Talk:Hurdy gurdy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Hurdy gurdy has been listed as one of the Arts good articles 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 reassessment.
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Photos of various types of hurdy-gurdies

If anyone has photos with clear rights that can be used to illustrate the section on types, please post them and add them to that section. I believe that will benefit the article considerably. --Fenevad 16:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recordings section

The recordings section seems to clutter this article up a bit and many of the recordings listed seem to be rather marginal in terms of information about the instrument. What should be the criteria for determining whether a recording should be listed? Also, would it make sense to make the list of recordings a separate article to keep it out of the main article? This is an approach I've seen on articles for other instruments. Any pros or cons to this approach? If I don't hear any opposition in the next few weeks, I will probably go ahead and move the list of recordings out to the other location. -Fenevad 03:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

After receiving feedback on Wikipedia's policies on long lists of links as part of the peer review process, I went ahead and moved the Recordings section to its own subpage and added a link from the first main section of the article. This keeps the information available without cluttering the main body of the article. +Fenevad 22:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
After a quick look, I didn't see the link from the main article. I'd suggest adding a "See also" section and putting the recordings link there. -- Takwish 22:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I found it after reviewing recent history. I still think it would be better as a clearly-titled link under "See also." -- Takwish 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I made the link more prominent in its own section. I have tried to avoid a "See also" section since, at present, it would only have one or two items (I moved the only items that had been in that section to the infobox instrument template, which gives them greater prominence and actually makes their purpose clearer). I can recreate a See also section, if folks think it would be OK with just a few items... -- Fenevad 13:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I think your latest edit resolves my main concern regarding a clear description of the link, and you have a valid point regarding the one-item "See also" section. Works for me. -- Takwish 23:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tuning graphic

Can someone who plays using the Bourbonnais tuning please confirm that the graphic I posted is correct? I based in on Alden and Cali Hackmann's description of the tuning, but since I don't play this tuning (unlike the other two), cannot confirm it. -Fenevad 02:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organistrum status

I am wondering if it would make sense to move the organistrum to a separate article. There are enough differences between the organistrum and modern hurdy gurdies that I think it would help this article flow better if the organistrum information were separate. Any thoughts on the matter? -Fenevad 02:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should. --Bandurist 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of edit summaries

For ILike2BeAnonymous, please keep personal sniping about other's contributions out of the edit summaries, especially when what you are criticising is not in fact what you edit. While I appreciate the useful edits you made with the description "Clean up your 'cleanup': remove excessive details from lead", (1) they were not to what was referred to as a cleanup in the work I did, and (2) they did not actually remove any real details at all, but were instead primarily stylistic in nature. I don't know what I did to bother you, but ad hominem sniping and misuse of the mechanisms of Wikipedia to make it are not useful and you are the first to criticize others for similar lapses.

Fenevad 01:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. If your skin is really as thin as you make it sound, I suggest you take up something else as a hobby other than editing here. (Remember what it says right here below about having your stuff "edited mercilessly".) +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
My criticism was rather about the inaccuracy of what your edit summary said. I have no problem with being edited, even edited mercilessly, and, as I said, I appreciated the editing. However, your description of the edit was inaccurate and therefore not useful for someone trying to understand what was done and why. I don't care if you edit what I wrote, but please at least be accurate in your description and don't take others to task for things you apparently don't actually want to edit... Fenevad 02:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tekerő photo?

Does anyone have a better image of a tekerő for the photos near the top? The one there is absolutely terrible and represents a very atypical and poor-quality instrument. I have a lot of photos myself, but none of them have clear IP that I can assign to Wikipedia under an appropriate license.

Fenevad 15:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have since replaced the problematic image with a better one, but would appreciate any replacements for it that are of a better-quality instrument Fenevad 02:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AHEM

I deleted this:

"concerning a certain, ahem, scandalous practice related to the hurdy-gurdy."

Not very encyclopedia-like.

Worldmaster0 01:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

And I partially restored it ("ahem" gone as per your wish, but "scandalous" in because the practice was scandalous by contemporary standards; this is hardly controversial). As for "not very encyclopedia-like", all I can really say is BFD: what do you think this is, Encyclp[a]edia Brittanica? Come on. Take a look around here. --ILike2BeAnonymous 01:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To user 4.245.72.140, whoever you are: I changed your edit back because it wasn't helpful or even accurate. "Nyenyere" is imitative of the sound of the instrument, not of the buzzing bridge (the sound is produced by the bridge, it's true). If in doubt, ask a Hungarian (I did, that's where I got that information). --ILike2BeAnonymous 08:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Most Hungarians actually don't relate it to the buzzing bridge at all, but rather to the sound of a warped wheel. Fenevad 16:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

To user 4.245.77.31 (I assume this is the same as the one above, probably due to a non-fixed IP address): Please don't change this statement back again. As I explained, your edit was not an improvement. You apparently tried to make the sentence more explanatory, but it's completely unnecessary: anyone reading through the article would know, by the time they reached the bottom, that the buzzing sound was due to impulses when cranking the wheel. All that's important here is that the name (nyenyere) has to do with the sound; the rest of the article explains how the sound is produced. No need to clutter up the sentence needlessly. Thanks. --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Busking

In regard to the fact that it was in the category of busking: If so, then violin, guitar, harmonica, accordion, banjo, etc etc should also be included. in my opinion, the reason why Barrel Organ should be placed in busking but not others is that Barrel organ is designed mainly for busking, but other instruments are designed to play, with busking one of its use. 64.180.234.102 07:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tuning

Anything on tuning, different keys it can be tuned in? Abbyemery 19:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"Standard" tuning (for an instrument with one chanter and two drones) is A-E-A (chanter tuned to E). I'm sure there must be other tunings. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The above tuning is for Hungarian instruments. For French instruments common tunings are C/G (drones in C and G, chanter in G) and G/D. (drones in G and D, chanter in D), but all sorts of capoed and modal tunings are possible. Fenevad 02:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added a graphic addressing standard tunings to the main article. That should help. Fenevad 02:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] External Links - suggested removal

The following external links violate the guidelines WP:EL and I'd recommend removing them. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a link repository WP:NOT#REPOSITORY.

Thanks for the suggestion. I have deleted all of the links except the first, which has been recast as a pointed to Olympic Musical Instrument's reference pages on the hurdy gurdy. I believe that this should allay your concerns. Best, +Fenevad 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Great working going on here. Nposs 01:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hyphen or no

Can anyone specify why hyphens are not generally used (i.e., "hurdy-gurdy" vs. "hurdy gurdy") in this page? A recent edit added some in, but also broke an internal link in the process. I would prefer there to be a hyphen, but if there is a good reason not to have it, it would be worth knowing. +Fenevad 20:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the usual English spelling includes the hyphen. All but one of the uses in Wikisource texts are hyophenated (and the sole use that isn't hyphenated is a translation from a French novel). This page and all uses should probably be changed to the hyphenated form. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

I put the GA nom on hold because I think the article is visually confusing. The placement of pictures seems arbitrary and the text wraps in an inelegant way around them, particularly in the last section. Additionally, there is a combination of different heading types that is similarly inelegant. The origins section is too long w/out a section break but later sections are too short, and there is a mix of different types of lists that seems a hodgepodge. The article is pretty good otherwise and this is not a huge concern, but it would be great if someone who is good at formatting could make the article flow better on the page.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The article caught my eye on the GA candidates list - so I've had a bash at improving the layout, hoping it is an improvement. SeanMack 13:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the look. My only concern is that with moving the listing of types into the section on design, there is now a mix of descriptive information about the instrument and its function with an organological classification. While the two are related, I find it a little confusing to get to something on design and be dumped straight into a list of types with brief discussions. I am going to move that part to the end of the section at the least, because I find it disruptive in its current spot. But thank you SeanMack for what is an overall improvement to the shape of the article. +Fenevad 14:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice edits - definite improvement. SeanMack 14:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, very much improved, I took the liberty of tweaking the picture placement to avoid the big spaces under the headings - shouldn't be a problem for anyone. I definitely think this qualifies as a good article, I will pass it on the GA page. Thanks to the editors for working on this article.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Something this article does need, however, is more inline cites. Especially in the history section. I'm sure all of that stuff is coming from somewhere, right? Also, to approach comprehensiveness, it needs a section on "the hurdy gurdy in culture" or something like that, mentioning how the instrument figures into other types of music besides hungarian folk, and how it figures into literature etc - such as a mention of its symbolic importance in Muller's Winterreise and Schubert's subsequent setting thereof, etc. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I have been trying to drum up some of this information (much of it is in the Nagy work translated by Lommel, but it would be ideal to rely on citations to other works that are more widely available (the Nagy work is somewhat difficult to get at present, although I believe a U.S. edition may be in the works at some point). I will work on this next. Thanks +Fenevad 21:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

We need some way of deciding what counts as notable external links. Someone just added a YouTube video of a player. I'm loathe to remove it, as it is useful for showing the instrument being used, but it raises the question about why other much more notable videos on YouTube, like those of Gilles Chabenet, are not included. When we open that door up then suddenly we need a HUGE list of videos and the list becomes useless. I'm not sure how to handle this issue, so I'm wondering if anyone has some good suggestions.

Best, -Fenevad 01:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits to Large Wheel section

There were a series of edits to the sections on classification recently. While I am certain that the editor meant well, the edits resulted in numerous inaccuracies (Hungarian instruments being listed under both small and large wheel), duplications (the zanfona appeared in three different places), and other problems, like the large wheel section treating French instruments as the exemplar, an approach this section was designed to avoid. I would request that editors in the future take the time to understand how this section works (it's really not difficult) before jumping in and making a muddle of it. -Fenevad 15:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Tips from a proffesional"

I just reverted or modified a bunch of changes from a "proffesional". My rationale is that they were simply wrong in most cases. Here is the list and the justification for reverting. If the individual who made the changes wants to clarify why he/she meant and change the article, that's fine, but the changes as they were created problems.

  • Rolling fiddle. I can't find this term used anywhere at all, online or in scholarship. Wheel fiddle, on the other hand, is quite common and easy to find. Perhaps wheel fiddle rolling fiddle (-03:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)) is a translation of a name in another language? (The IP address of the individual who submitted the changes is in Australia, which doesn't suggest a particular language, though)
  • Foot crank. This is not a common modification at all and I think a lot of players would question whether such an instrument would qualify as a HG. At the very least, such obscure modifications do not belong in the lead paragraph. We might as well mention the Dutch diesel-powered instrument as well... If you want this in, find a more appropriate place to put it.
  • Also featuring a sound board to amplify the sound, influenced by the accoustic guitar: I'm afraid this conclusion is most likely wrong and is unclear at best: other stringed instruments have soundboards and the modern acoustic guitar developed around the same time as the organistrum, so arguing influence or source is difficult. You could argue that both used soundboards based on other instruments, but I think it is pointless to argue for influence: if you're going to build a bowed stringed instrument, you pretty much need a sound board if you want the thing to sound at all!
  • provide a constant pitch accompaniment to the melody, resulting in a sound similar to that of bagpipes or harp. ??? Harps don't have drones, and this sentence is talking about drones. I've heard the HG compared to a lot of things, but the harp is not one of them. Maybe you intended some other basis for the comparison, but to compare a drone-based bowed string instrument to a non-drone, plucked instrument will need more explanation that you have given.
  • but also in romance music. Sorry, but I have no idea what "romance music" is. Perhaps if you could explain what you mean it would be fine, but as is few readers will know what you mean.

Please look through the explanation for the edit here and if you want to make changes, try to respond to my concerns, or discuss the concerns here. Best

-Fenevad 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I concur with all your changes and explanations. +ILike2BeAnonymous 16:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This needs to be said

BEST NAME FOR AN INSTRUMENT EVER IN THE WORLD, YES? 86.164.12.123 (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)