Talk:Spinet

Spinets hard to service and awkward to play - no way!
Peter Blaise says: I think the quote from an old service book is pure dribble, the complaining of a frustrated servicer. My own personal anecdote: I've had a Yamaha Spinet that doubled in value after 20 years and is still in lovely playing condition. When our place flooded (6 inches of water), the servicer said the piano was in excellent condition and estimated it at twice it's purchase value. On the main article here, using a bitchy servicer's booklet as a resource is quite inappropriate. All it says is that the servicer hates their job and prefers to work on easy or simple stuff, and they resent their experiences with rare pianos that confused them and challenged them. That's more about the servicer than about the thing being serviced. Anyway, if not for the flood, our Yamaha would never have needed ANY service in 20 years. So, I edited the front article to reduce the negativity of report to rest mainly on the servicer, and not on the piano itself. -- Peter Blaise Peterblaise 14:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Dear Mr. Blaise:


 * Not without feeling a bit of remorse, I've reverted your changes, because they violate Wikipedia policy. Please see WP:Verifiability and No Original Research.


 * To explain in a nutshell: we're not a vehicle for conveying expert opinion directly to the Internet.  Rather, we're a vehicle for conveying what is already published in legitimate sources.  So, no matter how good an expert on spinet pianos you may be, we can't include material in the Wikipedia just on your say- so.


 * Larry Fine's book has been published in four editions, and is the result of Fine's consultations with many other piano technicians, so it does have a certain amount of authority.


 * If you want to change what the article says, the way to go would be to find published reference sources that say what you were saying, and quote and cite them. I (for one) would welcome new material on this topic taken from published sources.


 * Yours sincerely, Opus33 16:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I made one change in response to your edits: now, all the negative things said about spinets are attributed directly to Fine, rather than being given as the encyclopedia's own evaluation.  This seems right to me, given that (evidently) Fine's assessment is not uncontroversial.

--

Peter Blaise says: Interesting points, and point of view, there, Opus33. I understand completely what you are saying. How about we agree to disagree? You write, "... we're a vehicle for conveying what is already published in legitimate sources ..." rubbish. That's what Google does. We're here to synthesize and contribute what each person has to contribute in our own way. Dump your remorse. Respect your individuality, and mine, and make the article shine, rather than limit the article to the crappy complaints of an antiquated, opinionated piano servicer who is motivated to get the most dollars per hour from their services: more expensive pianos justify bigger service charges, so it makes sense Larry Fine hates inexpensive pianos, and would want to discourage people from buying them. In the original article, the use of the word "cheaper" implies qualities of the piano itself, whereas my edit to "less expensive" implies only the cost of the piano, which is the real intention of the information sharing in this article, and has nothing to do with the superior "authority" of either of us as contributors. Larry Fine wrote a book. That makes Larry Fine an author, not an authority. You wrote "better-quality pianos"?!? What "qualities" are YOU thinking of? A "better-quality" for one owner may be the quality of size, for another, the quality of price, and for another ... the list goes on. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder, and they are the only judge of appropriateness for their purposes. There is no such thing as "quality" as a word on it's own as an unambiguous description of anything. There is, however, "qualities of ..." and then specify, specify, specify. The article as you reverted it is full of very odd writing, as if quoted directly from Larry Fine (one of the Three Stooges?). If you want to write book reports, go to http://www.bookreview.com/, I guess! Otherwise, your philosophy of Wikipedia contribution would have us all merely writing in a pedantic way, "So-and-so is reported by so-and-so to have said such-and-such about the such-and-such ..." Ad infinitum, ad nauseum. My contribution reduces the unatributedness and unambiguousness of the content of the article, and returns the article to being more about spinet pianos, and less about Larry Fine's book. Oddly, you have done neither - you do not help describe spinet pianos nor Larry Fine's book! Pick one, find an appropriate Wikipedia page, and help. Otherwise, please do not revert anything that is not spam, not vandalism, not off topic - let's you and me start a new Wikipedia revolution - if it's not spam, not vandalism, not off topic, let's edit and polish, rather than revert. Do you think you can join me in doing that? Please. Thank you. Peter Blaise (not Mr. Blaise!) peterblaise (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Hello Peter, and thanks for your message. You know, the requirement of reference sources is not just me, it's the whole encyclopedia; please see WP:Verifiability and No Original Research.


 * But I'm also a huge fan of these policies as a matter of personal opinion. I see the following connections:


 * free-wheeling personal stuff like you mention <---> blogs
 * material patiently and nerdily extracted from published reference sources <---> Wikipedia


 * So I suggest you should start a blog; then you're free to say whatever you like. Or, find and quote a published reference that thinks that spinet pianos are great.


 * Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

--

'''"Verifiability" &ne; "Published". . . "No Original Research" &ne; "Deny Your Own Experience"'''

Peter Blaise responds: Yes, I'm starting to search using Google and including the term -site:wikipedia.org so that I don't waste time reading other people's edited recitation of what's already been published elsewhere. Amazon and Google do a better job of accurately searching and quoting sources that have already been published. I collect encyclopedias and cherish their offering over the many years they cover, and I've enjoyed learning from the author's experiences, some of whom I've met, spoken with, taken classes with. All they know is their own experiences, and they freely admit that they know nothing of the subject they are writing about - only their own experiences! My point is that there is no reason for Opus33 to contribute to Wikipedia if Opus33 has nothing of Opus33's own experiences to offer. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm just asking, "Why would anyone contribute unless they are giving what they alone can contribute?" Thank you for reviewing your own contribution and trying to more carefully attribute a comment to its source. My challenge to you is to participate in the subject enough to know when to discard a source. "Verifiability" doesn't mean "somebody wrote it elsewhere, so it must be true". Just because someone wrote a book doesn't mean it has to be preserved and republished at every opportunity. Some one somewhere has to bring their own personal experience to play to vet out the applied accuracy of that book, and know when to discard it as self promoting, myopic, whining, inaccurate, and inappropriate. Unless you have no experience with the subject ... "No original research" doesn't mean you have to deny your own experiences. Your experiences must inform you and your contribution to Wikipedia, otherwise, why would I read your contribution? -- Peter Blaise peterblaise (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

--

Hello, Peter, I'd like to stick to my guns on the general point at hand. But concerning whether Larry Fine is biased against spinets, I was provoked by your contribution to see if I could do any better, using only references found by typing at my computer.

Typing "spinet piano" into Google Scholar, I got the following, among the first 50 links:


 * 3 patents, each trying to solve what the inventor describes as a yucky problem with spinets.
 * A quote from Robert Moog, discussing the barrier imposed by the great expense of acoustic pianos: "Most of us learn to play the piano not on nine-foot Steinway grands or anything like that. We had to play on spinets that our parents squeezed out of their pocketbooks with great effort."  Source:  "Interview with Robert Moog", Henning Lohner; Robert Moog; Computer Music Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4. (Winter, 1985), pp. 62-65.

I don't think these citations belong in the article, but they do show, I believe, that my point can be defended from the published literature, without bringing up any of my own personal experiences (which I continue to regard as irrelevant and inadmissible). Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

--

Spinet reports in print are unrepresentative

Peter Blaise says: Hi Opus33, I agree, we're just kind a stuck in the Wikipedia "rules as inhibitor" rather than "rules a supporter" syndrome here. Analogy wise, suppose the early automobile came and went in favor of the personal airplane, and the Model T was the last automobile issue before the end of cars. Well, before the Model T, all the in-print reviews of cars would have complained about their expense, complexity, unreliability, and so on. However, the Model T turned all that around, and then automobiles continued to become popular and survive. Now history looks back on automobiles with a different perspective, and people don't quote those early reports as authoritative. Ok, back to spinnets (try Goggling different spellings: spinet = 289,000, spinnet = 45,100, add "piano" and get 37,900 and 1,240 respectively, and "Yamaha spinet piano" shows $800-$2,500US today - not bad!). If electronics hadn't become cheaper, the Spinet, as Yamaha issued, might have been the Model T of a new generation of reliable, rewarding to play and listen to small pianos, with a 50-year history now establishing it as totally opposite of what's implied by the current Wikipedia article on spinets. But, because the reliable spinet was quickly replaced by the electronic piano, there's scant attention paid to the end of the spinet line - which is my experience of spinets. Funny, but Yamaha also evolved the technology to make the spinet-killer so successful, even helping out Korg on the way. My point, and I do have one, is whether or not Wikipedia really demands to limit itself to only rehashing what's already in print in spite of the experience of Wikipedia editor's personal experience to the contrary: that what's in print sux, occasionally. Perhaps, as you suggest, the incentive will be for people with contrary experiences to independently publish their findings, and then Wikipedia can expand beyond the limits of pre-existing sources, and incorporate such new sources for citation. However, that's rubbish, and re-fosters the sum-total of knowledge once again being in the hands of the moneyed. It takes at least $100US or so to publish anything once on POD Print on Demand sites like lulu with an ISBN number and all. Anyone who wants to "salt the mine" at Wikipedia only has to have the money in hand to vanity publish their ideas. Then, by your read of the Wikipedia rules, no one can argue their Wikipedia page citation to something that's "in print", even though other Wikipedia editors who may not have cash in hand, have contrary real-life experiences. Ouch. Oh Well: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone with money can manipulate for their own purposes! Is that what we're working so hard to build? To all the "modern" spinet owners out there, I wish you luck in overcoming any inappropriate devaluation of your property due to endless rehashing of inappropriate tripe. The following lines are unqualified, non-specific, and as such, being unreferenced, we have no way of knowing what the author's experience was, effectively painting all spinets with the same brush. And remember, the author claims to be a piano servicer, has no access or claim to sales and use statistics, and so has no way of knowing if their own experience is a large or small percentage of the possible experience of spinet owners. They may never have serviced some modern models of spinet because they never needed servicing!:
 * ...However, according to piano author Larry Fine, the cost in quality was considerable. The stickers were "often noisy and troublesome". Moreover, to make room for them, the keys had to be made shorter, resulting in "very poor leverage" and thus a poor sense of touch and control for the player. Lastly, the very short strings of the spinet resulted in a narrow range of harmonics and thus in poor tone quality.
 * "...The spinet was also the bane of piano technicians. Concerning the difficulty of servicing them, Fine writes "Spinets ... are very difficult to service because even the smallest repair requiring removal of the action becomes a major ordeal. Each of the connecting stickers has to be disconnected and tied up to the action and all the keys have to be removed from the piano before the action can be lifted out."

We would not tolerate anyone generalizing like this if they were to directly contribute to Wikipedia, why do we tolerate it just because they got it into print elsewhere? Crap is crap, and Fines writing (as quoted) is crap. Let's rewrite, rewrite, rewrite. How's this:
 * "...Piano servicer Larry Fine published his account of his experiences servicing some spinet pianos (unknown dates, ages of pianos, models, condition, price, and so on). Larry Fine compared spinets to full size pianos, generally reporting that the spinets he serviced were harder and more complex to service due to their compactness and closeness of all their interconnected parts, also noting that the smaller parts made the spinet harder to play with the same type of subtle controls he experienced on some full size pianos, and that the sound was also less complex than some pianos with longer strings..."

Of course, the same can probably be said of any compact anything that is a less expensive version of any product. The purchaser must compare such features and benefits in balance with what is important to the purchaser, such as affordability, space, and so on. There are no references available in print on piano or spinet piano statistical reliability. In other words, there is no measure as to whether Larry Fine's experience is a large part of small part of the total spinet experience. Also, there is no reference as to whether the so-called "best" spinet exhibited higher qualities of reliability, playability and sound when compared to the some full size pianos. In other words, there is no quantitative measurement as to where the various qualities of spinets and full size pianos overlap, if at all, other than the obvious comparative qualities of size and cost.
 * -- Peter Blaise 151.207.242.4 (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

PS - "free-wheeling personal stuff like you mention <---> blogs" has nothing to do with my offering of my experience and testimony. I'd rather vet our Larry Fine in the discussion pages versus other people's experiences before including his reference as if it were useful authority just because it's findable in print. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.242.4 (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth
OK I tried to post an amendment... further information to this page, but it was rejected as vandalism! I cited the source, which was part of a seminar at the University of Glasgow this month. I have never posted anything on this, so I am a bit in the dark about procedure. The response I received was so nasty I thought about just giving up... but perhaps you here can advise on the appropriateness of including de Maisse's citation about Queen Elizabeth I's SPINET.

The French Ambassador in Queen Elizabeth I's court at Whitehall Palace in London refers to her spinet. Unfortunately he does not relate further details about the type or form of the spinet in the same manner that he describes her attire and jewelry. Still, it is a 1597 reference to the spinet in England. The quote is as follows: "I departed from her audience at night, and she retired half dancing to her chamber, where is her spinet which she is content that everyone should see."

"De Maisse A Journal of all that was accomplished by Monsieur de maisse Ambassador in England From King Henri IV to Queen Elizabeth Anno Domini 1597 (Translated from the French and edited with an introduction by G.B. Harrison, Reader in English Literature in the University of London, and R.A. Jones, Lecturer in French at King's College, University of London" (London: The Nonesuch Press, 1931). p. 39. L.W.S. PetznickStaforlife (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Staforlife,


 * 1) I agree that the reverting editor who called your edit "vandalism" was being rude. In fact (s)he wasn't even being accurate; your edit clearly was made in good faith and did not constitute vandalism.


 * 2) On the other hand -- was your edit really helping this article very much? In particular, the quotation doesn't identify what kind of instrument was observed -- at that time the French could call pretty much any kind of harpsichord an "epinette" = "spinet".


 * It's a familiar anecdote that Queen Elizabeth played the harpsichord, and WP should cover it. But I think it belongs somewhere else in WP (perhaps in the article Virginal).  Spinet is too narrow for it, being focused on one particular kind of harpsichord, one which (in the most common sense) hadn't even been invented yet in QE1's day.


 * Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Replacing Marie Antoinette
User Daderot has posted on Commons a spectacular set of pictures from the Musical Instrument Museum in Brussels, including what must be a very early spinet by Zentis. I've posted this here.

I also took took down Marie Antoinette -- it really looks like what she's playing is not a bentside spinet; the left cheek is too wide for that. Please feel free to put it back if you're an expert and can tell. Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical Error On the Main Page
It's a small little grammatical error I believe, but I am not comfortable editing Wikipedia pages, so I hope I am posting this in the right place/right way.

On the main page for Spinet, the very first line says: A spinet is a smaller type of harpsichord or other keyboard instrument, such as a piano or organ.

I believe it should say, "... other keyboard instruments." Also, that's what two of my grammar-checking software applications say.

If this is correct, I hope it can be edited by someone. If not, my apologies. I'm always open to learning and thank you for your time.

CoryKent7 (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)CoryKent