Talk:Rhodes piano

fenderrhodes.com

Can somebody tell me what makes this site a reliable source? It looks very self published to me, though the facsimiles of the manuals are okay, as somebody can verify them by looking at the printed originals. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rhodes piano/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 03:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 03:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done The Rhodes piano (also known as the Fender Rhodes piano or simply Fender Rhodes or Rhodes) is an electric piano invented by Harold Rhodes, which became particularly popular throughout the 1970s. Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: No Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license) (Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license) (PD)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

I'm glad to see your work here. As per the above checklist, I do have some insights that I think will be useful in improving the article:

• "This feature is mistakenly called "vibrato" (which is a variation in pitch) on some models to be consistent with the labelling on Fender's amplifiers." ("Fender's amplifiers" or "Fender amplifiers"? Can "Fender's amplifiers" be linked to "Fender Amplifiers"?)

Done. (Didn't know there was an article on the amps, though I should have checked!) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Although the Rhodes has the same musical functionality of an acoustic piano, its sound is very different." ("same" appears redundant to me?)

Changed to "same mechanical operation", which is more accurate. You hit a key, it moves a hammer that strikes something solid, but there the similarities end. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• "The Rhodes has a better sustain, while the Wurlitzer produces significant enharmonic overtones when the keys are played hard, giving it a "bite" that the Rhodes does not have." (Can you explain "enharmonic overtones" a bit? For example: "… produces significant enharmonic overtones, such as in explosions and door slams, …")

The specific phrase in the source is "In contrast, the Wurlitzer tended to have more bite and, when played hard, the enharmonic partials and increasing distortion 'barked' at the listener." Let's go with "harmonics" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Rhodes had begun to teach piano at the age of 19." (or simply "Rhodes began teaching piano at the age of 19."?)

Or, even more simply, "Rhodes started teaching piano when he was 19" which is one word less :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• "He dropped out of studying at the University of Southern California in 1929 to support his family through the great depression by full-time teaching, and designed a method that combined classical and jazz music." (I think the part ", and designed a method that combined classical and jazz music" can be moved to a new sentence for clarity? Or perhaps this part is more consistent with the next sentence. )

Done (though I've trimmed the sentence down a bit too) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• "By connecting the output of a network of student models, the teacher could listen to each one in isolation on the instructor model, and send backing tracks back in response." (Is it correct?)

I've copyedited this, and wikilinked backing track. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Ritchie333, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie333, very much for your diligence, care and precision in writing such great articles. Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I researched and wrote most of it together with inventor and creator Harold Rhodes himself as well as Joe Zawinul among others back in 1996. As you can see we have numerous approvals and praises from both the Rhodes family as well as many other prominent people in the Rhodes history, if you read through the site. I still have contact with people who worked with Harold Rhodes at the factory as well as many of the prominent artists playing Rhodes. I've played and worked with Rhodes pianos for 40 years, and am the Rhodes Supersites lead historian since nearly 20 years. Many of the facts and sources on the Wiki page are completely wrong and full of guesses. I won't waste any energy in trying to correct all, so please be aware you are spreading lots of disinformation to many people wanting to know about the Rhodes. I see no reason for this and I think is is just very sad.

Frederik Adlers www.fenderrhodes.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fregot (talk • contribs) 02:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been working with the Rhodes for almost 40 years. 18 years ago, in 1996, after extensive research and contributions by Harold Rhodes himself, Steve Woodyard, Mike Peterson, John McLaren and others from the company and factory, I also together with James Garfield founded the Rhodes Supersite. Among significant people I've been in contact with are Chick Corea, Joe Zawinul, George Duke and many, many others. I'm running one of Europes more famous workshops serving between 50-100 pianos each year all over northern Europe. I'm a official service center for Major key ( The original factory in Fullerton ), Rhodes Music Corporation ( The Mark 7 ) as well as the new Vintage Vibe pianos. My articles have since nearly 20 years been published in music magazines over the world. Besides talking to the inventor and his closest men, all of the significant musicians I have met through the years, I also have a vast collection of manuals, memorabilia, all the old Fender catalogues, archives of Keyboard Magazine and Down Beat. It is with sadness I read the Rhodes Piano page here on Wikipedia, since it never has been as bad as it is today. Nearly ever sentence contains mistakes and wrong facts, I'm afraid. I have no wish to go into arguments about this nor have I the time or desire to go into the complicated process Wikipedia uses to change contents and question what's been published. Many of the sources and references cited in the text have "borrowed" or distorted facts and whole sentences from my writings and the www.fenderrhodes.com. Hopefully this will be corrected by you pople who I guess strive to keep Wikipedia a great source of true information and facts. I will post a corrected version of the present text. You can do as you wish with tit, but it will be of much better use for your readers. Fregot (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

"Many of the sources and references cited in the text have "borrowed" or distorted facts and whole sentences from my writings and the www.fenderrhodes.com" Then you need to take it up with the authors of those sources - Wikipedia just references what has already been printed by professional publishing companies with a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Anyone can write anything on a website and claim anything they like - it does not follow that it is true. Do you own Harold Rhodes' trademarks? Are you an official representative to his estate? I suspect not. Charging in like a bull in a china shop and calling other editors "liars" is a great way to get blocked, and for your changes to disappear. Also, your recent edits introduced several basic spelling errors I have had to fix. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

List of bands

Please add Vince Guaraldi who uses a Fender Rhodes on "Heartburn Waltz" and many other of his Peanuts recordings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.41.122 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Model 55?

I recall helping my dad set up a Rhodes some time in the early 1980s, which means it was likely before the Mk. V. It did not have the bars between the legs that I see in the image of the Mk. V, although I'm not sure if that was a universal feature. The case was clearly marked "Rhodes 55", and I recall this referred to the model, not the particular piano itself. Does anyone know anything about a Model 55?

I also recall trying to get the legs to screw into the sockets on the bottom of the piano was almost impossible. The legs screwed in at an angle, as you can see in the photos, but the socket was designed so that angle was not obvious. It took multiple attempts to get the screw aligned with the bolt, the first attempts always resulting in crossed threads. I remember being amazed at how hard it was, far beyond anything that made sense given that it was a screw and a hole.

This weekend I found my washing machine's trap is set behind a panel with three even more annoying mis-aligned holes, which are conveniently located just high enough off the ground that you cannot fit the 1/4 inch socket over them. I assume they hired ex-Rhodes engineers.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I've had great difficulty getting hold of information about models from the late 70s onwards - people seem to just talk about the Suitcase and Stage and leave it at that. I personally tended to use a Wurlitzer instead of a Rhodes for gigs as I could (just!) pick the former up single handedly and put it in the back seat of a car. The EP Forums might have answer to whether the 55 was an officially recognised name, but finding a reliable source (such as a trade sheet or advert) might be a bit more taxing, as nobody (broadly construed) seems to have much love for anything that followed the Mark II. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I've looked in all the obvious online sources and found nothing so far. And when I say it was marked "55", I do mean that, I recall it was embossed into the case, it wasn't a sticker or anything like that. That said, it looked exactly like the Mk. II as imaged here, especially those *^&* legs. A submodel perhaps? Or Canadian branding? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Bingo! None of this is mentioned in the article, do any of the references mention any of these subtypes? Actually, the Mk. II doesn't seem to be mentioned at all! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It was in the article and reliably sourced (see changes), but appears to have been deleted (see above threads - perhaps I should have done a blanket revert on Fregot's edits but that wouldn't have been nice), anyway it's back now. As for the other models, the fenderrhodes.com site has got scans of sales brochures and trade ads, which are absolutely fine as sources to document specific models. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: Talk Page Guidelines

Please review the Talk Page Guidlines. Note:

*Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal.

Thanks. 842U (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about the article. There's clearly a whole section missing, the Mk. II isn't mentioned at all, the the 54-key version isn't either, which is precisely why I asked in the first place. Wasn't that clear right from the start? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: There's stuff about the MK II and the 54 back in the article now; if there's anything still missing, shout. @842U:, Maury's comments showed the content he was looking for had been deleted after the GA review without me noticing, so removing the discussion (and then edit warring over it!) was not just silly, but actively preventing an article from being improved. Please don't do that again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rhodes piano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928214251/http://www.gearwire.com/rhodes-returns.html to http://www.gearwire.com/rhodes-returns.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wurlitzer comparison is wrong/misleading

"while the Wurlitzer produces significant harmonics when the keys are played hard, giving it a "bite"."

That's not what the quoted article says. The Rhodes itself produces "significant" harmonics (whatever that means, that's not a good word) when played hard, giving it a bite. That's why people like them. The article quoted says out-of-tune harmonics and distortion on the Wurlitzer gives it a bite. Sounds like a similar effect to the Rhodes, but moreso. But I'm not an expert, have only played a Rhodes, so I didnt change the article. As it stands it's wrong, however. Technically right, but it's like saying, while comparing apples and oranges, "while apples are fruit" as if that differentiates them. No, they both are. 122.148.184.131 (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure? The source says:

In contrast [to the Rhodes], the Wurlitzer tended to have more bite and, when played hard, the enharmonic partials and increasing distortion 'barked' at the listener.

That sounds to me like the source is saying the Rhodes does not have this "bite". I don't know much about either Rhodes or Wurlitzers, but it looks like the article reflects the source correctly to me. Popcornfud (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I'm sure. Not sure why youre commenting here if you know nothing about the subject. 122.148.184.131 (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you're the one who is saying the article is wrong, you're the one who needs to find sources showing that it's wrong. Otherwise we can't change the article. Popcornfud (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Toy piano

Might be interesting to note the similarity between the tone producing mechanism in the Rhodes and that of a toy piano -- hammers striking metal rods. Indeed, unamplified, a Rhodes sounds quite similar to a toy piano, albeit much quieter.

Would also be interesting to include a close-up photo or two of the actual rod/pickup mechanism, and maybe a mention of how the instrument is tuned. 74.95.43.253 (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• If you can find a reliable source that is doing the comparisons, drop off a link. We can't make the comparisons ourselves, we can only publish what others have written about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Notable players

Surprised Richard Tee wasn’t mentioned… 2600:8801:281A:F87E:1038:7F7F:F252:E595 (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)