Talk:Piano maintenance

Keeping the lid down?

Hi-

I'm puzzled by:

"While the wooden lid over the keys gives protection while the instrument is not in use, it does contribute to the yellowing of the white keys over time and maintaining a white appearance is greatly assisted by closing the lid only when necessary, or better still not at all."

No source is given, and neither is a mechanism given. (For example, might the plastic somehow exude a gas that yellows plastic, so that ventilation is needed? This seems unlikely). On the other hand, it sounds just like the sort of "information" that gets passed down as folklore.

I therefore ask the author of this passage to say where (s)he got the information from; if this information can't be substantiated it would probably be better to delete the passage--it would be embarrassing if we were propagating an old wives' tale.

Thanks very much, Opus33 04:44, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm not the author but I agree with the point about keeping the lid open. Probably it was thought that since sunlight (and peroxide bleach) was used to bleach the keytops originally, then daily sunlight exposure will keep them white. But we notice that the part of the ivory that goes under the fallboard (keyboard lid) does not get any more yellow than the exposed part of the keytop. So, yes, I would say it is an old wives' tale. I have edited that part out. Tom

I have seen many pipe organ keys where the fallboard is often locked from Sunday through Friday, and the ivory key coverings have often been very yellow!! clavierking (choir boy to piano rebuilder) Clavierking (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

External Links Discussion

I added some external links to sites with good quantities of free information on piano care. Seemed appropriate as the article itself does not have a tremendous amount of detail, which is probably just as well given that entire books are available on the subject. Comments and suggestions on these links welcome. Carboncopy 01:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed links to tuning schools and piano repair equipment suppliers. They do not add significant amounts of free information; rather they advertise products and services (using guidelines in the Wikipedia article on External links to avoid). These entities and many, many like them are easily found with a google search. I left the ptg.org link. See the discussion on these same issues and websites over at Talk:Piano Tuning. -- Carboncopy 19:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Carboncopy, It seems that you are quite partial to some commercial enterprises, but not others. This is a matter for which if we are going to allow some, then all must also stay (this isn't for you alone to decide). That being said (in order to satisfy), all such links have been removed. LONGTIMERPT

The "commercial enterprise" links which Carboncopy removed contained no information about care and maintenance of pianos; rather they were links to schools and supply companies. The page is about piano care, and as such, links to pages about piano care are relevant. Their mild commerciality is not their reason for inclusion, but rather the information is. These links have valuable information about piano care- the kind you can't find in the yellow pages, which is what the links he removed were. If those pages had some relevant information on them, we'd let them stay, but they don't, and that's what the difference is between those links and the ones we kept. - Rainwarrior 05:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So now we are to understand that a website designed almost entirely for commercial enterprise, and more to the point, offering technical how-to information without any real qualifiation being assured for the instructional content offered is somehow more safe, vital and informative than accredited schools who are actually in the business of teaching piano tuning & technology? Surely, you jest. I would like to offer a basis for our POV which may well assure a much more balanced set of "rules" than our constantly editing each other over and over (this only defeats our mutual goals here - we should be trying to work together). Please consider the suggestons made on my talk page in the hopes of aiding some definition to this topic. BTW: nice job on the frequency chart!! LONGTIMERPT

The visitor to the Wikipedia is looking for information. FREE and accurate information--that is the Wikipedia way. Presumably, if he is reading a piano care and maintenance page, he wants information about care and maintenance. Why not give it to him? Why insist that he attend an accredited school to learn more? Why offer websites on where to purchase piano supplies if you will not tell him what to do with the supplies?

You complain repeatedly that we keep including a "commercial enterprise," yet you submit links to professional tuning schools (which require fees to get any instruction) and commercial supply houses. Actually, the links you left untouched (at this writing) have commercial dimensions: PTG has a store section, and, can certify you as a technician--for a fee; the Piano Technician Page is operated by professional tuner who provides his contact information should you perhaps desire his services. Where exactly do we draw the line?

Piano tuning and maintenance certainly benefits from the experience of professionals like yourself. There is much to learn. But it is presumptuous to insist that ONLY a professional can provide any knowledge on the subject. There are all levels of knowledge, from the very basic (e.g., how to tune a single string) to the complex (e.g., adjusting action). Some--but not all--require decades in the business to learn or to explain.

So, once again, it comes down to the information. Is the information on the linked pages accurate? Is it relevant to the topic? Is it of sufficient quantity to make it worth the mouse click? The nature of the web is such that we cannot know for certain that the author of any page has the qualifications they claim, so we are only left with the information. Do they have years of experience, or are they just copying from a library book? Nor can we know the true motivation for providing the information. Does the author only want to make money, or does he truly have information to offer and any revenue is incidental to him? If the information is accurate and in sufficient quantity to make it worth the read, then the motivation is irrelevant.

It's all about the information. Not the who, not the why, not the how---the information. That is the rule that will settle this. Carboncopy 05:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course a piano tuning school is a better place to learn tuning than any website. That's not the point at all that I am trying to make. The reason any sites at all are linked from a wikipedia article is that they provide information about the subject; not because they provide information about organizations that provide information about the subject. That's what the yellow pages are for. There are hundreds of piano tuning schools; they are not hard to find. To link directly to one particular one would be an advertisement in the article space. The thing I find myself repeating again and again is: if you have concerns about the quality of information at the links you've again removed, voice the particulars here. You can continue saying "the author is unqualified", but this is a meaningless argument. I don't care if monkeys wrote the page; if the information is correct, then it's a good page. If there's something wrong with the information, you've really got to let us know. I think your expertise could be valuable to this article, but all you've shared with us so far is your opinion on the author of one site you don't like. - Rainwarrior 08:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links Discussion, Con't

Thank you both very much for your kind and thoughtful input. This is exactly what I had hoped would come to pass (dialogue). Prior to your electing redress to the links in question, I would appreciate your indulgence in awaiting my response to the points made above. You would indeed have my sincere appreciation.

Until then, many thanks. LONGTIMERPT 11:28PT, 4 June 2006

Perhaps it would benefit the wikipedia reader to be made aware that such a thing as professional training for piano technicians exists, under a new subject heading "Piano Maintenance as a Profession" or some such. It might briefly describe the skills needed and training available. It would not link to any schools, since Wikipedia is not a directory of products or services. This might satisfy LONGTIMERPT's concern that the profession be acknowledged. Of course, I still believe some links to websites with free, relevant and accurate information should be included. --Carboncopy 13:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "Steve's piano service" is an excellent website, and its link should be restored, It goes into the details of piano maintainance far more deeply than we should ever actually do on the wikipedia page. After consideration, I think the detwiler link doesn't really need to be here, since it's not actually about "maintainance" but more specifically tuning, and it's already present on the piano tuning page. - Rainwarrior 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Carboncopy 02:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I will do my best to be fair and unbiasedad in addressing both of your comments above in the order they have been offered:

1st; "The visitor to the Wikipedia is looking for information. FREE and accurate information--that is the Wikipedia way."

I couldn't agree more. If we simply allow anyone sporting a webpage to plant their opinions as a factual basis, this is when it becomes dicey (we already see this all over the Net). Wikipedia is different in that we can (collectively) have a modicum of control over this. There is, nor has there been, to my knowledge, any dispute about this being free. It is a slippery slope because this subject matter is somewhat inclusive of opinion. The key (excuse the pun) is whether those opinions are held by our peers, as a whole. It seems only reasonable that since we can (and should) have some moderation of this topic, that we find some way of electing an oversight committee (if you will) to see that the information presented is reasonably qualified. As it is now, the views of only 1 or 2 persons seem to dictate content. The problem appears to be about the level of accuracy - and to that we all agree and disagree. There is not, nor has there been to my knowledge, any dispute about this being free.

2nd; "Presumably, if he is reading a piano care and maintenance page, he wants information about care and maintenance. Why not give it to him?"

Again, I totally agree. Perhaps, my concerns were not stated well. I am in no way suggesting we not have information on piano care, etc.; far from it. Instead, it is the quality, specificity and correctness of that information - how do we see to this? In the case of one of the links removed (and much to my chagrin, reinstated again), there is an abundant amount of information which is religous in nature on this site. Some is fine and harmless, but then again, some is rather presumptous and to some, quite offensive. (not to mention that such ideas and interpetations are compeletly outside of accepted practice and the subject at hand). As a matter of informative links on the subject, this seems totally inappropriate. This isn't about whether I or anyone else "likes" someone, it's about proper endorsement.

3rd; "Why insist that he attend an accredited school to learn more?"

In all due respect, this appears to be your own view - my inclusion of such links was not to suggest that we only have one and not the other. Why not have both (more on this later)?

4th; "Why offer websites on where to purchase piano supplies if you will not tell him what to do with the supplies?"

Ahh, this is where I think we are not connecting well - also partly because it hasn't been fully discussed yet. There are at least 3 core suppliers on-line who offer competent and experienced free technical support (nor do they appear to require purchases for this assistance). Whether we mutually decide their placement should be among this topic has not yet been fully addressed. But if I may, the benefit of these links as I see it, is not so much about that they are commercial in nature (as is the link reinstated and referenced above), but that there is a vested interest by these companies to assure that not only product selection is appropriate, but just as important, the implementation of those components and tools usef is further assured to this end. There is truly nothing worse in my opinion than having a well meaning, but ill-informed individual dishing out bad information. Again, this appears to be something we should all be concerned about.

5th; "You complain repeatedly that we keep including a "commercial enterprise," yet you submit links to professional tuning schools (which require fees to get any instruction) and commercial supply houses."

The above paragraph should speak to this very topic. I must admit that I'm not entirely sure I understand your meaning here. The Piano Owner's Survival Guide (which was again reinstated is very much commercial supplier (aside from the rather prominent religious excerpts, of course).

6th; "But it is presumptuous to insist that ONLY a professional can provide any knowledge on the subject."

I don't agree. In your field of expertise, how would you feel if a lamen suddenly usurped your knowledge with little or no training in the particular academia? Would you still be asking this question? I do agree that certainly some of this information does not require a 4-year college degree (common sense can be a great teacher). But where and how do we draw this line?

7th; "Is the information on the linked pages accurate? Is it relevant to the topic? Is it of sufficient quantity to make it worth the mouse click?"

Now you are asking the very question that we have all been grappling with. How does the collective "we" come to an understanding without also disinfranchising potentially good input? A committee perhaps? It seems that to allow the status quo will not resolve this all by itself. But at the same time, if we do nothing, we will have gained nothing. And to borrow your own words, you're absolutely right; "it IS about the information". This should be exactly why this discussion is taking place.

8th (I'll be done soon, promise); "The nature of the web is such that we cannot know for certain that the author of any page has the qualifications they claim, so we are only left with the information. Do they have years of experience, or are they just copying from a library book? -snip- If the information is accurate and in sufficient quantity to make it worth the read, then the motivation is irrelevant.

Motivation may in fact be our biggest obstacle. I submit that we can and should if practical, elect "governors" for whom can offer their input, knowledge and feedback given their specific areas of expertise. Mainstream encyclopedias have writers and editors to verify and control the correctness of information. Why then shouldn't we? At a minimum, we should make every effort to see that reasonably fair and unbiased evaluations are made. If not, then the elephant will remain in the living room, as it were. It is a very unsatisfying feeling to see anything just thrown up because someone found it somewhere on the Net. If that's what we're in this for, then Wikipedia may well fall into the great void of just being another bad search engine.

9th; "if you have concerns about the quality of information at the links you've again removed, voice the particulars here."

In all fairness, that same argument could just as easily be applied to an opposite scenario: "if you have concerns about the quality of information at the links you wish to add, voice the particulars here". It might be perceived by your question that what is good for the goose isn't also good for the gander. In other words, if you feel empowered to put a link up because you personally feel it important, why then shouldn't anyone else who disagrees with you have the same right to remove it?

10th (and finally); "You can continue saying "the author is unqualified", but this is a meaningless argument. -snip- If there is something wrong with the information, you've really got to let us know. I think your expertise could be valuable to this article, but all you've shared with us so far is your opinion on the author of one site you don't like.

I appreciate your compliment and opinions. However, I must differ with you about the suggestion that my impetus was due to not liking someone or that my argument is somehow meaningless. As it so happens, this not a personal issue for me.

Let's assume for a moment that your chosen links propose significant risk due to instructional flaws and the person taking the information to heart causes extreme damage to person and/or property. Would you feel no obligation in that such problems may have been averted by prior discussion by those who can speak from experience? Or might ego interrupt this thinking? I don't know from where you assume to know or base your comments on others' specialties, but please know that I do not assume to know yours.

This again should prove to anyone reading all this that the need for oversight is tantamount - and not after potential damage has already occured.

In as much as we use physics and mathematics to gain a perspective on piano tuning, the truth is that it is just as much about human psychology and physiology. I at no time made the suggestion that someone attend a school to make entries here. Instead, I was trying to emphasize that we must do our utmost to see that those offering information not be allowed to do so recklessly or without competing view, when appropriate. If we are going to help educate, then doesn't it make sense to do it responsibly? -I know this was long-winded and apologize, but this seems very important. I hope that others may share in my sentiment and passion. LONGTIMERPT (04:45, 6 June 2006)

I wasn't trying to suggest that your removal of the detwiler link was about "not liking" its author. I was saying that you had failed to comment on the page's actual content. I think I can clarify what I mean by answering a different question: you asked what it would be like to have a layman "usurp" my knowledge, or something to this affect; I can't follow the exact wording of the question, but I understand your argument. When a person lacking training tells me that A is true and not B, and I know B to be true, I don't simply tell them "you are wrong. I am a professional, you are not." I tell them they are wrong and then endeavour to explain WHY they are wrong. This is why I say you have been attacking the man and not the information. It was not a comment on your motives, it was a comment on your lack of argument. You have not argued that the detwiler page had incorrect information, you had only argued that its author was less qualified then you, or perhaps you were arguing that Carboncopy, Fang Ali, and I are less qualified then you to edit these pages, I am not sure. You know, if instead of just signing on and declaring your expertise you had actually pointed out anything fundamentally wrong about the information in the detwiler article, the author would have been quite interested and perhaps even motivated to improve his article. (This discussion is pertinent to the Piano Tuning page, but I am leaving it here to avoid breaking it up.) I really meant it when I said your experience could be valuable to this article, but it bothers me that you have limited yourself to removing useful links instead of helping to improve the article.

Now the other link, "Steve's Piano Service" is certainly a store. I don't favour the link because it's a store, I favour the link because it has very detailed explanations of how to accomplish a wide range of piano repairs. I would say it is the very best website of its kind on the subject. That is the "particulars" of why I want that link to stay. It's commercial application doesn't interfere with the content, and as for religious matter there is a quotation from the bible and some MIDI files of hymn tunes. He is not proselytizing; what is offensive about it?

If you want to add links to other online retailers, make sure their websites have information. It doesn't matter if there is a phone number or e-mail where a dedicated expert can be reached to answer all your questions about piano maintainance; wikipedia is a web reference, not a phone reference, not an e-mail reference. The information it links to must be in the form of a web page. - Rainwarrior 05:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

good links, not spam

There is a significant difference between an instructional link and spam. Please discuss concerns/objections before removing good and helpful information. Thank you. my2cents 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just wondering... don't they have any more -directly- instructional material? I mean, if they've got a "quiz", they probably have a page with the actual informaiton on it, don't they? This site as it is basically abuses a user who is looking for this information. It's designed to reward someone who already knows most of it. What's the point? - Rainwarrior 17:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Restoration"

Hi, replacing is not restauration, Thank you, Stefan

I agree, Stefan. The section is not a well informed one. I think PTG gives distinct definitions for repairs, rebuilding and restoration, is it possible to quote these or at least closely paraphrase? Mireut 13:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Reworking and expansion

I've expanded the article a bit, grouping it into two sections — one on tech care, one on owner care. I am not a PT myself, so those more qualified should check my work. I wasn't quite sure what to say about the Dampp-Chaser: the guy who rebuilt my instrument gave me one but strongly favored controlling room humidity instead, and my PT calls them "snake oil;" however, I know that some people swear by them. So I just vaguely said "there is some controversy" and left it at that. Maybe somebody who's in the loop can document that controversy a bit better -- and, of course, many of my statements could use citations. !melquiades 19:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

ok. i'm a PT, for 30 plus yrs. Dampp-Chaser, heat bars in particular work if the room/piano calls for it. I get lots of their mailings, I'm on the West Coast/so calif, -what humidity?- usually what i deal w/ is cold. So Catholic Church client has heat bar hanging under their grand piano w/ blanket cover..keeps tuning much more stable. Another client lives near the seashore, same idea, heat bar under her grand piano, with blanket lyin OVER the strings. Works great. But i DO agree, Dampp-Chaser people come on like snake oil. Oh lastly, i spent some time tuning, etc in the USVI, club client -across street from the water's edge- had Kawai studio (mid-size) upright. Had two heat bars..upper and below. worked there too. Sooooo? if it needs it, use it or a light blub. NOT! 76.218.248.127 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Quote

". These include the strings, pinblock, bridges, soundboard and ribs, hammers, and many parts of the action" Parts of the action? this is vague. jasonaltenburg 15:20, 11 September 2007 (EST)