![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
what does ths Hammond Organ look like? I wouldn't know looking at this page. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.30.149.90 (
talk) 06:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC) [Modified to remove pointless profanity and invective in an otherwise valid point. Note to author of comment: insulting people is usually a *bad* way to get what you want. -
Fenevad
13:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Done 151.201.246.24 ( talk) 16:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Much of this text is taken from the linked Wiki page -- do you have permission from the copyright owner(s) to do this?
I see that HammondWiki is under the Open Content License: is this compatible with the GFDL?
Technically, we can't even use GFDL-licensed text without paying attention to credits and changes, and the OPL is even more specific. We can use the text, but we must cite its source and note the fact that it has been modified. --LDC
RMS doesn't seem to think the OpenContent License is even a free documentation license at all: "This license does not qualify as free, because there are restrictions on charging money for copies. We recommend you not use this license" (source: Comments on the OpenContent License).
The OPL does place restrictions on the use of the text. But Wikipedia's use doesn't violate them, so I'm restoring it. However, I included a notice that other uses of this text may not be as free as use of Wikipedia text in general. If someone else trips on that, that's their problem. --LDC
Note: the HammondWiki material is licenced under the OPL, which is incompatible with the GFDL, and so cannot be copied here, except by the original contributors of that material. The Wikipedia submit form explicity requires submissions to be GFDL-licenced, which cannot be done without violating the OPL. The Anome 10:48 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The licensing tags for the two pictures of organs is incorrect - the images are tagged as "currency". Does the uploader know what the correct tags should be? Otterhound 03:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article name be Hammond organ?
I believe that the key click was not originally a defect. It was purposely added in about the 3rd generation of organs to add attack to the sound.
Just to amplify the above, the keyclick is a result of how hammond makes sound. However, Laurens Hammond thought it sounded bad, and as the years went by they got better and better at engineering this sound out of the final product (see H and T series and later LSI models). Ironically, most hammond inthusiasts love the key click and thus hate those later models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.129.150 ( talk) 21:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I've put this into category:electronic music instruments as it seems the best fit, but category:amplified instruments is another possibility. It seems silly to create a special category:electric musical instruments as AFAIK this will be the only article to belong in it, and not in these existing two categories. But that's really where this article belongs; The Hammond is neither electronic nor amplified, strictly speaking, it's purely electric. I'm very interested in other views. Andrewa 20:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hammond tonewheel organs are not electronic because they don't use microchips, but they are certainly amplified, despite the above comment. Every Hammond organ requires an amplifier in order to make sound. No acoustic sound emanates from a Hammond organ, it's an amplified elecro-mechanical sound, and therefore category:amplified instruments is the perfect category. Mr Pillows ( talk) 08:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The Hammond is a very distinct sound. Once you hear it once, you hear it everywhere. However, this article is lacking a sound sample! I'm sure I could find a sample of a Hammond out there somewhere, but I'd be afraid of the copyright ramifications. Is there a generic source for free sound samples? I did find this site, and I suspect that the owner of the samples would be okay with letting them go. But I'd rather someone with a bit more experience with rights-clearing handle it. http://www.rimboy.com/hammond/ The Leslie Speaker article might benefit, too. Especially if you can find a sample both with and without the spinning speaker. -- Mdwyer 01:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
At one point the article states: "The last production lot of motorized organs was produced in 1975, although a few were assembled from spare parts in 1976." but then later we have: "Though the last analog Hammond organ came off the assembly line in 1974..." I don't think both of these can be correct, so this needs to be fixed, but I don't know which date is correct. Osmodiar 10:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
___________________
You should also include that Suzuki bought the Hammond name and restarted making organs in the early 1990s, as well as organ synth modules like the XM-1. They've established a full line of products including Leslies. All are synth based.
_____________
I've done some reasearch and collated the following information about the history of the Hammond Organ. What do you think I should do with it? I could start a new page and link it from the Hammond Organ page, or I could put it on the main page, or I could cut down the amount of information and put a summary on the main page:
Year | Model Introduced | Sound Generation | Keys |
---|---|---|---|
1934 | Patent filed 19th January | ||
1935 | Hammond Organ officially unveiled to the public 15th April | ||
Model A (June) | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 | |
Model AB | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 | |
1936 | Model BC (December) | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 |
1937 | Model E | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 |
1939 | D series (June) (D100, D152, D155) | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 |
1939 | Model C (September) | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 |
Models C2 and C2G | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 | |
From 1939 on, artificial reverberation was available for Hammond organs. | |||
1948 | M series (M100, M101, M102, M103, M111) | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 |
1949 | Model RT | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 |
Model B2 | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 | |
Model RT2 | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 | |
1950 | Hammond Chord Organ (S6-s?) | Tonewheel | 37 |
Model M2 | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 | |
1955 | Model B3 | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 |
Model C3 and C3G | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 | |
Model M3 | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 | |
Model RT3 | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 | |
1959 | A100 series (A100, A101, A102, A105, A122, A143) | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 |
1960 | M3 series | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 |
F100 series "Extravoice" | 1 x 52 | ||
1961 | L100 series (L100, L101, L102, L122, L122F) (spinet) | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 |
Model M100 | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 | |
1963 | Model D100 | ||
Model 2000 (electronic spinet) | Electronic | ||
Model 3000 "Hammond Electronic Spinet" | Electronic | ||
1965 | E100 series (E100, E262, E300) | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 |
H100 series (H111, H122) | Tonewheel | ||
K100 series | Electronic | ||
1966 | Model J100 (all-transistor spinet) | Electronic | 2 x 44 |
Model J200 | Electronic | 2 x 44 | |
1967 | T series (T100, T200, T211, T262, T400, T500, T582) | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 |
Model X66 | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 | |
N series (N100, N300) | Electronic | 2 x 44 | |
J300 series | Electronic | 2 x 44 | |
M101-A series | ??? | 2 x 44 | |
1968 | E200 series | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 |
1969 | Model HX100 | ||
H300 series (H324) | |||
L100-1 series | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 | |
L100-2 series | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 | |
1970 | J400-series | Electronic | 2 x 44 |
L200-series | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 | |
1971 | X77 | ||
LP-100 | |||
J500-series | Electronic | 2 x 44 | |
1972 | "Phoenix" (all tab spinet) | ||
1973 | "Concorde" (2100) | Electronic | 2 x 61 |
"Regent" (4000) | Electronic | ||
"Maverick" (5100) | Electronic | ||
"Sounder" (???) | Electronic | ||
1975 | "Aurora" (8200) spinet | Electronic | 2 x 44 |
"Dolphin" spinet | |||
1978 | X-2 | Electronic | 1 x 49 |
B3000 | Electronic | 2 x 61 | |
1980 | "Elegant" | Electronic | |
B200 | Electronic | 49 + 44 | |
??? | B100 | 1 x 61 | |
??? | B250 | 2 x 61 | |
??? | B300 | 49 + 44 | |
1981 | Model 810 (spinet) | Electronic | |
Model 820 (console) | Electronic | ||
1982 | "Composer" series | Electronic | |
1984 | B400 | Electronic | 2 x 44 |
1986 | "Super-B" | Electronic | 2 x 61 |
SX-1 | Electronic | 2 x 61 | |
CX-1 | Electronic | 2 x 49 | |
1987 SX-1E | Electronic | 2 x 61 | |
CX-1E | Electronic | 2 x 49 | |
1988 SX-2000 | Electronic | 2 x 61 | |
CX-2000 | Electronic | 2 x 49 | |
SX-2000E | Electronic | 2 x 61 | |
CX-2000E | Electronic | 2 x 49 | |
Models EX700, EX1000 and EX2000 | Electronic | 2 x 61 | |
1990 Models SX2500 and EX2500 | Electronic | 2 x 61 | |
Models SX2500E and EX2500E | Electronic | 2 x 61 | |
1991 | Models 725 and 825 | Electronic | |
Model XB2 | Electronic | 1 x 61 | |
1992 | Model EX800E | Electronic | |
Model EX2000B | Electronic | ||
1993 | Model XB5 | Electronic | |
1994 | Model XB3 | Electronic | |
1995 | Model XC3 | Electronic | |
1996 | Model 926 | Electronic | |
Model XB-2 version 2.0 | Electronic | 1 x 61 | |
Models SX3000E and CX3000E | Electronic | ||
1997 | Model XM-1 (module) and XM-c1 (controller) | Electronic | None |
1998 | Model XB1 | Electronic | 1 x 61 |
Models XT100 and XH200 | Electronic | ||
1999 | Model XH200SP | Electronic | |
Model XK2 | Electronic | 1 x 61 | |
2001 | Model XE2 | Electronic | 1 x 61 |
2002 | Model B3 reintroduced ("The New B3") | Electronic | 2 x 61 |
Model XE200 | Electronic | ||
2003 | Model B3 (portable) | Electronic | 2 x 61 |
2004 | Model XK3 | Electronic | 1 x 61 |
Model XE200se | Electronic | ||
2005 | Model XL3 (lower manual) | None | 1 x 61 |
"Ultimo" | Electronic | ||
Model M44 (spinet) | Electronic |
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NostinAdrek ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
Andrewa: Hmmm. All over the internet, and I didn't collect sources. I will look into this again, and list the sources. I guess this has to do with verifiability. NostinAdrek 14:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Patent number is wrong.
I went to www.pat2pdf.org, and downloaded the patent number 1,956,359 as referenced in the article.
However, I got for the correct patent number, and instead of the Hammond, it was for "A Centrifical Governor", Morsbach, et al. I will try to find the actual patent
Davidbrucesmith 21:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The Hammond patent is U.S. Patent 1,956,350. 75.158.3.244 ( talk) 03:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The article explains how you alter the timbre of the sound of a Hammond organ, by adjusting the relative "weights" of signals from the different tonewheels.
But how do you change the pitch in order to play tunes? Does each key on the keyboard have its own set of tonewheels? Or what? I'd love to know! It's quite an important element to miss out.
Macboff ( talk) 22:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I've made a stab at adding some detail about how the tonewheel outputs get routed to generate the final tones. The most logical place to put it seemed to be at the end of the 'additive synthesis' section
Blueminute ( talk) 20:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
note: Hammond Organ first closed up in the mid-late 80's, not 1975 as stated. As a former product specialist (Bill Dilks), I was with Hammond in Chicago in '81-'82. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.140.101 ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 October 2007 (Moved from article — Sesquialtera II ( talk) 17:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC))
Seems to me there's a lot of redundancy between the Clones section and the separate clonewheels article. Woun't it make sense to just have a sentence mentioning the clones and leave the rest to the dedicated article?
Blueminute ( talk) 21:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The use of many subheadings with a tiny amount of content creates a lot of white space. I changed the section below to prose, and then was charged with removing information and making it harder to read. If you convert the info below to prose, how does this take away info? And how does it make it hard to understand, because it is so simple: for each class, the production years are given, and then a few examples are given of the instrument on recordings. Here is how it looks in the article:
Spinet organs
Two 44-note offset manuals, built-in pedals, internal speakers and amplification.
M
Production years: 1948–1951
M-2
Production years: 1951–1955
M-3
Production years: 1955–1964
M-100 series
Production years: 1961–1968
144.140.22.4 ( talk) 23:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC): The M-100 is not part of the M-series, despite the model name. M-series have waterfall keys, no presets and no reverb. M-100 series have diving board keys, presets and reverb, and are more closely associated with the L-100 series (a cheaper version of the M-100s). Prose can make information difficult to obtain if the reader is forced to read an entire article, when all they want is simple facts and figures. Introducing the spinet series, for example, is a good use of prose to get an overall view of the common features of the series, but once a reader has read that paragraph, they probably only need bullet points on the differences between each model within the series. Creating a paragraph for each model needlessly increases reading time, and difficulty of getting the simple facts. I would never recommend removing prose from the whole article, just from the sections that are essentially simple distinguishing facts.
I am complete newcomer to wiki, hope I don't mess up too much. While the description of operation seems correct as far as it goes it was clear that it was not complete. I have found this:-
http://www.nshos.com/contents.htm How Does a Hammond Work? This is a much more comprehensive, and seems to me at least self consistent and complete, description of the operation of the tonewheel organ. It even include valve amplifier theory and the speakers.
http://www.nshos.com/temperament.htm Equally Tempered Scale
And other very good related sections.
I am probably not going to attempt to contact the publisher or to attempt integration of any of this material into the Wiki myself however I thought that it might be worth noting here since I think that it is really good and could improve the article.
Threebs ( talk) 01:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
She never in her career ever played anything but a B series model organ professionally and in fact, she insisted on that wherever she performed. --phil98107 13:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ps98107 ( talk • contribs)
Part of the text under "Console organs" is duplicated from the first paragraph into the following areas. This needs editing. - KitchM ( talk) 23:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
in the last few years the popularity of modern Hammond Organs and Clones (see "Clones" below) has increased due to greatly improved sound and portability citation needed, however, Vintage Hammond tonewheel organs are often preferred among many traditional organ enthusiasts, the most popular models also having tube amplifiers. Some of the later Hammond models combine tonewheel generation with solid-state amplifiers, with the latest models of that era being fully solid state. citation needed
Some added a sentence stating about the tonewheel that "This device was known in the late 19th Century as the "phonic wheel". No. The article on Poul la Cour describes the phonic wheel as: "a synchronous motor driven by a tuning fork, which used an electromagnet to rotate the cogwheel of the motor by one tooth for each vibration." The Hammond tonewheel is simply a (conducting) steel disk with teeth turned by a camshaft creating tones by induction. ( More here) A comparison of the two should probably be documented. I'm removing the assertion. Twang ( talk) 07:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I can not understand the whole "Hammond tone cabinet" section! (This is a subsection of "Speakers" section).
Some specific problems:
But the issue is broader, as I've written above, I can not understand the whole section at all! -- 79.21.209.166 ( talk) 13:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
p.s. I've found: the section was added with this dif, and renamed and moved with this edit. -- 79.21.209.166 ( talk) 13:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Where's Gregg Rolie!?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.246.34.60 ( talk) 11:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This is as good a place as any to say I'm clearing up the article a bit. I've found my copy of Vail, and the models can be sourced to that fairly simply. The list of notable users, which is still scattered around the place, is going to have to be cleaned up - and the bottom line is unless it's specifically listed in a reliable source that the Hammond was important, it can't really go in. Hundreds of thousands of Hammonds have been sold and people used them as a de facto instrument all through the 60s and 70s, so if we tried to list every single notable musician who touched one in the article, we'd run out of space. I know some of you will be upset that your favourite player doesn't make the final grade, for which I can only apologise in advance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
A "Hammond Chop" is a slang term used to refer to any Hammond organ that has been modified to fit into one or more roadcases for easier transportation. Moving an unmodified Hammond organ generally requires special lifting equipment, a van and several people. By "chopping" the organ into separate sections it becomes easier to lift and transport the components.
In the UK, the expression is 'split', and an early example of a split Hammond M102 was the Edgware factory-built white-lacquered instrument used by Stevie Winwood of The Spencer Davis Group in 1966. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie333 ( talk • contribs) 10:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I see in the article's editing window that a magazine reference was commented out because the URL no longer returns the proper article. I found an archived version of it at the Wayback Machine:
Cheers! Binksternet ( talk) 18:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: EddieHugh ( talk · contribs) 19:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll take this on over the next few days. Do you mind if I do some copy editing as I go, or would you prefer just comments?
Criterion 4. Neutral. No problem.
Criterion 5. Stable. No problem.
Before starting on criterion 1, I've looked at the overall structure. It is: Background (history to 1966); Tone generation (how they work); Models; Hammond-Suzuki (history, 1970s to present, plus more models); Speakers; Controls (how they work); Clones and emulation devices; and Notable users. This seems halfway between a chronological structure (history of original Co and its models; then Hammond-Suzuki and its models) and an instrument-based structure (describe models and how they work). What do you think of putting all the history bits together first, then all the 'how they work' bits together (Tone before Controls), followed by Models, Speakers, Clones and emulation devices, Notable users? The H-S models could go in Models, or after Speakers. You're closer to it, so it's up to you. EddieHugh ( talk) 22:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Criterion 6. Media. a. Image copyright looks fine. b. If "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information" ( Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images), then some can go, as they add very little. There are a lot of the original organs, and I struggle to see much difference or content in the text to justify having all of them. Hammond XK-3c shows only part of the back of the case. Having two in Clones doesn't obviously add more than having one would. EddieHugh ( talk) 11:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Criterion 1. Well-written. Mostly good, but some assumes technical or specialist knowledge. These terms can be left in, but a brief description at first mention will help. e.g., "The telharmonium used tonewheels to generate musical sounds as electrical signals by additive synthesis" could be "The Telharmonium used spinning metal disks called tonewheels to generate electrical signals, which could be combined in a process known as additive synthesis and converted into musical sounds" (or something more accurate/better).
Other terms (in order of appearance):
There are a lot here... maybe that's why I thought How they work might go before Models; amending them where they are will take care of most of the clarity issues.
And a couple of basic points: what happens when the player depresses a key, and what is the range of notes on a manual (the pedalboard typically going up to middle C is stated, but the lowest on the manual is not). EddieHugh ( talk) 17:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
In Notable users:
It's moving towards being much easier to understand. Follow-up comments are indented in the list above. The initial structure now follows that of the GA pipe organ, which is fine. By "what happens when the player depresses a key" I mean literally what happens? e.g. pipe organ has "When a key is depressed, the key action admits wind into a pipe." I can't find it in this article; in can probably go into the Tone generation rewrite. EddieHugh ( talk) 11:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I think all of the above issues are now resolved. The tonewheel generation section contains a bit more information on other features, and is basically where I've put technical information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Lovely. I've put in "the G above middle C as the top note". Going through the rest...
Criterion 2. Verifiable. Looks all good. EddieHugh ( talk) 20:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Criterion 3. Coverage. a. Fine. b. A balance exists between detail for the somewhat informed and simplicity for the newcomer.
Thanks for all of the above. One comment added above, indented.
I think that's pretty much all the issues tackled. The article's hopefully looking a lot better and more accessible than last week, which is exactly what a GA review is supposed to do. If there are any other issues, let me know and we can hopefully get this wrapped up soon. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
All criteria met, so now passed. Thanks for your patience and persistence, EddieHugh ( talk) 22:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Last sentence lists two companies, almost as if selling products..
"Older Hammond models produced before the 3 series organs (such as the B-2 and C-2) do not have the harmonic percussion feature. Aftermarket percussion effects can be added using devices from Trek II and from the Electro Tone Corporation.
Trek II and Electro Tone~"
Both have links going back to their products page.
It just seems like spam to me.
It seems like spam to me too---as does the intro. No citations, specific references to products, etc... Pygmy goat ( talk) 20:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been following the back and forth between Binksternet and Organdoc1998 about whether the X-66 is any good or not. The main source I have used, Scott Faragher's book, pulls no punches in criticising the X-66 as expensive and unpopular, however he doesn't go as far as saying it has a poor sound, merely "it's not a B-3". This extract from the American Theatre Organ Society journal says the X-77 was considered "one of the finest Hammond models". How should we proceed with this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I am concerned about this edit. I have left the link in for the minute because it includes patent diagrams that aren't available on the article. However, the accompanying text, to be blunt, isn't that good including POV such as "created one of the most popular and enduring electronic instruments ever built", and "The Hammond Organ became popular with Jazz, Blues and Rock musicians up until the late 1960′s [sic] and was also used by ‘serious’ musicians" (ouch!), factual inaccuracy such as "This method of creating tones was maintained until the mid 1960′s [sic] when transistors replaced tone wheels" (the last T500 rolled off the assembly line in 1975), and the YouTube link might be a copyvio. Does anyone have any thoughts over whether it should stay or go? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
How can there be an article this long dedicated to the Hammond organ, without a single mention of Tom Scholz? The man put the Hammond all over the radio, and his band has the biggest selling debut album of all time, which was driven by a Hammond B-3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.5.255 ( talk) 15:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Hammond organ. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://b3world.com/hammond-techinfo3.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hammond organ. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Please clarify pronouns and "joining" in this sentence: "Gregg Allman became interested in the Hammond after Mike Finnigan had introduced him to Jimmy Smith's music, and started to write material with it.[120] His brother Duane specifically requested he play the instrument when forming the Allman Brothers Band,[121] and he was presented with a brand new B-3 and Leslie 122RV upon joining." GenacGenac ( talk) 19:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The "A single note (C) played on a Hammond organ" audio file in the section: Keyboards and pedalboard is not a single note. It is a manual note played with a pedal note: 2 tones, not one. The description is incorrect. Maineartists ( talk) 17:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Currently the article states Rather than produce harmonics that are exact multiples of the fundamental as in equal temperament, it uses the nearest-available frequencies generated by the tonewheels.
Issues with that phrasing are:
Please consider replacing with this phrasing:
The octave-spaced harmonics (1x 2x 4x 8x) are exact multiples, and are controlled by white drawbars. The other harmonics are not exact multiples, but are using the nearest-available tonewheel frequencies, and are controlled by black drawbars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.204.96.222 ( talk) 00:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Equal-temperment has nothing whatsoever to do with a tone's harmonics. Equal temperment refers to the tuning of the fundamental-tones of a musical instrument's notes (the C, the D, etc.)
Just temperment achieves various harmonies among the 7 notes of the diatonic-scale, but only in a certain key. Equal temperment makes each of the scale's 12 half-steps equal (in frequency-ratio), enabling playing that will sound equally good in any key. Helmholz didn't like equal-temperment. He said that it made piano-chords sound like a "Hellish row". But equal temperment sounds fine to us now. Sometimes people notice that a major 3rd sounds a bit "bright" (sharp), but that just adds to the color.
But temperment, such as Pythagorean, Just, Equal and Meantone, is only about the fundamentsl-tones of the instrument's notes.
A note's harmonics consist of the fundamental tone. (I'll call it "F"), and its 1st harmonic with frequence 2F, and its 3rd harmonic with frequency 3 F, etc.
The fundamental is also called the 1st partial.
The 1st harmonic is also called the 2nd partial, and likewise the 2nd harmonic is also called the 3rd partial. ...etc.
The article confuses the tone-harmonics with the instrument's temperment (version of the diatonic-scale).
That error in the article, of course, has to be changed. Unless someone else changes it soon, I'll change it when I get around to it.
The mention of McDuff says " "Brother" Jack McDuff switched from piano to Hammond in 1959" and cites p236 of Historical Dictionary of Jazz By John S. Davis which says "After playing piano with Johnny Griffin and Max Roach in Chicago in the 1950s, he switched to organ and formed his own group in 1959." It's important to note that this isn't saying he switched to organ in 1959, but that he switched to the organ, and then later in 1959 he formed his own group. He had already switched to organ around 1957 when he played with Willis Jackson. I'll try and reword the article to reflect this.-- Jimmyjrg ( talk) 00:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
what does ths Hammond Organ look like? I wouldn't know looking at this page. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.30.149.90 (
talk) 06:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC) [Modified to remove pointless profanity and invective in an otherwise valid point. Note to author of comment: insulting people is usually a *bad* way to get what you want. -
Fenevad
13:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Done 151.201.246.24 ( talk) 16:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Much of this text is taken from the linked Wiki page -- do you have permission from the copyright owner(s) to do this?
I see that HammondWiki is under the Open Content License: is this compatible with the GFDL?
Technically, we can't even use GFDL-licensed text without paying attention to credits and changes, and the OPL is even more specific. We can use the text, but we must cite its source and note the fact that it has been modified. --LDC
RMS doesn't seem to think the OpenContent License is even a free documentation license at all: "This license does not qualify as free, because there are restrictions on charging money for copies. We recommend you not use this license" (source: Comments on the OpenContent License).
The OPL does place restrictions on the use of the text. But Wikipedia's use doesn't violate them, so I'm restoring it. However, I included a notice that other uses of this text may not be as free as use of Wikipedia text in general. If someone else trips on that, that's their problem. --LDC
Note: the HammondWiki material is licenced under the OPL, which is incompatible with the GFDL, and so cannot be copied here, except by the original contributors of that material. The Wikipedia submit form explicity requires submissions to be GFDL-licenced, which cannot be done without violating the OPL. The Anome 10:48 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The licensing tags for the two pictures of organs is incorrect - the images are tagged as "currency". Does the uploader know what the correct tags should be? Otterhound 03:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article name be Hammond organ?
I believe that the key click was not originally a defect. It was purposely added in about the 3rd generation of organs to add attack to the sound.
Just to amplify the above, the keyclick is a result of how hammond makes sound. However, Laurens Hammond thought it sounded bad, and as the years went by they got better and better at engineering this sound out of the final product (see H and T series and later LSI models). Ironically, most hammond inthusiasts love the key click and thus hate those later models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.129.150 ( talk) 21:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I've put this into category:electronic music instruments as it seems the best fit, but category:amplified instruments is another possibility. It seems silly to create a special category:electric musical instruments as AFAIK this will be the only article to belong in it, and not in these existing two categories. But that's really where this article belongs; The Hammond is neither electronic nor amplified, strictly speaking, it's purely electric. I'm very interested in other views. Andrewa 20:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hammond tonewheel organs are not electronic because they don't use microchips, but they are certainly amplified, despite the above comment. Every Hammond organ requires an amplifier in order to make sound. No acoustic sound emanates from a Hammond organ, it's an amplified elecro-mechanical sound, and therefore category:amplified instruments is the perfect category. Mr Pillows ( talk) 08:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The Hammond is a very distinct sound. Once you hear it once, you hear it everywhere. However, this article is lacking a sound sample! I'm sure I could find a sample of a Hammond out there somewhere, but I'd be afraid of the copyright ramifications. Is there a generic source for free sound samples? I did find this site, and I suspect that the owner of the samples would be okay with letting them go. But I'd rather someone with a bit more experience with rights-clearing handle it. http://www.rimboy.com/hammond/ The Leslie Speaker article might benefit, too. Especially if you can find a sample both with and without the spinning speaker. -- Mdwyer 01:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
At one point the article states: "The last production lot of motorized organs was produced in 1975, although a few were assembled from spare parts in 1976." but then later we have: "Though the last analog Hammond organ came off the assembly line in 1974..." I don't think both of these can be correct, so this needs to be fixed, but I don't know which date is correct. Osmodiar 10:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
___________________
You should also include that Suzuki bought the Hammond name and restarted making organs in the early 1990s, as well as organ synth modules like the XM-1. They've established a full line of products including Leslies. All are synth based.
_____________
I've done some reasearch and collated the following information about the history of the Hammond Organ. What do you think I should do with it? I could start a new page and link it from the Hammond Organ page, or I could put it on the main page, or I could cut down the amount of information and put a summary on the main page:
Year | Model Introduced | Sound Generation | Keys |
---|---|---|---|
1934 | Patent filed 19th January | ||
1935 | Hammond Organ officially unveiled to the public 15th April | ||
Model A (June) | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 | |
Model AB | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 | |
1936 | Model BC (December) | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 |
1937 | Model E | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 |
1939 | D series (June) (D100, D152, D155) | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 |
1939 | Model C (September) | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 |
Models C2 and C2G | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 | |
From 1939 on, artificial reverberation was available for Hammond organs. | |||
1948 | M series (M100, M101, M102, M103, M111) | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 |
1949 | Model RT | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 |
Model B2 | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 | |
Model RT2 | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 | |
1950 | Hammond Chord Organ (S6-s?) | Tonewheel | 37 |
Model M2 | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 | |
1955 | Model B3 | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 |
Model C3 and C3G | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 | |
Model M3 | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 | |
Model RT3 | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 | |
1959 | A100 series (A100, A101, A102, A105, A122, A143) | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 |
1960 | M3 series | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 |
F100 series "Extravoice" | 1 x 52 | ||
1961 | L100 series (L100, L101, L102, L122, L122F) (spinet) | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 |
Model M100 | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 | |
1963 | Model D100 | ||
Model 2000 (electronic spinet) | Electronic | ||
Model 3000 "Hammond Electronic Spinet" | Electronic | ||
1965 | E100 series (E100, E262, E300) | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 |
H100 series (H111, H122) | Tonewheel | ||
K100 series | Electronic | ||
1966 | Model J100 (all-transistor spinet) | Electronic | 2 x 44 |
Model J200 | Electronic | 2 x 44 | |
1967 | T series (T100, T200, T211, T262, T400, T500, T582) | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 |
Model X66 | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 | |
N series (N100, N300) | Electronic | 2 x 44 | |
J300 series | Electronic | 2 x 44 | |
M101-A series | ??? | 2 x 44 | |
1968 | E200 series | Tonewheel | 2 x 61 |
1969 | Model HX100 | ||
H300 series (H324) | |||
L100-1 series | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 | |
L100-2 series | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 | |
1970 | J400-series | Electronic | 2 x 44 |
L200-series | Tonewheel | 2 x 44 | |
1971 | X77 | ||
LP-100 | |||
J500-series | Electronic | 2 x 44 | |
1972 | "Phoenix" (all tab spinet) | ||
1973 | "Concorde" (2100) | Electronic | 2 x 61 |
"Regent" (4000) | Electronic | ||
"Maverick" (5100) | Electronic | ||
"Sounder" (???) | Electronic | ||
1975 | "Aurora" (8200) spinet | Electronic | 2 x 44 |
"Dolphin" spinet | |||
1978 | X-2 | Electronic | 1 x 49 |
B3000 | Electronic | 2 x 61 | |
1980 | "Elegant" | Electronic | |
B200 | Electronic | 49 + 44 | |
??? | B100 | 1 x 61 | |
??? | B250 | 2 x 61 | |
??? | B300 | 49 + 44 | |
1981 | Model 810 (spinet) | Electronic | |
Model 820 (console) | Electronic | ||
1982 | "Composer" series | Electronic | |
1984 | B400 | Electronic | 2 x 44 |
1986 | "Super-B" | Electronic | 2 x 61 |
SX-1 | Electronic | 2 x 61 | |
CX-1 | Electronic | 2 x 49 | |
1987 SX-1E | Electronic | 2 x 61 | |
CX-1E | Electronic | 2 x 49 | |
1988 SX-2000 | Electronic | 2 x 61 | |
CX-2000 | Electronic | 2 x 49 | |
SX-2000E | Electronic | 2 x 61 | |
CX-2000E | Electronic | 2 x 49 | |
Models EX700, EX1000 and EX2000 | Electronic | 2 x 61 | |
1990 Models SX2500 and EX2500 | Electronic | 2 x 61 | |
Models SX2500E and EX2500E | Electronic | 2 x 61 | |
1991 | Models 725 and 825 | Electronic | |
Model XB2 | Electronic | 1 x 61 | |
1992 | Model EX800E | Electronic | |
Model EX2000B | Electronic | ||
1993 | Model XB5 | Electronic | |
1994 | Model XB3 | Electronic | |
1995 | Model XC3 | Electronic | |
1996 | Model 926 | Electronic | |
Model XB-2 version 2.0 | Electronic | 1 x 61 | |
Models SX3000E and CX3000E | Electronic | ||
1997 | Model XM-1 (module) and XM-c1 (controller) | Electronic | None |
1998 | Model XB1 | Electronic | 1 x 61 |
Models XT100 and XH200 | Electronic | ||
1999 | Model XH200SP | Electronic | |
Model XK2 | Electronic | 1 x 61 | |
2001 | Model XE2 | Electronic | 1 x 61 |
2002 | Model B3 reintroduced ("The New B3") | Electronic | 2 x 61 |
Model XE200 | Electronic | ||
2003 | Model B3 (portable) | Electronic | 2 x 61 |
2004 | Model XK3 | Electronic | 1 x 61 |
Model XE200se | Electronic | ||
2005 | Model XL3 (lower manual) | None | 1 x 61 |
"Ultimo" | Electronic | ||
Model M44 (spinet) | Electronic |
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NostinAdrek ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
Andrewa: Hmmm. All over the internet, and I didn't collect sources. I will look into this again, and list the sources. I guess this has to do with verifiability. NostinAdrek 14:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Patent number is wrong.
I went to www.pat2pdf.org, and downloaded the patent number 1,956,359 as referenced in the article.
However, I got for the correct patent number, and instead of the Hammond, it was for "A Centrifical Governor", Morsbach, et al. I will try to find the actual patent
Davidbrucesmith 21:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The Hammond patent is U.S. Patent 1,956,350. 75.158.3.244 ( talk) 03:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The article explains how you alter the timbre of the sound of a Hammond organ, by adjusting the relative "weights" of signals from the different tonewheels.
But how do you change the pitch in order to play tunes? Does each key on the keyboard have its own set of tonewheels? Or what? I'd love to know! It's quite an important element to miss out.
Macboff ( talk) 22:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I've made a stab at adding some detail about how the tonewheel outputs get routed to generate the final tones. The most logical place to put it seemed to be at the end of the 'additive synthesis' section
Blueminute ( talk) 20:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
note: Hammond Organ first closed up in the mid-late 80's, not 1975 as stated. As a former product specialist (Bill Dilks), I was with Hammond in Chicago in '81-'82. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.140.101 ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 October 2007 (Moved from article — Sesquialtera II ( talk) 17:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC))
Seems to me there's a lot of redundancy between the Clones section and the separate clonewheels article. Woun't it make sense to just have a sentence mentioning the clones and leave the rest to the dedicated article?
Blueminute ( talk) 21:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The use of many subheadings with a tiny amount of content creates a lot of white space. I changed the section below to prose, and then was charged with removing information and making it harder to read. If you convert the info below to prose, how does this take away info? And how does it make it hard to understand, because it is so simple: for each class, the production years are given, and then a few examples are given of the instrument on recordings. Here is how it looks in the article:
Spinet organs
Two 44-note offset manuals, built-in pedals, internal speakers and amplification.
M
Production years: 1948–1951
M-2
Production years: 1951–1955
M-3
Production years: 1955–1964
M-100 series
Production years: 1961–1968
144.140.22.4 ( talk) 23:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC): The M-100 is not part of the M-series, despite the model name. M-series have waterfall keys, no presets and no reverb. M-100 series have diving board keys, presets and reverb, and are more closely associated with the L-100 series (a cheaper version of the M-100s). Prose can make information difficult to obtain if the reader is forced to read an entire article, when all they want is simple facts and figures. Introducing the spinet series, for example, is a good use of prose to get an overall view of the common features of the series, but once a reader has read that paragraph, they probably only need bullet points on the differences between each model within the series. Creating a paragraph for each model needlessly increases reading time, and difficulty of getting the simple facts. I would never recommend removing prose from the whole article, just from the sections that are essentially simple distinguishing facts.
I am complete newcomer to wiki, hope I don't mess up too much. While the description of operation seems correct as far as it goes it was clear that it was not complete. I have found this:-
http://www.nshos.com/contents.htm How Does a Hammond Work? This is a much more comprehensive, and seems to me at least self consistent and complete, description of the operation of the tonewheel organ. It even include valve amplifier theory and the speakers.
http://www.nshos.com/temperament.htm Equally Tempered Scale
And other very good related sections.
I am probably not going to attempt to contact the publisher or to attempt integration of any of this material into the Wiki myself however I thought that it might be worth noting here since I think that it is really good and could improve the article.
Threebs ( talk) 01:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
She never in her career ever played anything but a B series model organ professionally and in fact, she insisted on that wherever she performed. --phil98107 13:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ps98107 ( talk • contribs)
Part of the text under "Console organs" is duplicated from the first paragraph into the following areas. This needs editing. - KitchM ( talk) 23:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
in the last few years the popularity of modern Hammond Organs and Clones (see "Clones" below) has increased due to greatly improved sound and portability citation needed, however, Vintage Hammond tonewheel organs are often preferred among many traditional organ enthusiasts, the most popular models also having tube amplifiers. Some of the later Hammond models combine tonewheel generation with solid-state amplifiers, with the latest models of that era being fully solid state. citation needed
Some added a sentence stating about the tonewheel that "This device was known in the late 19th Century as the "phonic wheel". No. The article on Poul la Cour describes the phonic wheel as: "a synchronous motor driven by a tuning fork, which used an electromagnet to rotate the cogwheel of the motor by one tooth for each vibration." The Hammond tonewheel is simply a (conducting) steel disk with teeth turned by a camshaft creating tones by induction. ( More here) A comparison of the two should probably be documented. I'm removing the assertion. Twang ( talk) 07:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I can not understand the whole "Hammond tone cabinet" section! (This is a subsection of "Speakers" section).
Some specific problems:
But the issue is broader, as I've written above, I can not understand the whole section at all! -- 79.21.209.166 ( talk) 13:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
p.s. I've found: the section was added with this dif, and renamed and moved with this edit. -- 79.21.209.166 ( talk) 13:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Where's Gregg Rolie!?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.246.34.60 ( talk) 11:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This is as good a place as any to say I'm clearing up the article a bit. I've found my copy of Vail, and the models can be sourced to that fairly simply. The list of notable users, which is still scattered around the place, is going to have to be cleaned up - and the bottom line is unless it's specifically listed in a reliable source that the Hammond was important, it can't really go in. Hundreds of thousands of Hammonds have been sold and people used them as a de facto instrument all through the 60s and 70s, so if we tried to list every single notable musician who touched one in the article, we'd run out of space. I know some of you will be upset that your favourite player doesn't make the final grade, for which I can only apologise in advance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
A "Hammond Chop" is a slang term used to refer to any Hammond organ that has been modified to fit into one or more roadcases for easier transportation. Moving an unmodified Hammond organ generally requires special lifting equipment, a van and several people. By "chopping" the organ into separate sections it becomes easier to lift and transport the components.
In the UK, the expression is 'split', and an early example of a split Hammond M102 was the Edgware factory-built white-lacquered instrument used by Stevie Winwood of The Spencer Davis Group in 1966. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie333 ( talk • contribs) 10:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I see in the article's editing window that a magazine reference was commented out because the URL no longer returns the proper article. I found an archived version of it at the Wayback Machine:
Cheers! Binksternet ( talk) 18:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: EddieHugh ( talk · contribs) 19:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll take this on over the next few days. Do you mind if I do some copy editing as I go, or would you prefer just comments?
Criterion 4. Neutral. No problem.
Criterion 5. Stable. No problem.
Before starting on criterion 1, I've looked at the overall structure. It is: Background (history to 1966); Tone generation (how they work); Models; Hammond-Suzuki (history, 1970s to present, plus more models); Speakers; Controls (how they work); Clones and emulation devices; and Notable users. This seems halfway between a chronological structure (history of original Co and its models; then Hammond-Suzuki and its models) and an instrument-based structure (describe models and how they work). What do you think of putting all the history bits together first, then all the 'how they work' bits together (Tone before Controls), followed by Models, Speakers, Clones and emulation devices, Notable users? The H-S models could go in Models, or after Speakers. You're closer to it, so it's up to you. EddieHugh ( talk) 22:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Criterion 6. Media. a. Image copyright looks fine. b. If "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information" ( Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images), then some can go, as they add very little. There are a lot of the original organs, and I struggle to see much difference or content in the text to justify having all of them. Hammond XK-3c shows only part of the back of the case. Having two in Clones doesn't obviously add more than having one would. EddieHugh ( talk) 11:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Criterion 1. Well-written. Mostly good, but some assumes technical or specialist knowledge. These terms can be left in, but a brief description at first mention will help. e.g., "The telharmonium used tonewheels to generate musical sounds as electrical signals by additive synthesis" could be "The Telharmonium used spinning metal disks called tonewheels to generate electrical signals, which could be combined in a process known as additive synthesis and converted into musical sounds" (or something more accurate/better).
Other terms (in order of appearance):
There are a lot here... maybe that's why I thought How they work might go before Models; amending them where they are will take care of most of the clarity issues.
And a couple of basic points: what happens when the player depresses a key, and what is the range of notes on a manual (the pedalboard typically going up to middle C is stated, but the lowest on the manual is not). EddieHugh ( talk) 17:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
In Notable users:
It's moving towards being much easier to understand. Follow-up comments are indented in the list above. The initial structure now follows that of the GA pipe organ, which is fine. By "what happens when the player depresses a key" I mean literally what happens? e.g. pipe organ has "When a key is depressed, the key action admits wind into a pipe." I can't find it in this article; in can probably go into the Tone generation rewrite. EddieHugh ( talk) 11:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I think all of the above issues are now resolved. The tonewheel generation section contains a bit more information on other features, and is basically where I've put technical information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Lovely. I've put in "the G above middle C as the top note". Going through the rest...
Criterion 2. Verifiable. Looks all good. EddieHugh ( talk) 20:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Criterion 3. Coverage. a. Fine. b. A balance exists between detail for the somewhat informed and simplicity for the newcomer.
Thanks for all of the above. One comment added above, indented.
I think that's pretty much all the issues tackled. The article's hopefully looking a lot better and more accessible than last week, which is exactly what a GA review is supposed to do. If there are any other issues, let me know and we can hopefully get this wrapped up soon. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
All criteria met, so now passed. Thanks for your patience and persistence, EddieHugh ( talk) 22:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Last sentence lists two companies, almost as if selling products..
"Older Hammond models produced before the 3 series organs (such as the B-2 and C-2) do not have the harmonic percussion feature. Aftermarket percussion effects can be added using devices from Trek II and from the Electro Tone Corporation.
Trek II and Electro Tone~"
Both have links going back to their products page.
It just seems like spam to me.
It seems like spam to me too---as does the intro. No citations, specific references to products, etc... Pygmy goat ( talk) 20:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been following the back and forth between Binksternet and Organdoc1998 about whether the X-66 is any good or not. The main source I have used, Scott Faragher's book, pulls no punches in criticising the X-66 as expensive and unpopular, however he doesn't go as far as saying it has a poor sound, merely "it's not a B-3". This extract from the American Theatre Organ Society journal says the X-77 was considered "one of the finest Hammond models". How should we proceed with this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I am concerned about this edit. I have left the link in for the minute because it includes patent diagrams that aren't available on the article. However, the accompanying text, to be blunt, isn't that good including POV such as "created one of the most popular and enduring electronic instruments ever built", and "The Hammond Organ became popular with Jazz, Blues and Rock musicians up until the late 1960′s [sic] and was also used by ‘serious’ musicians" (ouch!), factual inaccuracy such as "This method of creating tones was maintained until the mid 1960′s [sic] when transistors replaced tone wheels" (the last T500 rolled off the assembly line in 1975), and the YouTube link might be a copyvio. Does anyone have any thoughts over whether it should stay or go? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
How can there be an article this long dedicated to the Hammond organ, without a single mention of Tom Scholz? The man put the Hammond all over the radio, and his band has the biggest selling debut album of all time, which was driven by a Hammond B-3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.5.255 ( talk) 15:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Hammond organ. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://b3world.com/hammond-techinfo3.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hammond organ. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Please clarify pronouns and "joining" in this sentence: "Gregg Allman became interested in the Hammond after Mike Finnigan had introduced him to Jimmy Smith's music, and started to write material with it.[120] His brother Duane specifically requested he play the instrument when forming the Allman Brothers Band,[121] and he was presented with a brand new B-3 and Leslie 122RV upon joining." GenacGenac ( talk) 19:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The "A single note (C) played on a Hammond organ" audio file in the section: Keyboards and pedalboard is not a single note. It is a manual note played with a pedal note: 2 tones, not one. The description is incorrect. Maineartists ( talk) 17:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Currently the article states Rather than produce harmonics that are exact multiples of the fundamental as in equal temperament, it uses the nearest-available frequencies generated by the tonewheels.
Issues with that phrasing are:
Please consider replacing with this phrasing:
The octave-spaced harmonics (1x 2x 4x 8x) are exact multiples, and are controlled by white drawbars. The other harmonics are not exact multiples, but are using the nearest-available tonewheel frequencies, and are controlled by black drawbars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.204.96.222 ( talk) 00:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Equal-temperment has nothing whatsoever to do with a tone's harmonics. Equal temperment refers to the tuning of the fundamental-tones of a musical instrument's notes (the C, the D, etc.)
Just temperment achieves various harmonies among the 7 notes of the diatonic-scale, but only in a certain key. Equal temperment makes each of the scale's 12 half-steps equal (in frequency-ratio), enabling playing that will sound equally good in any key. Helmholz didn't like equal-temperment. He said that it made piano-chords sound like a "Hellish row". But equal temperment sounds fine to us now. Sometimes people notice that a major 3rd sounds a bit "bright" (sharp), but that just adds to the color.
But temperment, such as Pythagorean, Just, Equal and Meantone, is only about the fundamentsl-tones of the instrument's notes.
A note's harmonics consist of the fundamental tone. (I'll call it "F"), and its 1st harmonic with frequence 2F, and its 3rd harmonic with frequency 3 F, etc.
The fundamental is also called the 1st partial.
The 1st harmonic is also called the 2nd partial, and likewise the 2nd harmonic is also called the 3rd partial. ...etc.
The article confuses the tone-harmonics with the instrument's temperment (version of the diatonic-scale).
That error in the article, of course, has to be changed. Unless someone else changes it soon, I'll change it when I get around to it.
The mention of McDuff says " "Brother" Jack McDuff switched from piano to Hammond in 1959" and cites p236 of Historical Dictionary of Jazz By John S. Davis which says "After playing piano with Johnny Griffin and Max Roach in Chicago in the 1950s, he switched to organ and formed his own group in 1959." It's important to note that this isn't saying he switched to organ in 1959, but that he switched to the organ, and then later in 1959 he formed his own group. He had already switched to organ around 1957 when he played with Willis Jackson. I'll try and reword the article to reflect this.-- Jimmyjrg ( talk) 00:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)