Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions about Piano. 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 | Archive 4 |
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).
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)
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)
Could someone please add info about why you could name the piano "old Johanna"?
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).
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)
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)
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)
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.
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, , 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))
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?
This section mentions extended range keyboards but fails to mention keyboards in general. Except that most have 88 keys. Thats important. We need more.
"Harp: a piano is essentially a horizontal harp, albeit struck and not plucked."
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!
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 (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
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).
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)
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)
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)
In the absence of authoritative referencing, I would consider the following passage subjective and unbalanced:
In addition to being unreferenced, the now following passage also seems somewhat superfluous in that no clear statement seems to be made:
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)
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)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.