Talk:Experimental musical instrument

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Musical Instruments articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

I find it hard to believe that custom-made instruments are by their very nature, experimental, and thus find the entire premise of this redirection misleading. Clearly, there is drastically more room for experimentation in a custom instrument, but sometimes somebody just wants a left-handed version of a hard-to-find model, or simply an instrument of the highest caliber. I propose a new article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Beastmouth (talkcontribs)

I agree. An "experimental" musical instrument differs from a factory-made one in concept, not only in detail or in quality. --DiderotWasRight (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I guess the article should just be called "Custom-made musical instrument".
RichLow (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Is the term 'third-bridge' original research?

Is the term 'third-bridge' original research? User:YuriLandman has been inserting this term into the article, however, afaik, it does not appear in any published source not authored by User:YuriLandman. Is this OR that should be removed from the article? Dlabtot (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

eg, this sentence "One of the first guitarists who began building third bridge instruments was Fred Frith" is supposedly supported by this citation: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:8f87gjer46iv -- which does not actually say anything about "third bridge instruments". These kind of misleading and deceptive citations are unacceptable, imho. Dlabtot (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC responses and comments

  • I've rephrased the sentence if you have problems looking at it as an 'official term'. The Elgart/Yates book mentions the third bridge technique. YuriLandman (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please, on this talk page, quote the passage that uses the term, and give the page number? Thanks in advance. Dlabtot (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah I now see what you mean. The link is put in incorrect. Frith used an instrument with a locked 3rd bridge in the middle, I saw this before on wiki, but it has been deleted. I can't find it on internet anymore, sorry. It must be in some of his cd-booklet I suppose. The only thing I can find is that he used homemade instrument, but I can't find an explanation of how it looks like. The Elgart/Yates only mentions the technique, not the words 3rd bridge. page 4 by pinning it between a string and the nut, fretboard, soundboard or saddle of the guitar. If you have a better word than extra bridge, please replace it. I don't know how to call it else.YuriLandman (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the issue is simply one of phrasing. "A third-bridge instrument" (in particular when written with the hyphen) makes this sound like a technical term, but in fact what is meant is only "an instrument that has a third bridge." Since "bridge" is a well-established term in common use when talking about instruments, I see no problem with the latter phrase. DiderotWasRight (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If an instrument really is notable, shouldn't we describe it in the same terms as were used in the reliable source we're citing? Dlabtot (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)