Talk:Fazioli

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Musical Instruments Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Music portal 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.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands 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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Portions of this article read like advertising or public relations copy. Golden herring (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the topic "largest piano" have a separate article? There are at least 3-4 piano makers that would fall into this category. ctm

Good point. The Boesendorfer Imperial is 290 cm by 168 cm, with 97 keys. The Fazioli is 308 cm by 156 cm, with 88 keys. So which one is "bigger"? Should we go by weight? Volume? Any suggestions on how to resolve this? 123jascha 21:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't see why Wikipedia should have a 'largest' piano title ... this seems more like a Guinness book of records topic; the 97 keys on the Boesendorfer are interesting -- I heard Oscar Peterson play a solo on just the bottom twelve (b&w color reversed) keys on his Imperial, and it just sounded like rumbling (but very jazzy and rhythmic rumbling) ... there is a reason for stopping at low A . I've only heard the Fazioli 308 samples on the GEM keyboard, and I have to say that the tone was not to my liking. It might be different in a concert hall (which is the only place you could put a 10 foot grand), but in the case of pianos, I don't think 'Bigger' necessarily means 'Better'

On the 'advertisement' orientation of this entry, I think there is perhaps some truth, but Fazioli truly is one of the great piano makers, and more importantly, a new and highly innovative maker (originally just a separate room in a furniture factory owned by the Fazioli's) ... certainly one of the most innovative (along with IMHO Kawai) in rethinking every component of a traditional (e.g., Steinway circa end of 19th century) grand piano. They generally get high marks for having the best and most advanced action of any piano (e.g., they use adjustable magnets instead of weights in the keys for a faster, lighter, more controllable touch). On the other hand, some don't like the tone as well as other pianos (this often divides along Asian, American and European lines, where Asians like the bright sound e.g., of Yamaha; Europeans like a strong fundamental, like heard with Fazioli, Bosendorfer, August Forster; and Americans like a rich complex sound like Steinway)

I've seen global rankings of Best pianos, and I think almost universally, Boesendorfer is number one, followed by Steingraeber, Fazioli, Bechstein, August Forster or Steinway in no particular order... the big frustration being that a Steinway requires a day or two of technician time to prepare it (then it sounds and plays well) whereas the other first tier pianos seem to work optimally straight from the factory. These rankings should probably be added to the statement from the Economist (which is not known for its stable of concert pianists)

Chris Westland 4 May 2007

Economist Quotation[edit]

The entry for Fazioli does not assert that the pianos are the best in the world; it merely reports the Economist's assertion that some pianists think they are, and goes on to specify exactly which. What about that do you think constitutes advertising? (I should add that I'm not especially wedded to the quotation, and don't really mind if it disappears altogether; but blithely asserting that it's 'advertising' without substantiation doesn't really seem legitimate grounds for removing something). Alexrexpvt (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As already mentioned in the Wikipedia history:

"Expressions such as 'best pianos in the world' have no place in an encyclopedic article, even if they are well sourced." and "Not a sentence in a section named 'Notable Fazioli artists'.".

Regarding your sentence "... and goes on to specify exactly which.": Who says that a pianist who has played Fazioli thinks that Fazioli is the best in the world...

By the way, the placement of the sentence "some artists believe that Fazioli now makes the best pianos in the world" is irrelevant. Fanoftheworld (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not wedded to the quotation. It's easier to let you have your way rather than argue about it. Alexrexpvt (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.moneyweek.com/file/39768/a-piano-maker-inspired-by-stradivari.html
Triggered by \bmoneyweek\.(?:co\.za|com|net)\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Competitor hijack[edit]

I note ten of the sixteen references in the article are for Steinway, a competitor. Maybe the hijacking is subtle, but am I a little too suspicious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.224.180 (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fazioli Panioforti Founded In 1981[edit]

Fazioli Panioforti's own official web site states that Fazioli Panioforti was founded in 1981 and the information in the information summary box of this article agrees. The why does the text of article stated that Fazioli Panioforti was founded in 1978? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.238.93 (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 1978 date comes from an unsourced assertion in a 2008 article in the Bennington Banner, published more than two decades after either 1978 or 1981. What are you going to believe, the Bennington Banner or the manufacturer's Web site? I'm going with the latter and have modified the article to reflect this. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]