnia.Gate7 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: The diagram looks wrong (was: "Explain the 8 and 15 in the diagram which shows the range of the piano?")

Update: Ok, I got some clue to the answer from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Modern_musical_symbols#Octaves. However, that prompts a 2nd question or comment--the diagram looks wrong. The lowest note on the normal (i.e., 88 key) piano is A0. The lowest note shown here seems to be a C, in fact, I think it is C1 (or, or C0 if played one octave lower).

Further, I don't know why the A is shown to the right of the C (and, if I count right, that is A1, or A0 if played one octave lower.

Ok, now I'm beginning to sense what is going on--I guess that is intended to show the extended range on some pianos, like the Bosendorfs (one of which goes down to C0), or the Stuart and Sons 102 key piano, but that goes from C0 to F8, and that extension (those extensions) to the high side are not shown.

In conclusion, I think the diagram is confusing. Maybe it should just show the range for the normal 88 key piano?

Original question:

I think the easiest way to ask my question is this--please look at the grand staff shown in the box in the upper right hand corner of the page intended to show the range of the piano.

Notice the use of the 8 and the 15--presumably, they are somehow allowing the entire 7 octave range of the piano to be shown on the grand staff, which normally can show only about 4 octaves.

Can someone explain how to interpret those marks (and any other marks on the grand staff that are relevant to my question)?

Shouldn't that be explained somewhere in the article on the Musical Staff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_staff)?

(Note that I've put essentially the same question on the talk page of the Musical Staff page, in hope that someone with the relevant knowledge will find the question one place or the other.)

Rhkramer (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

List of musical symbols#Octave signs. Double sharp (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

These diagrams...

There are at least two diagrams in this article that have a description that says "click for page with legend". With the introduction of Media Viewer, however, this no longer works. What to do? Eman235/talk 09:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Eman235: Easy one! Click the blue 'More details' button immediately under the illustration. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@DieSwartzPunkt: Yah, since I posted that they've added a great big button that's hard to miss, unlike the original tiny little button. It does still seem a little stilted, though...click for page with legend, wait, where's the legend? Okay, more details, now there it is. Maybe a slight change in the wording? Eman235/talk 03:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Techniques section

The recently created Techniques section was deleted (@Waldhorn) with the note: "Technique is a subtopic of Piano history and musical performance or Piano pedagogy. I restored the section because it begins to address an that, at least at present, is not covered elsewhere in this article, or in the two other articles mentioned, namely, how a piano is played.

Any musical instrument article seems well-served by a simple Playing section, where physical and mental aspects of actual using the instrument to good effect are set forth, as distinct from mechanical features, teaching methods, and so on. And the main article seems to be the useful place for it to be, with subarticles developed as needed.

Since there is no set format for musical instrument articles in WP (compare violin, guitar, drums, etc), and a Playing section is not uncommon, I believe Techniques should be let stand so it can hopefully evolve. Deletion in the absence of duplication seems counterproductive. Cheers. --Tsavage (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Technique section was created through a university piano repertoire class project to address what we saw was an oversight in the WP entry. We agree with Tsavage: there is no set format for musical instrument articles, and many have sections on Technique. Why not piano? In addition, many piano pedagogues with insight into piano technique -including two mentioned in our edit - are not covered in WP. They certainly deserve their own entries, and to be linked to a section on Technique or Playing in the main Piano article. Like Tsavage, we are hoping our addition of a section on Technique will evolve and become more comprehensive. Thank you. WCUPA235F14 (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Tsavage has added a new floating 'technique' section. However it's properly a subtopic of piano performance-related articles such as Piano history and musical performance or Piano pedagogy. Alternately, perhaps the material from the new 'technique' section could be worked into the existing History > 'History and musical performance' section, although I believe that even there it would burden the article with excess detail that would be better covered in Piano history and musical performance. I've reverted the addition of this material—twice now—and would like to build consensus on if, or how, this material might appear. —Waldhorn (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Waldhorn: Your rationale for removing material that is not duplicated elsewhere in this article is excess detail and you are of an opinion that matters of piano playing belong in other articles. As a fellow editor, I generally disagree with the idea of removing otherwise acceptable material because it is, in someone's opinion, in the "wrong place" or simply "too much information." Instead, reposition it, re-title it, edit it, do something positive to improve, rather than reject, seems the more constructive course, especially when that is easily done (as it was here).

In this particular case:

• There is no apparent Wikipedia consensus on whether musical instrument articles should have a section on playing technique. Some do and some don't, e.g. drums, guitar, violin (while a Playing section does seem common), so the question is, should piano be a particular case where no Playing/Ttechnique section should be allowed?.
• The piano article is overall not great (IMO, of course), and could use a good deal of editing to improve organization and writing quality. For one particularly relevant example, the History section indicates no main history article (but has a See also to Fortepiano and Bartolomeo Cristofori), while the History subsection, History and musical performance, points to Main article: Piano history and musical performance with duplicated material everywhere.

I've always seen Wikipedia as thriving on good faith additions being given a chance to develop. Here, someone made the effort to contribute material that was succinct, well-written and on-point, with five solid book sources, and that led to two new article entries (Fred Karpoff and Otto Ortmann, stubs I started) - it seems discourteous to simply toss out a person's contribution on easily remedied technicalities.

Looking forward to all response. :) --Tsavage (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Your reintegration of the new material into the article appears to rationalize the edits, so I support your recent changes. Thank you for making them. A note regarding process: Reverting undesirable edits is an option permitted under WP:CYCLE. With respect to your comments characterizing editor behavior when choosing to revert an article, it's best to WP:Assume good faith. Cheers. —Waldhorn (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

One reversion, I generally assume good faith. On a collaborative project, it's a pretty big step, deleting someone else's work based solely your own editorial opinion (in this case, yours was: "Technique is a subtopic of Piano history and musical performance or Piano pedagogy."...really?...says who?). Still, be bold. However, a second reversion, ignoring an editorial comment (I reverted your reversion with the comment: "undid previous content deletion, it removes material otherwise not available in this and related articles"), seems to me more about holding your position than collaboration. Unless it is copyvio or something else legally detrimental to WP, discussion should ensue before a serial second reversion.

You cite WP:CYCLE, which says right up top: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen." You've now accepted the copy exactly as it was, so clearly you consider it an improvement. Based on your reversion comment, why didn't you then simply cut and paste it under the section you suggested? Wouldn't that be considered an immediate fix? Instead, you chose to keep reverting. Hence, my reaction... Cheers. --Tsavage (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Reorganized the article

I went ahead and boldly reorganized the entire article one solid step in the direction I could see it heading in with the addition of the Technique section. Hopefully, that renders the above moot and done with. Or, comment here! --Tsavage (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)