Talk:Sackbut
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
PLEASE don't remove stuff which doesn't make sense - it is probably correct, but just needs more explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.179.146 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I had to remove parts in the "Pitch" paragraph which did not make sense. Vide:
==Pitch==
...
Slide position charts for tenor trombones suggests trombones were pitched in [something is missing here]
Was this supposed to mean "pitched in A"? Does someone know?
It is common in these groups to use the D and A positions, rather than transposing the parts up a half step,
which helps avoid problems with
tuning temperaments.
I'm afraid this doesn't make sense neither. What was intented to be said?
Btw, I think a separate article on "sackbut" is just fine. One thing to consider is that sometimes musical scores are labelled "for sackbut, ... etc". It's hard to guess for the uninitiated that the sackbut, sacbout etc. is kind of a trombone. (For many years I thought it was a bagpipe!).
W Hukriede (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 |
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. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
I'm going to redirect this to trombone - the sackbut is not really a distinct instrument from the trombone, but just an old English name for it. Of course, the kind of thing that is referred to as a "sackbut" differs from the modern trombone somewhat, because, like almost all instruments, it has evolved - but I think old versions of the trombone are better covered under trombone than here (especially as other languages - as far as I know - do not have separate names for modern and ancient forms of the instrument, and as there's almost nothing here anyway). --Camembert
Apparently this was a redirect since December 2002 (when the above was posted), until an anonymous user created an article in March this year, with no further explanation. I see no reason why any of this should not be at trombone instead; separate articles create nothing but confusion. I propose a merge. I'll wait for a while to see if anyone is watching this page before taking further action. EldKatt (Talk) 20:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I completely disagree. As you can see, other users have been editing this. The sackbut is a legitimate historical instrument, which differs enough from the trombone in use and sound that it merits its own article, unless at the trombone article want every section to have "but the historic trombone blah". That has its merit, but this seems like too much info to do that. Makemi 22:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly did not intend to claim that this is not a "legitimate historical instrument" or anything to that effect. That was not the point of my suggestion. I was however fairly sure at the time that there was a precedent for having a single article for a single instrument, including all its history. Looking twice, though, I see separate articles for natural horn, natural trumpet and fortepiano, perhaps justifying, to some extent, this article. However, we still have one single article for oboe, bassoon, flute, harp, the violin family, and so forth; all of which have changed at least as much as the trombone. Should we aim for a Historical x for every instrument with any history to speak of? I don't know. The trombone article talks about, in the history section, the trombone in the Renaissance and the Baroque, which is what this article is supposed to be about. Should we remove this from trombone? Indeed, when, exactly, does the sackbut turn into the trombone? The border between these two articles is fuzzy. Some food for thought. EldKatt (Talk) 12:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I realize that you had no intention to denigrate the sagbutt. And it is food for thought. I did think about how I wouldn't want all mention of the history of the trombone to be purged from the main trombone article. I guess I'm thinking of this as something of a daughter article of trombone, where the most essential points should still be addressed within the trombone article, but not in as much detail. In addition, oboe-Shawm, bassoon-Dulcian, flute is already a sort of catchall article with its own category, and violin family-rebec, vielle, violone. I dunno about when exactly a sackbut should be called a trombone (When it's in Italy! Hah!). I perhaps wrote more intensely than I meant to because I didn't want to see this good (IMHO) article suddenly turned into a redirect. Makemi 19:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly did not intend to claim that this is not a "legitimate historical instrument" or anything to that effect. That was not the point of my suggestion. I was however fairly sure at the time that there was a precedent for having a single article for a single instrument, including all its history. Looking twice, though, I see separate articles for natural horn, natural trumpet and fortepiano, perhaps justifying, to some extent, this article. However, we still have one single article for oboe, bassoon, flute, harp, the violin family, and so forth; all of which have changed at least as much as the trombone. Should we aim for a Historical x for every instrument with any history to speak of? I don't know. The trombone article talks about, in the history section, the trombone in the Renaissance and the Baroque, which is what this article is supposed to be about. Should we remove this from trombone? Indeed, when, exactly, does the sackbut turn into the trombone? The border between these two articles is fuzzy. Some food for thought. EldKatt (Talk) 12:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Update October 28, 2007: The sackbut is mentioned long before the middle ages, specifically in Daniel 3:5 (King James Version).
