Talk:Rhodes piano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Fender Musical Instruments Corporation WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Fender Musical Instrument Corporation. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] List of bands

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.

[edit] EK-10 demonstration

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 http://www.fenderrhodes.com/models/mark2.php 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 : http://www.majorkey.com/cgi-bin/EK10.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.116.230 (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electric piano

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)

[edit] Artist section

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 :

http://www.fenderrhodes.com/cgi-bin/records —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.242.26 (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hammond B3 link

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)

[edit] Edit dispute

It seems to editors are having a dispute - can we get them to layout the issues here and see if we can get some consensus and resolution? Arthurrh 19:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Too late - it's already hit WP:COI/N. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 03:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


Administrator, please fix the link to Rhodes Music Corporation: it should be www.rhodespiano.com no rhodespaino.com. When will the page be unprotected again? Thanks --76.255.239.122 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's better to keep this page protected since there's a conflict of interests here. Someone is trying to use the page for marketing of his products that are not available yet, as well as publishing facts which can be proven untrue by lawsuits and relatives to Harold Rhodes. The page can be kept clean, true and informative if this is prevented. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.116.230 (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(Fact)The trademark Rhodes was purchaced from the Rhodes famaly by Joseph A. Brandstetter in November 2003.(legaly) The new Rhodes Mark 7 line was introdused at Namm 2007 and is schedualed to be reliesed in spring 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.39.75 (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(Alternative Facts) The trademark was not purchased from "the Rhodes family". It was obtained by this person throught at least 10 different and complicated lawsuits that left all but two family members without a penny. The pianos showed at NAMM this year were built approx. 20 years ago, and were just given a new name and design. They are still electromechanical Rhodes pianos, but it is not a new product, and the function and sound is the same as it's always been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.242.26 (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Y

I am sorry but you completly misinformend and spuiting incorect information,The facts and the history will speak for itself. You should support Harold's legacy. Brandstetter is doing exactly what Harold Sr. asked him to do and I am sure Harold Sr would not be amused today by your lack of support and negative comments today.

Administrators please lock the page. It seems people with current commercial interests are willing to distort facts and history for personal gain. The above comment should speak for itself, and there is nothing to support what's stated in it. This will probably continue if not prevented, I'm afraid. What is now on the page are well-known and official facts and it will keep the Wikipedia standard to leave it like this. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.116.230 (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artists who play Rhodes

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)