Jump to content

Talk:Hurdy-gurdy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleHurdy-gurdy was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 29, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 4, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
January 15, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 16, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

AHEM

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Busking

[edit]

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)[reply]

Busking is an inappropriate term, as it describes a modern form of quasi-begging based on an established pitch. Street musicians is more accurate, the players moving on to avoid arrest anfd soliciting payment as they go. The instrument was originally ecclesiastical, entering the vernacular in the sixteenth century before being adopted by fashionable society in the champètre movement of the seventeenth and eighteenth century. The French Revolution put a sudden end to that and the instrument reverted to the poor - so much so that its players were unable to maintain their instruments and the instrument developed a bad reputation for an inability to carry a tune.
In common with many other instruments, hybrids were created in the 19th century which included the addition of a bellows driven from the crank, and pipes controlled from the pegbox. This was probabaly the origin of the transfer of naame to various forms of street organ, of which the barrel organ is only one: small book organs are also still played in Flanders, the difference being that the tune on a barrel organ is fixed by the pins on its barrel, whereas the cards used in a street organ - very much like jacquard cards - come in books which not only play a much longer tune, but can be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tuning

[edit]

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

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have added a graphic addressing standard tunings to the main article. That should help. Fenevad 02:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The instrument is generally semi-chromatic, it is only the drones and trompette which make it diatonic. A significant amount of experimentation is being done at the moment, for example by Denis Siorat, to find a reliable capo system for these, bringing it closer to full chromaticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tekerő photo?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Photos of various types of hurdy-gurdies

[edit]

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)[reply]

Use of edit summaries

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Organistrum status

[edit]

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)[reply]

I think it should. --Bandurist 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need a txonomic tree meme, as you also need to describe the chiffonie and symphonie at the first level, and various regional types at the second level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add it. The taxonomy here describes only extant types other than recreations of historical forms. But you are welcome to add in another branch for historical symphonie types. - 09:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Tuning graphic

[edit]

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)[reply]

Recordings section

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

External Links - suggested removal

[edit]

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)[reply]
Thanks. Great working going on here. Nposs 01:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shooting yourselves in the foot in the process. The UK forum is by far and away the most active amongst players, and trolls are excluded. You have consequently cut yourself off from your major source of up-to-date information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't that these sites aren't useful. Rather it is that linking to them in this fashion doesn't contribute to the article. Any and all of these can be linked (with specific linking to content) to substantiate points in the article. But general lists of links like this are problematic because they tend to balloon over time since everyone wants to get sites added due to the traffic driven from wikis. We haven't cut ourselves off from information at all: just because something isn't linked here does not mean that editors are unaware of it. I know that a number of the regular editors here are active in the UK group (myself included) and the U.S.-based group as well, so relevant bits have a path to make their way here and if you think something you gained from those groups is missing here, you are more than welcome to add it. I agree that the UK group is quite good, but a bare link to it here isn't considered appropriate for Wikipedia. -Fenevad (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen or no

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Well, after keeping this in the back of my mind for quite awhile, I decided today that it was time this Wikipedia article conformed to the spelling of 'hurdy-gurdy' according to the Oxford English Dictionary. It was easy to apply all the changes to this article and its associated article, Recordings featuring the hurdy gurdy, except that now I must also get the titles of both articles renamed, along with that of the disambiguation page, and also the category: {{commons category|Hurdy Gurdy}}, prior to correcting the spelling of the word 'hurdy-gurdy' in some (but not all) of the other articles accessible from the DAB page.
I will keep updating the present section as I make progress.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk) 20:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For an update on this (nearly completed) task, please check below. Thank you.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk) 21:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In January & February of this year, I also restored the hyphen to "hurdy-gurdy" in many articles.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 20:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nice edits - definite improvement. SeanMack 14:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The authoritative English work is Samuel Palmer's 1970s study, although some articles in the Journal of the Galpin Society are also relevant. However, the modern instrument has moved on considerably in ways which this article does not reflect, including an entire school of advanced play in styles reminiscent of certain forms of modern classical music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Palmer’s work has some major problems, including outright ignorance of some eastern traditions (although, in her defense, access to information on those traditions was pretty limited for western scholars during the Soviet years), and I would hesitate to call it authoritative as a result. Be that as it may, please feel free to improve the article with information on what you think is missing. It is only as good as what people will make it, and I rather suspect that most of the editors here are not using it in the styles you mention. -Fenevad (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

Which is why WP originally banned memes on all living persons, taking the historians viewpoint that all participants had to be dead to permit NPOV. You need an objective view of performance, and that may mean deciding to be somewhat behind the times in deciding what was finally representative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Large Wheel section

[edit]

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)[reply]

"Tips from a proffesional"

[edit]

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)[reply]

For what it's worth, I concur with all your changes and explanations. +ILike2BeAnonymous 16:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have played a folk harp for 25 years and am just learning to master a Gotschy HG. Firstly, some of the early Irish harps were tuned with distinct drone strings, although this no longer exists, of course. However, drone fingerings are common. Secondly, the early forms of guitar appeared centuries after the organistrum died out, and its sound-board bracing is later yet. The lute and guitar forms obviously reflect the hybridisation of these instrument designs in place of the box-shaped symphonie in the sixteenth century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as "romance music" is concerned, he may well be talking about the secular forms of trouvère music from the South of France from the late mediaeval period, which almost certainly were accompanied by some form of symphony, amongst other instruments. Paint wider than the tight term trouvère, to include all forms of secular music including the minne tradition and troubadour forms. Works like Dufay's lost ground motet for the L'Homme Armé mass seem to call for a form of hurdy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A recent edit [1] added to the discussion the idea that HGs are thought to have descended from fiddles. It provides a vague citation to Baines. I'm not clear that the consensus is that the organistrum was a descendent of the fiddle, per se, rather than a parallel invention using some principles. Does anyone know if this change is accurate? I'm inclined to remove it as speculative, but don't want to if it's well accepted. Unfortunately the person who made the edit wasn't logged in, so I can't approach him/her for clarification. -Fenevad (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the full text of Baines was accessible for free, I'd read it and verify. It's really hard to tell without being able to read any of the actual content of the review or the original book. A history of European folk music cites the Bröcker book without mentioning a connection to fiddles. Lark in the Morning might not count as a reliable source (although I think it should), but they say "The origins of the hurdy gurdy are unknown but one theory says that when the Moors invaded Spain they brought with them many stringed and bowed instruments." From Iowa State there's another reference to Bröcker. This page says the organistrum was common in the 12th century, so originating in the 11th century seems plausible. I think you're right that the argument for descending from fiddles isn't convincing. I think you could cut it; it could always be replaced if someone comes back with a better and more accessible source. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a worked example of why the deletion of links to working sites is a bad idea. An extensive discussion I was part of on the HG forum concluded fairly definitively that the organistrum is derivative of various experiments associating a byzantine lyra with the toy attachments added to water organs in the 12th century. The only simila fiddle instrument is the Nickelharpa, where the earliest carvings show the wheel slot from a symphonie type of instrument - the wheel had been removed as it's notoriously difficult to maintain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was that links to general sites outside of specific reference doesn't help. If you want to mention this sort of thing then you find a link to the specific discussion about the origins and link to that. Such a link will not be controversial and will add to the article. But the general links to the top level of fora don’t serve as references for content, which is why they are removed. Can you provide a link to this discussion? I'd actually be surprised at some of what you say because we know that key fiddles were formerly more widespread and I haven't seen any with a slot where a wheel was removed: instead the earliest ones I am familiar with are clearly designed as bowed instruments. In any event the origin you suggest contradicts most scholarship on the subject (which doesn't mean it is wrong, but rather that that explanation would need to be demonstrated), but perhaps the discussion you saw (which we can't see without a reference) introduces something new. Please feel free to jump in and edit and add such things in (along with your citations): that's how this improves. -Fenevad (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Hurdy gurdy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. So I will be assessing the article.Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment

[edit]

This is a "good article", but it no longer meets the requirements of a GA in respect of WP:verify; and it already has {citation needed} tags on it.

In all other respects it is: well-written, informative, and well-illustrated. It would be a disappointment to me if this article lost its GA-status and was downgraded (to B-class), I'm therefore putting the GAR On Hold to allow time for these points to be addressed.Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found one {citation needed} tag in the article for a point I'm highly skeptical of (about a possible source for the term “hurdy-gurdy”) and commented out that portion. (I'm familiar with most of the literature on the subject and never recall seeing it.) If someone could go through and mark other points that need citation, it would help. I'm too deeply familiar with the subject to see what others might not take as common knowledge. Thanks. -Fenevad (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand exactly what is going on here. Is the GA status threatened because of the one citation tag that has now been removed? What other work needs to be completed? I don't think anyone is challenging statements in the article; this looks like some kind of review process to see of articles still meet the GA criteria. Does it now? --Laser brain (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that it is currently non-compliant with GA, the requirements for GA have been tightened up since it was last assessed for GA; and that if it is not improved within a certain time it will lose GA-status. Normally that period is one week. Are you clear what is needed, or do you need more details (and/or more time to fix it)?Pyrotec (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I get it now. Thanks for your patience. Hopefully we can work on these before they are delisted. If not, we can always bring them back later when they're improved. --Laser brain (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if they are not done in one week you can ask for another week, etc; and, while the clock is running, I would prefer not to delist it.Pyrotec (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no progress has been made, and it's June 16. Article delisted. Once it meets the GA criteria again, it can be renominated at WP:GAN.Pyrotec (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of earlier comments

[edit]
  • The WP:Lead appears to be satisfactory.
  • Origins and history -
  • The first paragraph has in-line citations and appears to be compliant with WP:verify.
None of the remaining paragraphs have any citations.
  • Terminology -
  • I think that the first paragraph needs some citations for these terms.
  • Names of the instrument -
  • has some in-line citations.
  • Design -
  • almost entirely unreferenced except for the Regional types subsection.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments currently has six GAs; four of these, including Pipe organ, are also up for review this year. Pipe organ has a number of {citations needed} flags and it is up for review so it might also fail; but that, I would suggest, is the minimum level of in-line citations what you should be aiming for in this article. Recorder is also on the list for review and that also has {citations needed} flags (see here for the articles in your scope that are due for review this year - Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps worklist#Instruments).

Just to clear up any possible misunderstandings: both the presence of {citations needed} flags and the absence of in-line citations can lead to loss of existing GA-status.

Any more questions, just add them to this page.Pyrotec (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha and the Hurdy Gurdy

[edit]

What happened to the sentence explaining that some traditions hold that Buddha play the hurdy gurdy, in spite of the fact that there is no historical evidence for this claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.226.161 (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted, obviously. Unless someone can cite that ludicrous statement with something pretty damned good, it will stay out, because it's pure, unadulterated crap. Is that plain enough for you? -Fenevad (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was extremely rude and unecessary, Fenevad. Please show some respect. 97.121.219.35 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Obviously you were the one who put it in (as your reinsertion and amplification shows). I might offer some respect if you gave any clue that you know anything about the instrument or could cite this bit that is false on its face, as even you even noted. But unless you can cite some source for this purported belief and something about why it matters (even if true) and isn't just the most trivial of trivia, it does not belong here. I seriously doubt that any individuals actually believe this and it is up to you to source something like that. I might as well put in an article on keyboards that some Zarathustrians believe that Mazda played the synthesizer but there is no evidence for the claim... Gee, ya think? Even if you could source it and explain why it matters, you'd still need to find some place to put it rather than sticking it in a random place in the article.
I will, however, offer you respect for being amazingly cheeky in your insertion of nonsense in the article and trying to stick it back in and even argue for it. -Fenevad (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

What is the wheel typically made of? Is it wood?

Do the wheel cover and keybox serve an acoustic purpose? or is it just for looks? Puddytang (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, wood. Some plastic-composition wheels are being experimented with, but these are proving problematical as strings are digging into the wheel in when the instrument is not being played: the English maker Neil Brooks, for example, points out that puttng strings onto the off-wheel catches causes kinks in the string, shortening its life and affecting its tone.
The wheel cover stops you accidentally touching the wheel: skin oils stop the friction in the rosin which makes the string sound. The keybox cover protects the mechanism from hannds and sleeves, as the tangents only rebound under gravity and string pressure: it also protects them from being knocked out of true by sleeves etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The intro sates its use in Cajun French music, when it should say French. The Cajans do not use either hurdy gurdies or bagpipes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:D401:F710:E97F:A7CF:7B51:5A24 (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzing Bridge

[edit]

In the UK we retain many of the French terms, such as tirette for the cord tensioning the trompette string. For this loose bridge, we use the term "dog", or the French "chien" which it is translated from, because it is what it looks like, a stylised Highland Terrier!

The ancestry of this is from the Trompette Marine, which was fashionable at the same time in the 16th century when the Hurdy acquired this feature, absent from Symphonies, an instrument which has a similar unstable bridge.

Where did you get that term from? It's roughly descriptive, sure, but it's not the correct terminology. I've been close to hurdy players for 30 years and I now have one I'm learning on. So although I'm not Chabennat, I'm first-degree friends with Clare Salaman of The Academy of Strange and Ancient Instruments and Sym, and Stevie Wishart, the leader of Symphonie. I'm also a Chester Minstrel alongside very many of the UK players. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question here? Where the term "buzzing bridge" comes from? If so, I’m surprised at your statement that it isn’t correct. it is actually the generally accepted term, especially when discussing instruments outside the French tradition, although dog and chien are both used in more informal discussion. In scholarly literature, buzzing bridge is certainly the term used and most players I have worked with know and use it interchangeably with dog or chien. I've been playing for well over a decade and buzzing bridge is pretty common in the U.S. and in most discussion I've been in. So it certainly is a correct term for the part in question and is arguably more correct than either of the terms you prefer when you leave the French tradition. -Fenevad (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updates on 23-24 October, 2013.

[edit]

Hello everyone;

I thought it might be useful to report back, out of courtesy, to other editors interested in the present article, since I have tried to improve it yesterday and today, initially because it clearly needs more reference citations.

So, first of all, I consolidated the ref tags for the Nagy article and book, using the appropriate standard WP citations templates in each case. The Nagy article also appeared twice in the reflist as it was duplicated in the text, so I sorted that one out too. I also updated the reference to Saint-Chartier in the lead section.

Secondly, I was surprised by the absence of Palmer's book in the reference list and, after reading the history of the development of this article, noticed that her book is frowned upon by some editors, mainly (it would seem) because she was less well-informed about the Eastern European versions of the instrument and also because some of her prose seems to have offended local sensitivities. So, supporters of Nagy decided to redress the balance in this article, which is obviously fine, since they now have access to much more detailed information than she did in the 1970s, and before the advent of the Internet.

However, in the interest of neutrality and equanimity, I would suggest that Palmer's book has served us very well in other areas and, most importantly, it filled a huge gap when it first appeared on the scene in 1980. It seems to me that a WP article on our instrument would have been incomplete (i.e. might appear ill-informed or biased) if it omitted mentioning her book at all, and the same applies to Muskett's method. I have therefore added both books in reference citations at appropriate places in the article.

Thirdly, I have also streamlined the sub-sections on 'Names of the instrument', by grouping the existing sentences into linguistic affinities: all the French names together (including the Belgian-French ones, which I added with a reference citation to Palmer and also to the catalog of the 1983 exhibition in Galmaarden, earlier in the article); followed by all the West European names together and all the Eastern European names together (to mirror the article's general tenor of placing emphasis on Eastern European variants of our instrument). I also added the name 'sanfona' for Portugal, with a reference citation to Veiga's book.

As a general note, I was also a bit surprised that one (or more) previous editor(s) decided to have a separate section on 'Eastern Europe' without also including (for balance) a 'peer' section called 'Western Europe'. But, after re-reading the article several times, I concluded that most of the 'Origins and history' section was covering the development of the instrument in the Western parts of Europe anyway, and it made sense that Eastern Europe was therefore addressed in its own, separate section. Nonetheless, if I were to start this article from scratch, I would take a slightly different approach:

  • make the 'History' section shorter by focusing on the historical development through the centuries;
  • create a separate 'Regional characteristics' section, with sub-sections for each main strand; for example: 'France' with its own nested sub-sections or paragraphs explaining the variants of 'Auvergne/Limousin', 'Bourbonnais', 'Berry', 'Bretagne', and then the same for each of the other regions or countries. Therefore, the importance of the Hungarian instrument and style (for example) would have achieved parity with all the other variants and been able to express its unique richness and subtleties that way. Just as an observation, I feel the emphasis on the Hungarian dimension is currently causing an imbalance in the article, as if it had been written predominantly by one or more Hungarian editors; and yet, I am not learning much (I already knew the tuning) about what makes the Hungarian approach so special (which is a pity, as I'd really like to know). Maybe once some Hungarian players have updated the affiliated 'Recordings' article (which is currently devoid of any Hungarian recordings), we will all be able to learn from these artists.

That's it. Thank you for reading the above update on my recent contributions; I hope they will prove useful.

By the way, I play a French-made vielle with all the strings in 'D', and I focus solely on adapting the repertoire of the 'concert set' (also in 'D') of the uilleann pipes; Willie Clancy is my big hero in this context.

With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These all sound like reasonable changes. And as the person who linked the Nagy article, I can state that I have no objection to including Palmer. There was no intent to slight Palmer, although I think there are (now) better sources for some things. But you are correct that Palmer should be cited.
With regard to the Hungarian content, that is the area I work in. I'm not sure the article is out of balance, but I'd like to understand better why you feel that way since you seem to want *more* info on it. Where the article is not talking about instruments in general, I'd say 70% of the region-specific content is about the French-style instrument. So I'm curious as to why you see discussion of technological differences (the primary focus of the Hungarian content) as out of balance. (I'm not trying to be tendentious here in that question, but rather to understand what strikes you as too much emphasis on the Hungarian instrument.) I can't do it now, but I can add in some information on the playing differences (which, aside from repertoire, mostly have to do with buzzing-bridge rhythms and ornamentation of melodic lines).
In terms of adding the “Regional characteristics” section, please feel free to do so. That sounds like a good idea in general. I'm not the one to do that given my specific focus, but it seems you might be the person to do it. Don't be afraid to jump in and do it. Since you've obviously thought this through and your changes are constructive, you should not feel inhibited about doing it. -Fenevad (talk)
Dear Fenevad, :-)
Thank you very much for making contact and for your considered review of my recent updates; I really appreciate your positive feedback and your constructive encouragements: they are greatly valued, especially coming from you, one of the very early and significant contributors to the article; thank you! :-))
I am glad we are in agreement about the inclusion of Palmer; I also fully agree with you that we are much better informed, nowadays, thanks to other sources that have emerged since 1980. I'd like to continue to identify carefully some more of these third-party sources, either in publications or online, in order to enrich the 'References' section further over time.
Thank you also for probing me, quite correctly, about my earlier comments on the Hungarian references causing an 'imbalance' in the article. These comments were motivated simply by a combination of two things: 1) my almost total ignorance about the Hungarian instrument & its music and, 2) the number of references to it in the article. To challenge my earlier impression, I therefore ran a quick survey today of the number of occurrences of national references throughout the article (108 in total), of which: 'France/French'=25, 'Hungary/Hungarian'=15, 'Spain/Spanish/etc.'=8, 'Germany/German'=8, 'Russia/Russian/Soviet'=8, 'Ukraine/Ukrainian'=7, 'England/English'=5, and the remaining 20 regions/countries with <5. So, I would conclude that it is this frequency (15 occurrences) that left me with that impression of 'imbalance', as I called it: it left me wondering (or better: 'curious', in the most positive sense) about the instrument and wanting to learn more. Stated differently: exposed to these numerous references, my ignorance prompted me to yearn for a section beginning with: "The Hungarian instrument is special because ..." and, since it is obviously quite challenging to describe musical characteristics in mere words, I suggested that a helpful solution might be for Hungarian players and other contributors to consider updating the affiliated article on 'Recordings'. In hindsight, maybe my use of the word 'imbalance' was too strong to convey my sense of curiosity and yearning to learn more about an aspect of the instrument I was only vaguely aware of, which is obviously *my* problem. By the way, it would never be my intent to remove any of these references to the Hungarian dimension; rather, I'd like see how we could find ways of communicating even better the richness of subtleties between all the variants, including the types of music, like an ethnomusicologist would do.
However, what the article does *really* well is to explain the differences in construction (wheel sizes, buzzing bridges, etc.) and it is thanks to you and other editors that these various configurations are so well described.
Thank you also for encouraging me so generously to pursue the earlier idea of a 'Regional characteristics' section. I will therefore start drafting a structure in my sandbox and see what comes out of this effort. I would therefore appreciate it if you would kindly consider reviewing it in due course, as I'd value your blessing to any changes I might wish to apply in the future. Thank you for your consideration. I am sorry to hear that your time and energies are needed elsewhere at the moment, but that's true of all of us, isn't it. I will wait patiently for you to contact me again, whenever convenient.
Until then, please keep well and thank you once again for making contact.
With kind regards for now; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New userboxes and user categories for hurdy-gurdy players.

[edit]

Hello everyone,

I have created five new userboxes for hurdy-gurdy players (see table below) in the gallery of music instruments userboxes. There is one userbox stating that the user plays the instrument, plus one userbox for each of the usual levels of proficiency.

You can now also add the following new user-categorization links at the bottom of your user pages if you wish to be included in the list of Wikipedian hurdy-gurdy players:

[[Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument|hurdy-gurdy]]
[[Category:Wikipedian hurdy-gurdy players]]
[[Category:Wikipedian hurdy-gurdy players-1]]
[[Category:Wikipedian hurdy-gurdy players-2]]
[[Category:Wikipedian hurdy-gurdy players-3]]
[[Category:Wikipedian hurdy-gurdy players-4]]

Enjoy!

With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

[For completeness, here is an exchange of communications relating to correcting the spelling of 'hurdy-gurdy' (with the hyphen, as per the OED) in the titles of all articles associated with the instrument. I have added the text of the exchanges here, in anticipation of the original text being archived from the user talk page where they occurred earlier today.

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk) 21:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)][reply]

Dear Chris,

Happy New Year; I hope you are keeping well?

You helped me greatly as a reviewer of the changes I applied to the article on Andy Irvine last year, and I wonder if I may impose on you once more for advice on something I have never done before. Thank you in advance for any assistance you can afford to offer.

I have been working for some time on the article about the Hurdy gurdy. One of the changes I have wanted to apply to this article (and others associated with this instrument) for quite a while, is to make the spelling of the name conform to the entry in the Oxford English Dictionary: hurdy-gurdy (plural: hurdy-gurdies); that is, with the hyphen.

Of course, it was easy to correct the text inside the article and also in its associated article, Recordings featuring the hurdy gurdy, except that now I must also get the titles of both articles renamed, along with the title of the disambiguation page, and also the category: {{commons category|Hurdy Gurdy}}.

Please could you help me with this task, Chris? How do I go about changing the titles of these three articles and one commons category? Do I need to ask an admin to do this for me? What's the best approach you'd recommend, please Chris?

Many thanks for your time and advice; this is, of course, not urgent, so I will wait patiently for your reply.

Until then, please keep well and happy.

With kind regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk) 21:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article over, but not Hurdy Gurdy Man (The Spectres song) or others because these do not have the hyphenation. Hurdy-Gurdy Hare is already there. Updating commons would be a simple move request as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Chris,
That's wonderful; very many thanks for your very prompt action on the main article and its 'Talk' page!
At your convenience, please would you kindly apply the same correction to the titles of the following/associated articles (and their respective 'Talk' pages) also?:
  1. disambiguation page,
  2. Recordings featuring the hurdy gurdy,
  3. and also the category: {{commons category|Hurdy Gurdy}}?
Thank you so much, in advance, Chris!
Once again: I am very grateful to you for your helpful assistance, as always!
With kindest regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk) 16:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All set except the commons category which I do not know how to fix. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Chris,
Thank you so much for your prompt action and feedback. I really appreciate it!
For the category entry, I have asked Russ to consider helping in this area, and I'll keep you posted.
Thank you once again for your generous and supportive assistance; you're a real star!
With kindest regards for now;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk) 21:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of illustration of a Zither.

[edit]

Dear All,
Just a few minutes ago, I removed a file ("File:Ernst Müller Zitherspieler mit Bierkanne.jpg|thumb|200px"), which had been added at 16:52 on 25 January 2014 by Hafspajen.
The reason for my action, as documented in my edit summary, is simply because this illustration shows a beggar with a zither resting on his knees and holding a beer mug in his left hand. A zither is obviously not a hurdy-gurdy, as anyone looking at this illustration should have concluded; even the caption of the file says "Zitherspieler mit Bierkanne", meaning "Zither player with beer mug".
Although I have edited the prose of this article several times since this illustration was added, I did not notice it until today, mainly because I tend to focus on the text of articles rather than on their illustrations.
I decided to leave the present comment section on this talk page because there was activity around this illustration, earlier today, where one editor correctly pointed out that it showed a zither and not a hurdy-gurdy, and another editor removed the comment because it had unfortunately been added to the caption of the illustration. So, I fixed the issue by simply removing the illustration altogether, as it should never have been added to this article in the first place.
I apologize for not noticing this erroneous illustration earlier, thus allowing it to appear in this article for nearly 17 months!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 20:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a sound recording.

[edit]

Should there be a recording of the unique sound embedded for us who have never heard one?
User:108.206.158.232(talk) 22:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:108.206.158.232 There is a recording now Roostery123 (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an accordian

[edit]

While I was listening to the sounds, it sounded a lot like an accordian to me. Angrybirdsfan2005 (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Angrybirdsfan2005[reply]

Middle East Origins

[edit]

Hello dear editors, I want to state that at this point we have enough musicological knowledge about the hurdy gurdy to say that, the works of Dr. Marianne Bröcker and her theories about the middle eastern origins of the gurdy are not supported by any real fact, just very questionable translations and weird etimological connections (they were even highly questioned by other experts such as Palmer and the people of the Galpin society back then)

How can we correct this and edit it out of wikipedia? there's not a single source that suports that the instrument has been present in any way in the middle east, no archeological evidence, and not even iconography in any sort of form

We are really spreading a big misinformation keeping this idea in the wikipedia article. Louvet1992 (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurdy-gurdy&oldid=1248693289"