Jump to content

Talk:Lute/Archive 1

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

Sautschecks

I have deleted the Sautschecks form the composer list for the following reason: The various members of the Sautscheck family are not real persons but pseudonyms of the living composer Roman Turovsky, who likes to fool people about the real origin of the Sautscheck compositions. Furthermore, if one takes into account the large repertoire for the lute, the Sautscheck compositions are of no significance to this article. --Tarleton 22:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you made a sizable mistake. The "Sautscheck" music is now taken rather seriously by the lute community, and it does get performed by first-rate players. - --Lute88 22:08, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

- That fact that a few players occasionally perform your music does not turn you into a notable lute composer. It is not by chance that you yourself add the Sautschecks to the article again. - --84.168.164.237 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

- By design indeed. But you are not in position to judge what/who is notable. You may write to rDOTturovskyATgmailDOTcom, so that would carry the resposibility letting me know who you are. - --Lute88 (UTC)

- The point is that you are not in the position to judge wether you are notable or not. - --84.168.176.4 09:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever played through any of my stuff? I wouln't have had any Napoleonic complex, if not for the support of the community. See http://polyhymnion.org/swv/comments.html Lute88 21:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the Gallup Poll is in order........................ RTLute88 02:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


I have added a Modern and Contemporary subsection to the Composers, including Turovsky, per lute Community consensus on this subject. --Galassi

Hi Roman,
obviously you (=Galassi) have managed to enter your self advertisment again. A good strategy to embed it in a list of mainly other irrelevant composers. The chance that your name will survive in this article his higher this time.
84.175.71.206 20:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To make things clear: I'm not Roman, but we do know each other, virtually. My name is Peter. The composers listed are the ones that show professional standard. Add more, if you know anything. --Galassi

Hi "Peter",

isn't it strange that Turovsky's account (user:lute88)hasn't been used since march, that he had silently deleted the discussion about wether he should be named in the article and that now since some time has passed your account appears and you reinsert Turovsky in the article and the part of the discussion deleted by Turovsky? That means you followed the discussion before your account appeared on wikipedia. Furthermore, isn't it strange your language has a strange similarity to Turovsky's and as can be seen from your user contribution list you are interested in the same topics as Turovsky (quite unusual topics). But you pretend to be "Peter" ... :-> You have a lot in common with your virtual friend Turovsky, maybe also his desire to adopt other identities? Do you still know "Gregor auf dem Stein" by the way? I am not going to remove your self advertisement again, you will reinsert it anyway. There are not enough experts around here anyway. One could probably insert the name of a non-existant composer in this article and it would not be deleted.
84.168.172.252 13:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mysteries galore..... My wife calls me Peter, and she should know who I am. You flatter me, I suppose my English sounds decent. And I do have a few identities, although not as many as the "prime suspect". As to "nonexistent" composers: a lutenet discussion some years ago covered this very topic. Nonexistent composer must produce nonexistent music. But if music exists, then its author is existent. And I do know "Gregor auf dem Stein", it is a really beautiful ballad cycle by Carl Loewe. Speaking of self-advertisements, look up "John Kenneth Graham" in wiki, so you'd have an idea what these are. Galassi 00:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi "Peter",
I didn't say your English wasn't decent. However, you share Turovsky's strange use of the word "per" and occasionally drop articles where they are needed, just to give two examples. And like Turovsky you are interested in such unusual topics like the Torban, Kobza and Ukrainian music. And Turovsky just reappears here a day after I said that you and Turovsky are identical... come on... :-> Wer einmal luegt dem glaubt man nicht ...
You didn't understand my statement about nonexistant composers: I just meant that you could pick a name from the phone book at random and insert it here as a lute composer and probably nobody would notice. For this reason Turovsky's name will also survive here, although there is not at all a consensus about his music beeing notable.
John Kenneth Graham is by the way a colleague of Turovsky from the Delian-society. How small the world is ...
84.168.144.134 16:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, RT shares quite bit of his vocabulary with Pat O'Brien. Must be those years of study (apropos, at to, meanwhile)...... The world is small truly. And the Delian soc. is worth studying for psychological reasons (a real bunch of self-congratulatory fruitcakes, I told him to stay away). Galassi 21:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC) ps. Unlike RT, I am an ethnic Ukrainian.

Merging Required

The Oud is the same thing as the Lute, but that's just its Arabic tranliteration in English. I'd suggest it should somehow merge with this article asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qasamaan~enwiki (talk • contribs) 09:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a good idea. At least in part because they are 2 different things.Galassi 19:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No merging. Even if once it was the same instrument, a diverging history has accumulated a great number of differences. A merged article would be either a mess or a tedious alternance.al 21:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

They are closely related. But they are distinct instruments. Keep separate.Dogru144 14:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle that wikipedia articles should not become 'link farms' as one recent editor termed it, and that the Lute article is one which still has a substantial number of external links.

Nevertheless I do feel that it is simply not appropriate for editors to just add and take away references (particularly internal wiki ones) for their favourite/ least favourite musicians without reference to real importance in the context of the article. I think this goes for a lot of music-related articles, but this one is a good example of the issue.

Thus, I dare to suggest that Lynda Sayce who for 20 years has been learning, teaching, playing and writing about the lute and associated instruments, is more significant for the lute than is Sting, whatever his undoubted merits! Yet reference to her has been struck out (not sure which editor did this, as there have been many changes in the last month or so).

In other words, it seems to me that the fact that Sting is undoubtedly better known to the world in general, is an inadequate reason for his name to appear, while Lynda's does not: since the article is about the lute, not about popular culture. --Ndaisley 14:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We all know and love Lynda, a consummate professional. Sting, however, is a great musician, and his Dowland affair is extremely important, because it raised the awareness of lute hundredfold.Galassi 15:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Discussion of the infobox that just showed up is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments. __Just plain Bill (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture on the article

I don't know if this is the place to say this, but it seems to me that the picture with the caption "A baroque- or classical-era lute" at the begining of the article is actually a small english theorbo. Just a thought, I'm probably wrong (not an expert in lutes and relatives). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.219.97 (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not. It is a 13course, Jauch model.Galassi (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed no less than eighteen inappropriate external links from this article, only to have the removal reverted and an abbreviation used which stated that my edits were vandalism. If any of these persons are notable, then articles should be created about them, at which point links to said articles would be appropriate. If they are not notable, then there shouldn't be an external link in this article. If you don't know enough about them to write articles yourself, then request that they be written, following the procedure explained at WP:REQUEST. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, no offence intended. It is a bit common in the lute community to see red at the appearance of the abbreviation SCA.... [;-)}Galassi (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't fret about it; some medievalists are the same way (I'm a sometime history grad student). I'm just glad that we could reach a middle ground. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

This passage about alleged etymological derivations was added more than a year ago and has stood unsourced ever since [1]:

There are also possibilities of derivations from Greek haleut meaning "fishing boat", Frankish lleut and Slavonic ладья, both meaning "a ship"

This is highly dubious. All dictionaries I've seen give the Arabic derivation as uncontested; there is, to my knowledge, no double ll sound in "Frankish" (which Frankish, by the way?); neither is there a Greek word haleut (there is a Greek verb ἁλιεύω (h)alieúo, with a possible derived adjective ἁλιευτικός, pronounced alieftikos at the relevant time, meaning 'related to fishing'). All the alleged candidates have no other relation to Lute than that they all happen to have an "l" and a "t" or "d" somewhere.

I'll take this sentence out if it isn't sourced in 24h. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is actually taken care of by a group of lute experts who are making sure ther is no BS.Galassi (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, what do you mean? That your status as a lute expert is proof enough that this particular claim is not "BS"? Well, uhm, no. Have you got sourcing for it or haven't you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:JudenkunigTotapulchraes.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

List of composers

I thought I was improving the article, but apparently Lute88 disagrees, so lets hear some more opinions. I removed the short list of composers from "lute repertoire" and linked to List of composers for lute instead: its bigger, its not selective in any way, it makes this article smaller and leaves more opportunities for expanding "lute repertoire", etc. However, Lute88 removed my link entirely (! - was this really required? Hey, why not delete that list altogether if you're not going to link to it anyway?) and replaced it with another short list... he didn't even bother checking whether the links actually work or are formatted consistently (for instance, we do have an article on Dalza).

Anyway, the problem with all short lists is that they're always selective, and should not be used when a larger list is available. For instance, the current list... why no mention of Molinaro? Or Lorenzino? Or French Renaissance composers? Etc.. The "lute repertoire" section shouldn't be a list; it should be a big text about genres, countries, schools, etc., with some - only some - famous names to get the reader started. This is the policy New Grove follows, for example, and I believe that it is better than just dropping a small list and adding a few paragraphs to that.

Of course, if someone feels that the article should be bloated with a huge list of composers (and, consequently, that the talk page should be drenched in discussions about who should be included in the short list and who shouldn't be)... --Jashiin (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are knowledgeable on the subj.- expand that section with discussions of styles and their practitioners.Lute88 (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Style guideline for tunings

There's a proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Stringed instrument tunings) that affects the Tuning conventions section of this article.

The effect is minor, the article is very nearly compliant with the proposal already. We would need to add a wikilink to Helmholtz notation, and change the format of the pitch descriptions, for example from "[(G'G) (Cc) (FF) (AA) (dd) (g)]" as currently to "GIG-Cc-FF-AA-dd-g" as described in the proposal. I think that's all.

That's assuming that this is the tuning intended, at present it appears to be a sort of modified Helmholtz notation just using prime rather than sub-prime for lower octaves. If that's what is intended I actually like it in some ways, it's a lot easier to type and quite explicit... but it's also nonstandard AFAIK, and as I'm having to guess what is meant, we need to do something. If there is a standard that is being followed, we need to describe and/or link to it somehow.

Apart from that there's nothing wrong with the format currently used here, in fact it also has some advantages so far as clarity is concerned and is consistent with the general philosophy of the proposed guideline. So I'd be very interested in any views that it should be kept as is. In that case perhaps it's the proposed guideline that should change, not this article. There would be two main possibilities:

  • We could make the format for coursed instruments optional, and just recommend consistency within any one article. This is already proposed with respect to several other issues within the guideline.
  • We could recommend this slightly longer but arguably clearer format for string listing for coursed instruments instead. The problem here is that the standard for uncoursed instruments, for example "E-A-d-g-b-e'" as a description for standard guitar tuning, is fairly widespread, and the guideline for coursed and uncoursed instruments should be consistent IMO, particularly for occasions when one article mentions both.

And within these two main options there are several other options, for example add the dashes to the current format but keep the parentheses around the courses, or even keep the non-standard octave notation.

My feeling is that it would be best to change the format here to that currently in the proposed guideline, for consistency with other articles. But as I say above, I'm very interested in other views on this.

And also of course interested in any other comments on the proposed guideline, either here or at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Stringed instrument tunings). Andrewa (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Unequal Temperaments book and website

Dear friends,

The Unequal Temperaments book of 1978 was described-in writing-as the definitive reference on the matter by authorities such as John Barnes, Hubert Bédard, Kenneth Gilbert, Igor Kipnis, Rudolf Rasch and others.

In the 1990's I also developed the first professional-grade temperament spreadsheets.

Eventually I setup the "Unequal Temperaments" website, where I uploaded the spreadsheets which, kept permanently updated, are available for FREE. I also uploaded years ago a provisional "Update" to the book of 1978.

The website lately gives information on the recently released new version of Unequal Temperaments 2008, which includes a detailed chapter about FRETTING LUTES in Unequal Temperaments. (The website does NOT sell the book)


I would find it useful to Wikipedia readers if my website was included among "Articles and Resources"

Kind regards

Claudio

Dr. Claudio Di Veroli 

86.42.128.58 (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Another image: Lorenzo Costa - Un concerto (National Gallery, London).jpg

A trio accompanied on a lute played by one of the singers. Das Konzert [The Concert] (c. 1490, Lorenzo Costa).

Image:Lorenzo Costa - Un concerto (National Gallery, London).jpg may be added where appropriate. Hyacinth (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

arab word

Like many words in many languages, Arabic being no exception, 'a-oud' (desperate attempt to reproduce the sound), means 'stick, branch, lute, physique, strength' and so on. Pamour (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Boat Lute

Req: Entry "Kutiyapi" says it's a "a Philippine two-stringed, fretted boat-lute", and mentions «This feature, which is also common to other related Southeast Asian "boat lutes"». In the entry "Lute", there's no mention of any such thing as a "boat lute". Can someone add a description/definition/note about boat lutes, maybe also linking to kudyapi as an example? —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

To do

African variations

The page has Asian and other continents' variations.

The page needs variations found in Africa. Dogru144 14:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

LUTH an Ancient instrument

Dear friends,

I think that LUTH has a very important role in instrumental music in 16th-17th AC. The name (LUTH) is descended from filiation direct of one "PERSIAN instrument", Even before ARIAN's IMMIGRATION to IRAN and then EU. After maney great wars before Islamic period, this instrument was found in arabia. in arabian "Al-'ud" took from "LAUD"( AL + L + AUD = AL-'UD) and after that in spanish and in ancient french language its configurated to "LUT".

We can Understand that this instrument had a DIRECTION from northeast of Iran to west lands, by Aryens (IRANIANs ancestor) Immigration to Arabia and Europe. LUTH is an ETHNIC IRANIAN word. For example, in KERMAN province in South-eastern part of Iran, "Kavir-e Lut" or "LUT DESERT", Was discovered an ancient LUT. I present three Kind of LUTH, The ancient instrument in Iran was "ARCHILUTH", "THEORBE", "CHITARRONE", that had beautiful Modales intonation. LUTH was renamed to BARBATH in the name of its great lutherist, BARBOD, In SASANIAN epoch.

I just made additions to lute history that partially addresses this. I find not address the linguistic origins, but what is said about Barbat matches what I have read.Jacqke (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Potential changes; seeking opinions

Recent additions I made came from research for the mandolin article. Looking at the lute article I am at an impasse; this seems to be an article about the short-necked European lute, but I want to write about the lute family and incorporate all of the members including the long-necked lutes, the African lutes that resemble lutes from 3000 years ago, and the Asian lutes. I have 2 questions: Should I incorporate all the lutes here or create a second Lute family article? AND Does the level 4 vital article designation at the top of this page apply to an article about the European lute or to the lute family of instruments?Jacqke (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You should create a separate article, to match the existing category.--Phso2 (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Chitarrone vs Theorbo

Robert Spencer's article authoritatively defines the Chitarrone as an earlier name for the Theorbo, and hence is derived from the Renaissance Lute, not the Quitra. InfernoXV 11:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

See Renato Meucci's article apropos (in Italian....).Galassi 20:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting this here from the article in case someone wants to use/save it. It is an orphan that doesn't fit and is unsourced.

The quitra did not become extinct, however, but continued its evolution. Besides the still surviving kuitra of Algiers and Morocco, its descendants include the chitarra Italiana, chitarrone and colascione.Jacqke (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Headstock

The wikipedia article for Headstock could use some broadening, any volunteers? It is rather narrowly focussed on US electric guitars.----Design (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Tuning

It says "Much renaissance lute music can be played on a guitar by tuning the guitar's third string down by a half tone".

In the diagram, each string appears to be tuned two notes above its guitar counterpart, except the third string which is one note higher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.201.113 (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you retune a guitar as described, you can play much lute music that might be difficult or I possible on a guitar in standard tuning. You will be nominally a minor third lower than the key the original was in. However, considering the lack of an pitch standard comparable to our modern A=440, this is probably a minor nitpick. You can always capo at the third fret, if so inclined. Wschart (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lute. 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) 00:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lute/Archive_1&oldid=1144488346"