This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article should be merged with Philly Pops because Peter Nero and the Philly Pops are an orchestra together.Flyguy33 (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
No! No! Do not merge Peter Nero's profile with the Philly Pops. He deserves his own entry. He mainly played without that orchestra and he truly is one of the finest popular pianists of the past 100 years, and among the most often recorded--I think 67 albums for RCA, and 2 Grammies. And believe me, I do not know him personally, at all. I came to his music by accident as a child and became a very busy professional pianist by listening to his albums and trying to reproduce what he played, note-for-note. I couldn't quite do it, but getting 80% there was enough. Marty Nemko, Ph.D. www.martynemko.com.
Nero has been more than important enough on his own to merit an article—but this is not an article: it's a press release, lauding this and that, referring to him as "Peter." Historically, Nero has had plenty of fans, who have also been his defenders as he was slammed by jazz purists for insufficient improvisation, among other put-downs. A good article would set him in the popular piano tradition and likely make some mention of his career downturn in the late 60s as he (like a great many others) found himself pushed aside by changing tastes. In addition, the sourcing for this article is inadequate.Italtrav (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I oppose merger, but I agree this article should be improved. Editors who know music should improve it. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I also oppose it, and since there seems to be no consensus here, I boldly removed the tag. I added the unsourcedBLP tag. Rigadoun(talk) 07:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I the paragraph about consumer electronics adopts a tome of breathless adoration that seems out of place in reference material. Current content reads
"Nero has long been a devotee and advocate of consumer electronics. His expertise has led him to be dubbed a "technocrat" by leaders of the industry. While computers and other electronics have made him "the Gadget King," he still makes music on the traditional Steinway concert grand piano."
I would propose to replace this with
"Although Nero has long been a devotee and advocate of consumer electronics, he still makes music on the traditional Steinway concert grand piano."
This is still unsourced and unsubstantiated but it has the benefit of being probably true. My problems with the current:
- It seems unlikely that Peter Nero would be considered a technocrat. Perhaps he is an accomplished hobbyist but a technocrat must actually govern something technological and I have no reason to believe that this has happened
- Not only are the "leaders of industry" not cited they are not even identified. Are we talking about leaders of the music industry or the technology industry?
- Peter Nero may in fact be called "the gadget king" by his cousins or the people who live on his block but it's not an appelation outside of his own circle. To hold that title a person would have to write a widely-read blog or series of articles, and have gadget-builders lining up to get his endorsement. I don't see any of that happening.
I'll check back in six weeks or so (about 4 Sept 2012) to see if there's any objection, otherwise I'll make this change. DuardF (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Change discussed above made to article 4 Sept 2012. DuardF (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)