Talk:Jew's harp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] archaeology
Where the comment "citation needed" appeared in reference to the guimbard being one of the world's oldest instruments, I have added in a finding from the last external link about "origin of the jew's harp." (I had added that new link on my last tour through this page.) If anyone wants to make an explicit link between the assertion and the reference, they are welcome to -- I'm not sure about the correct format.
Summerbell 17:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Terminological controversy seen neutrally
As both a mycologist and an occasional guimbard player, with a collection of khomus music from around the world, I thought it would be illuminating to mention, in a completely neutral way, why the term jew's harp, like the jew's ear fungus, is surrounded by a corona of alternative inventions (though the Auricularia article doesn't mention all the recent English expressions that have been engendered from Asian languages, such as black fungus, wood ears, tree ears and so on.) The derisory impact of jew's ear is a little bit more obvious than that which arguably might attach to jew's harp. I myself wouldn't be caught dead saying jew's harp no matter how many google hits the term gets. Whatever its real origin may be, the term raises the suspicion that it may be rooted in the antisemitic miserliness stereotype -- little cheap harp with minimal number of strings.
Summerbell 12:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's not "neutral" seems very emotional to me - come come, what's in a name?--John of Paris 17:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Lament recently did a copy-and-paste move of the content here to Jew's harp with the edit summary "Jew's harp is correct". I have reverted this move, since it broke the history (all the previous versions were still at this location, but the article was elsewhere).
I don't really object to the article being at Jew's harp, but I don't see why that's a better name than this one. As the article notes, "Jew's harp" is indeed one name for the instrument, but "Jaw harp" is another, and I don't see any reason to prefer one over the other. Since the article is here now, and has been here for some time, and since both names are common, I suggest that we leave it here. But in any case, if we are going to move it for some reason, we ought to do it properly by using the "move" link (so all the history moves with it) rather than doing a cut-and-paste.
So... any particularly pressing reasons to have this at Jew's harp rather than here? I'm happy to delete Jew's harp and do the move properly if there's really a reason to do so. --Camembert
- The main reason is usage. 6460 google hits for "jaw harp"; 11400 for "jew's harp" (and 11600 for "jew harp"). "Jew's harp" is a centuries-old name, and "Jaw harp" is a modern term, probably resulting from a misspelling (source: http://www.jewsharpguild.org/history.html ). Also see: http://www.jewsharpguild.org/namepol.html --lament 05:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
-
- OK, good enough for me :) I've moved it. --Camembert
[edit] jews to juice
It can't be Jew's harp but jews harp, the name seems to be a carry thru of the the more ancient names such as gew jaw, maybe gee-gaw is related but the term juice harp is just plain wrong and its possible origin i.e. that playing it produces saliva is also wrong. I've been paying this instrument nearly 40 years and it produces no more saliva than speaking. Unless you are playing it wrong or badly. The attempt to be PC by avoiding the name jews harp and replacing it with jaw or juice is pretty ridiculous IMHO.
[edit] jews to juice
I'm sorry I meant to sign this, artroublec21@earthlink.net
[edit] Photograph
If anyone is interested, I recently added another photo of a jew's harp on Commons. Image:Jew's harp --LoganCale (talk | contribs) 05:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Big list of translations moved to Wiktionary
I moved the big list of names in other languages to Wiktionary where it belongs. If any of them are especially important or interesting, feel free to mention them in prose, but please don't just start another list. —Keenan Pepper 20:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not a good idea. If we were giving translations of the names of the saxophone in various languages (i.e. "saksofon" in Czech or "saxofono" in Italian, or whatever) that would be pointless. But all the named instruments are quite different, culturally specific instruments. We need to provide the information users need to get them to the right place and with the exception of morsing they will not have that without the list. It's equivalent to a list of instrument types such as bamboo flutes, double reed instruments, lamellophones, panpipes, etc., all of which are quite important and valuable to our users. Badagnani 08:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Okay... they're all different and special... so we're going to emphasize that by not mentioning how they're different and just listing their names? I really don't understand what you're trying to do here. Please explain why you did exactly what I asked you not to do without adding any new information. —Keenan Pepper 01:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Opening Sentence
I want to strongly contest the opening sentence. To state that the Jew's harp is one of the oldest instruments in the world is is a common cliché and an opinion without foundation that does not have its place in Wikipedia. There are three points to make: i) The word Jew's harp is used in English as a generic term covering a wide variety of intruments sharing a common basic working principle. ii) As a locally-conceived instrument, it is widespread, but by no means universal, the East-West limits ranging from Galicia in Western Spain to the Solomon Islands. Outside of that zone, unless any new material is forthcoming, Jew's harp playing cultures used imported instruments from Europe as they have always been very popular trade goods at least since the 17th Century; There are also instruments made in some parts of Africa and South America that appear to have been inspired from these imported instruments. iii) Compared to other instruments like flutes, stringed instruments etc, the working principle is complex and difficult to come by which is probably why its distribution is limited. The extent of its distribution is all the same something of a miracle and suggests that the principle was discovered long ago, but this does not mean it is "one of the oldest instruments in the world".--John of Paris 13:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- That statement does need a source, but I notice you're not citing any sources either. —Keenan Pepper 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how giving a source for such an empty statement will validate it. You can say the same thing about almost any type of musical instrument. The earliest known trace of a musical instrument of any kind is what appears to be a musical bow in the prehistoric cave painting in the Trois Frères cave in France. You won't be able to find traces of Jew's harps going back much earlier than about 1000 AD, although the wide distribution does of course suggest it is older. No I don't cite any source, but am stating verifiable facts. However these facts are only verifiable in printed sources (of which none are given in the article) and not on the web as far as I know (The links given are mostly people selling them with very sketchy knowledge of the instrument). The Jew's harp is a vast subject and this article should be considered as a very inadequate stub. I will be away for a couple of weeks, but we can continue the discussion on my return if you like and I will give some bibliographic sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John of Paris (talk • contribs) .
- I don't understand why you say it's an "empty statement". It might be wrong, but it's certainly not meaningless. I agree with you about the lack of scholarly sources though, and I'll be on the lookout for them. —Keenan Pepper 07:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I've beeen away for much longer than I promised. OK, if I say that the statement can be shown to be neither wrong nor right, in other words it is vacuous, how will that do?--John of Paris 17:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alternate names
It appears that a disagreement exists over whether Mouth harp refers to a Harmonica or a Jew's harp. I have changed it from a redirect to a disambiguation page but I wonder if there is any documentation of these usages? (Same message left on the Harmonica talk page.) Cmadler 12:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] In Film
I believe I saw a jew's harp in the film Bound.
–Misha Vargas
216.254.12.114 23:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jew Harp in the song Good Vibrations.
I've added "Good Vibrations" to the list of songs the instrument features in. Citation is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/soldonsong/songlibrary/indepth/goodvibrations.shtml
[edit] Proposed Moorsing Merge
I'm all for it. Moorsings, dan mois, mukkuri, kou xiang, kubings . . . there is such a wide variety of these instruments under so many different names that to spread them out over multiple pages seems silly. Tzaquiel 19:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose merge. We have individual articles on many kinds of flute, drum, oboe, bowed string instrument, etc. This is a culturally specific instrument with playing technique that is distinct from other Jew's harps, and there is a lot to say about it in its own article. Badagnani 02:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
