Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:08, 11 April 2009

Musical Instruments C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Rebuilt Steinways from the "Golden" era

I am surprised no one has included material on how many pianists prefer to have rebuilt steinways from the 1920's and 30's.. There is much published about this topic, and an incredible amount of pianists prefer the tone from the older pianos, with new actions parts. --Ronnie segev (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the popularity of rebuilt Steinways in the trivia section, not only because I own one, but mainly because I played many, many of them in Europe, America, and Asia. The known fact that Steinway is the preferred piano for majority of concert halls, and after the primary use expires, all retired Steinways go to studios or private venues due to high demand. Steinway remains the most desired piano for rebuilding and re-use, even many non-Steinway dealers, who do not have a license from Steinway, still offer used and rebuilt Steinways. Larry Fine (pianos) has a wealth of information on rebuilt Steinways. Steveshelokhonov 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Loesser's book, Men, Women, and Pianos

The wonderful Arthur Loesser's book, Men, Women, and Pianos: A Social History, describes the rise of Steinway & Sons in Sections 6 and 7. It has over six hundred pages and a wealth of valuable information on the role of pianos in culture and society. A very nice book indeed. Steveshelokhonov 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"citation needed"

Unfortunately there are some "citation needed" in the large and very good article about Steinway & Sons. I have tried to fill in the citations but it's not easy to find the references. Can anyone fill in the needed citations? It will make the article even better. Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotes Section POV

These quotes read like they came out of a Steinway brochure - and probably did. I've added a neutrality tag, but feel the section should be deleted. Other piano manufacturer articles do not have quotes.THD3 (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The selection of quotes are facts, and I think that facts are correct in an encyclopedia. Importantly, no artists are paid for giving their opinion about Steinway grand pianos.

Because other piano manufacturer articles don't have quotes doesn't mean that it's wrong to have quotes. Remember that the article about Steinway & Sons is much more informative than other piano manufacturer articles. Fanoftheworld (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the selection of quotes are factual only in that they represent the opinions of various pianists.THD3 (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, that was what I tried to wrote.

And remember that it's not up to us to decide which opinions there are right or wrong. Fanoftheworld (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, in that case, you wouldn't mind if I added some critical opinions of Steinway by well known pianists?THD3 (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, that's obvious. Good luck finding critical quotes about Steinway grand pianos by world renowned classical and rhythmic pianists. Fanoftheworld (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The introduction

There's no doubt that Steinway & Sons manufacture good instruments, but expressions such as "world renowned" have no place in an encyclopedic article, even if they are well sourced. --Karljoos (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that note of sanity.THD3 (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lots of independent internet pages (independent newspapers, independent books and much more) mention Steinway and Steinway pianos as "the world's finest piano producer" and "the world's finest pianos". The Misplaced Pages article about Steinway & Sons does only mention Steinway as world renowned. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added independent references to the introduction. Much more can be found. Fanoftheworld (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Check the Britannica. You will never find there claims to prestige and greatness. If we aim to some degree of objectivity here, we should go for "Steinway is a piano maker without any decorations such as "highly regarded". Here are some examples of good neutral articles: Royal Academy of Music and Juilliard School. They can both claim greatness and being highly regarded and sources supporting this could be easily found. However the articles have a neutral and encyclopedic tone and do not mention such judgements. Let's learn from them. Thank you --Karljoos (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good example of an objective article about another top piano manufacturer: Bösendorfer. It seems like Fanoftheworld has a special interest in highlighting (do you work for Steinway & Sons Inc?)that Steinway pianos are the best pianos in the universe (perhaps they are), but can't really understand that a minimum of objectivity has to mantained here to make the articles sound encyclopedic. Cheers --Karljoos (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on consensus between myself and Karljoos, I have added the advert and peacock tags. Please do not remove them until the issues with this article are resolved. Fanoftheworld, if you have a business interest in Steinway pianos, whether as an employee of the company or as a salesperson for a dealership, you should not be editing this article, period. Misplaced Pages has no way of confirming this, it's on the honor system. But based on your edit history, it certainly appears to be the case.THD3 (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• First of all, do you really think that Steinway (or any other company) will use staff and money for writing on the english Misplaced Pages... Don't think that Misplaced Pages is the center of the universe.
• As I see it, the contributions above is written because of the words "highly regarded". Before writing you could have read what already is discussed on this page.
• Dear THD3: You have for not long ago asked for a mediator. The mediator and I agreed that "highly regarded" is okay. Do you also think that the mediator is working for Steinway... Before writing about the Steinway article you could read other articles about piano manufacturers than Steinway and Bösendorfer. For example: the words "highly regarded" is mentioned in the introduction of the article about Bechstein. --Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My problem with the article is the general tone. I placed this note in the introduction section because that's where the most recent strands of the thread are. As for the "highly regarded" business, in the Bechstein article the remark is applied to the instruments, not the company. Bosendorfer's article is similar. You'd be surprised the number of companies (and individuals) that monitor their own Misplaced Pages articles. Not just smaller companies like Steinway but Fortune 500 companies as well. As often as not, they're too stupid to cover their tracks and you can trace them via their IP address. Given that the majority of your editing history revolves around this article, it's natural to have suspicions.THD3 (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a noticeable difference about saying "a highly regarded piano maker" (Steinway article) and "highly regarded for their concert grand pianos as well as upright pianos" (Bechstein article). I think there are other and more important things to do on Wikipedea than talking about such a small difference. (For example finding more references to the claim about "highly regarded" in the Bechstein article. The claim has only 2 references which is very few compared with the many references about the claim "highly regarded" in the Steinway article).

But as I said above "The mediator and I agreed that "highly regarded" is okay.", so I don't see any problem about this.

As I said above, you have for not long ago asked for a mediator. On the whole, you didn't participate in the discussion/mediation here on this page, although it was you who asked for a mediator. Your only comment (to "highly regarded" among other things) was "Sorry for the late reply, Theseeker4 (the mediator). Your suggestions sound fine to me.THD3". Therefore I'm a little confused that you now shortly after have opposite views. Fanoftheworld (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Steinway concert piano banks

Lots of piano makers have concert piano banks. Concert piano banks in general are explained - not only Steinway concert piano banks.

Furthermore it is explained that Steinway has concert piano banks around the world. I don't understand how this should be a commercial. Fanoftheworld (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with this article

I believe a little give and take is necessary for this article to improve. Fanoftheworld, I know you have done a huge amount of work to this article for several months, greatly expanding it and in many ways improving the article. However, I am worried that ownership issues may be creeping in. I believe the article is suffering from a significant positive POV at the moment. Whether you believe the positive point of view is justified or not is not the issue; regardless of whether an editor thinks the POV is accurate, we need to maintain a neutral POV throughout the article. Unfortunately, large sections of quotes and words like "world renowned" have no place in this article. Quotations of the sort that are near the end of this article serve no purpose other than promotional. It is possible some of the quotes should be saved, but the sheer volume is inappropriate. Additionally, citing the company's website raises serious POV concerns; it should be avoided if at all possible, and it certainly should not be relied on for the quotes included in the article. Additionally, the list of patents is excessive. It seems to serve no purpose other than to try to fluff up the accomplishments of the company, which should not be necessary. Only the most notable patents should be listed, and I know there are only 24 of the 125 total patents listed, but that is still excessive. In addition to being inappropriately promotional, the list does not conform to the manual of style in that any relevant information about the most notable advancements can be dealt with in paragraph form and not as a huge bullet pointed list. I suggest removal of the vast majority of the problem areas, as the article can present the factual information about the company while relying on third-party sources and without sounding like a promotional piece. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the majority of the questionable material. Please discuss here, do not simply revert without discussing. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Theseeker4, I have just read your texts above and I understand that some changes are necessary for this article to improve.

- Regarding the words "world renowned" we could use the words "highly regarded", which is written in the beginning of the article C. Bechstein Pianofortefabrik.

- Regarding the section "Patents" with 24 patents listed, we could have 12 patents listed like the German article about Steinway de:Steinway & Sons#Patente.

- Regarding the section "Quotes about Steinway pianos" we could remove whole this section. Regarding the section "Quotations by Heinrich Engelhard Steinweg" this section is not to promote Steinway. The quotations are mentioned because they are very famous and therefore I think it would be correct to write the quotations in an article about Steinway. I could probably find other refenrences than the Steinway Website.

- Regarding the section "Steinway concert piano banks" I don't understand how this section should sound like an advertisement. Lots of piano makers have concert piano banks. Concert piano banks in general are explained - not only Steinway concert piano banks. Furthermore it is explained that Steinway has concert piano banks around the world. In case the section sounds like an advertisement I don't think I am apple to rewrite the section.

I look forward to hear what you think about my suggestions. Fanoftheworld (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding "world renowned" vs. "highly regarded" I do think highly regarded sounds more neutral, though I would be interested in what some of the other editors who objected to the previous phrase have to say. Feel free to insert that phrase and i will certainly not revert it; if anyone objects to that new phrase they are free to discuss it and alternatives here.
• Regarding patents, I believe a list is not called for. The purpose of the section, as I understand it, is to demonstrate innovation by the company. To this end, I believe the article would be better served by a section in paragraph form of a few of the most notable innovations made. I am certainly not in a position to declare an arbitrary number which is "correct" but believe a more detailed description (in neutral terms of course) of some of the most notable/significant innovations would work better and improve the article more than the bulleted list which had existed. I of course would welcome comments by other editors regarding this point as well.
• I am not sure what to do with the quotes by Heinrich Steinweg. Significant quotes that support points being made in various parts of the article could be included, but I don't think a section consisting of nothing but quotes adds to the article, even if it does/did not sound promotional. I think his quotes can be used, but think they would work better incorporated into the text, rather than as a stand-alone section. Regarding the other section of promotional quotes, since you agree they should remain out of the article, I believe that issue is resolved.
• Finally, regarding the section "Steinway concert piano banks" I left that section alone in my bold edit as I do believe that section has merit. It certainly is notable and worthy of inclusion based on the fact that they are the first piano banks of their kind. Some of the language does seem overly promotional, but the section as a whole should stay, IMHO. I will take a crack at making the language more neutral if I get a chance, but prehaps one of the previously involved editors can make some edits that can be examined and discussed here to allow removal of the template on that section.

That is all for now. Let me know what you think, and anyone else reading this thread, please feel free to comment. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

::::Sorry for the late reply, Theseeker4. Your suggestions sound fine to me.THD3 (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I feel the "highly-regarded" is also POV, and not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. If the phrase is also present on the Bechstein page, that should be addressed as well.THD3 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't hope that User:THD3 will change his opinion once again in few months. Of course it's irritating for other users if some users doesn't take the discussion serious from the beginning and change there opinions and acts - when the mediator is gone. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

- I have added "highly regarded" to the introduction. I hope that this issue is resolved.

- I have written a little text about the patents in the beginning af the article. I don't know what to do with the list of patents.

- I have written a little text about the quotes by the founder H.E. Steinweg in the beginning af the article. I hope that this issue is resolved.

- I really hope that the section "Steinway concert piano banks" could be re-written soon, so the whole article can be in the correct Misplaced Pages standard.

I look forward to hear from you. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Don't have as much time today to edit as yesterday, but I took a shot at removing most of the promotional language as well as cutting some of the detail without removing the meaning of the section about piano banks. If there is something vital i cut, let me know as I am not an expert on the subject, but I think it sounds a bit more neutral. Will review the rest of the article when i have a chance, and I do encourage other editors to weigh in, at least with comments if they don't want to edit themselves. The article will only get better the more people looking at it and making suggestions. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for rewriting the section about Steinway concert piano banks. I have made some small changes which I hope is okay. I have also added some of the old text about the Steinway concert piano bank in Los Angeles because that is an important concert piano bank. The addition is the last part of the section. I hope you will read it. Feel free to change words and other. Fanoftheworld (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What is it about the Los Angeles piano bank that merits special inclusion in the article?THD3 (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Steinway concert piano bank in Los Angeles does not only provides Steinway pianos for the "normal" touring artists performances but also for a very wide range of performing artists. What the wide range consists of are mentioned in the text, which is the very last part af the section: "... from Hollywood stars and touring guest performers, to film composers, songwriters and ensembles, as well as to film and music schools in California." and "... and the entertainment industry in Los Angeles.". It is unusual for a concert piano bank to provide pianos for such a very wide range. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage editors to review the following neutrality-related policies that this article seems to violate in spades with the repeated unencyclopedic assertions of prestige and reputation. Assert facts, not opinions, Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide, and Words to avoid/Peacock words. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Madcoverboy, thank you for articulating what I've been trying to say. There are plenty of references in the article about how great Steinway supposedly is. It doesn't need to be slathered all over the introduction as well.THD3 (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that User:Madcoverboy and of course User:THD3 don't respect the solution (few months ago) by the mediator and me who where the only users participating in the discussion/mediation. I also understand that User:Madcoverboy and User:THD3 have not made any actions at all regarding the claim "highly regarded" in the article about Bechstein, although the Bechstein article has been mentioned several times. I also understand that "highly regarded" has been mentioned in the Bechstein article for longer times than in the Steinway article but that User:Madcoverboy and User:THD3 are more eager for changing "highly regarded" among others in the Steinway article than changing "highly regarded" in the Bechstein article. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is just Misplaced Pages, not a pissing match. Just because another article does something wrong, isn't an excuse to do it as well. I updated the other article's lead to remove the "highly regarded" comment. Let's all get back to writing neutral, verifiable, and excellent articles instead of praising/denigrating their subjects. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Let's be neutral. That is something that some people do not understand around here. Objectivity does not affect the category of the product. There're some weird interests here.--Karljoos (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Conway Stewart logo.png

The image File:Conway Stewart logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --06:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad link in citation

A citation in the hearing aid section goes to a broken web page, http://verve.phonak.com/?wm=m%2834%29sp%283%2C30%29

Also, the cite ref seems to be mispelled: "Premiun service for you", Phonak Verve Website.

Perhaps the link should go here: http://verve.phonak.com/consumer/products/instruments.htm, although much of this section seems to be irrelevant fluff anyways, imho. --Bobbozzo (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that Phonak has closed the website used when this section was created. That explains the problems with the links. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking

There seems to be a great deal of overlinking in the article. The pages on Germany and New York, for instance, are linked to dozens of times; every date is linked; even everyday words are linked for no apparent reason. I'm removing whatever unnecessary links I can find, but if I go too far, or not far enough, please change it accordingly. Alexrexpvt (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a quality for the article to have links where possible.

But whatever it can never be a problem if an article has many links, quite the contrary. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a guide to linking in the Manual of Style. It's generally considered overlinking to link every date; to link the same word multiple times in the same paragraph, never mind the same article; and to link to pages that add nothing to the reader's comprehension of the subject of the article. Links should be used judiciously, not indiscriminately. I've tried to restrict links to the essential. Alexrexpvt (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me about the page Misplaced Pages:Linking.

Why did you remove the link to 1853 (the year Steinway was founded) in the very beginning of the introduction? Other years like 1797, 1871 and 1860s have still links. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't got round to removing all the date links yet. If you think a link to the 1853 page is important, please re-add it. Alexrexpvt (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Rachmaninoff picture

The Blüthner article claims that Rachmaninoff is sitting beside a Blüthner in the picture; the Steinway article claims it's a Steinway. I can't tell from the photo which is true, and the site the picture is taken from isn't particularly informative. I've removed the claim that it's a Steinway piano until someone can demonstrate that it is. Alexrexpvt (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Lyngdorf

There is a statement from Lyngdorf on the Web site to the effect that he wanted to create the 'perfect audio system'; but writing that they sought to produce the perfect audio system without direct attribution, and then juxtaposing that with the product they came up with, seems to imply that they achieved the goal of making a 'perfect audio system'. At any rate, a 'perfect audio system' is an impossibility; it's typical advertising fluff, and adds absolutely nothing to the article. A simple description of the product with a link to the Website where people can read all the promotional material they want seems enough. I've also made a number of small grammatical changes to this section; if you desperately need to get the expression 'perfect audio system' into the article, please don't revert the whole section, just add the quotation with attribution. Alexrexpvt (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole idea about a music system by Steinway was that it should be the perfect audio system. - Like Steinway thinks, that a Steinway piano is the perfect piano. Steinway would not make just another audio system but the best audio system. Therefore the mission wasn't to develope Steinway Lyngdorf model D, that was the result. The text doesn't claim that the mission is accomplished. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class musical instruments articles
• High-importance musical instruments articles