Talk:Piano/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 1 |

Archive 2

| Archive 3 →

What did this mean? =

I removed this bit from the article: "Similarly, the classical composers sometimes wrote passages in which a lower violin line accompanies a higher piano line in parallel; this was a reasonable thing to do at a time when piano tone was more penetrating than violin tone; today it is the reverse." Did it mean to say "when piano tone was less penetrating than violin tone? Why would it nowadays be unreasonable? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I, too, am curious which sentence is intended. Can someone explain what it means to be penetrating? Is that a reference to the way low frequencies tend to propagate through the atmosphere with less diminution than high frequencies do? I don't own a piano, and I am a little bit hard of hearing. That's why I'm asking.

Hello,

A while ago I moved this material to Piano history and musical performance, and redid it hopefully to be clearer--it now quotes Rosen, my source, rather than trying to explain it myself. I suggest looking there. However, if you want the full explanation starting from Square One, read on...

Generally when two musical lines occur in parallel, it's the top one that listeners hear as "the melody". Composers put the melody on the top line because it's more easily heard there; it stands out. For the same reason, composers tend to assign the melody to an instrument that is more "penetrating". By "penetrating", I mean (and Rosen means) that the sound comes through clearly to the ear even when other instruments are being played at the same time. Back in the 18th century, the piano was more penetrating in this sense than it is today. The violin was less penetrating. If you will listen to recordings of the same pieces (for violin and piano) played on modern vs. period instruments I think you will find this to be intuitively clear. Note that "penetrating", used in Rosen's sense, does not mean "loud"; the comparison assumes equal loudness.

What, then, makes an instrument more "penetrating"? I suspect this is something science has not yet fully worked out. Johan Sundberg, in his book The Science of the Singing Voice, describes the so-called "singer's formant", a concentration of acoustic energy around 3500 hertz, which enables a tenor voice to stand out over an orchestra. I would guess that, in similar fashion, penetrating piano tone or violin tone results from strong acoustic energy in the higher regions of the spectrum, rather like the singer's formant. In the early piano, this could have been the result of the hammers being narrower and covered with leather, not felt. Modern violins may sound more penetrating because (as Rosen notes) they have longer, tenser strings.

I hope this helps. Opus33 22:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Lid up or down??

Does it make a physical difference - heavier or lighter touch, feel - if one is playing the piano with the lid is up or down? lew 17:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The lid doesn't engage the action in any way, so literally speaking, no.

However, especially on a grand, lowering the lid makes a huge difference in volume and timbre, and a player might subjectively experience a different "touch" as (s)he unconsciously played harder in compensating for the muffled sound. But this would be psychological, not physical.

I hope this helps.

Opus33 23:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing the music rack also makes a difference - a performer who can play from memory, may prefer to remove the music rack - that rack impedes some sound from reaching the performer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.224.53.163 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It does a little bit. I haven't often seen performers remove it unless they intend to reach inside the piano to play the strings, as sometimes happens in works of the last 100 years or so. By the way, would you please sign your talk page posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of your posts? (The ~ character is found at the top left of your keyboard if you hold shift.) - Rainwarrior 04:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Recently I was at a performance of 4 pianists. 1st one played from music. 2nd from memory - he removed the rack, 3rd from music, rack back on, 4th from memory - slid the rack back off. This was a Steinway Grand, Model B. None of the performers reached inside the piano. 63.224.53.163 Quinton 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So our various experiences differ. Of course, the small difference in sound to the performer is not the only reason for removing the rack. It also functions a signal to your audience that you are playing from memory (which is an issue that many pianists feel is very important). - Rainwarrior 23:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

References?

Great work on this article! Well-written and great info. I'd love to nominate it for featured status, but I don't imagine it'll get too far since there aren't any references here...just "further reading." Could some contributors simply add where they got some of this info? I'd be happy to put it up for peer review and send it through the process to become featured. Chadley99 00:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Chadley,

I've added a few more references and reformatted the section.

I do encourage you not to nominate this article for Featured status. It's not really of Featured quality yet. Also, to tell you the truth, my experience is that such nominations tend to attract harmful edits from people who don't know the topic very well. Better, I think, to let it evolve slowly through the contributions of editors who have read a lot about pianos. I'm gradually improving my own knowledge through reading, and I encourage others to do the same. This is the best route to Featured status, I feel.

One other bit: people will notice your contributions to Discussion pages more easily if you put them at the bottom, not the top. Cheers, Opus33 18:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Piano Brand List?

I'd like to see a list of modern piano brands with short comments...

That would be cool. I have a good site for it-- I just need to find it. (I've been on it a long while ago, so give me time.) But I'll letcha know, anyhow. If anyone else has something, that would be pretty shibby too. =0) TommyBoy76 02:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I take that back; I just found a site. [[1]] It's got everything. We can pick out a few favorites and do extended research on it because the website does not give a description. TommyBoy76 03:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Grand piano picture

The picture at the top of the page doesn't show the form of a grand piano clearly. Does anyone have a photo which does? Athenaeum 23:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Done, using commons (you may need to reload the page since I had to change the Piano.jpg en.wikipedia.org image!) -- ClementSeveillac 11:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A Newbie's Complaint

A new user who is a pianist and owns a digital piano complained about his contributions being reverted yet there was nothing really wrong with his edits. Please, if you are not a regular contributor to this article, do not simply revert edits unless it is vandalism. If you dispute an edit it should be discussed here so editors, who are knowledgeable on the subject, can comment and take action accordingly. --ElectricEye 13:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Electric Eye,

I checked the edits involved, and in fact there is something very wrong with them--there are no reference sources! That's why they were reverted.

In fact, I'm rather worried that you may have been welcoming new participants into the Wikipedia without informing them of our organization's policy, which is that edits without reference sources are not permitted.

I urge you to carefully read Wikipedia:Verifiability, which contains the official policy in this area. Once you have done this, make sure that the people you are welcoming are also aware of the policy. If the new users will read this page along with the tutorial pages it links to, they will also learn how to cite sources.

Sincerely, Opus33 16:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources should be referenced, I agree. Verifiability is a part of my welcoming message and I personally offered help to the new user asking about referencing in this particular case. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Piano Technique?

Is there a separate article for various aspects of playing the piano, eg fingering, pedalling etc.etc? If not I think there should be, or a separate section here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kisch (talk • contribs) 3 May 2006.

Have you, um...well have you read the article? Try doing that and maybe someone won't have to answer. TommyBoy76 11:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Er yes - there is a great deal about the mechanical development of the piano, but no separate section about the technique of playing the piano. So how does reading the article answer my question 'is there a separate article for various aspsects of playing the piano'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kisch (talk • contribs) 16 May 2006.

I suppose you just answered your own question, eh? Sign your name with four tildes so we know who you are and how long the discussion has been going on. :) TommyBoy76 01:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Sorry, Kisch, I think a simple "no" would have been a better answer to your initial question. If you can contribute to an article called, say, piano technique please go ahead. However, it needs to be an encyclopedia article, rather than a how-to or teaching aid! If you want the latter, then some of the external links listed in the article might help you, or there is a nascent piano book over at Wikibooks. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I might get one started when I have a bit of time - I wasn't thinking of a howto, just a summary of various schools of thought etc. Thanks for your help. Kisch 17:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh. Didn't mean to sound like a dick. It was pretty black and white so I thought I would side with Mr. Socrates on that one and let think for yourself. Mr. Shaw might say, "No question is so difficult to answer as that to which the answer is obvious." TommyBoy76 12:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Sorry, not signing is a bad habit of mine. But I did ask whether there was a separate ARTICLE, not a separate section in this article - rather than telling me to read the article, perhaps you should have read my question! Kisch 17:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, sorry. Not-reading-correctly is a bad habit of mine. ;) Well, I did not read or skim or whathaveyou any of the articles. But I punched in on search "piano playing technique" and this seemed to have descriptions of things that you are looking for....erm so I assume, of what you are looking for. Once again, sincerest apologies. TommyBoy76 19:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Vandalism

i took off the headings poop, cheese, and melissa skar in the heading other types of pianos. everyone knows poop cheese and melissa are not other types of pianos. that was an act of vandalism!!! Lakeoftea 15:06 CST, 04 Jun 2006

Another act of vandalism - Where did this test come from ? See, there is this cult called the Hanukkah cult. Everything is connected to it. It's kind of like the number Pi. The first words every one knows are the basis to leading to the cult. The words are as follows: gaggle, which leads to gagel, which leads to dradel, which leads to harmonica, which finaly leads to Hanukkah.

good links, not spam

There is a significant difference between an instructional link and spam. Please discuss concerns/objections before removing good and helpful information. Thank you. my2cents 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Herz modifications

As revised by Henri Herz about 1840, the double escapement action ultimately became the standard action for grand pianos,

Is there reference for this date? - Mireut 16:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to 1850s since there's no forthcoming reference. Fétis doesn't mention it, either, but writes Herz association with Klepfer was not successful, and his famous 1845-1851 tour was an attempt for advertisement, meanwhile the factory didn't prosper in his absence. It is in 1855 when they got a lot of notice at the expo. Mireut 19:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I checked a reproduction from the 1843 patent that definitely does not show the one implied, but then one guessed date is not better than another. Mireut 14:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Subsequent improvements on Sébastien Érard's double repetition escapement (as patented in 1921) were numerous, but hardly worth mentioning. You may find details (or links to them) at The Piano Technicians Guild's website at http://www.ptg.org D021317c 15:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Felt hammers

I replaced this, The harder, tauter steel strings required a softer hammer type to maintain good tone quality. It was introduced as a labor saving device, here's from the Reports from the International Jury from the 1855 Exhibition,

Inégale d'épaisseur et d'élasticité, la peau de daim opposait souvent de grands obstacles dans l'opérations de la garniture. Quelquefois il fallait lui faire subire une tension énergique en l'appliquant sur la tête du marteau, et à côté du même morceau on en trouvait un autre trop mince, auquel il fallait laisser tout son moelleux. La délicatesse suffisante du tact dans la main du garnisseur était une qualité fort rare ; de là une inégalité choquante dans la nature des sons des pianos.

Mireut 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I find no fault in the original statement. A consequence of increased string tension was less lost energy in the entire string-soundboard-case assembly, which made the noise of the impact of hard hammers louder. Softer hammers reduced that noise. The French paragraph you quote doesn't address that issue, but whether leather coverings, with their attendant quality-control issues, were needed. Eliminating them did save labor (they proved unnecessary) but the naked felt did indeed make "a softer hammer". Note, however, that it wasn't until around World War I, with improvements in the metallurgy and manufacture of piano wire (and competitions encouraging them), that string tensions approached their modern heights. D021317c 16:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Playing hard

The Piano article says playing a piano key "hard" plays louder. I think velocity is more important. If you play slow, and eventually push "hard" the sound will not be as loud as if the key is depressed rapidly. {{subst:unisgned2|00:12, 20 July 2006|63.224.53.163}}

I would agree. I've removed the word hard. - Rainwarrior 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Consider that in physics, "energy" and "work" are synonymous, and in human terms, so is "effort". It's the kinetic energy imparted to the key which is turned into acoustic energy. Making that effort is well expressed by "hard". Consider, too, that since the mass of the hammer is constant, its kinetic energy depends only on its velocity, which in turn depends only on the energy imparted to it, so increasing its velocity requires a harder keystroke. D021317c 16:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Tuning

This line, in the main aritlce, is confusion about "stretching"

This is so that the strings can be tuned closer to equal temperament in relation to the standard pitch with less stretching.

I understand about tuning the bass of the piano "flat" and the treble "sharp" so overtones of inharmonic strings agree - but "stretching" here is not clear about that.

Also, this line talks about small pianos vs large pianos - but I know some Steinway D's (9' pianos) are tuned with a great deal of stretch.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.224.53.163 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it did seem a bit ambiguous. I changed the wording and added a link to Piano tuning where it is better explained. As for Steinway Ds, I don't know those pianos, but physically a longer string, with all other factors being equal, is less inharmonic. There may be other factors at play, such as soundboard resonance, but with regards to string inharmonicity, it is in general correct. - Rainwarrior 04:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Steinway has changed the model D to a model C! ( Follow this link, if it works: http://www.steinway.com/steinway/catalogue/models.shtml ) That is, the models C and D were of the same design, except that the best model C's were taken off the line for special treatment. Usually, they were beefed up with two longitudinal ribs on the long side, they were specially voiced and "brought up" by Steinway technicians, and they weren't sold, but leased and tended by technicians employed by Steinway, who cooperated with pianists to please them as much as possible. Now that model D's are being sold, they're indistinguishable from the old model C's. But few concert pianists would want either model tuned with "a lot of stretch" -- certainly not much compared with smaller instruments! I've often discovered (even to the amazement of pianists who thought that's what they wanted) that their large grands needed to be tuned more conservatively. Strangely, they knew the top octave was out of tune, but didn't realize it was sharp, and had always asked for more stretch! It must be a recognized auditory illusion. D021317c 11:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

String Instrument?

Hi, non-member here. I was reading your article when I noticed that in the topic summary, at the top of the page, the piano is referred to as being variously classified as a keyboard, percussion, or string instrument. I have heard it classified as a keyboard, but as a musician I believed that it was more accurately known as a percussion instrument, the reason being that the hammers *hit* the strings, the trademark of a perc instrument. As for a being a string instrument, I am relatively sure that that is simply a common misperception. Even though it has strings, they must be plucked or bowed to make it a proper string instrument. Could someone clear this up, or make an appropriate edit? (Also, consider putting a list of great pianists at the end of the article. 63.43.18.122 22:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a string instrument because it has strings that are played. The method in which the strings are played is irrelevant. It is both percussion and string, as well as keyboard, as these all refer to specific parts of its mechanism. The only thing it is not is a member of the orchestral string section, which refers only to violins, violas, cellos and bases, and excludes everything else (guitars, banjos, viola da gambas, etc.). - Rainwarrior 23:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Illustration

This image would be very helpful for the article, but needs an explanation (if only for the numbering). I'm sure someone here could provide that and add it to the article (and the image description). DirkvdM 09:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added an English section to the image description page over at Wikimedia Commons, to label each of the numbers in English. I wasn't able to fill in all the labels, maybe someone else here can finish it. --Dbolton 08:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I filled in the blanks on the English version plus edited annotations which were incorrect. I've used names which are most commonly used. My source is "Piano Parts and Their Functions", Merle H. Mason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.220.66.57 (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Excellent job, but note that this terminology, which varies slightly among manufacturers, is American. In England, it's different. See, for example, http://www.amarilli.co.uk/piano/graparnt.asp D021317c 16:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The separate article pianoforte

Someone has put up a separate article claiming that "pianoforte" designates a different instrument from "piano". I believe this is an error; "pianoforte" is simply the older and more formal term for "piano".

To give some evidence: the New Grove places its article for "piano" under the title "pianoforte". The Grove Jazz encyclopedia places its article under "piano", but gives the full title as "Piano [pianoforte]". Neither work describes "pianoforte" as being a different instrument fromt the "piano".

Can anyone provide any documented evidence (that is, actually citing something; not just your own intuition) that "pianoforte" means something different from "piano"? If not, I will return "pianoforte" to its former status as a redirect.

Thanks, Opus33 14:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

That someone was me (as the article history would easily have told you).

Try http://www.mhks.org/whatare.htm : Fortepiano and Pianoforte (forte = loud, piano = soft) are two terms which were used in earlier times to describe earlier relatives of our modern piano. These terms are now used to describe historical pianos as distinguished from the modern concert grand.

I appreciate that Grove has not yet adopted this usage. By the same token, the latest Oxford Companion to Music has added an article on electric instruments, but does not yet mention the electric guitar. (;-> (Perhaps they are waiting for evidence that musicians will some day adopt it.)

There are a number of reproduction instruments available for hire in the Sydney and Canberra areas, representing periods too recent to be described as fortepiano but still significantly different to a modern piano, and regularly used for authentic performance. These are described in concert advertising and the like as pianofortes, I believe quite correctly. On the other hand, the many firms that describe themselves as pianoforte suppliers are, I believe, being rather precious (unless of course their name dates back to when that usage was current).

Hmmm. Is there anywhere else that this content could better go, if Wikipedia is not yet ready for this (admitedly recent) usage? See also Talk:Pianoforte. Andrewa 01:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello guys. Shouldn't the pianoforte article be merged with this one, then? Lady Nimue of the Lake 07:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have very often seen and hear "pianoforte" used specifically to refer to pianos of the older design. Though I am having trouble grasping the difference between pianoforte and fortepiano. From what I've seen, in this kind of usage the two terms are interchangeable (I've seen Malcolm Bilson billed as playing one or the other depending on whomever wrote the programme, I guess). Shouldn't pianoforte redirect to fortepiano with a disambiguation link to piano at the top? - Rainwarrior 15:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Is fortepiano common in English before recently? I don't remember reading it in anything from 1800s (Francoeur does use in in the 1826 Dictionnaire technologique, but this seems not to be usual in French since piano is used more often around the same time). American stuff in late 1880s sometimes uses piano-forte referring to instruments mostly different from modern because they have key rockers instead of capstans. Mireut 15:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've only heard it used in the context of performance on the historical instrument. Since this is somewhat of a more recent practice, it might make sense that it wasn't used much before? - Rainwarrior 15:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The use of "fortepiano" to mean (roughly) "Mozart-era piano" does seem to be new, as Mireut and Rainwarrior suggest. In particular, the authoritative Oxford English Dictionary currently does not list the meaning "early kind of piano" for "fortepiano"; it only says it is an early word for piano. But surely, the "early kind of piano" meaning is by now quite well ensconced in English; just look at CD packages, concert programs, music reviews...

If I might speculate, I think that sometime around 1970, there was an unused word sitting around ("fortepiano"), and a new object that needed a name (the replica Mozart-era piano), and the two therefore got paired up. (It probably helped that "fortepiano" was one of the many words for piano used in Mozart's time and region.)

"Pianoforte" is also a nearly-unused word, looking for a new meaning (people seem to hate synonyms!). However, I don't think it will ever become a synonym for "fortepiano", as Rainwarrior suggests -- indeed, I have never seen an unambiguous instance of "pianoforte" being used to denote a Mozart-era piano. Rather, I suspect that "pianoforte" will ultimately come to mean "mid 19th century piano". However, since this has yet to be carried through, I believe we should follow the New Grove's practice, and describe "pianoforte" as merely a fancy synonym for "piano". Maybe in a few decades we'll have to change that...

Cheers, Opus33 16:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it is a mistake to call a fortepiano a pianoforte, you should bear in mind that people call one the other quite frequently. If pianoforte redirects to piano, we should have an accessible disambiguation somwhere for people who really wanted fortepiano. Or at least there should be an explanation of the distinct meanings of both terms somewhere. People are going to come to piano who were looking for fortepiano, and they should be able to both find it and learn the correct term. - Rainwarrior 16:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree - maybe you could give this a try? Thanks, Opus33 17:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. - Rainwarrior 21:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen an unambiguous instance of "pianoforte" being used to denote a Mozart-era piano.

This one is quoted a lot, from a Covent Garden playbill printed 1767, "Miss Brickler will sing a favourite song from Judith, accompanied by Mr. Dibdin, on a new instrument call'd Piano Forte." Wainwright wrote the first pages of Broadwood's 1794 ledger include "Grand Pianoforte, Grand Piano, Grand Pianoforté, PianoForte, and Grand PianoForté." There is strong regional emphasis in using fortepiano (as well as Mozart-era piano) that is better reflected in the range of new instruments sold with that name than the ones built in the referred period. - Mireut 14:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My experience with this (studying at a University with a strong early, and classical period reputation and instruction) is that the "Pianoforte" is the modern form of the instrument, as we would see one today (complete with iron frame and strengthenings, and "fortepiano" is the older, as said Mozart and Schubert era 'piano' that is quieter (due to less tension in the strings because of the lack of frame strength). The "fortepiano" is a term understood by most as the late 18th/early 19th piano, and that "pianoforte" (synonym (shortened to): "piano") is the modern variety. Therefore, in my opinion, Piano should redirect to Pianoforte, not the other way around, with a seperate section or link to Fortepiano.

Mdcollins1984 23:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Harmony/reasonnance

(I had no idea what the title should be, so sorry if it is a little misleading)

Not long ago, I have noticed that when you release the damper of the Middle C (C4) and you play loudly and breifly F4, you can here the F4 even after you have stopped playing it. This would mean that it is the C4 chord vibrating. You can do also the same by playing a F3, but instead of hearing an F3, you will here an F4. Now if you play a D4 while the damper of the C4 chord is released, you won't here anything.

Now my question is how come you can hear a F4 from a C4 chord when you play an F4 or an F3. And why can't you here anything when you play a D4 ...

Josellis 02:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A string may vibrate with any standing wave that has a wavelength that is some integer division of its length... that is, any note that in its harmonic series may be picked up by sympathetic vibration. Thus, if you undamp C2 (without sounding it), you may cause it to vibrate with C3, G3, C4, E4, G4, and so on (Bb4 might have a hard time, because equal tempered tuning isn't very close to the harmonic series pitch fo that note). You can play whole triads on a single string this way! Hold C2 and then play a C4 E4 G4 major triad quickly and staccato. It'll all pick up on the lower string! - Rainwarrior 07:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The first written use of this effect is probably the one from Arnold Schoenberg's Drei Klavierstuecke Op. 11 (Three Piano Pieces). - Rainwarrior 07:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I heard this called "ghosting," it can be useful tuning. Pleyel, Wolff & Cie patented a piano attachment raising only dampers harmonically related to keys pressed down on an auxiliary keyboard, maybe around 1860. - Mireut 13:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

See one here http://www.hammerfluegel.net/viewer.php?albid=426&stage=3 - Mireut 14:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty bizarre. - Rainwarrior 18:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Could Someone Review my site

Hello there, sorry but I added my website before reading about how your not supposed to put your own website in the external links, as soon as I read that I took it down but if someone could have a look at it for me and see if it's up to the standard needed to be listed along with the other piano websites here, that would be great. The URL is http://www.learn-piano.org

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time Kind Regards Ben

Benmon1 21:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

I have just had a read through of this article, and would recommend it for Good Article Status. I have therefore proposed this on WP:GA for review. Good work on an excellent entry. Mdcollins1984 23:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Weak pass; each term introduced in the article should not be bolded.

2. Factually accurate?: Fail; there are no inline citations.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass.

5. Article stability? Pass.

6. Images?: Weak pass; there is one image that needs its licensing updated.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.

Overall a well-written, comprehensive article, but that lack of references sticks out like a sore thumb. I would've put it on hold, but I don't think you'll be able to provide adequate references in one week. -- Ci e lomobile ^{talk / contribs} 19:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Cielomobile. However, I would judge that boldfacing new terms is a good writing practice, not a defect. It's done in scholarly books and journals, so no reason not to do it in the Wikipedia.

I'm puzzled by your use of the pronoun "you" -- is there some particular person whom you were addressing, or some talk page not linked to here? Yours truly, Opus33 16:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Bold is usually reserved for a special purpose in Wikipedia. It should not be used for "new" terms, but rather the first occurance of terms that are specific to this article (i.e. if it redirects here, it should be mentioned in bold). Things that are properly defined elsewhere should not be bolded, like square piano. Instead they should be wikilinked. - Rainwarrior 16:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

slanguage used in discussing pianos

I am by no means an expert when it comes to the correct terrminology for the discussion of piaons, but when my wife and i were purchasing a piano, some 20 years ago, I used the term Grand Piano when I was in a piano showroom.

I was quickly corrected by a very proper salesperson who informed me that Baby Grand, Grand and Concert Grand were words in use by the general public, and so therefore the SLANG had taken over the correct terminology for the aforementioned pianos.

He indicated to me that the correct way to describe a GRAND piano was by the lenght of the HARP.

That a Concert MAster would ask for a (just an example) 84 inch Grand piano or a 60 inch Grand piano.

I never called Vladmir Horowitz to check this out, nor did I call Steinway Co., but I believe that he may have been 100% correct. 24.61.127.113 15:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Some people do ask for pianos by size (I hear people talk of feet rather than inches more often), but to say that this is the "correct" way to classify grand pianos is false. "Baby grand" and "concert grand" are well accepted terms and are not merely slang. To me, your encounter with the salesman sounds like he made the comment as a sales technique to appear more knowledgable to you. - Rainwarrior 15:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "baby grand" is that it isn't standardized. Nor is "concert grand", though when used with a brand name, it's usually understood which model or models fit the bill. Few makers call their smallest grands "baby grands", even when they're smaller than those of companies which do, but for the sake of cordiality, salespeople's vocabularies are known to be flexible. Since specifying the length is not enough to identify a model from some manufacturers, models' names (numbers) tend to be used more often. Vladimir Horowitz is famous among piano technicians for his familiarity with the technology; achieving the set of modifications he preferred is called "Horowitzing" a piano! D021317c 10:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

media samples?

I am surprised that there are no media samples of what a piano sounds like in this article. – Kaihsu 11:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Excerpts from pieces could be used I suppose. Perhaps specialised techniques such as glissandos, ghosting, finger playing the strings etc... If I have time, I'll record a few excerpts myself. Jaser 12345 19:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)