Talk:Minipiano

The intention of this talk page is to provide a forum to discuss any of the issues brought up relating to the article Minipiano. If you think that there are issues with the article, check the reactions I've made below to issues I've already attempted to resolve and please make your own changes to the article or reference me personally at my talk page user:Zaxander and I'll attempt to include your suggestions myself. If you think there are other problems that have not been mentioned but you don't have the time or the knowledge to improve them yourself, include them on the list and I'll get to them as soon as I see that there's been changes made to this talkpage. As I said, you're always welcome to make comments on my personal talk page if you have suggestions.

The primary problems readers who take a cursory look at the article without having specific knowledge of pianos let alone something as diverse as minipianos (which for reasons I discuss, have been largely ignored by history) include the following:

The article's introduction is too long in comparison to its length as a whole
This will be worked on and I'll double-check it to make sure unnecessary repetitions aren't made and any repeated facts that could be avoided are removed, hopefully making it a more efficient introduction. Please feel free to shorten it yourself.

23 October 2013 - Sentences relating to contrasts between piano and minipiano moved to the subject area of the article. Other reductions in the introduction relate to different issues. Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 23:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Zaxander

23 October 2013 - TAG relating to length of introduction; J. Bleak considered the lead sufficiently shortened and directed me to the style page on the matter for backup. Tag removed. Hope this is to your satisfaction Nicholas. Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 13:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Zaxander

The article reads too much like an essay
It's hard to argue an issue like this. By dividing the article up and attempting to include only facts about the instrument relating to its history, the enormous popularity the instrument enjoyed, the patenting, and also exact information relating to the instrument itself which is undoubtedly unique, I attempted (with the help of other wikiwriters, particularly Jim Bleak who was particularly helpful and encouraging) to make it as non essay-like as I could. If, however, you think that there are instruments that are similar to the minipiano, or if you argue any of the points made about its position in history, I'd be interested in finding out about it.

22 October 2013 - Sentence removed from introduction that appears to make the article appear like the author is setting out to achieve specific goals and conclusions. Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 23:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Zaxander

23 October 2013 - Concluding sentence from introduction removed completely for the same reason described in last entry: "The intention here is to describe the instruments history, the Art Deco era into which it was brought and also to objectively describe the internal and external mechanics of the instrument and how it differs from a normal piano. This reveals why the 'Pianette' model minipiano remains maligned by piano tuners and sellers who insist on treating it like a different type of upright piano." Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 23:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Zaxander

23 October 2013 - Concluding paragraph reduced considerably, particularly verbosity that made it sound like an 'essay-like' conclusion, i.e. suggesting that the minipiano of past years, could still be today a perfect 'minipiano' even though it may be a terrible 'piano'.Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 00:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Zaxander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs)

23 October 2013 - Following sentence changed to remove essay-like tone : "The ‘minipiano’ may have been a side-step in piano development away from what is now accepted as the norm, but in retrospect and viewed in terms of its historical significance, the intention is to view objectively the role this instrument actually played." changed to "Although the 'minipiano' may appear today to have been a side-step away from what is now accepted as the norm, historical facts demonstrate a significance that made perfect sense during the instrument's time of popularity."Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 14:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Zaxander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs)

There are not enough verifiable references about the minipiano on the internet and it therefore is not worthy of (lengthy) discussion
This is true in so far as there are not many verifiable sources on the internet that are reviewed by an editor; and that those that do exist are based on (generally negative) personal opinions relating to the whether or not the instrumental is an economically viable asset to sell or a difficult instrument to tune. There is, however, no doubt that the minipiano exists, that it was patented in 1934, that thousands were made and sold all around the world, and that they still exist. Type in minipiano and you'll find many hundreds of people who are trying to sell the 'Pianette' they own because they can't find anyone to tune it or repair it. I have one; I've taken it apart and have logged specific facts relating to what I've discovered (and photographed, filmed). I wrote the article precisely to provide information about an instrument which is misunderstood because it doesn't live up to the expectations people have of upright pianos, which a minipiano clearly is not. I feel that since the instrument was so popular, that so many were sold and that so many still exist, the world has a right to know about WHY there are so few references towards it. If you wish to argue this point, I welcome any points you may have relating to either the minipiano 'Pianette' or 'Royal' models. If you really think the minipiano is not worthy of discussion I'd like to know why.

The length of the article is in dispute because of the relevance of the subject
Please help me reduce the length if you think the article's too long. Unfortunately, since posting I've found myself trying to improve the article by getting more references and making more specific any ambiguous terminology such as 'braceless back' which didn't mean anything to me until I managed to find out exactly what a 'brace' was in terms of the history of piano making, particularly the upright piano. This means that rather than saying 'there are bichords for approximately the first half of the piano', I found myself defining in more detail what bichords are, how they work, for exactly how many notes on the minipiano they are used, how they differ from monochords and trichords etc. This made the facts themselves more verifiable, but alas, they also made the article longer.

23 October - length of introduction reduced in length considerably. Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 23:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Zaxander

The language used includes opinions that are not typical of inclusion in Wikipedia articles
I have to confess that although I've read a lot of Wikipedia articles and that my work has been quoted in articles about specific subjects, I can't remember ever reading one that sounded like it had a personal opinion in it. I've tried therefore to maintain the same objectivity in the writing of this article. Evidently I haven't been completely successful in doing so. If you'd like to let me know which specific points are problematic, I'll work on changing them. In the meantime when I get a chance I'll try to reread the article with further objectivity and remove anything that sounds like an opinion.

23 October 2013 - Sentence that suggests a 'minipiano' could be put into a sub-category of instruments "to which it is the only member" removed from the introduction because of the possible interpretation of this observation as an opinion. Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 23:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Zaxander

23 October 2013 - Concluding paragraph changed so that it no longer suggests that the 'Pianette' is maligned today without specific reference to why; also further reduction of verbosity that could be interpreted as making an opinion, such as it being a 'terrible piano' but a 'perfect minipiano'.Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 00:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Zaxander

23 October 2013 - word 'uniquely' changed to 'efficiently' in description of the minipiano to reduce the sound of an opinion to one of fact. Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 14:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Zaxander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk •

23 October 2013 - The following line changed to make the language more efficient and to reduce any sound of a personal opinion: "Its unique design, despite any problems that may be present to either piano tuners or piano sellers of today, should not prevent the instrument from being seen as an important artistic development within the world of keyboard instruments, no matter how they are judged today according to the standards we apply to instruments we are more familiar with (particularly the piano), despite the differences that tend to alienate those who compare them to an upright piano." CHANGED TO "Any problems that may be present to either piano tuners or piano sellers of today who judge minipianos according to the standards they generally apply to upright pianos shouldn't influence how they are judged as historical and artistic artifacts."Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 15:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Zaxander

23 October 2013 - TAG removed relating to personal opinions; please let me know if you still think the article contains anything that could be interpreted as a personal opinion by contacting me. Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 15:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Zaxander

contribs)

The subject is too specialized to be of interest to the general public
I don't believe that such a judgment can be made about a topic you don't know anything about. If you really believe that the minipiano is not worthy of detailed discussion, please tell me why. There is no doubt that the instrument exists and that it was enormously popular. Although it may not be popular now does not mean that it did not have historical significance or that its very existence as the expression in the musical instrument world of an artistic style isn't worthy of discussion or as the forum for understanding the function it played. I've made a specific effort to make the technical language accessible while remaining factually correct and relevant to the language which is used in other articles regarding keyboard instruments; I've also tried to describe the more technical terms so that they are not abstract. If you think that there is anything in the article which is too specialized for your understanding, either remove it or tell me about it and I'll do my best to remove it. But be sure of your knowledge about the historical relevance of both keyboard instruments and/or the art deco movement before doing so. I welcome any valid improvements from informed sources. Uninformed judgments about an articles validity aren't very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 19:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

27 October 2013 - In the section describing the mechanics of the minipiano, the subdivision involved with the detailed description of the arduous process necessary to access the strings at the back of the instrument ['accessing the tuning pins'] has been removed and the language simplified to state why it is advantageous to tune it from the front and not the back.

27 October 2013 - Tag removed relating to the possible use of specialized language because of the changes made described above.Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 23:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Zaxander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs)

The possible neutrality of the article is questioned
This criticism seems difficult to discern from the fact that the article may contain opinions that are related to the writer and not typical of Wikipedia articles. If it means, however, that the writer is showing some kind of bias or preference towards the subject of the article in relation to something external to it, I'd certainly like to know where.

23 October 2013 - Sentence removed from introduction which pertains to "objectively" compare the "sound quality, tone, mechanics & range" of the minipiano resulting in a judgment making the minipiano unique. This could be interpreted as showing bias towards the minipiano.Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 23:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Zaxander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs)

23 October 2013 - Following paragraph entirely reduced and changed in content to help negate the possibility of the article being interpreted as in some way biased as far as this is at all possible : "The minipiano with its bichords and monochords, its reduced tessitura and its contrasting tone becomes problematic if compared at face value to other instruments that followed it. Unfortunately, that is why the 'Pianette' model remains so maligned today. In fact, although the 'Pianette' model may be a terrible piano, when it was released in 1934 its popularity bears out the fact that it was a perfect minipiano in that it lived up to the expectations the many thousands of purchasers had of it that made the decision to buy one. if it has been stored in the correct conditions, or if the trouble is taken to repair and retune a 'Pianette', there is no reason for it not to be considered a perfect minipiano today as well. It is, after all, the only instrument of its type."Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 00:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Zaxander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs)

27 October 2013 - Having read through the article again after a few days distance from the article, I consider that the points above are sufficient to remove any sense of neutrality. If you disagree, please let me know or feel free to make changes to wording. If you wish to question the neutrality now, however, PLEASE specifically refer to where you think neutrality is questioned so I can either remove it, change it or argue better as to its not being neutral. A blank statement of non-neutrality will not be very helpful considering the work I've done. Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 22:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Zaxander

Reference list needs to be cleaned up
Fellow editor User:Jimfbleak commented upon improvements needed to be made to the reference list : 1.You have some references repeated more than once. Format one of them using ref name= instead of ref= like this [ url description ]< /ref >. Next time you use that ref, just put. I will make these changes as soon as I get the chance.Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 13:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Zaxander   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs)

23 October 2013 - References updated to include the ref name=name1 for repeated references.Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 14:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Zaxander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs)

Original research may be contained in the article
I believe that there may be original research (OR) in the article, and the section which I most suspect contains OR is the section comparing minipianos and pianos. In addition, the article contained many phrases probably unacceptable for use in an encyclopedia, for example: ‘shouldn’t’, until my edit. The article also referred to the reader as ‘you’ until I edited it. 88.104.108.193 (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Article is entirely UK-centric
The article does not mention the words "Hardman and Peck," therefore it is useless to a North American audience. American-made Minipianos made under license from Eavestaff by Hardman and Peck are radically different "under the hood" than the UK-made Eavestaff. Their action looks a lot more like a standard spinet, they have trichords like a standard spinet, their tuning pins are in the normal spot for a spinet, their actions are made by Pratt-Read like a zillion other spinets. They are lovely pianos that do not suffer from the design flaws of the UK version. They have their own issues to be sure (many of which are shared by all spinets), but this article reads like a negative review on Minipianos, and it's basically wrong information for anyone in America who might encounter one.Janus303 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for this information. I am currently looking for verified references on the Hardman, Peck & Co. minipianos. Apparently they were licensed for production by the Eavestaff company but they seem to have design differences such as innovations by Meissner (see the Piano: An Encyclopedia by Robert Palmieri ). I wrote this article after discovering that there was practically no information about them; they appeared to be ignored by history. I had to change it a lot because it actually sounded like I was biased in presenting a positive review of the instrument rather than an unbiased encyclopedia article. You can see the original article here. It's really interesting to hear about design differences like the use of trichords. I am still looking for verified references concerning Hardman, Peck & Co. minipianos. Please post any references you find below.Zachar (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I found this reference to Hardman, Peck & Co. minipiano. Hope it helps.
 * The Musicians Piano Atlas Supplement 1 has this information on the Hardman Peck & Co. Minipiano: The Minipiano was made under license from the Associated Piano Co. (Great Britain). The design construction being based on originals produced originally by Lundholm/Stockholm".  Zachar (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information about Steinway's Pianino and other models which were designed to compete with Eavestaff's Pianette
There is no information yet in the article about models of minipianos or minipiano-like instruments that were designed to compete with the original Eavestaff minipiano. According to the book "Steinway and Sons" by Richard K. Liebermann, the Pianino was designed as a reaction to the new fashion. This book mentions the Pianino which was brought out in 1937 to compete with the smaller less expensive instruments which were popular at the time:. There were other companies who designed instruments to compete with the Eavestaff minipiano. If you can find any verified information about these instruments, please include them below.

Tuning from the front?
All upright pianos are tuned from the front - there's no innovation in that. Perhaps the author was trying to describe some special feature of the way this design works, but if so, I don't think the explanation has been successful. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC) Thanks for your comment. What is unique is the fact that the tuning pins are underneath the keyboard just above the knees of the minipiano player and can therefore by accessed not by opening the top of the instrument or moving the panel above the keyboard but instead by allowing a small wooden flap to fall underneath the keyboard. In order to do this the strings have be stretched around a really strange construction at the back. The complex system of pins and the system of hammers which strike the strings are no longer made so they are difficult if not impossible to replace. I thought this was clear in the photo to the right. Maybe a better one could be found or the description improved? I could always take more photos of my own instrument, but it is a genuine hassle to get photos recognized and far easier if you find ones that are already classified with a copyright license. Any advice appreciated. I think it's important to enunciate a detail like this which makes the instrument so different to an upright piano, but if you start trying to describe something it'll soon be flagged for being too unnecessarily detailed Zachar (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Zaxander

Article could be improved fairly easily
The minipiano is an upright piano, with only a couple of significant changes to the usual design. Some authors working on this article seem to be neglecting the fact that the instrument is mainly quite an ordinary one; much of what's written here is merely a less accurate and less comprehensive restatement of the information already on Wikipedia about upright pianos in general.

This *is* (to me anyway) an interesting topic that ought to stay in Wikipedia, with a few changes: making sure to link readers to the general upright piano information rather than duplicating efforts, eliminating the mistaken impression that the minipiano was a thoroughly novel creation, emphasizing that it was a very clever space-saving innovation on the upright piano designs of its time, and concentrating on just its significant differences from other uprights - for example, focusing more on specific details of how each piece of its under-the-key action works (most pianos don't have that), more detail on exactly how the tuning pins end up facing the front and under the keyboard (the convoluted details would be interesting but the mere fact is not), and far less explanation of common or obvious piano features (for example, bichords receive many words in this article, but in context they deserve very few because they're common, simple, and relatively obvious).

In other words, in my opinion the article paradoxically suffers from not being nerdy *enough*, rather than from too much; the restatements of things that are common knowledge for all upright pianos are currently wasting the authors' time and energy (along with readers' patience, perhaps), and unfortunately crowding out the really interesting parts.

I think the possible complaints about wordiness or over-explaining should be taken as calls to cut out *everything* that's already covered in the "Piano" or "Upright piano" articles, and certainly not as calls to omit the truly interesting information from this one!

I'm certainly willing to help trim out the many parts that are common knowledge and replace them with links; I'm not able to expand and improve the minipiano-specific parts. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"Primary factor that sets it apart"
Many many pianos had the action installed low instead of above the keys. I'd argue that other features of the minipiano, such as tuning pins that go right through and are accessible from both the front and the back, or hammers that strike from the back, or some others, do more to set it apart. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Referenced article
The piano-tuners.org article given as a reference is quite well written. This Wikipedia article, on the other hand, seems to contain a lot of original research that unfortunately isn't up to the same standard. It seems to me that a simple paraphrase of the other article's main points would do better here. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)