Talk:Cat organ
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Joke?
[edit](Checks calendar, sees it's not April 1.) Is this real? I find it hard to believe, and I don't have access to any of the references at the moment. —Keenan Pepper 02:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Googling for "Cat Piano" suggests its either real or a wannabe meme. Also, Athanasius_Kircher, a featured articel, mentions it. I think it may be real! 68.39.174.238 18:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Athanasius Kircher, a scientist, described (not invented) a Katzenklavier in his book Musurgia Universalis (1650). Did he tell jokes? - no. Different sources tell totally different models of them. Some instruments use the voice of cats and some the reaction of cats while being tortured (which leads to a tone on a piano). It's probably not a hoax, see or http://www.mannheim.de/io2/browse/Webseiten/Bildung/Bildung%C2%B2.Online/Magazin/Wundersame%20Instrumenten-Welt/2005_01_36_Serie_Musikschule_de.xdoc www.mannheim.de Scriberius 21:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to be for real. This [1] appears to credit the invention to Johann Christian Reil. Maybe Monty Python's 'Mouse Organ' wasn't an original after all?
- Here are some recent mentions of it on popular (but not necessarily WP:RELIABLE ) websites:
Kircher
[edit]I just went through the whole Kircher Musurgia Universalis and can confirm that there are no images of the cat piano there, Didn't read the whole text of course, nor any of his other writings, but definitely no images of it come from this book. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- With the help of a friend who is an expert on the writings of the period I was able to find it -- it is definitely there. Added long citation and links to references. Will write the New York Times for a correction. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Vague Terrain -- Birth of Sampling
[edit]The previous revision had a citation of an article in a defunct online journal (blog?) Vague Terrain that is relevant to the article, but was irrelevant (and in fact incorrect) where it previously stood. (It was a citation in the "Origins" section, but the article is not a historical article, but an interpretation of the meaning today). No objections against adding the citation back in a section on interpretations of significance, etc., but it doesn't belong in a discussion of 16th-17th c. sources. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)