Talk:Recorder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recorder has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

I don't think Jarrett played recorder on that album - the only reference I can find to a recorder album is this

http://mcaserta.com/kjd/disc-5.html#ss5.9

in which Jarrett plays the harpsichord.

Does anyone in the English Speaking world refer to the Bass in F (the intrument below the Tenor) as a Basset? I have met hundreds of players in Britain and have never heard it referred to in that way - we just call it a Bass, with the next lower instrument being called a C-Bass or Great Bass. I wonder if the English version of the article was originally in another language - David S

I am a treble player but I have never heard of a bass recorder being called Basset. Sotakeit 15:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have heard and seen it used when discussing Renaissance consort recorders - to help distinguish between the true basses (the C-Bass and the mighty contrabass in F) from the (hardly bigger than tenors) basses in G and F often found in those consorts. It's a better term really. - B2

Contents 1 Fingering section 2 History section 3 Need for cleanup? 4 Condensation 5 Double thumb hole 6 Fipple flute or internal duct flute 7 I have a *metal* recorder 8 Question 9 Pictures? 10 William Rowland 11 GA Re-Review and In-line citations

[edit] Fingering section

I removed the extensive section on fingering as it appeared to violate the copyright of [1]. It was added by User:Nibblus in this edit. Notice how the original edit ends midsentence, a classic symptom of cut&paste. —Blotwell 04:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History section

This is a bit misleading, starting, as it does, with the 18th century. For instance, the implication is that recorders were originally called flutes. If so, why does Hamlet say "Ah, ha! Come, some music! Come, the recorders!" Bluewave 08:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a lot of evidence that both "recorder" and "flute" were used interchangeably in Shakespeare's day. The traverse flute was called just that. Synonyms, you gotta love 'em.

[edit] Need for cleanup?

I was a bit surprised to see this article tagged as needing a cleanup—I had thought it read quite well! To me, the areas that could certainly be improved are:

• The introductory paragraph would be better if it summarised the article.
• The section on playing the instrument has had different bits added by different people (including me) and there are places where you can see the "Polyfilla in the cracks"
• we could do with some references
• Perhaps we should compare with the German article on the same subject, which is tagged for its excellence
• Anyone know why its called a Recorder and not a Player or something?

Any other suggestions? Bluewave 09:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've had a first go at implementing my own suggestions! Bluewave 15:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's great to see that we've gone from "needing a cleanup" to "good article"! Bluewave 09:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Condensation

The article says that plastic recorders are "more resistant to condensation". I play plastic and wooden recorders and generally find the plastic ones are more prone to condensation. This is probably because the cedar plug in the wooden wooden ones is quite efficient at absorbing moisture, whereas it just collects on the plastic. Anyone else care to comment? Bluewave 09:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps what they mean is that condensation is less potentially damaging in plastic recorders? Since they can't absorb it. Makemi 17:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That makes more sense. They are certainly more (or even totally) resistant to condensation damage. Bluewave 17:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double thumb hole

82.27.246.170 mentions double thumb-holes on the back of some recorders for better tuning. I have only seen anything like this in some designs of the larger recorders (great bass and bigger) where the hole cannot physically be reached by the thumb and so there is some keywork to control the covering of the hole. In this case, the usual "pinching" of the hole for the upper octave cannot be achieved and the keywork makes use of a double hole. So, my first question is: is the double thumb-hole used more generally on "ordinary sized" recorders? On the specific claim about better tuning, I am a bit sceptical: I find the positioning of the left hand thumbnail quite critical and that it varies amongst the notes of the upper octave(s), so I am surprised that a fixed pair of holes would be an improvement. So my second question: is there truly any benefit in tuning or is it only implemented for reasons of practicability for the keywork? Bluewave 17:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think that may have been my fault. Someone put that recorders have ten holes, nine in front and one in back. I wasn't sure if this was simple vandalism so I tried, and failed, to clarify. I didn't mean to say that there are double-thumb holes. I was attempting to refer to the double holes for the pinky and ring finger of the right hand, which to my understanding are for tuning. I'll try to make it more clear, but please feel free to fix my awkward prose. Makemi 18:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah OK I see what you mean. I certainly read it like there are some with double thumb holes, which got me thinking (bad idea)! And of course you're right that strictly speaking, lots of recorders have got 9 on the front. Bluewave 18:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have tried relegating that sentence to a footnote. As it was, I thought it now read as if it was the double-holed recorders (rather than just recorders in general) that evolved in the 14th century. The use of double holes is described in the previous section and I can't find an easy way of alluding to it in this section without detracting from the discusssion about the history of the instrument. If anyone can improve on the footnote idea, please go ahead! Bluewave 12:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just put in a bit about pinching the thumb hole in the how the recorder's played section. If it reads badly obviously give it a polish, but it definitely needed mentioning as it's critical after one octave + a few notes Mawich 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fipple flute or internal duct flute

This article has flipped backwards and forwards a couple of times between these different descriptions of the family to which recorders belong. All of my personal reference books (mostly at least 15 years old), including the Oxford Companion referenced in the article, describe the family as fipple flutes. Doing a quick Google on both terms suggests that both are in use (although fipple flutes wins by a big margin). I suggest that we include both terms in the article unless someone can put me right on why one or the other term is definitive. Bluewave 09:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw that and was kinda lost. I don't know much about flute/recorder terminology, but I read part of the New Grove article, which says: "Since nobody can agree what [fipple] means, to avoid further confusion its use should be abandoned." so I just left it, but WP does have an article on fipple flutes, not internal duct flutes. I don't really have an opinion, just thought you should know what the most recent Grove says. Makemi 19:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have a *metal* recorder

The article says:

Today, high-quality recorders are made from a range of different hardwoods, such as oiled pear wood, rosewood or boxwood with a fipple of redcedar wood. However, many recorders are made of plastic, which is cheaper, is resistant to damage from condensation, and does not require re-oiling. While higher-end professional instruments are almost always wooden, many plastic recorders currently being produced are equal to or better than lower-end wooden instruments. Beginners' instruments, the sort usually found in children's ensembles, are also made of plastic and can be purchased quite cheaply.

Implies that the materials listing is exhaustive. (Also the picture at the top of the article depicts only wooden instruments.) Should the article include reference to other possible materials? Or am I mistaken somewhere? (I could upload a picture of my recorder if you like, since Googling "metal recorder" returns the perplexing first hit: "I have never heard of a metal recorder, although it is possible that one has been or could be invented. Also, recorders are not typically used in marching bands. Modern metal flutes are." Mine is most certainly not a metal flute, since it's a recorder [no valves/open holes you cover with the fingers, blow into mouthpiece as opposed to across, etc. It is also not a tin whistle: it has 8 holes, including a thumb hole, and the hole closest to the base is offset for the right pinkie, as usual]) 82.131.186.218 15:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Why is it called a recorder if it is used to play music, not record it? --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 22:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article, which answers this question. Bluewave 16:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, my bad. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 22:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures?

Does anyone want me to upload more pictures of recorders to this page (perhaps with labels showing different parts) as I can do this if there is consensus to do so. I can take pictures of anything from descant up to bass (knick or crook type). I wasn't really sure if the article needed more pictures but, well, any thoughts anyone? Hydraton31 00:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to be able to add pictures that enhance the text, rather than just adding more pictures of recorders. Pictures of some of the historical examples; renaissance versus baroque; maybe some modern innovations like the Dolmetsch square-section great bass. Probably a bit of a tall order! Bluewave 14:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was sort of thinking of taking pictures of recorders and then labelling the different parts of them (like on the German article with labium etc) so that it is something more than just more pictures and would make the article more informative by showing readers the different sections of a recorder. I accept that just throwing more pictures in would not add to the article but I still feel that labelled ones might add something.

Hydraton31 20:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not give it a try then. Bluewave 06:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

One moment please... --Hydraton31 16:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this mini-project, I am going to encounter some delay for several reasons. Please see my talk page for information regarding this. --Hydraton31 04:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added the pictures to the article but the formatting is not that great, feel free to improve as I seem to be unable to, sorry.. --Hydraton31 21:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Rowland

A few sentences have been recently added regarding William Rowland. Is there anything notable about his music? Was surprised to see him mentioned in the same breath as Hindemith, Britten etc. His work may be the only one to use all the members of the family, but there are certainly plenty of other modern concerto-type works for the recorder (eg Malcolm Arnold). Is his work notable or just one of the many pieces written (usually for school and amateur ensembles) by non-notable composers? Bluewave 11:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not finding anything very hopeful either on google or in Grove on this guy. I was having a disagreement about the use of the word "blockflute" with the newcomer who added that, though, so in the interest of not biting too hard, I left it in. I would support its removal, though. Mak (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 03:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added some citations. Any additions or improvements on my sources would be welcome! Bluewave 09:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)