Talk:Player piano

Early Cost
While I'm totally ignorant about player pianos (hence reading the article), I do know there's something wrong with this sentence:

"It cost $250 (£65) - a large sum of money at the time." $250 is far more money than £65. The exchange rate is about 2:1 at the moment, and I'm not aware of any time the discrepancy has been as great as suggested here. The thing is, I can't rightly change it since I don't know which price is correct! (or when "the time" is for that matter) 86.131.147.6 (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

duh - $250 is what it cost in 1896 in the USA as per their advert, £65 was the stated price on British adverts of the period. What has the 2:1 exchange rate of today got to do with that? At that time the rate was closer to 4:1 and was so until after WW11 Undergroundpianola (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Pianola pages
I'm new to Wikipedia, and I probably don't have too much time to browse or edit on a regular basis. I hope I haven't breached any gentlemen's (or gentlewomen's) agreements by jumping in with both feet.

There are many, many things in life about which I know nothing, but I am effectively one of the world experts on pianolas. So in due course I'll hope to create some other pages around the subject.

If I don't regularly check in to messages at Wikipedia, I can always be contacted at rex@pianola.org. And www.pianola.org is a good starting place for trawling the Net on the subject of player pianos and music rolls.

Regards to all,

Rex Lawson


 * Hi Rex, and welcome to Wikipedia. I would recommend you create an account because it makes communication easier. Also, you will be able to sign messages with or ~ . Dori | Talk 15:54, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, Dori. I have an account, appropriately called Pianola.

Great information - but I think the 'music roll' information should be moved to the Piano Roll page. What do others think?

Player vs. Reproducing
I'm no expert on these pianos, but from what I understand there is a difference between PLAYER piano and REPRODUCING piano. Does anyone know enough about the two types to perhaps edit the article to reflect that? --Wolf530 04:56, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

There is indeed a difference between the player piano and the reproducing piano. The player piano uses a roll with programmed nitches that correspond to notes on a piece. A reproducing piano on the other hand is programmed via a live performance. The method used today is by digital means, although, reproducing pianos were common by the dawn of the twentieth century. The old method of recording the live performances is not to my knowledge and was in fact what I was looking for on this edit page. 12:30, Aug 27, 2006.


 * I agree. In the U.S. at least, the words "player piano" conjure up tinny heaps of junk in cowboy movies, or still seen today in novelty general stores. By contrast, I just heard on the radio this morning a piece by Felix Mendelsohn recorded using the "Aolian company Duo-Art process" for the "reproducing piano", which was fantastically precise and nuanced and marvelous sounding! I suspect that many/most readers of this article will be equally ignorant, equating player pianos with the movie stereotype; this stereotype should be mentioned and then demolished. linas 14:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because in the US the words "player piano" may conjure up odd images for a very very few feeble-minded people cannot require the effort of a stereotype to be demolished. People who are that dumb won't read it, grasp the point or ever be disabused of their quaint notions in any event. Sadly, the worst offenders are often the enthusiasts who, holding these stereotypes themselves, go about trying to de-tune, rinkytinkify and electrically pump what were once finely musical manually operated instruments intended for human interaction. Undergroundpianola (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Pneumatic player piano close up
Should a close up of a pneumatic player piano be added? There could start to be too many images on the page.

Pic is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pianola_closeup.JPG MxAesir 06:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Nickelodeon
Arent' these also called Nickelodeons?

A Nickelodeon is a nickname for a coin operated player piano in a public place. It also was a term for a small movie theater (The word means "Nickle Theater")--Saxophobia 18:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yamaha Disklavier
I'm at a loss. The entire section on The Yamaha Disklavier reads like an advertisement, but at the same time I don't feel it appropriate to remove the section in its entirety. If anyone thinks they can salvage it, please try. Mlzg4

If you thought that was an ad, read one of MichaelIsGreat's edits. He struck 8 times on this article and 8 times on the Bösendorfer article before he was blocked. Each time after one of his edits was reverted, he would come back, making the obvious ad even more obvious, and using insulting edit descriptions (The mad people who delete my postings, GO BACK TO YOUR MAD HOUSE!!!). If you want to see what he did, look through the edit history, and click the date and time link next to MichaelIsGreat's username. SupaStarGirl 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The Disklavier does now have its own page. To be fair the Disklavier is entriely significant in its own right now. It has been in production longer than most pneumatic reproducing pianos ever were and almost certainly has shipped far more instruments of this type than any pneumatic reproducing piano builder ever did. Fans of old pneumatic reproducing pianos get very sniffy about solenoid operated instruments. This is misguided as, of course, some of the very earliest player pianos were also solenoid operated and featured rudimentary automatic dynamic control making them, like the Disklavier, reproducing pianos of a sort. Undergroundpianola (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

John McTammany
I've just edited the paragraph on McTammany, saying that he claimed much credit towards the invention of the player piano, rather than that he deserved it. In both his books, McTammany is not above ignoring the achievements of others, and I think posterity has so far swallowed his own opinion of himself a little too uncritically.

There were many other important inventors in the field of roll-operated musical instruments, and in my view it is not right to single out McTammany. However, his paragraph stands until someone gets time to write up the achievements of all the others.

Pianola 21:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, posterity hasn't swallowed his own opinion of himself a little too uncritically. It's only much later on that we have come to look back at McTammany - and critically so. McTammany is vindicated by now freely-available online patents and the ability in the internet age to access far more material that was available to the early generations of player piano enthusiasts. McTammany was very careful in what does claim for himself if you read his work carefully. Often he is mis-read and people assume he was claiming for himself more than he was. The entire text of his book is avaiable online via the Player Piano Group's website Undergroundpianola (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing the development history
While reading through the history submitted by User:84.13.3.210 I noticed this:
 * From the early days, manufacturers sought to create mechanisms which would pick out the melody of a musical composition over the background of the rest of the music in the same manner as a live pianist. Click here to see a few of them. (emphasis added)

It's a shame to have to remove so much info from the article, but there can be little doubt that it contains material copied and pasted from off-site, without any mention of permission. If you're the person who made those edits, please comment on this page as to where the material came from. Gazpacho 06:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's back. I added some fact tags and directed the contributor to WP:CITE in the edit comment.  (SEWilco 04:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

The bulk of that section is from the Player Piano Group website and the content (written by woprld player expert Julian Dyer) and its dissemination into Wikipedia is authorised Undergroundpianola (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (Commenting on the paragraph above by Undergroundpianola)... Specifically, the relevant source page is https://www.playerpianogroup.org.uk/articles/the-history-of-player-piano/26 but there the author is just listed as "The Player Piano Group" (no mention of Julian Dyer) and I see nothing on that website to suggest that the copyright-owner has given relevant permission. Even if permission were not a concern, that material lacks citations, it is in a conversational rather than encyclopaedic style, and it contains speculation and opinion, so ideally it could do with some changes.

Flight trainer
The references for this material are all in the linked articles. --Zeamays (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Edwin Votey
..., inventor of the famous Pianola, yet to write for a hero of the wikipedia and knowers of the reed organ and the piano.. .. Most needed hints here: http://www.pianola.org/factsheets/votey.cfm -- AxelKing (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Votey is often over-stated as it was he who cobbled together the push-up piano player that helped the Aeolian Company continue on its path to becoming the main mechanical music factor in the USA. Aeolian's market dominance was created not by the success of the pianola but by very substantial outside investor captial input enabling extensive advertising and product marketing without which it would have been no better off than any other company. After the main source of this income was withdrawn in 1924 the company rapidly shrank and Aeolian Hall in New York was sold straight away. Without the outside capital input to boost Aeolian overall Votey could never have been any more notable than any other inventor who cobbled together a pneumatic piano player during the years 1891 -1900. Aeolian's main income was always from its expensive player pipe organs aimed at the uber-wealthy yet the number of surviving pianola player pianos and their fans in the English-speaking world who hold a light up to Votey from this end of history is so overwhelming that it makes things look other than they were. Votey is significant but there are others who, all things considered, are equally or more worthy also. Undergroundpianola (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * To me, your complaint about Votey's significance appears to be a minor viewpoint. Whether Aeolian was successful because of capital and marketing or because of quality product does not change the fact that they were successful. Votey rightly deserves credit for achieving what he did. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Material
Article has been tagged for needing references since 2009. Please feel free to reincorporate the below material with appropriate citations. Doniago (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What is the reasoning for your drive by destruction of the article? Looking it over, much of it is not cited. Why aren't you wholesale deleting almost all of it?


 * The content is undisputed, easily verifiable by yourself, and not contentious. DMahalko (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The material was disputed when the article was tagged over two years ago, if the material is easily verifiable, then verify it, and it clearly is contentious if we're having this discussion. You may wish to review WP:V. If you feel there is additional unsourced material that should be removed until sourcing is provided, you are welcome to remove it; I am under no such obligation. Doniago (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing was disputed by the tagger. Here, I looked it up. It was just a general drive-by tagging, by someone not disputing anything.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Player_piano&diff=273019365&oldid=272287866
 * You are the one turning this general handwaved "something should be done here" molehole into a mountain.
 * From what you deleted it's clear to me that you don't understand the article topic at all and are just deleting this one section only because I edited it, and for the smugness of "DMahalko, I'm right, and you're wrong wrong wrong! You didn't cite, youuuu diiiidnn't ciiiiiteee! Nyah Nyah Nyah!" *Delete without even any comprehension of the article content deleted*
 * Since you love quoting rules at me, here's one for you. NODEADLINE Citations and photo examples will be arriving when I have had time to do more research. Until then, the article content is not controversial or being disputed as wrong or incorrect by anyone -- including you -- and so can remain in the article as it is, until such citations can be provided.
 * Looking at your reversions in this article, I see you've been busily doing this for a while, doing wholesale reverting of Good_faith edits and improvements from other editors. DMahalko (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When you'd like to discuss this in a civil manner and focus on the issues with the text itself rather than your issues with my editing style, which I'd note has generally been supported as a valid interpretation of policy, I will be happy to respond. Until then, if you reinsert the material without proper sourcing you will be in violation of WP:BURDEN and I will treat it accordingly. If you truly feel my moving the material here is without merit, I invite you to take it to WP:3O to get a third opinion from a neutral party. Or if you feel I am the problem, by all means bring it up at WP:ANI or wherever you feel it would be most appropriate; this Talk space is not the proper forum for discussing such concerns. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are the problem, and your editing style is overly aggressive and not following policy. WP:V says, right at the top:


 * It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged.
 * Which is what I'm saying. It doesn't matter if someone stuck a tag in a section saying "not cited since 1823" because Wikipedia policy doesn't require or DEMAND it. You are the one demanding it.


 * Reverting/deleting whole sections of edits not because they are inaccurate or wrong, but only because it lacked citations, is not a good enough reason to remove it. You are not challenging any of the text you removed. DMahalko (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the results of your [[WP:ANI] filing] to this point, the consensus appears to be that I have acted in compliance with policy. If you would like to reincorporate the text that I removed, please feel free to do so, citing appropriate sources per WP:BURDEN. I am actively following the conversation there and shall certainly reconsider this matter if and when consensus at WP:ANI appears to change. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;text-align:left; border:1px solid silver; margin-top:0.2em;" ! style="background-color:#CFC;" | Development === 1876–1890 === Following the Philadelphia exhibition, the mechanical music business began to grow rapidly. Various companies were founded in the later 1870s to manufacture and sell automated reed organs. Most significant to the development of the player piano was the Aeolian Company, founded as the Mechanical Orguinette Company in 1878, initially as retailer of small reed organs made by the Munroe Organ Company and others.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " |

These instruments started out with valveless actions, the air flowing through the paper operating the reed directly. Throughout this period, the instruments grew larger and more complex, and valves were added to switch the air flow, so ensuring faster response and requiring smaller holes in the paper. The idea of incorporating the new player devices into pianos developed over this period. Needham filed a patent in 1880 describing a pneumatic player device in a piano.

The main technical development of this period was the double valve system, which enabled machines to switch the volume of air needed to operate piano actions. The valves effectively worked as amplifiers, a small air flow being used to switch a much larger volume of air.

Inventors persisted with the early cumbersome mechanical linkage systems for a long time, although the valve system was considerably simpler. The main reason for this appears to be that no suitable airtight thin leather was available to make the small pouches which inflate to operate the valves. By the late 1880s, the development of suitable pneumatic materials and leathers had advanced sufficiently that effective and reliable player mechanisms were starting to enter the marketplace.

1890–1900
In 1896, Theodore P Brown introduced and marketed the "Aeriol Piano", which was the first substantially complete player piano. That same year, Wilcox and White introduced their "Angelus" cabinet player, which was a modification of their earlier grand and upright player pianos. None of the early player pianos was a success, though John McTammany (self-proclaimed "inventor of the player") credited Brown as the first to organize, in a practical manner, the ideas others had developed over the previous 20 years.

Through the middle 1890s, Edwin S Votey developed his piano playing device, the Pianola. This was offered to the Aeolian Company to sell alongside their range of reed organs. It was launched in 1897, and very aggressively marketed over the following years. It was the advertising organized by Harry Tremaine and the Wilcox and White Company that established the market for piano playing devices.

In these early years, the main demand was for cabinet players (devices rolled to the keyboard of an existing piano, to press the keys with mechanical wooden "fingers"), and it was some years before the public preferred to buy an entirely new self-contained instrument and trade in their old perfectly good regular pianos. As market demand changed, the "internal player" came back into view and was developed again, this time in earnest.
 * }

Dual usage
I don't think it is clearly stated in the article whether a pianola can usually (or always?) be played as an ordinary piano as well as a player-piano. I was curious because the singer Imogen Heap, who is a good pianist, has a Steinway Duo Art pianola which she frequently uses as a regular piano (see various videos on YouTube, e.g. here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVPtJ13f4Wk ). Is this a standard feature of pianolas? The article does say that ordinary pianos were at one period often converted into pianolas, and it would be odd to do so if this prevented them being used as pianos. Maybe the answer is glaringly obvious to pianola experts, but Wikipedia articles are aimed primarily at people who are not experts in the subject concerned!109.157.151.84 (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Most pianolas can be played as ordinary pianos, the chief exception being instruments built in cabinet form without keyboards. modifications to the piano action, generally lengthening the keys to make room for the pneumatic mechanism, may change the touch and responsiveness of the action and make it less satisfactory to play by hand.Saxophobia (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

List of Player Piano Manufacturers

 * Disklavier - Yamaha
 * Pianocorder - Pianocrder
 * PianoDisc - PianoDisc
 * PNOmation (formerly Pianomation) - QRS

Unsourced sections
I did a little research and found a few likely sources for some sections of the article that are heavily lacking in sources. The 'Antecedents' and 'Development' sections seem to have been copied from this article: The History of Player Piano The 'Preservation and restoration' section seems to have been copied from this article: The AMICA Bulletin - Stacks are the Stanford

I hope this is helpful in some way. SebYB67 (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Move "Preservation and Restoration" Section to the "Piano Roll" Page
The contents of this section are about preserving and restoring piano rolls, not player pianos. This section should be moved to the Piano Roll article.