Jump to content

Talk:Antonio Stradivari/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Contradiction

First of all, "spin move" , sources are a way of authenticating the statements made in these articles. While not sufficient on their own to prove a statement to be factual, something from a source that can be checked is a whole lot more credible than something without a source that, obviously, can't be checked. Also, the fact that a hypothesis has not yet been proved to be wrong does not give it the same legitimacy as a study that can be sourced and referred to.

Someone dumped back in the whole section about the wood density theory. It directly contradicts the article on the instruments themselves, and whoever wrote it is using weasel words to try to put it back in. I've tagged the article for weasel words and contradiction of the Stradivarius article, and I've included a statement in the article pointing out the contradiction with the instrument article.--Thizzlethethird 04:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph. If anybody wants to put the information back in, source it, and include some of the other theories as well. -- kenb215 23:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The 1729 Reichers-Lambert Strad

This will be in the news when it's sold at Sotheby's New York in April. It might be listed here beforehand. --16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

References 2 and 3 doesnt work anymore or just temporarily? --JustUser 19:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Empty citation

The changes made at 01:17, 23 June 2008, added an empty citation and an unclosed ref tag. I closed the tag so we get the references back, but the original author of that change should fix the reference. --Fstanchina (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality Theories

"It has also been suggested that aside from his skilled work, climate may also have been a major contributor in the tremendous sound of his instruments. During a time of extreme cold, tree rings become smaller, more tightly spaced, and more dense. It is a possibility that this could be the reason Stradivari was able to create violins with such a distinct sound. The Maunder Minimum was a period from approximately 1645 to 1715 when sunspots suddenly became extraordinarily rare. This directly coincides with the deepest trough of the Little Ice Age. Many climatologists and other scientists believe that one of the primary reasons, if not, the sole primary explanation for the unmatched sound of Stradivari's instruments was this exceptionally uncommon climatologic condition. This is not to take away from Stradivari's fine skills as a luthier, but it is no coincidence that the abrupt availability of such particularly rare timber directly corresponds with the emergence of what some consider to be the most pure sounding wood instruments in the world."

I deleted this passage because one, it is completely unsourced, and two, directly contradicts the article on Stradivarius instruments that IS sourced. For one thing, analysis of Stradivarius's works have shown that they have average sized tree rings, which contradicts the theory that wood density caused by a cold climate is the explanation behind the exceptional quality of Stradivarius instruments.

Also, evidence that supports an alternate theory of why Stradivarius instruments sound so good can be found at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/03/31/wviol31.xml

Summarizing the article; an instrument nearing Stradivari's quality was reproduced by soaking the wood in brine and treating with borax; reproducing the wood that Stradivari worked on that had soaked in the Venice lagoon (salt water), and had treated with borax to reduce wood worm infestation. Zina Schiff alternated between a Strad Violin and Dr. Nagyvary's reproduction during a concert performance and remarked that she doubted anyone could tell the difference between the reproduction and Stradivari's violin.

So Spinmove29, kindly read my editing notes before blindly reverting and asserting that I have some kind of ulterior motive behind removing an erroneous passage. 67.160.30.127 07:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I do appreciate your goal to display only fact on this website, which is obviously its sole purpose. I give you credit for your integrity and for some of your response, but there is something to be pointed out. First of all, there hasn't been SERIOUS enough evidence to prove that the climate theory is wrong. Looking at a violin that used a certain timber is not going to tell you everything about the wood itself. I've taken courses that have done some debating over this issue, specifically at an institution mainly known for it's art, music, and drama programs. You would think that you might see the other side taken on this issue more often, but it was not that way. The period that Stradivari lived in was as cold as any in world history. Sunspots, which have a significant effect on the heating of the earth's surface occured around 50 times as opposed to a usual 50,000. It is foolish to ignore this as at least a good possibility as something that had an effect on his instruments. Just because something is sourced does not deem it as fact anyway, which is the main problem that I have with this website. People have the power to change what others believe as fact, which is exactly the reason that I did not write anything resembling "this is the only reason the instruments had any value". I specifically said otherwise, and stated pure fact. Anything can be written to convince people one way or another, if you've seen 'loose change' or any film by michael moore, you'd know what im talking about. I want to have some agreement here, so we can work together in order to correctly inform people when they read this webpage. But it's like global warming, or anything else that directly affects the world significantly that people sometimes like to ignore for their own reasons. Some credit should be given to nature, who most likely helped out Stradivari significantly. And hey, say nature was nothing to do with it. We don't know exactly, seriously we don't. Any website can tell you anything, but we know some facts that can't be ignored. The point is, to let the public decide for themselves. I think that makes sense, to show them both sides and to let them figure it out, because there has been enough dispute at the point for anyone to jump on either side. [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ ]#0' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.44.218 (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC) -Spinmove29

Also, after some thought, I realized that tree ring size is also only RELATIVE to the average size of tree rings of that specific species at whatever it's age/size. So it all depends. The proof just isn't clear enough to rule out the possibility to the point where it shouldn't be disputed. This is a controversy that has gone on for quite some time. -Spinmove29

Double Bass

I have removed the mention of double bass from Stradivari's list of string instrument works that was found near the top. I've been doing some research on the matter, and though many believe that he might have crafted some bass, there has been none that have been found. I have also found a source claiming that it is a well documented fact that Stradivari never constructed string bass (http://www.stringemporium.com/italian-double-bass.htm). Smfairlie (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dates

Birthdate doesn't match Find-A-Grave. Lincher 03:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, it says Cosimo de Medici bought a Stradivarius, but the one it links to died in 1464. It's probably Cosimo III de Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, who bought the instrument. 122.169.83.132 (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement is opinion.

These two sentences appear in the Marriage and early carrier section: "Stradivari did not "flash forth as a brilliant genius" as is often said, but more likely developed his own style slowly. His violins often used slightly smaller dimensions, and he obviously doubted whether the "Grand Amati" patterns actually led to a greater tone." They read like opinion and original research to me, so I added NPOV and citation needed tags to the two sentences.IrishStephen (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Relative to what?

The sentence His violins often used slightly smaller dimensions is an incomplete comparison. There is no mention of the standard against which these instruments are being compared--Amati's instruments? Contemporary violins? The majority of his own output?

The sentence immediately following suffers the same deficiency.

Patronanejo (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The Antonio Stella bottom tile phenomenon comes from ashens if someone doesn't know. Some of his viewers were amused by his laughter caused by him reading the fallacious Chinese-to-English translation of his name.

That was a basic overview of the situation. Now my proposal: Block the editing of this article until the hype over that translation (I imagine it will take a few days) will pass. There were many edits of that article already that changed his name to the funny version. 95.49.90.166 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

And so it continues immediately after the protection is lifted. Yes, the video was funny, but this kind of vandalism is the kind of thing that hurts wikipedia's reputation. It would be nice for people to be mature about it and not go vandalize wikipedia because they think it is funny.
I think a longer period of protection is needed for these people to let it go and move on.
Ferretsnarf (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Or we could do the sensible thing and allow the "bottom tile" name to stay, since it's clear a majority of people want it there. But oh wait, that would require using common sense and giving readers what they want over blindly obeying poorly-conceived "policy", and we can't have that, now can we? Sigh. --Pizza's Best Friend (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Antonio Stradivari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Garbled meaning

According to the passage

In the early 1690s, Stradivari made a pronounced departure from this earlier style of instrument-making, changing two key elements of his instruments. First, he began to make violins with a larger pattern than previous instruments, which are usually dubbed "Long Strads".

it is the previous instruments that are called "Long Strads". Taken in context, it seems more likely that Stradivarius' output from the early 1690s to 1698 are the "Long Strads", and the author just has a poor grasp of grammar.

This is similar to the ambiguity raised by IrishStephen, and strongly suggests that the author's contributions are poorly-rephrased versions of his source material.

Patronanejo (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, I was just about to write the same thing.--Xavier (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This article seems to rely on original research

I hardly find citations if any at all, and far too many of the statements seem very opinion oriented in the section "Stradivari and the Cremonese violin making school".

"Having the privilege to be exposed to Stradivari's instruments through the Spanish court, he was experienced enough to replace the scroll of a 1717 Stradivari cello and possibly even make its back and ribs. He had a great ability to imitate the original varnish and intricacy of the instrument."

--Xavier (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Antonio Stradivari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antonio Stradivari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

2 Sides to Every Story

What a great scientific explanation; "...This has also been proved false by simply examining Stradivari's instruments and noticing that many of them had very thick rings in the wood." How about RELATIVITY to specific trees? How about that is a WIKIPEDIA site where people like you can give out false information? Weasel words? I wrote it in the least biased way possible, not to mention that scientifically it makes sense! I mean, we can walk on the moon, fit thousands of songs into tiny computers, but we can't reproduce a violin. If that is true, how can you tell me it isn't because of nature, something out of our control? The bottom line is, whether you agree with me or not, you shouldn't be removing the information from the website when it is a disputed subject! People need to hear two sides of the story, not one opinion based on pseudoscience to make sure some famous violin maker holds credibility. Take a look at this: <http://www.primidi.com/2003/12/06.html> or this <http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f03/web3/s1kim.html> Clearly, you cannot just look at an instrument and make such a presumption that disqualifies any scientific explanation. And we are talking about wood density, and not just the space between tree rings, but the thickness or lack thereof of the tree rings themselves. You have demonstrated the fundamental flaw of this website, and the fact that u flagged the page is completely ridiculous. - "spin move" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinmove29 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antonio_Stradivari/Archive_1&oldid=1241659950"