Talk:Piano/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →

Contents

Keyboard and pedals separate

This article is focused on the acoustic piano, but such a picture might be appropriate for Digital piano, Stage piano or Synthesizer. --Lph 19:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It sounds to me like a keyboard and a pedal -- probably more appropriate for articles on MIDI instruments and computer input devices. D021317c 10:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-hearable frequency

It does not seem possible for a piano to reach "C8". This tone is not hearable for humans, thus we have calculated it to be above 60.000 Hz... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gruppe 3 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

See Piano key frequencies. A4 is 440 hz, so C8 is 4186.01 hz according to that article, well within human hearing range. Graham87 12:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Accompaniment and two people

I've seen sometimes that when a piano is accompanying a violin, there will be a pianist and then another person seated to the side of the pianist, not apparently doing anything. What does this person do, and what is the point? 71.0.240.5 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the page turner. Often both of the pianist's hands are busy: another person can flip the pages over at just the right moment so the pianist does not need to miss any notes. This is for cases where the pianist has not memorized the score. Antandrus (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Upright grand

The article uses the terms "upright grand (piano)" and "upright piano" in different sections. Are they meant to refer to the same thing? If so, this should be clarified. I've been told that there are certain "nicer" upright pianos that are considered "upright grands", but I'm not sure if this is true. Are "upright grands" simply the taller types of uprights (as opposed to spinets)?71.122.13.2 01:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In common usage, there are vertically strung pianos, called spinets, consoles, studio uprights, and full-size or professional uprights, and horizontally strung pianos called baby grands, parlor grands, and concert grands. There are many other names, such as consolette and upright grand, used by many manufacturers to give a certain appeal. 74.220.66.57 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Old Johanna

Could someone please add info about why you could name the piano "old Johanna"?

Looks like Cockney rhyming slang to me. That is, assume that "piano" is "piannah", as it often is, and "Johanna" is "Joanna" (as our article already says), and you have a reasonable rhyme. All this is conjecture, no reference source, so I'm not putting into the article. Opus33 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Update: there *is* a reference source, i.e. the online Oxford English Dictionary. They give it in their entry for "joanna". Opus33 21:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Piano material

100% wool felts is very a important material in the piano and it is not present in the Material paragraphe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.56.200.33 (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Speed vs. force in hammer action

There was anon edit eariler today regarding key and hammer action and its relation to speed/force. If you press harder, you move the keys faster, and faster moving hammers exert a larger force on the strings. Force seems more intuitive (to me), though, so I reverted the edit. Comments welcome. Karol 16:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Force is a result of increased velocity no? We can press very heavily and very slowly, and the action will not register at all. ALTON .ıl 23:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I have only just worked out how this discussion business works (I am new to wikipedia editing). It was me (Mawkish1983 - I must not have been logged in, sorry) who edited out the word 'force'. I play the piano and my piano teacher years ago explained why force makes no difference to the volume. When the hammer strikes the string, it is not being pushed but is in free flight. The speed that the hammer hits the string determines how much force is applied to the string, true (due to the decelleration of the hammer upon string contact - remember F = ma). HOWEVER, the speed that the hammer travels does NOT depend on force but on speed of the key being pressed. Imagine two pianists with different sized fingers (one thin, one fat). Imagine the guy with the thin finger applies the same acceleration to the key as the guy with the fat finger, such that the keys travel at the same speed when they strike the string. The fat fingered guy hit the key with more force, but the notes were the same volume. Do you see how it works? I am sorry, but I edited this again and again because it is very frustrating for me when it is wrong. I guess that is just how I was trained.

Soundboard amplifies?

Descriptions of the soundboard commonly use the term "amplifier" to explain its function. However, for this term to be correct, energy would have to be added to the system to qualify as an amplifier. In fact, there is a loss of energy as some of the power of the strings is converted to heat. The compensation is that the soundboard with its broad area is much more effective at causing the compression and rarefication of air (sound) than the thin strings. I propose that the statement, "These vibrations are transmitted through the bridges to the soundboard, which amplifies them." be changed to "The energy of the strings' vibrations is transduced into audible sound by the soundboard." 74.220.66.57 07:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Classification box

If you look on Violin, you'll see a box on the right with information about that instrument. Why doesn't the Piano article have one? Jaser 12345 11:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Jaser. Please, please don't put an "infobox" on this article. Infoboxes are for simple things that come in series, like record albums or Magic the Gathering cards. For complicated, nuanced things like pianos, we shouldn't pick just a bunch of arbitrary facts for a box -- it would really come across as stupid and simplistic. Instead, we should encourage readers to actually look at the article itself. Yours very truly, Opus33 22:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Grand Piano

I'm sorry, I didn't know where to put this. Rolphing 02:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the article Grand Piano and this one should be merged. The Grand Piano is a variation on the piano, so to justify the existence of the Grand Piano article, we should have seperate articles for every variation of the piano. Also, the Grand Piano article is small and lacks little information for an individual article. Not only is this the case, but there is already a description of the Grand Piano in this article which contains the majority of the information held in the seperate article.

A bit of Physics about Force Vs Speed

I am sorry complain yet again about this, but yet again I see that it says the volume of the note produced when a key is struck depends on the speed and the force with which the key is pressed. This is simply not true!

When the hammer hits the string it is in free flight, and not being accelerated by the motion of the key. The speed at which the key is being depressed dictates the speed with which the hammer hits the string. Remember, F = ma, and the hammer decellerates as it strikes the string, producing a force upon the string that transfers the energy from the motion of the hammer to the vibration of the string. This force, however, is totally unrelated to the force with which the key is depressed as it depends solely on the decelleration of the hammer, which depends solely on the speed with which the hammer was travelling as it strikes the string.

Picture this, you hold your finger above the key and accelerate it to a certain speed before it touches the key, such that when it touches the key your finger is travelling at a constant speed (so it would actually slow down a little upon contact with the key). Technically, the key has now applied a force on your finger. As your finger actually decellerates, this force would be negative. Now, the key would be travelling at a certain speed and would transfer that motion to the hammer. Imagine now striking the key with an acellerating finger such that you are applying a positive force. You are acellerating the key, but if the key ends up travelling at the same speed it will transfer the same motion to the hammer. Both events would produce the same volume of note because both events transfer the same force to the string from the hammer, because that doesn't depend on the force with which the key is struck!

I can go round and round in circles about this all day, but it is an important distinction to make! If you apply extra force to the piano keys all you are doing is poking the bed of the keyboard and tiring your fingers out. That is why classical pianist sit upright, with their wrists suspended above the keys such that they are not pushing the keys with their arms, they use their fingers so that they can more accurately control the speed with which each key is depressed rather than the force they apply.

I will remove the reference to force from the page again, and despirately hope that nobody changes it back! If anybody does notice the article saying that the force a key is pressed with affects the volume, please change it! It's not true! It is a myth, it is false, it is something that laymen believe - the simple fact is that the force you apply to a key makes no difference to the volume of the note. (Mawkish1983 16:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC))


The correct physics argument
I don't know much about the key-hammer mechanism in a piano, but your physics is wrong (this is probably why people keep changing the article). However, I can see on empirical grounds why you think this way. The speed of the key is determined by the force of that is applied to it, remember a=F/m. However, because the force required to move the key is small compared to that required to move the arms, hands, or fingers of the pianist (primarily because of the difference in mass), the change in momentum of the striking body when it hits the key is very much less than the momentum of body, and it seems to the pianist as though only the speed is important, when in fact it is the force that is important. 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you are completely wrong here. The force you apply to a key affects the acceleration of that key, but your arguement can only work if the accelerationg (i.e. force applied) is constant. Any good pianist will tell you that you do not apply a constant force to a key because it is completely unnecessary. Whether you realise it or not, once the key is moving at the desired speed (you gain a feeling for this as you get better and better) you stop accelerating the key. If you apply a constant force until the key is fully depressed you are simply applying the force to the keyboard bed. Repeatedly playing like this would strain your muscles and speed up the degradation of the felts that prevent the keys striking the keyboard bed. You don't necessarily think about this as you play, it is something that comes naturally to you through years of practice. The fact remains, you are applying the force to the string via the hammer, which is travelling at a speed related to the speed at which the key is depressed and not the acceleration of that key! Two things I would like to point out to you here - firstly I am a pianist myself and secondly I am a physicist! I have been playing the piano now for about fifteen years, and I graduated with a Masters degree in Physics last year. I am now doing a PhD in computational and theoretical physics. So, I can speak with some authority on both the pianist technique and on the physics of the situation. (Mawkish1983 13:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC))
You claim to be a physics student with a Masters who is doing a PhD. I am a physicist with a M.Sci. in physics, have done a PhD in physics, and am now a PDRA in physics so, I can speak with authority on the subject of physics, not that it's needed in this case. You seem to accept that the speed of the key is the important point in determining the volume of the note produced, but you do not accept that the speed of the key is determined by the force applied to it. Even more puzzeling is that you accept that the force determines the acceleration, but not the speed. Remember (crudely), F(t)/m = a(t) = dV(t)/dt, so int(dV(t)/dt)dt = V(t) = 1/m*int(F(t))dt, i.e. speed is determined by force! This is a fundamental point in classical mechanics (remember Newtons laws?), is high school physics, and is very worrying for the state of physics if you really are a physics student who has made it to PG level.
Why you would try to discredit me is something I don't understand, but I do understand Newton's equations of motion. I would like to point out to you that your argument holds if the acceleration (and force applied to the key) is constant. That is not the case, as has been pointed out below by Rainwarrior - the pianists technique takes into account the fact that the force doesn't need to be constant, therefore the acceleration isn't constant, therefore the speed with which the key is depressed is related to a time dependent force - to say 'applying more force to a key produces a louder note' is simply wrong because no mention is made to dependency of this force on other factors (i.e. time). As I have said, you can produce the same amplitude of sound by depressing the key with difference functions of F(t). It is, therefore, totally incorrect to say that 'more force = louder note'. I hope this has cleared things up for you. (Mawkish1983 07:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC))
I think the article should have speed and not force in it, as speed is just as correct as force and using force needlessly complicates things. But you are wrong to say that force is not important - it is the fundamental thing that we control and apply to objects to give them motion. 81.79.63.207 18:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The preference for the word "speed" over "force" has little to do with physics. The choice of "speed" is that it does not have the same connotation of physical effort that "force" does. This is to try and avoid bad technique where the player tries to gain volume by applying more "force" from their fingers or wrist, rather than using efficient "speedy" motions. It is unscientific, but I think the preference is justified. The real point is that the player should not apply effort where it does not make sound, that is, once the hammer is released, continuing to push on the keys does nothing for the sound while it fatigues the player. - Rainwarrior 21:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Originally when I first edited out the word force it said something like 'louder when the keys are pressed harder'. I started my campain to have it changed and the word 'force' crept in. Of course the pianist controls the force, that's a silly thing to argue against - but it isn't sufficient to say 'more force = louder', that simply isn't correct! So, that's why I wanted it changed. Now it's changed, and now I'm happy. Thank you all. (Mawkish1983 11:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC))
I'd humbly suggest you peruse the definition of impulse. --moof 00:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Useful content

I noticed the diagram of the makings of the piano. I think a very useful, and more nessasary, diagram would be of the front of the piano. We need to remember that people who play the piano regularly, or a piano tuner who cares about the inside, probably won't be looking at a wikipedia artical for information. I have to admit, I'm all for pictures. So if you can have both that is great but if both together looks tacky, I would go with the diagram that convays information some one might need, either to get a visual or if the picture diagrams some content like what the black keys are called. Thats actualy why I looked up the artical. What are those called?

section 3.2 KEYBOARD

This section mentions extended range keyboards but fails to mention keyboards in general. Except that most have 88 keys. Thats important. We need more.

Related instruments

"Harp: a piano is essentially a horizontal harp, albeit struck and not plucked."

Hmm, ...yes, ...or a Xylophone, but with strings and a keyboard... -Wetman 21:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed media file.

So someone above suggested having some media files to give ideas on how a piano sounds. Then someone posted a file of a piece that, while composed for a piano, was obviously not played on one. Not only that, it's not clearly marked. Assuming that this file is meant to give an idea of how a piano sounds to someone who doesn't know, having a sound-file of a keyboard is highly misleading. I'd hate someone to listen to that and then think: wow, it sounds just like my keyboard!

I agree with you and have removed the file again. It may be more suitable on digital piano or something. Most of the Al Goldstein collection can be used on Wikipedia - I wonder what would be suitable as a sample? Graham87 02:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Moor’s double-keyboard pianos

Perhaps someone could add a description / reference to the interesting instrument described in this NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/arts/music/15barr.html.

Electric pianos

It might be a personal opinion.

Electric pianos (like Wurlitzer, Rhodes, etc.) can be considered at least as close to acoustic pianos as electronic pianos are. Electronic pianos try to imitate the sound of acoustic piano as well as the keyboard touch. But both imitations are still far from reality. Electric pianos on the other hand have their own sound, but they have a genuine piano touch, because, like acoustic piano, they are mechanical percussion instruments, with a true escapement action, and acoustic resonnance. In a pop, rock or jazz band, an electric piano can replace an acoustic piano without loss in the band's rythm, energy, global consonance. From my experience, no electronic piano ever achieved that till now.

Thus, the piano article could include a section about electric pianos, or at least a link.

133.9.117.138 04:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC) manuel bienvenu

It's not that straightforward, Manuel. Both electronic and electric pianos include representatives ranging in quality from very low to very high, as do acoustic pianos. Judging "closeness to acoustic pianos" depends on what you're considering.
For example, the Kurzweil model Mark 12i ( http://www.kurzweilmusicsystems.com/products.html?Id=455 ) and Mark 152i ( http://www.kurzweilmusicsystems.com/products.html?Id=1436 ) -- the latter even looks like an acoustic grand on the outside -- offer better touch and acoustics than the vast majority of real pianos and offer a choice of emulations, while many electrics fail miserably on both scores.
The Yamaha CP-80M electric grand (the top of the line, in its day), despite having an excellent, genuine Yamaha grand piano action, suffered from a spongy touch because its dampers needed to be forced down by auxiliary springs to make them damp promptly. Lacking a soundboard, it depended on highly effective dampers to absorb all the strings' vibrational energy.
Unlike the Wurlitzer and Rhodes electric pianos, which contain vibrating reeds and bars, respectively, it contained real strings, the acoustics of which are quite distinctive, but to fit into its small case, the bass strings had to be kept quite short, giving it the high inharmonicity characteristic of small spinets, while the utter lack of soundboard impedance (it contained piezoelectric pickups) and small case robbed it the fullness of tone usually found in acoustic pianos. It compensated somewhat by enhancing its output with electronic tremolo (of variable depth and speed), reverb, a 7-band equalizer, and special ("chorus"-type) stereo effects.
I quite agree that a link to "Electric piano" would make an appropriate cross-reference here. D021317c 13:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Biased article?

There's a lot of parts of the article that appear to express value judgements stating grand pianos are superior to uprights.

Now that well may be, but it's opinion and surely shouldn't have a place in Wikipedia?

Would it not be better to simply describe the characteristics of the types and let the reader make their own mind up?

I don't own an upright, and do prefer the sound of a grand... but this is a good article and would like to see it get to featured status, and it won't in the current state. I don't have time at the moment to adjust it - can one of the regular contributors have a look and see what they think?

Thanks, Onesecondglance 09:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC).

Hello, it's an opinion, but I would judge that it's an extremely widely held opinion--its seems almost unimaginable that any professional concert pianist would ever prefer an upright. More generally: some "opinions" are so well established that it's legit for an encyclopedia to include them--in fact, our readers deserve to know. Cheers, Opus33 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Both types of pianos, verticals and grands, have their pros and cons, but they aren't controversial in the least. Verticals take up less floor space; grands have quicker repetition. Verticals cost less; grands are much easier to service. Verticals generally have pinblocks which cannot be replaced: when they're damaged or worn out, the piano is a total loss; grands can be maintained forever and ever, and generally increase in value. Verticals are prone to serious damage in minor floods; grands are rarely affected. In a cramped apartment, studio, or office, anybody would prefer a vertical. On stage at Carnegie Hall, who wouldn't prefer the grand? To avoid "value judgments", the article should stick to the incontrovertible facts -- those regarding engineering, design, utility, sales figures, resale value, and so on. D021317c 12:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Double Repetition Action

We need an article (in addition to more information in this article) about the modern grand piano action, how it works and its history. D021317c 10:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Plectrum Pianos

There are patents for plectrum pianos, but I've never seen one. Surely, they must have been made. Any good researchers out there? D021317c 10:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

POV passages

In the absence of authoritative referencing, I would consider the following passage subjective and unbalanced:

Such practice pedal is rarely used in performance, and most pianos equipped with such a pedal are not of a sufficient quality for performance in any case.

In addition to being unreferenced, the now following passage also seems somewhat superfluous in that no clear statement seems to be made:

often an indication the grand piano was cheaply made (although some of the better old grand pianos also had this pedal).

So the absence of the pedal actually tells you very little about the piano you're looking at. Seems like a wasted sentence. I'm also suspicious of this repeated bashing of pianos that lack this or that pedal, or are made of this or that material. A buyer's guide would be better placed in wikibooks. 82.71.48.158 22:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am doing a report on piano. I need serious changes in the older and newer piano. I would like to change it to "changes to the piano". User:82.71.48.158 11:49 November 2, @007 (UTC)

Chordophone

I felt we ought to mention the Hornbostel-Sachs scheme of music classification (this is very widely used today), which identifies the piano as a Chordophone. I made the change to the article. What do you think? UncleAndyBob (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent addition to Wikipedia's informative article on this topic, Uncle Andy Bob! I agree. Danthur (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)