Talk:Rhodes piano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Rhodes piano has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 25, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
August 10, 2014 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Musical Instruments (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dates on pictures[edit]

It appears that the dates on some of the pictures in the Models section are incorrect. One is marked "Rhodes Mark I 73 Stage (1970)" but it has the post-1975 namerail logo. It appears the same mistake was made in labeling the "Rhodes Mark I 88 Suitcase (1972)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please relax, don't be nerves. When you find any mistake conflicting with other description with reliable source, anytime you can fix it.
On this issue, as written on the History section, "Fender Rhodes" brand was change its name to "Rhodes" in 1975,[cite 1] thus your point seems correct and you can fix mistake (possibly with the additional <ref name="rhodeshist"/> tag and short summary). And it may be a reasonable way to avoid waste of times for each other, on the cooperative workspace like a Wikipedia.
  1. ^ "The Rhodes Super Site". James Garfield & Frederik Adlers. 
--Clusternote (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. After then, I found what you really meant. Although "Mark I 73 Stage" and "Mark I 88 Suitcase" were released in 1970 and in 1972 with "Fender Rhodes" logo plate,[ref2 1] however, both photographs seem to have "Rhodes" logo plates, and it suggests these particular "Rhodes Mark I" were shipped from "Rhodes" brand during 1974 or 1975-1979.[ref2 2] If my guess is appropriate, I'll add supplementary explanation to the captions for avoiding misleading.

  1. ^ "Fender Rhodes Mark I (1969-1975)".  (also see the logo on photograph)
  2. ^ "Rhodes Mark I (1975-1979)".  (also see the logo on photograph)

--Clusternote (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

List of bands[edit]

I removed Medeski, Martin, and Wood from the list of bands, as John Medeski only rarely uses the Rhodes on occasion - his electric piano instrument of choice being the Wurlitzer.

EK-10 demonstration[edit]

The story about the EK-10 demonstration that "made some [TV] sets explode" has the distinct ring of an urban legend about it. As described it doesn't make any sense -- you can't broadcast sound that makes a TV "explode", and it would be an utterly stupid business decision to dump working pianos rather than fixing the problem. The only source I can see for it is where the facts are definitely wrong -- Japan doesn't use PAL. Unless someone can find a concrete source for this where the facts can be verified, I'd suggest removing the mention entirely. Azz 17:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I second that. I've done an extensive search and have found no reliable source for the story. Besides which, as you've implied, it makes about as much sense as monitor screens in a James Bond movie exploding because the reactor's about to melt down... Butterfingersbeck January 14 2006

Here's the real story : —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that! It makes fascinating reading. I disagree with the Wiki's description of the EK-10 sound - it sounds like a Rhodes layered with a cheap 1970s electronic piano/harpsichord sound, not a synth. The fact that it has no dynamic filters and a fixed envelope (determined by that of the Rhodes) means that describing it as a "synthesizer" sound is being over-charitable. Butterfingersbeck February 27 2009

Electric piano[edit]

The Doors "Riders On The Storm", "Just the Way You Are" by Billy Joel, are both also mentioned as played with an electric piano (see article on electric piano). Who's right? Or are they the same thing? If so, shouldn't the articles be merged?? Jaapkroe 14:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

A Rhodes piano is an electric piano, so both articles are correct. No, they should not be merged because a Rhodes is just one specific kind of electric piano, there are lots of others. That is, all Rhodes are electric pianos, but not all electric pianos are Rhodes. Your comment does point out the fact that nowhere in the article is it mentioned that a Rhodes is an electric piano. That should be changed. Osmodiar 15:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Having been the owner of both a Fender Rhodes Mk 1 Stage 73 (made in 1972) and a Wurlitzer EP200 for twenty years I'm convinced that the model on "Riders On the Storm" is a Wurlitzer. The Doors "Crawling King Snake" features a Wurlitzer without a shadow of a doubt. Still I don't wish to cloud the issue. The Rhodes and the Wurly can sound very similar>NH89.243.232.96 (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I always assumed it to be a Wurlitzer. TheScotch (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

--> In Riders on the Storm, the keyboard used is a Rhodes, Ray Manczarek tells it in "Down The Rhodes" Documentary. The Wurlitzer is not very similar to the Rhodes, speaking of their sound, IMHO. "Crawling King Snake" --> Wurlitzer indeed, without a doubt. -- (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

the basic article on the Fender Rhodes Electric Piano is quite informative.

I was telling a friend of mine some history behind the CBS era full keyboard Fender Rhodes electric piano. whether it was a major redesign of an outdated one or the 1st one, I never bothered to find out. But I was in my early 20s back then. Met Harold Rhodes briefly during his 1st test of that brand new prototype in the R&D dept; it sounded great.

here's the thing. I know when I worked there; soon after CBS took over. I remember majority of names of who worked there in the R&D dept as I worked there too. In mid 70s CBS began cleaning house getting rid of many of Leo Fender's people in R&D.

I know what I saw and heard; I was there. I remember Harold Kneeling who designed the Rhodes 100 watt amp. Dick Evans designed the full keyboard interface for it, starting with one key that had been sitting on my desk back in Nov 69 or so. Stan Compton was R&D director. George Fullerton was there too in room on right side of hallway going back from front door. I even knew (slightly) Leo Fender. When the final day came, Harold Rhodes came in (for sure 1970) dressed in an all white suit to test the finished prototype of the electric piano. All the R&D staff went to the back of the building where Harold Kneeling's lab was, and listened to Mr. Rhodes play the piano; it sounded wonderful; even better than the ones the factory churned out.

So, unless there was a prior model out "way" before CBS took over, that Rhodes electric piano was introduced in 1970. The web sites say 65, which can't be right. It was a big event; I watched its development from that one key to that final prototype. Soon after that CBS axed most of everyone from that dept.

My job? I worked on the original CBS (Donald Bukla's design) synthesizers patch cords and all; I redesigned some of his circuits using op amps and low noise transistors to overcome some of it's problems (Don Bukla was primarily a math genius; not electronics); Cal Arts had quite a few of our units there. So did Mel Blanc.

So, I am tempted to edit the information on the intro date of the Fender Rhodes Full keyboard Electric Piano. Rick —Preceding unsigned comment added by A watcher1525 (talkcontribs) 01:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Artist section[edit]

Does anyone else think that the "Artist who played Rhodes" section is horribly disorganized and nearly illegible? It should really be a list. Any thoughts?

I completely agree. Artists listed should only be the most important and representative. Otherwise and for readers searching for more artists, there's a very comprehensive and reviewed list of hundreds of Rhodes-albums here : —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that one very popular song prominently featuring the Rhodes' sound was "Riders on the Storm" by The Doors. Adding that, and possibly links to videos or sound files, would probably clarify the issue. (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hammond B3 link[edit]

Why has "Hammond B3" been added to the links? The two instruments have little in common apart from being electromechanical keyboard instruments. In my opinion "Wurlitzer" and "Dulcitone" are both relevant because they share a similar mechanism; the Hammond organ is not related at all.

I get your point, but there's a connection: Many B-3-Players have an e-piano (or another keyboard-instrument) on top of their organ, to play organ with their left hand and piano with the right hand (and viceversa, but mostly that way...). Rupert Pupkin (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Artists who play Rhodes[edit]

I'm concerned about this section, which seems to be be an indiscriminate collection of information. The rhodes sound (in a generic sense that includes instruments that are not of the Rhodes brand but emulate the original sound) is so widespread in contemporary music that it makes little sense to try to maintain an exhaustive list of recordings that use it (at least in a generic encyclopedia like Wikipedia). It is not an individually noteworthy event when an artist or a producer decides to add a rhodes; it is just a common part of the standard toolbox of the trade. It would make as much sense to try to have a list of "construction companies that use backhoe loaders".

There are no sources in the section, but I don't think that adding sources would mitigate the real problem.

I propose to remove the entire section, but I'm willing to be convinced that it does have an encyclopedic purpose. Anyone? –Henning Makholm 03:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing? Okay, removed. –Henning Makholm 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I missed that -- the only thing that appeared on my watchlist was "Artists who play Rhodes, new section". A more descriptive section header might have provoked more responses.
That being said, I don't think a scorched-earth approach to this section is a bad idea at all. Time permitting, I may cherry-pick some of the earlier entries and try to build a much smaller and more representative list. Which will then of course come under immediate inflation pressure, but maybe a few of us can keep an eye on it.... .--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Jarrett as notable Rhodes player[edit]

I think it's deeply incorrect to cite Jarrett as a notable player of this instrument, in the very first part of the article. I think Joe Zawinul will suit better. -- (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

replace picture[edit]

the black-and-white picture of the rhodes doesn't really show what it looks like. can someone put up a few informative color images of the different rhodes pianos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Recorded examples[edit]

It would be interesting to introduce song examples like with the Wurlitzer_electric_piano#Recorded_examples page.

--Kiwi (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[edit]

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[edit]

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. SFriendly.svg --Seabuckthorn  03:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written


Check for WP:LEAD:

  1. Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done
  2. Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done
  3. 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
  4. Check for Biographies of living persons: NA
  5. Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done
    • Check for Non-English titles:
    • Check for Usage in first sentence:
    • Check for Separate section usage:
  6. Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done
  7. Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Check for Formatting:  Done
    • Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done
    • Check for Links:  Done
    • Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

Check for WP:WTW:  Done

  1. 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 (WP:OPED):  Done
    • Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done
  2. 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
  3. Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done

Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done

  1. 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

2: Verifiable with no original research


Check for WP:RS:  Done

  1. Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done
    • Is it contentious?: No
    • Does the ref indeed support the material?:
  2. 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?:
  3. Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done
  4. Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done

  1. Check for Direct quotations:  Done
  2. Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done
  3. Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA
  1. Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done
  2. Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done
  3. Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:
  1. Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
    1. Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
    2. Check for Out of scope:
  2. Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
    1. Check for All material that is notable is covered:
    2. Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
    3. Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
    4. Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
    5. Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):
b. Focused:
  1. Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
  2. Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral


4. Fair representation without bias:  Done

  1. Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  2. Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done
  3. Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done
  4. Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done
  5. Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done
  6. Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done
  7. Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  8. Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done
  9. Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done
  10. Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done
  11. Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done
  12. Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None
  13. 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)


6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done

  1. Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done
  2. Check for copyright status:  Done
  3. Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done
  4. 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

  1. Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done
  2. Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done
  3. 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 Face-smile.svg --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, SFriendly.svg --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. SCongratulate.svg --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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fregot (talkcontribs) 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 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" 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[edit]

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

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

Model 55?[edit]

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 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[edit]

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)