Talk:Recorder (musical instrument)/Archive 1

Jarrett

I don't think Jarrett played recorder on that album - the only reference I can find to a recorder album is this

http://mcaserta.com/kjd/disc-5.html#ss5.9

in which Jarrett plays the harpsichord.

Keith Jarrett plays recorder on the 'Spirits', 'Foundations" and "Morning of a Star' albums. See the Recorded Recorders database for more information at http://www.recorderhomepage.net/records.html [Marsyas]

Adorno

"The instruments have been criticized by Theodor Adorno for having poorer tuning of sharps and flats and an ‘insipid and childish’ sound. [25]" Really? My understanding is that Adorno's ‘insipid and childish’ comment was directed at all recorders, not specifically those with German fingering. And the reference cited says nothing about intonation. David Peacham

What Adorno actually wrote lambasted the German Recorder Movement: "One has only to hear the sound of the recorder – at once insipid and childish – and then the sound of the real flute: the recorder is the most frightful death of the revived, continuously dying Pan." T.W. Adorno (1956). Dissonanzen. Göttingen. [Marsyas]

Fingering section

I removed the extensive section on fingering as it appeared to violate the copyright of [1]. It was added by User:Nibblus in this edit. Notice how the original edit ends midsentence, a classic symptom of cut&paste. —Blotwell 04:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it need to be emphasised that you are only talking about Baroque fingering taught in England and USA. In Germany they use a different fingering because their sound holes are drilled differently. I have first-hand experience in this for I once bought a recorder in Germany and it sounds really off-tune with Baroque fingering. So you must either add another chart in European fingering or mention this issue in the text. Quote "Most recorders are offered with German and Baroque fingering so that a choice must be made at the time of purchase. The most important difference is the fingering for the note F (soprano), B-flat (alto) that at first is easier to finger in the German fingering system (in comparison to the forked fingering of the Baroque system. However this apparent ease of fingering compromises the tuning of the instrument in other keys than the home key. For this reason modern recorder tutor books are geared towards Baroque fingering which when taught properly is no more difficult for pupils to learn. The Baroque fingering can easily be recognised by the larger finger hole number five (for F soprano, B-flat alto) in comparison to a German fingered instrument" http://www.mollenhauer.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36&Itemid=118&lang=en

Please sign your edits, use four tildes (~~~~) so that we have an idea who is talking and on what date.

German fingering is also discussed below in 22 German Fingering. It is mentioned in the main text under 3 Types of recorders paragraph 6 starting "In the early part of the twentieth century". The paragraph makes it plain that German fingering was developed as part of a plan to select a simple instrument that all German children could be taught to play. As the paragraph makes clear, the modifications may have made the basic scale on the lowest register easier, but caused severe problems with tuning elsewhere. Although a few such recorders are manufactured today, most recorder players consider them to be a short lived aberation, thus apart from noting them there is little point in showing charts which ought never to be needed. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

History section

This is a bit misleading, starting, as it does, with the 18th century. For instance, the implication is that recorders were originally called flutes. If so, why does Hamlet say "Ah, ha! Come, some music! Come, the recorders!" Bluewave 08:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a lot of evidence that both "recorder" and "flute" were used interchangeably in Shakespeare's day. The traverse flute was called just that. Synonyms, you gotta love 'em.

For comprensive notes on the origin of the word "recorder" see Lander, N.S. (1996-2007), A pipe for fortune's finger and A memento: the medieval recorder. [Marsyas]

Another French name is "flûte douce" -- at least during the 17th and 18th centuries.--Demoiselle Clarisse (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Need for cleanup?

I was a bit surprised to see this article tagged as needing a cleanup—I had thought it read quite well! To me, the areas that could certainly be improved are:

• The introductory paragraph would be better if it summarised the article.
• The section on playing the instrument has had different bits added by different people (including me) and there are places where you can see the "Polyfilla in the cracks"
• we could do with some references
• Perhaps we should compare with the German article on the same subject, which is tagged for its excellence
• Anyone know why its called a Recorder and not a Player or something?

Any other suggestions? Bluewave 09:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've had a first go at implementing my own suggestions! Bluewave 15:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's great to see that we've gone from "needing a cleanup" to "good article"! Bluewave 09:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

For comprehensive notes on the origin of the word "recorder" see Lander, N.S. (1996-2007), A pipe for fortune's finger and A memento: the medieval recorder.

I don't UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AFRIHANA (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Condensation

The article says that plastic recorders are "more resistant to condensation". I play plastic and wooden recorders and generally find the plastic ones are more prone to condensation. This is probably because the cedar plug in the wooden wooden ones is quite efficient at absorbing moisture, whereas it just collects on the plastic. Anyone else care to comment? Bluewave 09:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps what they mean is that condensation is less potentially damaging in plastic recorders? Since they can't absorb it. Makemi 17:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That makes more sense. They are certainly more (or even totally) resistant to condensation damage. Bluewave 17:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Plastic recorders are more prone to moisture drops in the labium degrading the instrument's tone. Benglar 22:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that wood reacts to multiple wetting/drying by swelling and shifting. This can be a problem when a recorder is new, degrading the performance of the recorder and eventually requiring maintenance on the block or the windway. Plastics do not have this problem although they can clog up as noted above. I modified the sentences to be a bit more generic.Ohmiwik 16:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A small, frequently-used wood recorder might have an advantage over other instruments using wood -- and even over other, larger wooden wind instruments -- in that, once "warmed up" it would have a moisture content that is relatively constant between performances. I.e., it might be less susceptible to dry atmospheric conditions, because the primary source of moisturizing would be breath?

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The condensation problem is especially annoying, as long as the instrument is cold. But as soon as it's warmed up, I use its husky effect to play silently during late hours (you can consider this a nice jazzy sound as well). I prefer the Zen-On plastic alto "Bressan", because it sounds great over all registers. This article says, "...quality plastic recorders are equal to or better than lower-end wooden instruments (especially Aulos and Yamaha)." Well, I tried all Yamaha plastic altos, but since I have that Bressan, I threw all the others away. The pricier Yamaha alto has a very weak low A♭. I would already have ruined all my wooden recorders, if I hadn't those plastic things, because I really play hours-and-hours at weekends. So plastic isn't just beginner's stuff.--Demoiselle Clarisse (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Double thumb hole

82.27.246.170 mentions double thumb-holes on the back of some recorders for better tuning. I have only seen anything like this in some designs of the larger recorders (great bass and bigger) where the hole cannot physically be reached by the thumb and so there is some keywork to control the covering of the hole. In this case, the usual "pinching" of the hole for the upper octave cannot be achieved and the keywork makes use of a double hole. So, my first question is: is the double thumb-hole used more generally on "ordinary sized" recorders? On the specific claim about better tuning, I am a bit sceptical: I find the positioning of the left hand thumbnail quite critical and that it varies amongst the notes of the upper octave(s), so I am surprised that a fixed pair of holes would be an improvement. So my second question: is there truly any benefit in tuning or is it only implemented for reasons of practicability for the keywork? Bluewave 17:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think that may have been my fault. Someone put that recorders have ten holes, nine in front and one in back. I wasn't sure if this was simple vandalism so I tried, and failed, to clarify. I didn't mean to say that there are double-thumb holes. I was attempting to refer to the double holes for the pinky and ring finger of the right hand, which to my understanding are for tuning. I'll try to make it more clear, but please feel free to fix my awkward prose. Makemi 18:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah OK I see what you mean. I certainly read it like there are some with double thumb holes, which got me thinking (bad idea)! And of course you're right that strictly speaking, lots of recorders have got 9 on the front. Bluewave 18:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have tried relegating that sentence to a footnote. As it was, I thought it now read as if it was the double-holed recorders (rather than just recorders in general) that evolved in the 14th century. The use of double holes is described in the previous section and I can't find an easy way of alluding to it in this section without detracting from the discusssion about the history of the instrument. If anyone can improve on the footnote idea, please go ahead! Bluewave 12:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just put in a bit about pinching the thumb hole in the how the recorder's played section. If it reads badly obviously give it a polish, but it definitely needed mentioning as it's critical after one octave + a few notes Mawich 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fipple flute or internal duct flute

This article has flipped backwards and forwards a couple of times between these different descriptions of the family to which recorders belong. All of my personal reference books (mostly at least 15 years old), including the Oxford Companion referenced in the article, describe the family as fipple flutes. Doing a quick Google on both terms suggests that both are in use (although fipple flutes wins by a big margin). I suggest that we include both terms in the article unless someone can put me right on why one or the other term is definitive. Bluewave 09:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw that and was kinda lost. I don't know much about flute/recorder terminology, but I read part of the New Grove article, which says: "Since nobody can agree what [fipple] means, to avoid further confusion its use should be abandoned." so I just left it, but WP does have an article on fipple flutes, not internal duct flutes. I don't really have an opinion, just thought you should know what the most recent Grove says. Makemi 19:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a *metal* recorder

The article says:

“ Today, high-quality recorders are made from a range of different hardwoods, such as oiled pear wood, rosewood or boxwood with a fipple of redcedar wood. However, many recorders are made of plastic, which is cheaper, is resistant to damage from condensation, and does not require re-oiling. While higher-end professional instruments are almost always wooden, many plastic recorders currently being produced are equal to or better than lower-end wooden instruments. Beginners' instruments, the sort usually found in children's ensembles, are also made of plastic and can be purchased quite cheaply. ”

Implies that the materials listing is exhaustive. (Also the picture at the top of the article depicts only wooden instruments.) Should the article include reference to other possible materials? Or am I mistaken somewhere? (I could upload a picture of my recorder if you like, since Googling "metal recorder" returns the perplexing first hit: "I have never heard of a metal recorder, although it is possible that one has been or could be invented. Also, recorders are not typically used in marching bands. Modern metal flutes are." Mine is most certainly not a metal flute, since it's a recorder [no valves/open holes you cover with the fingers, blow into mouthpiece as opposed to across, etc. It is also not a tin whistle: it has 8 holes, including a thumb hole, and the hole closest to the base is offset for the right pinkie, as usual])

Gyula Gruber developed the "Silberton", an all-metal soprano recorder made entirely of nickel-plated brass, and an alto made of rosewood with a metal head-joint and two keys for the lowermost finger hole. Both feature a sytem of adjustable voicing achieved by altering the position of the block and the height of the windway. Both were of cylindrical bore. Later the German firm Hopf produced "Silberton" instruments which they now offer as "Gruber System" recorders by Kobliczek in sopranino, soprano, and alto models. Today, Gruber is making them again by himself as signed handmade recorders in small series, also in pure silver. For details see the on-line database of Recorder Makers. [Marsyas]

Question

Why is it called a recorder if it is used to play music, not record it? --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 22:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article, which answers this question. Bluewave 16:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, my bad. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 22:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

For comprehensive notes on the origin of the word "recorder" see Lander, N.S. (1996-2007), A pipe for fortune's finger and A memento: the medieval recorder.

Pictures?

Does anyone want me to upload more pictures of recorders to this page (perhaps with labels showing different parts) as I can do this if there is consensus to do so. I can take pictures of anything from descant up to bass (knick or crook type). I wasn't really sure if the article needed more pictures but, well, any thoughts anyone? Hydraton31 00:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to be able to add pictures that enhance the text, rather than just adding more pictures of recorders. Pictures of some of the historical examples; renaissance versus baroque; maybe some modern innovations like the Dolmetsch square-section great bass. Probably a bit of a tall order! Bluewave 14:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was sort of thinking of taking pictures of recorders and then labelling the different parts of them (like on the German article with labium etc) so that it is something more than just more pictures and would make the article more informative by showing readers the different sections of a recorder. I accept that just throwing more pictures in would not add to the article but I still feel that labelled ones might add something.

Hydraton31 20:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not give it a try then. Bluewave 06:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

One moment please... --Hydraton31 16:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this mini-project, I am going to encounter some delay for several reasons. Please see my talk page for information regarding this. --Hydraton31 04:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added the pictures to the article but the formatting is not that great, feel free to improve as I seem to be unable to, sorry.. --Hydraton31 21:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

William Rowland

A few sentences have been recently added regarding William Rowland. Is there anything notable about his music? Was surprised to see him mentioned in the same breath as Hindemith, Britten etc. His work may be the only one to use all the members of the family, but there are certainly plenty of other modern concerto-type works for the recorder (eg Malcolm Arnold). Is his work notable or just one of the many pieces written (usually for school and amateur ensembles) by non-notable composers? Bluewave 11:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not finding anything very hopeful either on google or in Grove on this guy. I was having a disagreement about the use of the word "blockflute" with the newcomer who added that, though, so in the interest of not biting too hard, I left it in. I would support its removal, though. Mak (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 03:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added some citations. Any additions or improvements on my sources would be welcome! Bluewave 09:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My plans for updates to this article

I would like to incorporate some of the improvements I made on the Esperanto article about recorders to the English article. In particular, I would like to put in some of the new graphics and tables I created, as well as some of the references which are not included in the English article. If anyone has a serious objection, let me know right away. Thanks. Gerry --Gerrywright 20:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Anything that makes a "Good Article" even better must surely be welcomed! I think there was some earlier discussion about fingering charts and whether they are appropriate for inclusion, so that might prove controversial if you are thinking of adding them. The charts showing the range of each member of the family look quite nice, although some might disagree about the upper ends (I guess most serious alto players would expect to go above top G but great basses are not always reliable in the same part of their range). Personally I don't like the bullet lists of composers, players, etc, if you are thinking of using them. Anyway, give it a try and see how it looks! Bluewave 16:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue with the fingering chart had to do with posting copyrighted material. But, I did not copy the chart I made up for the Esperanto page. I created the chart from my own knowledge of the fingerings. However, if it would make people feel better, I can put in a reference to a source that goes into a lot of detail about recorder fingerings. As for the ranges, I wanted to show the notes that are typically attainable by intermediate level players. I think that if we want to show the extended range we need to put in an additional smaller note after the standard range note. Since it took me a long time to make up the original graphics, I would like for someone else to do that! Anyway, it probably only matters for the alto and maybe tenor recorders. I have never been able to reliably get the extended range notes on the bigger recorders, and I have never had the courage to try them on the smallest recorders. Gerry--Gerrywright 23:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just looked at the fingering charts. The fingering for F# in the 3rd octave needs to make it clear that the end of the recorder is covered. Is there any way this can be added easily to the chart (even just an asterisk with a note below)? Also I was a bit surprised by the fingerings for F# and G in the 3rd octave. I've always played /1346 rather than your /12467. I know that either fingering is possible but I thought the former was more usual. I've just tried it out on a couple of recorders and /1346 certainly gives a much more reliable and stable top G and a more accurate sounding F#. However this may just be because my recorders have got accustomed to the way I play them! Also /1346 seems a bit less clumsy in fast passages, but again that may just be because I've practised like that. Bluewave 10:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I think you found a mistake in my table. I will fix it. I usually use 13467 for these notes, because 1346 is a little sharp on my recorders. Gerry--Gerrywright 12:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. On mine /1346 tends to be sharp and /13467 a bit flat! I suggest the figure still needs something to indicate that the bell is covered in the top note (top G and F# look the same). Also maybe a note to say that higher notes are playable but fingerings vary from instrument to instrument (someone below pointed out the inconsistency of the chart with the text and I guess that is the reason). Bluewave 11:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I haven't addressed this yet because I have had other things on my plate and I was trying to decide on the best way to handle it. --Gerrywright 13:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just looked again at the chart and wonder if the fingering for top F is right. I play /145 not /156. Bluewave 11:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear! I must have had a brain fart when I did the 3rd octave! I will fix it. Thanks for taking the time to check the chart.--Gerrywright 13:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be made clear that the best fingering for a note on any given recorder can vary according to type, size, keywork, and dynamic effect desired, not just the highest ones. The high Bb/Eb, for example, is almost always better as /12--56h (h=half-hole)but some on a few recorders /12-456- is better. I have several recorders with high F#/C#s that do not need a covered bell. The low Bb/Eb forked fingering is also quite variable - I use 4 different fingerings depending on which recorder I'm holding. Thanks for working to improve this article.68.35.55.186 04:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the low Eb is always a bit variable. In consort playing, I tend to use a different fingering if, say, I'm playing in Bb major and the Eb makes a minor third with C, versus playing in E minor where "the same" note acts as a D# to play as a major third against B. I guess the fingering charts just need to show the "standard" fingerings and we assume that players who are exploring more of the subtleties of the instrument will check out some of the references and will have to experiment with their own instruments to find the fingerings that work. Bluewave 10:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished editing the fingering chart (which I think is very useful and good to have here, even if it is "original research"). I thought having the notes listed as F(C) and so forth was cumbersome, so I separated the notes into two columns. (I would have put the Tuned-in-C column first as I play soprano, but I've respected the original order. :) I also used the Unicode flats and sharps to make it prettier, but if that causes a readability problem for anyone it can be changed back to "B-flat" etc.) --ScottAlanHill

20:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Two additions to the article: Under recorder players, please add:

Dan Laurin Saskia Coolen

To the bibliography,

Vinquist, Mary. "Recorder Tutors of the 17th and 18th Century: Technique and Performance Practice." PhD dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1974.

You also need to research the articles by David Lasocki and his dissertation. User: Mary Vinquist (Aug. 15, 2007

Makers

Who makes the best recorders nowadays? If somebody wants to buy a good beginner recorder that will last them 5 years or so... what makers are the big ones? We should mention the top few makers, I think.--Sonjaaa 06:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I had thought about adding something on this previously but found it difficult to come with something that was useful but wasn't blatantly promoting particular makers. I had thought of adding to the section on makers and saying something like "Modern materials and production techniques present today's players with a wide range models at different prices, all of which have an acceptable tone and can be played in tune over a range of about two octaves. For example, a wide-range of mass-produced plastic recorders are produced by global companies such as Yamaha and Aulos. In the middle price range, several European manufacturers such as Moeck, Mollenhauer, Kung and Dolmetch all produces ranges of wooden recorders. At the high end, various specialists produce handmade recorders: for example, Tim Cranmore in England, Ralf Netsch, in Germany, and the Prescott Workshop, in the U.S.A. Players' requirements vary greatly: for example, a different recorder might be chosen for consort playing, rather than solo work. Hence, specialist recorder shops offer a range of models to suit different needs and some offer online advice about the different options.[2]" However, the above leaves out Kobliczek, Paetzold, Zen-on and loads of other manufacturers so I decided not to put it in the article! Bluewave 09:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you add that discussion more or less as you wrote it and add a link to the Recorder Homepage's Recorder Makers on-line database instead of Saunder's page. I have played recorders from all the makers you mention and I don't think you've unfairly categorized any of them. It is clear that you're not recommending one type or maker over another. Be careful with umlauts and spelling however.68.35.55.186 04:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The mention of maker John Wilman here seems out of place and should be moved. Although his instruments were outstanding, John has not made recorders for many years. [Marsyas]

Regardless of any debate over which current makers merit inclusion, the failure to mention the importance of Fred Morgan to modern recorder making (unless I missed it), especially with regard to the historical models, is a huge omission, IMO. His work deserves inclusion as an important contribution to contemporary recorder making and playing irrespective of which/whether other makers are mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.69.228 (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fred Morgan was certainly not the only maker to explore historical models. His contemporaries Coolsma, von Huene and Loretto were also highly influential. Come to think of it, a pre-WWII alto at A415 by Dolmetsch in my own possession is as good a replica as m any available today [Marsyas]

inconsistency of range

The words in the article say the range is two octaves and a fifth at least The graphics of range and the fingering chart show two octaves and a note This is inconsistent. Can someone who knows how please improve the graphics Alligin

Who makes the best —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.33.9.79 (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I suggest adding a caption to the table which shows the ranges. I'd do it myself but can't work out how! I suggest something like "For each member of the recorder family, this table shows its lowest playable note and a nominal range of two octaves and a tone. This is the range typically quoted by manufacturers of medium-priced modern instruments. In practice, the playable range is dependent on the individual instrument and the skill of the player (see main text)." Bluewave 11:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I put in the chart and the graphics, I will take responsibility for clearing up the issue. Bluewave has some good suggestions that I think can improve things.--Gerrywright 13:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bass or Basset?

Does anyone in the English Speaking world refer to the Bass in F (the intrument below the Tenor) as a Basset? I have met hundreds of players in Britain and have never heard it referred to in that way - we just call it a Bass, with the next lower instrument being called a C-Bass or Great Bass. I wonder if the English version of the article was originally in another language - David S

I am a treble player but I have never heard of a bass recorder being called Basset. Sotakeit 15:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have heard and seen it used when discussing Renaissance consort recorders - to help distinguish between the true basses (the C-Bass and the mighty contrabass in F) from the (hardly bigger than tenors) basses in G and F often found in those consorts. It's a better term really. - B2

I'm English and I've heard it called the Basset. The problem is that for some/most people, it goes Bass, Great Bass, Contrabass; but for other peole it goes Basset (in F), Bass (in C), Great Bass (in F), Contrabass (in C). I don't know where it comes from but it does seem to be a general concensus on the former and the latter is just about to confuse people... - M.

I'm from the UK and have played in a couple of recorder orchestras, I have never heard of a Basset. YellowGiraffe (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it gone from the article? One shouldn't have to go to the Talkpage to answer questions one might have after spotting Number_Pieces#Three. Sparafucil (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I've played the recorder since the 1960s and I can't say I've ever heard one called a basset(t). I had a look in the Oxford Dictionary of Music and the three entries relevant were: Basset Horn, a type of clarinet; Bassettflote, a C17-C18 German word for a low recorder; Bassett Nicolo, an alto shawm. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

recorderer?

what is ther term for a person who plays the recorder? please include the term or terms used in the first paragraph of the article.--74.56.212.27 19:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "recorder player" is the usual term in England. eg the recorder players' society is called the Society of Recorder Players[3] (not the Society of Recorderers and Recorderists!) Bluewave 20:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Which more common in ensembles - sopranino or great bass?

While the soprano, alto, tenor and bass are the most common for ensembles, which of the other sizes is fifth most common? Which is used more often, the sopranino or great bass?

The great bass is pretty expensive, so I think it probably depends on which kind of ensemble. Inkwell 07:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a simple answer - certainly not one that could be usefully included in the article. Most ensemble players can play more than one "size" of recorder. A lot of ensemble players will have a sopranino that they can play if asked to, but it depends on whether they choose to play pieces written for sopranino. As pointed out above, the great bass is an expensive instrument, but ensembles which have one at their disposal are (at least in my experience) very keen to make use of it. Some viol music plays well with the lowest part on a great bass and a lot of SATB music sounds good transposed down a fourth and played on A T B GB. Bluewave 16:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, the great bass is much more welcome and useful in ensemble playing and should be considered the fifth size. Most consort Renaissance music does not include an obvious sopranino line and it balances poorly with the larger instruments. The sopranino comes into its own in Baroque concertos and playing with strings or other modern instruments and are indispensible in recorder orchestras. I agree with the comment about transposing above, but note that the transposition is not automatic unless the alto and bass are in G instead of F. 207.108.248.88 19:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(Yeah, I'm a couple of years late on this comment) It is my understanding that the preferred instrumentation of a Renaissance consort was ATTB in fifths (alto/treble in G, two tenors in C, and a bass in F or G). The SATB style was developed later. This follows in line with other instruments, where the highest voice was usually centered around G (cornett, gamba, shawm). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmclark (talk • contribs) 02:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I modified that paragraph to make the point I made in the comment above. Although I have to say it is just my opinion, I've been an ensemble player for many years - we use our great bass every week and a sopranino twice a year and then only to preview orchestra pieces. Ohmiwik 16:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Modern Composers

The article should mention Carl Dolmetsch and the Haslemere Festivals which were the mechanism for introducing most of the modern composers listed to the recorder. Louis Andreissen should also be mentioned; his work "Sweet for Recorders" was seminal in the introduction of the recorder into avantgarde music. OldTownAdge (talk) 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Range of the Recorder

The section on the range of the recorder really needs a rewrite. At the very least it needs to reference Ganassi - Opera Intitula Fontegara for the renaissance instrument and its range of 2 octaves and a sixth, and it needs to say that the baroque instrument had a normal range of two octaves and a tone, which a few composers (e.g. Vivaldi and Telemann) extended further. See Anthony Rowland-Jones: Recorder Technique

Also, the ranges are off. I own a descant recorder and it goes down to middle C. I know it is not a tennor! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.119.111 (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The claim that the Baroque had a wider range than the Renaissance recorder is obviously false, as is the claim that the Renaissance recorder could not play chromatically in tune. I see there is no citation! A lot of this stuff on recorder ranges looks like "original research" (to put it politely) rather than based on public sources. (Sorry about lack of signature - especially after I moan about a similar fault in others below!) OldTownAdge (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that section needs more attention. I revised the sentence that implied that all ren. recorders could play the Ganassi range in the hands of skilled players. This is not true. Little if any music of his period had parts that exceeded the basic 1+1/6 gamut. Playable instruments from the period do not have the extended range (see Adrian Brown's discussion and database [4]). Ganassi himself claims full credit for discovering the extended notes and then proceeds to use them only once or twice in his own diminution tables. So the claim that Baroque instruments had a wider range than Ren. instruments is true in a general sense: most instruments that survive have the 2+1 range. Ohmiwik (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment. And it is also true that the idea that Baroque instruments were restricted to 2+1 may also be an artefact of modern publishers. Telemann certainly uses F# freely in his virtuoso works - e.g. in the obbligatos in "Der Geduldige Sokrate" - but these works are rarely published outside the Collected Works. We should mention the unfortunate fact that most preserved recorders are rich amateurs' instruments, (and this is not just true of recorders), but I don't really believe that this makes much difference to the ranges. OldTownAdge (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the range of a recorder, and the stability of intonation on chromatic tones varied greatly from recorder to recorder, even within the period. If you look at the sonatas of Handel and Telemann and compare them, you will see that Handel rarely calls for anything past and octave+5th while Telemann freely goes over two octave. However, Handel uses the lower end of the recorder much more freely than Telemann. If you take this comparison and then locate (faithful) copies of recorders made in England and Germany, you find that English recorders were much more responsive in the lower ranges while lacking in stability in the second octave, while german recorders are amazing in the upper register and die towards the bottom. Then again, this is also a time period when instruments were seldom make identically. If you go back further, you pretty much had to purchase all of you instruments from the same maker, otherwise they would not be in tune with one-another. We are not talking about the modern world where things are accurate and precise, we need to acknowledge that there were great variances in terms of range and tuning between different places and different times. I'd also like to ask: what is "in-tune." That recently tuned piano at the Cliburn competition sounded grossly out of tune to me, but then my ears are accustomed to meantone,; furthermore, just because a recorder's Ab is out of tune does not mean that something is wrong, it may have been voiced in G# (common problem to anything tuned in meantone). We need to keep such things in mind. Jmclark (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Are the images of ranges an octave high? I'm not an expert, but I played the descant recorder at school and am fairly sure that the lowest note was middle C rather than an octave above as it says here. Similarly with the sopranino and the alto. Polly Shaw81.97.47.180 (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The ranges are correct and easily verified with a piano. As described in the article, the harmonics of the recorder are such that the they seem to sound an octave lower than their actual pitch, but this is an auditory illusion. Compare to the modern flute family: a tenor recorder (lowest note C4 - middle C) is approximately the same length as a modern flute (C4 or B3). A soprano recorder (C5) is about the same length as a piccolo (C5).Ohmiwik (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

German Fingering

The reference to German Fingering is very misleading. German fingering is not in use at all in any modern instrument, simply because it is grossly out of tune. See A Rowland-Jones: Recorder Technique and E Hunt: The Recorder And Its Music - both references forty years old and German fingering was dead then. OldTownAdge (talk) 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, how do you explain the fact that large firms like Moeck, Mollenhauer, Kueng and others continue to manufacture German-fingered recorders to this day? Someone must be buying them. [Marsyas]

Others? And how many? They form a very small part of the catalogues of even these three companies. I dare say there are a few places in Germany still using them, but they must be an infinitesimal part of the total recorder production. (BTW, please sign your comments; it's nice to know who I'm talking to.) OldTownAdge (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The evidence suggests otherwise! Here are some more firms producing German-fingered recorders: AAFab (Holland), Angel(S. Korea), Aulos (Japan), Flautissimo (Germany), Chen Han (Taiwan), Hahl (Germany), Hohner (Germany), Hüber (Switzerland), Kallen (China), Liyun (Taiwan), Jiangsu Qi Mei (China), Meinel (Germany), Rössler (Germany), Schneider (Germany), Suzuki (Japan), Thoman (Germany), Toyama (Japan), Yamaha (Japan), Zen-On (Japan). This list would seem to indicate that German-fingered recorders remain an important part of the market in many parts of the world. [Marsyas]

Flute-o-phone

I'm not sure if that spelling is right, but that's what the recorder was called in my school. Is that something different or just an obscure term? The playing method was the same, though the end was open like a horn, as opposed to the style shown here. The box for it was marked Recorder though, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.108.3 (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found it and it's a trademarked name 71.74.99.71 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Larger images

This article has several images, but significant detail is missing in many of them. Since there's no issue of fair use, consider making them about 50% larger. 67.169.126.106 (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

About the name 'recorder'

In the book Recorder Technique by Anthony Rowland-Jones (ISBN 0 19 318604 7) (OUP 1959) the writer states the following:
The word 'recorder' is associated with the verb 'to record' which refers to the warbling noises made by birds, particularly young birds in the nest, and the name might have been transferred to the musical instrument because of its being used to teach birds to sing (see The Bird Fancyer's Delight, ed. S. Godman, pub. Schott). Alternatively the connection may have been simply in the similarity of the recorder's tone-quality to bird-song, for the word was used for bird-song generally, as in Jonson's madrigal in The Triumphs of Oriana (1603) - 'Then tune to us, sweet bird, thy shrill recorder'. Another possibility is in the use of 'to record' in the sense of 'to sing softly' or 'to hum', and this might have led to 'la flûte douce' being termed a 'recorder'.
Rein de Vries 82.73.122.41 (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the most recent revision of this Wikipedia article mistakenly attributes findings to David Lasocki (Grove Music Online) who was, in fact, drawing on the work of Anthony Rowland-Jones (2000) and before him Brian Trowell (1957).

Brian Trowell (1957) drew attention to the Italian Ricordo, meaning 'remembrance, souvenir, keepsake, memnto, sign of friendship, token, note"; and to an entry in the household accounts of Henry Earl of Derby, Henry Bolingbrok (later King Henry IV), for 1388, noting payment for i. fistula nomine Ricordo (a pipe called a 'memento') - possibly the first reference to the recorder by name. More recently, Anthony Rowland Jones (2000) re-examined this entry which in fact reads Et pro j fistula in nomine Recordo— empta London’ pro domino iiij s iij d. The superscript horizontal line and slash following the ‘o’ (difficult to recreate, here) is an abbreviation for ‘ur’ in English court hand. Thus although the critical word looks like ‘Recordo’ it should really be rendered ‘Recordour’ and the entire entry should be translated: “And for one flute by name of Recorder bought in London for my lord, three shillings and four pence.”

Rowland-Jones (2000) further notes that whereas the word ‘fistula’ (flute) is treated as a common noun, ‘Recordour’ is treated as if it were a proper noun like ‘London’, and that it is qualified by the word ‘nomine’. This would seem to indicate that the word (and probably the recorder itself) was new to the language or at least unfamiliar. It is possible that the recorder purchased on behalf of the Earl of Derby was for his own use. The future King Henry IV was a keen amateur musician.

58.7.93.194 (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Marsyas

Lander, Nicholas S. (1996-2015), Recorder Home Page: A memento: the medieval recorder: Etymology & literary references].

Lasocki, David (2011). Researching the recorder in the middle ages. American Recorder, 52(1): 15-19.

Lasocki, David (2012). The Recorder and Other Members of the Flute Family in Writings from 1100 to 1500. Instant Harmony: Portland, Oregon.

Lasocki, David (undated). "Recorder", §I. 1: Nomenclature, Grove Music Online, edited by Deane Root, Oxford Music Online (subscription required).

Rowland-Jones, Anthony (2000). Einige Überlegungen zum Begriff Recorder [Some thoughts on the word recorder.] Tibia 25 (2): 89-97.

Trowell, Brian (1957). King Henry IV, recorder-player. Galpin Society Journal 10: 83-84.

I think you will find that the current version of the article says that Lasocki "reports" this etymology. There is no claim that it was his discovery. In fact, Lasocki's New Grove article cites Brian Trowell's 1957 article and a great deal else besides. It is unlikely, however, that Lasocki could have drawn on Rowland-Jones's 2000 book (he cites several earlier sources by this author, but not this one), given the time-lag between writing an article for New Grove and its eventual publication in 2001. In any event, there is no particular reason to trace the entire history of etymological research (which might just as well include the OED, which had opinions on this subject several decades before Trowell published his findings). It is usual on Wikipedia as elsewhere to cite standard reference sources (such as New Grove) which in turn may rely on a variety of research articles and books. We should not, of course, attribute actual discoveries to such reference sources unless there is reason to suppose it is the origins. The current wording is perhaps a bit sophomoric, but it scarcely justifies an attack on the probity of the author of an encyclopedia article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm in a great affinity towards the english language and I never would dare to change one single word of it, yet it annoys the hell out of me being annoyed with the word recorder every time I have to stumble over it. Something went wrong during the 100-years war... the english language got mutilated and the french got rid of that verbal misfortune.--85.180.237.174 (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate word in "Recorder Fingering" section

As of November 8, 2008, in the table header under section "Recorder Fingering", one of the headers says, "Tuned in Fuck u" rather than "Tuned in F". I have tried correcting this, but I cannot find the code to do it. I have a screenshot in both Internet Explorer and Firefox, so I think this may be a problem on the server's end.

Beardedknight (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"Perplexing" Vivaldi concerti

The reference to the ranges of the Vivaldi flautino concerti as 'perplexing' seems strange; surely they just confirm the use of a flautino in d, an octave above the 'voice flute' which was a very common Baroque instrument. f is easy and good quality on a modern reproduction voice flute, so I don't imagine f' would have been a problem on a flautino in d - (fingered /-23-56-) OldTownAdge (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Recorder (musical instrument)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 18, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

Major contributors and projects notified.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Large sections are unreferenced which is grounds to de-list immediately. References that are there are often unverifiable, for books list author/editor, pages numbers, etc. use cite books template. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Quiet a few personal website in there, please read WP:RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

   • ???? I don't know until references are found. Jezhotwells (talk)

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • File:Altorecorder.jpg ⋅can't be pd-old as it it is a modern photograph. Likewise File:Tenorrecorder.jpg; File:Numbered finger holes.jpg# is downloaded form where?;

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Some images are uncaptioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Delist. A loty of issues to be fixed. please bring to WP:GAN when fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey - this discussion is of an appallingly low standard itself! Claim that long sections are unreferenced - whichsections? You don't tell us. "Quite a few personal websites"? List them, please, because i can't see ANY! Downgrading for good reason is fine, but this is just ridiculous.

OldTownAdge (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Grain of salt

The Waitzman reference in the "Decline of the recorder" section had a note, "This citation should be "taken with a grain of salt". There are those who would question the assumptions of an article written during a time (1967) when much of the great research done on the recorder was yet to appear."

The note has been taken out. Does the caution still apply? This is the place to discuss it. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Recorder (musical instrument)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

After reading through the article, I notice that many of the citation needed tags were not fixed, as were most of the issues in the previous review. Also, publication data needs to be added for a many of the refs that are just urls and nothing else. As such, I'm going to fail this new nomination. When the tags are addressed on the page, then it can be renominated. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The decline of the recorder: Gluck's supposed use of the recorder

It has been argued mistakenly by Hunt (1977) that the famous flute solo in Orfeo ed Euridice (1762) by Christoph Willibald (Ritter von) Gluck (1714-1787) was intended for the recorder rather than the transverse flute. In fact, the solo in question was composed for the revised French version (Paris 1774), Orphée et Eurydice (Smith 2004). However, the earlier Orfeo, Act 2, Scene II begins with a 'Ballo' for two flauti in F major, perfect in name, key and range for recorders, and the continuing aria in C major, 'Que puro ciel' includes a birdlike solo part for traverso. This argues strongly for recorders, switching to flute (Lasocki 2006: 18). Smith believes that the only unequivocal use of the recorder by Gluck occurred in his final opera, Echo et Narcisse (Paris 1779), where the parts are clearly marked Flûte à bec.

Hunt, E. (1977/2002). The Recorder and its Music. Revised and enlarged. Eulenburg, London. Reprinted by Peacock Press, Hebden Bridge (2002). In French as La flûte à bec et son histoire, Editions Zurfluh, Paris (1979). Earlier edition in Dutch as De blokfluit en zijn muziek, Zomer & Keuning, Wageningen (1966).

Smith, F.E. (2004). Observations on the flute writing in the operas of Christoph Willibald von Gluck (1714-1787). Early Music Performer 14: 16-27.

Lasocki, D. (2006). The recorder in print: 2004. What's been written about the recorder in other publications around the world. American Recorder 47(3): 12-21.

[Marsyas] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.250.248 (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Listen to it

I removed the samples of soprano and sopranino, because their musical level was just too low. I'm sorry to say so, but I found it cruel to let people listen to it as a sample for recorder music, when there are such great recorder players (not me!). Sorry to the one, who uploaded it!91.67.94.36 (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded one of the two samples. I have restored them both now. In my opinion, the point of the samples is simply to let people understand what the instrument sounds like when played in normal circumstances. The quality of the musicianship is not really a factor. Both samples do a good job, in my opinion, of representing the basic sound of the instrument. If you can find or make more appealing samples than these ones, it might make sense to use them instead, but I don't think simply removing them is an improvement to the article. We do have a recording of "new age" recorder music in the article, which I like very much, but it is highly processed with electronic effects and doesn't really convey the basic sounds of the instrument. Thparkth (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I will remove and repost new samples when I have time (hope that will be soon). Reason will be the same as for the first poster. And let me say to you that the musicianship is Really a factor here. Why? Because you just can't produce a "full tone" without a good technique and so the current sample will not do justice to the instrument. And I'm sorry if I sounded mean to anyone. Nothing personal here. (the sound I'm looking for is more like "van eijck - pavane lachrimea (Brüggen on original Terton) " in youtube. The current sample (even more in the sopranino sample) sounds like the breathing of the player is stuck too high in the body and the air doesn't come out freely, so the sound isn't what it could/should be. We are speaking of a sample which maybe thousands or more people will hear and maybe make their opinion of the instrument by it.

Of course if someone else does that first then go right ahead! Muharmonia (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Slightly different Fingering?

I started learning the recorder in 1963 (on a PAN PRODUCT C-recorder) and learnt F as 012346 rather than the 0123467 listed here. Also, we were discouraged from playing the higher notes (we only went to E) because any notes higher than that were deemed to sound "too shrill". So was I taught incorrectly or have things changed since then?

Finally, and on an entirely different matter, is my 1963 recorder still a useful instrument or would it now be considered a piece of old junk? Specifically, and relating to the previous item, would it be easier to play the higher notes on a newer model and would they not sound as shrill? Old_Wombat (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not covering 7 only makes a slight difference to the pitch, at school you could possibly get away with it. See your talk page for more. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Pan recorders were made between 1951 and c.1969 in Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia by Ade Monsbourgh, Donald Roberts and Fred Morgan. Yes, that's right, Fred Morgan, before he studied in Europe. You can pick them up for peanuts on eBay. Candidly, almost any modern plastic recorder (Aulos, Yamaha, Zen-On, Angel, etc.) would be far better musically and much easier to play. [Marsyas] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.116.38 (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Concert pitch

I note that IP 90.224.28.198 has changed the definition of concert pitch from 440 to 442 Hz. Reference to concert pitch gives:

Despite such confusion, A = 440 Hz is the only official standard and is widely used around the world. Many orchestras in the United Kingdom adhere to this standard as concert pitch. In the United States some orchestras use A = 440 Hz, while others, such as New York Philharmonic and the Boston Symphony Orchestra, use A = 442 Hz. Nearly all modern symphony orchestras in Germany and Austria and many in other countries in continental Europe (such as Russia, Sweden and Spain) tune to A = 443 Hz. A = 442 Hz is also often used as tuning frequency in Europe, especially in Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Norway and Switzerland.

so I suspect it should be reverted to the official 440. Consensus please. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Another pitch issue. CountMacula modified sheet music notation to refer to recorders nearly always paying at concert pitch and not transposing. I'm going to rework this paragraph, many recorders play in the same key as written, but at a different pitch standard. See [5] for a mind-blowing list of different standards (around 75 of them). Generally recorders seem to be available in A=440 or A=415 with others available from specialists. 415 may not be historically accurate, but is a good average of baroque instruments. Medieval instruments are made slightly differently, so their pitch of A=460 - A=525 doesn't really affect this discussion. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

My intent was mainly to provide a hyperlink to concert pitch, believing that to be a synonym for the term 'concert key', which the article had been using. I don't know that I changed the meaning of the article, but I am not an expert. Are the meanings of those two terms the same or different? Thank you.CountMacula (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I must say I don't particularly like the term "concert key" in the first place, but that's my preference. I find the terms written key and sounding key much clearer. For example the B♭ trumpet has a written key of "C" and a sounding key of B♭. Recorders are only transposing instruments at the octave (that is if you ignore the unofficial playing of an "F" instrument with "C" fingerings). All of this though is only referring to the key, the problem is that calling a note "A" is imprecise, unlike saying 440 Hz. Over the years the definition of "A" (and hence all other notes) has changed, witness the list of 75 different pitches mentioned above. Concert pitch today is usually synonymous with International Standard Pitch: A = 440 Hz. See the second half of Concert_pitch#19th_and_20th_century_standards. The last paragraph mentions that A = 415 Hz is in common use amongst baroque musician. It is not historically accurate (there was no 18th century ISO), but is a good average compromise for all to agree upon. Most recorders are made to concert pitch, but a significant number are made to A = 415 Hz. Specialist makers such as Phillippe Bolton will even offer a range of half a dozen pitches, but at an appropriate price for hand made one offs! I hope that helps a little, I can recommend Bolton's pages for great diagrams and information. The Dolmetsch site also has a theory book by Blood online, well worth a read if you get drawn into this detail. Martin of Sheffield (talk)

Renaissance Recorder Range

The article says that Renaissance-design recorders have a wider range than Baroque ones based on the Ganassi fingerings, but my understanding is that those higher fingerings were probably experimental and not very musical, and that very little of the recorder music from the period (including Ganassi's in that same manual) actually go beyond an octave and a fifth. The Baroque recorder, on the other hand, of course can make two octaves and a second quite comfortably and fill out the rest of the third octaves with more advanced technique. If anyone else has the same understanding of the literature, the Renaissance section may need to be edited. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I second this. In the baroque recorder section it is even said that "These innovations allowed [as compared to renaissance recorders]... at the expense ... and a slightly reduced range," which doesn't agree with the present scholarly consensus at all, unless I'm completely mistaken. It should perhaps be made more clear that the "Ganassi range" seems to be an exception, and that no such period instrument has yet been found which would play it, and also that the modern "Ganassi" recorder is just a modern invention based on one renaissance recorder and Ganassi's fingering charts (see http://www.flute-a-bec.com/ganassgb.html and http://www.flute-a-bec.com/flute-sam-135gb.html).

Section 4.4 "Notes in the third octave" would also need some work on the part which concerns renaissance recorders. Dupin Aurore (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Concerti or concertos

From the lead section of concerto:

A concerto (from the Italian: concerto, plural concerti or, often, the anglicised form concertos)

Let's not get into an edit war over this, the reason I corrected Michael Bednarek's spelling was that I thought it a simple mistake amongst his other edits. We do need consistency throughout the page, that I fully agree with. Perhaps an appeal to other editors is in order - can we have a concensus on whether to use the normal plural or to force an English-style plural on an Italian word? I'll happily harmonise them across this page in a few days. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It was not a simple mistake: I did make the use of "concertos" consistent in the article. Before my edit, there were 2 occasions of "concertos" and one of "concerti"; naturally, I followed the majority. Now, despite claiming not to want an edit war, Martin of Sheffield committed an edit for the single purpose of changing three occasions of "concertos" to "concerti". "Ye shall judge them by their deeds." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted them back as you appear to wish. Perhaps in future you could be a little quicker with responses to calls for concensus though? I would respectfully suggest that three months is more than enough time to object, a marginally faster opion would have saved me some work! Out of interest, is your objectection based on AmE usage since your user page gives no clue to your background or experience? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

- I've just noticed the en-au group. Perhaps we'll just leave this one down to cultural and linguistic differences? Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see any reason to respond to your remark in January because you started with "Let's not get into an edit war" and I assumed you wouldn't. You may have interpreted my edit from 7 January as edit warring but I can assure you it was not. I always try to explain the motivation for an edit in my edit summary, which in that case was a wikilink to Silvestro Ganassi dal Fontego; restoring consistency in the usage of "concertos" was a by-product. On the other hand, the only purpose of your edit from 30 December was to change one occurrence of "concertos" to "concerti", re-introducing the inconsistent usage of 2 "-tos" vs. 1 "-ti". Then, on 10 April, you committed an edit with the only purpose of changing three "-tos" to "-ti" and referring to the talk page – where I explained my edits from 29 December and 7 January and how I viewed your edit from 10 April. Note that I didn't revert that edit but commented here. Why you then felt it necessary to self-revert, using three edits for the process, I don not understand. As to your enquiry into my reasons: as I explained above, for the initial and for the second edit, a 2:1 ratio seemed to need consistency in the way of majority usage. For my non-edits since then, I follow MOS:RETAIN, and to some extent WP:0RR and WP:Revert only when necessary.

Explaining differences of opinion to an Australian as "cultural" may be seen as subtly insulting because it might be construed as a reference to the epithet that a tub of yog(h)urt counts as culture there; of course, I wouldn't dream of assuming that such a thing was implied here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake. I asked for consensus quoting the page for concerto as a reason, no one replied. I acted on that and you immediately objected. Against my feelings I accepted that as a senior editor your opinion carried more weight and reverted (using one revert per section since my day-time access has a habit of loosing edits) and now you object. How you find accepting that there are cultural differences between Australia and the UK an insult baffles me. Please edit this page in any way you like, as far as I am concerned I have bent over backwards to be polite and accommodating to you. This conversation is now closed, I will not respond to any further remarks from you. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Recorder (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Notation and Pitch -- Clarification Needed

As written, the information presented in this section is confusing, and apparently contradictory. For example:

"... among serious amateurs and professionals, two other standard pitches are commonly found. For baroque instruments, A=415 Hz is the de facto standard,[15] while renaissance instruments are often pitched at A=466 Hz.[16] Both tunings are a compromise between historical accuracy and practicality..."

While this is true, this paragraph is followed by the statement:

"The 415 pitch has the advantage that it is an exact semitone lower than 440 Hz;"

Which is followed by:

"The recorder family is non-transposing, which means that sheet music for recorder is nearly always written in the key in which it is played. A written C in the score actually sounds as a C."

Clearly, this would be untrue for a recorder pitched at A=415 or A=466. A written C in the score, played on an instrument in 415 intonation would, in fact, sound as a B. This would make these particular recorders transposiing instruments.

Furthermore, the statement "The 415 pitch has the advantage that it is an exact semitone lower than 440 Hz; there are harpsichords that can shift their keyboard in a matter of minutes" requries some additional explanation. Why would it be an "advantage" for an instrument to be in a non-standard (by modern standards) tuning?

It's not even clear why it would be an advantage playing with the harpsichord, if that tuning requires the harpsichordist to "shift their keyboard" (whatever that means). Even if the operation can be done "in a matter of minutes", why is requireing this operation an "advantage"? Wouldn't it me more advantageous for the recorder to be tuned to a standard A=440 so that the harpsichordist doesn't have to "shift their keyboard"?

Really, on the face of it the operation sounds absurd -- like a clarinet player sounding a tuning note, and then requiring the piano player to tune his instrument to the clarinet.

This section either needs more explanation, or perhaps just needs to be re-written more clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.183.5 (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you seem to be confusing key and pitch. Start by having a read of Pitch (music) and particularly Concert pitch which discusses the relationships between key, pitch and frequency. The key (!) fact to keep in mind is that a C sounded on a 415 Hz instrument is not sounding as a B but as a different C.

The recorder family is non-transposing (except at the octave). A tenor recorder sounding its lower A is sounding A. If it is tuned to concert pitch then it is sounding concert A at 440 Hz, but if a baroque instrument it is sounding A at 415 Hz, it is not sounding G♯. Confusing, I know, but the result of several hundred years of changing pitches.

The harpsichord issue arises because of the time and expense of retuning such an instrument. If a harpsichord is playing with modern orchestral instruments it needs to be tuned to their standard. If it is then played with a baroque ensemble it then needs to be able to shift down a semitone. Your analogy is slightly wrong, it is not the hypothetical clarinet player sounding the tuning note, it is the whole orchestra sounding it, and then requireing the piano to retune.

On another point, please don't change A{{music|b}} to Ab. The former renders correctly using a sharp sign (♭), the latter merely a letter "b". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I do understand the difference between pitch and key. If that is the issue in the article, then something along the lines of your above explanation needs to appear in the article itself. As is stands, tha article is ambiguous.

If, for example, a recorder tuned to A:415 is playing a piece written in the key of C, in concert with a modern instrument such as a piano or flute, simply calling the recorder's C a "different C" doesn't cut it. In order for the instruments to play in tune with one another, either the recorder will have to transpose its part from written C to C#, or else the piano or flute will have to transpose their part from written C to B. This is the very definition of "transposing instrument".

The modern recorder family, tuned to A:440, is non-transposing. The ancient recorders, tuned to A:415 or A:466 were non-transposing in their rspective time periods, when the pitch standard for all other instruments was also 415 or 466. In a modern context, however, they would have to be considered transposing instruments, because the pitch standard has changed.

What needs to be clarified in the article, I think, is that these instruments tuned to a non-440 standard are considered non-transposing only in their respective historical period(s), or when played together with other period instruments, or with modern instruments designed to duplicate period conditions.

There was nothing wrong with my analogy; regardless of where the tuning note is coming from -- clarinet or orchestra (in which case it would come from the oboe) -- requiring the keyboard instrument to retune to the rest of the ensemble can hardly be considered an "advantage". I still feel the wording in this section is poorly chosen, and needs to be either changed or clarified.

I'm not sure what you're refering to as regards the "A{{music|b}} to Ab. The former renders correctly using a sharp sign". If the tags are rendering a sharp sign when a flat sign is required, there there has been an error in the text.

In any event, I don't use those tags when writing ASCII music notation, because they do not render correctly in all browsers. '#' and 'b', OTOH, render correctly in all browsers, and are unambiguous.

On another point: why, in the table, are ranges only given for sopranino, soprano, and alto recorders?

Also, in a table headed "sizes", it would be nice if some actual dimensions were given, viz: "Soprano recorder, typically about 30-33cm long; Alto recorder, typically about 45-47cm long..." etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.183.186 (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Taking your points in order: Playing instruments tuned in different pitches together won't "cut it". In the very special case of A:415 with A:440 you do get a semitone difference, but generally you just get disharmony. Consider the major orchestras of the world: A:440 (UK and some US), A:442 (Europe and some US, eg Boston Symphony Orchestra), A:443 (Germany and Austria) A:445 (Previous Berliner Philharmoniker) and that's only the current situation. For a real nightmare look at http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory27.htm. It is a fairly safe bet that anyone who has spent a significant amount of money on a baroque recorder will have a modern one to hand. The only reason for the former is to pay at historically inspired pitches. I would hope that the recorders laying on a score would give a good indication of size, but it is a fair comment.

You picked up on a typo. Clearly A{{music|b}} renders as A flat. My mistake. However please have a look at template:music for a detailed explanation. ASCII doesn't support sharp and flat signs, but then browsers don't render in basic ASCII. The problems compound when using systems such as the Helmholtz pitch notation when "b" denotes a note, not an accidental.

A couple of last points, unrelated to recorders. You might care to consider joining Wikipedia and getting a user name. One has to guess that 67.206.183.186 and 67.206.183.5 are one and the same person. Could you also get into the habit of signing your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. The software uses this to insert your user name or IP address and the correct time. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Playing on the head section only

I have moved the following here from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Recorder_.28musical_instrument.29. these points are relevant to the instrument rather than the discussion over reverting and should be preserved here.

There is a possibility that the persons reverting don't know what they are doing.

What happened to marking obviously correct additions with "citation needed"? (In this case after editing them to remove weight.) Obviously it's hard to find one of the few sources which mention the practice among the huge amount of recorder literature which doesn't. But everybody who plays the recorder knows the practice, and in many countries (such as Germany) that means basically everybody. Just a very cursory search in German brought up this:

"Die Improvisation auf Blockflötenköpfen mit neuen Spieltechniken, sowie Einsatz der Stimme und des Körpers eröffnet einen direkteren Zugang zum Kern des Musizierens, zur Darstellung von Affekten."

Rough translation:

"Improvisation on recorder heads with new playing techniques, as well as use of voice and body opens a more direct access to the quintessence of music making, to the representation of affects."

This is from the abstract of a conference talk by Agnes Dorwarth, professor at the renowned Freiburg University of Music. (She has also published recorder head music in 4 voices.)

While this is not directly usable, surely a good source can be found for this standard technique in early music education.

That said, the addition of the earplugs nonsense to the user's most recent edit shows that you finally managed to turn them into a troll. Congratulations. Continued in this way, Wikipedia's trademark combination of incompetence and bad faith assumptions may manage to create another serious long-term abuser.

Or someone could simply write a single sentence alluding to play on the recorder head, and add it with a cn tag. Hans Adler 11:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hans Adler, I should have read your comments more carefully; I found your Agnes and added the content: please tweak or improve where necessary. I also unprotected the article since I presume there is no need for it now (I hope this doesn't change). Martin of Sheffield, I don't see why such whistling is misuse of the instrument. Using it as a dildo, sure, but just playing the head? Thank you Hans, Drmies (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

While you're talking about nonstandard performance techniques, the article might mention that you can change the recorder's pitch a little bit by shading the bottom of the bore hole with your knee while playing. I'm sure this is described in the literature somewhere. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not non-standard, it's advanced! I've never done it myself, but I believe it flattens the note slightly (can someone confirm/deny this please?) and so you can increase the breath pressure and hence volume without going sharp. Using the top as a whistle however would have secured a clip around the ears from my teacher - she hated any messing about. One lass used her recorder as a drum stick and got a smack for her pains. Ironically the recorder was an Adler - any connection to Hans? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I acquired some notoriety in my family when I played at this time of the year the carol "de:Was soll das bedeuten" on two recorders in my nostrils in unison; playing in G major, the D required some deft fingering. However, I'm not proposing to add this use to the article. As for flattening the lowest note by partially covering the bore hole: in my experience, it can't be done for a full half-tone on a soprano recorder, but if no body hair on the knee or thigh interferes, altos and tenors can be manipulated that way. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You should be able to get a (very quiet) low E on an alto without much difficulty using the thigh-shading technique; low E is called for in one sonata of Jean-Baptiste Loeillet de Gant. As for using the head section alone, there are a number of contemporary pieces that call for it; someone familiar with that repertoire (i.e., not me) should be able to name some of them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Noise maker

This:

You have written in the Talk Page of recorder: "OK, I listened; that was a mistake: no sense of rhythm, no breath control, direly, hopelessly out of tune, a perfect example of the sort of playing that gives the recorder a bad name"
The recorder is just a very diverse instrument. Other instruments are diverse as well, and are also suitable as a noisemaker, but they are often a lot more expensive. Because the recorder is cheap, its head joint is a popular toy music instrument for children. This has nothing to do, that the recorder is also suitalble for classical, baroque or folk music.--79.205.123.222 (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

was left on my talk page after I removed a sound-file of a peculiarly awful rendering of Greensleeves here. I suggest that since this article is about the recorder as a musical instrument, the persistent addition of unmusical uses and examples is coming close to being disruptive, and that the competence of the IP is questionable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

+1 -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

+1 I tried to get the page semi-protected for just this reason last December but was slapped down. Perhaps we should consider splitting the page in two: Recorder (musical instrument) and Recorder (educational uses)? We can let the whistlers, dummers and others go off and say what they like, with a hat note "This page is about the recorder as an educational tool. For the musical instrument see Recorder (musical instrumant)". One would hope that an admin might then support us in trying to keep the page on track. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

+1 My thanks to the above editors. __Just plain Bill (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought of proposing a split along exactly the lines suggested by Martin of Sheffield (I'd thought of Recorder (didactic use) as a possible title) when I posted above. Such a split might leave room for expansion here (where's the section on the repertoire? where's the discussion of recorder sizes, the sixth flute, fourth flute, voice flute? of craftsman-made instruments (Fred Morgan isn't even mentioned!)? of the appeal of the Paetzold basses to contemporary composers? and so on). What held me back is the conviction that some didactic use of recorders is entirely musical. But if there's consensus for such a split, I'd go with it. As for the IP, I doubt if the level of annoyance is enough to justify semi-protection or even WP:Pending changes; it's under control, isn't it? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I very much agree with the above, except for the use of the term "didactic". I've a feeling that the people interested in teaching kids to use a recorder as a whistle might not understand the word. "Educational use" or "... tool" are roughly similar, the other alternatives I thought of are decidedly non-encyclopaedic. ;-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2014‎

I have produced an education uses page. Currently it is in a sandbox. Please have a look at it and either hack the page about or add comments here. Once the dust settles I propose to:

1. Move it to mainspace
2. Add a similar hatnote to this page
3. Remove the contentious unconventional uses from this page.

If you don't like my plans, speak up here ASAP! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 Done Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Pinching

I suggest the following edit for the section 4.3 "Pinching":

Most of the notes in the second octave and above are produced by partially opening the thumbhole on the back of the recorder, a technique known as "pinching". There are two basic methods for achieving this: a) drawing the thumb away from the hole, and b) bending the thumb. The first method uses only the skin of the thumb to define the opening, while the second method uses also the nail edge. The latter technique enables better feel and thus control of the size of the opening. The placement of the thumb is crucial to the tone, intonation and stability of these notes, and varies as the notes increase in pitch, making the boring of a double hole for the thumb unviable. To play the notes in the second register and above, the player must generally blow more air into the instrument and/or tongue somewhat harder to excite the second or upper harmonics of the instrument. This is, however, not universally true; it is possible for example to slur piano between and in the second and third registers.

Please voice your opinions if you're against it. --Dupin Aurore (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

For convenience, I made the references used above visible and copied the current article text here and took the liberty to highlight the differences in the prosed text:

Most of the notes in the second octave and above are produced by partially closing the thumbhole on the back of the recorder, a technique known as "pinching". The placement of the thumb is crucial to the intonation and stability of these notes, and varies as the notes increase in pitch, making the boring of a double hole for the thumb unviable. To play the notes in the second octave, the player must tongue somewhat harder in order to excite the second and third harmonics of the instrument.

I generally agree with the proposed text, except I'd like to retain the use of "octave" because I think a flute's registers, if it has them, does not fall on octave boundaries. The references to Hauwe should obviously be combined with a named reference. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Much better for comparison now. I actually chose to change "octave" into "register" precisely because registers don't fall on octave boundaries. For example the first three notes (second f, fis and g on alto, with standard fingerings) of the second octave belong to the first register and aren't played by "exciting harmonics", unless I'm understanding something wrong? Philippe Bolton has a nice explanation of recorder's registers here: http://www.flute-a-bec.com/acoustiquegb.html --Dupin Aurore (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right; I had in my mind the pinch confused/equated with the open thumbhole – register it is. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit done. Hopefully the named reference thing is okay. --Dupin Aurore (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Range

Dupin Aurore has removed a mention of the slightly smaller range of Baroque instruments with respect to Renaissance ones. Obviously that is correct, since Renaissance instruments as we now understand the term have a much smaller range than Baroque. However, I suspect that the text was meant to say that Baroque instruments have a smaller range than transitional instruments with Ganassi fingerings, which I believe to be incontrovertibly true; a standard fingering chart such as this one shows notes in the third register that would be hard indeed to produce on a Baroque-bore instrument. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Those fingerings are actually for the modern "Ganassi" recorder, which isn't a copy of any known instrument, but is rather a modified version of one Renaissance alto recorder. Philippe Bolton has some information on it here: http://www.flute-a-bec.com/ganassgb.html and here: http://www.flute-a-bec.com/flute-sam-135gb.html. Are there known period instruments which play the range Ganassi gives in his treatise?

Anyhow, I think notes above the top c in Bolton's chart are doable with baroque recorders (for example c⁴ on an f recorder, which I think would be d⁴ on a g recorder), certainly I can produce at least the top c with my baroque f alto, which is based on Stanesby Jr's instruments. That is of course original research, and I have to admit that I don't know what kind of ranges actual copies/original instruments from the period have.

(Probably the register used isn't relevant when comparing ranges, but I think many of those high notes would actually be fourth register notes. See for example http://www.flute-a-bec.com/tablganassi2gb.html.)

--Dupin Aurore (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It might be worth noting also that Ganassi's treatise was published in 1535, which is more than a century before what is usually regarded as the recorder's "transitional" phase, somewhere around the middle of the 17th century. Bolton's chart is admirable, especially for noting that Ganassi is actually describing three different instruments, by three different makers (marks "A", cloverleaf, and "B"). As far as I am aware, no surviving instruments with these makers' marks actually work with Ganassi's fingerings, though that could be due to age, which in many cases has rendered the instruments unplayable. The real difference, however, between Renaissance and Baroque instruments has to do with facility in the upper register, rather than the possibility of producing high notes. Attempting agile passage-work on notes above high E on a Renaisssance (even specially constructed "Ganassi flutes") will quickly demonstrate why Telemann, for example, could not have written what he routinely does if the instrument had not changed drastically in the two centuries separating him from Ganassi. And FWIW, the highest note I know of in the literature for the modern "baroque" recorder is the F above that high C. It occurs in Louis Andriessen's Sweet for unaccompanied alto recorder, but I have never found an instrument that will actually play it. The E a semitone below is as high as I can get, using the fingerings in Michael Vetter's Il flauto dolce ed acerbo, and this involves bell-stopping.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ricordare especiale?

I've removed an unreferenced sentence about the derivation of the name from the "Italian" ricordare especiale. I don't have OED access at the moment, but the abbreviated Oxford dictionary I do have gives a derivation from old French recorder; it also mentions the obsolete English "record", meaning learn or practice a tune. I seem to remember that that is discussed in the introduction to the Schott edition of the Bird Fancyer's Delight. bit I don't have that to hand. I think the whole Name section needs attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm putting it back, rejigged with citations and quotes from OED2. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

For a moment you had me worried there! But you haven't put it back, you've put something quite different and very good, with proper sources. Thank you! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Terminology

The article has been written using both US and UK terminology (center, practise), which is relevant to the question of soprano/descant and alto/treble. For consistency's sake I'm standardizing on the former, in part also because so far as I know NSATB is used (sopranino soprano alto tenor bass) in abbreviations. -- Evertype·✆ 13:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Terms for the big recorders

These are a bit of a mess, because a lot of things seem to be found and the terminology is a but variable.

• The Von Huene Workshop (and on other pages on that site) uses the terms great bass in c, contrabass in F, sub-great-bass, and sub-contrabass in FF. Evidently contrabass is preferred to contra bass.
• Dolmetsch lists Great Bass in C (octave below Tenor), Contra Bass in F (octave below Bass), Contra Great Bass in C (octave below Great Bass), and Double Contra Bass in F (octave below Contra Bass).
• Weird Woodwinds lists Great Bass in C, Contrabass in F, Subcontrabass in C, and Sub-subcontrabass (octocontrabass) in F
• At the Wikipedia article on Contrabass we have the older terminology used on the Wikipedia, listing Contrabass (two octaves below the alto/treble (that'd be in F)), Subcontrabass (three octaves below the soprano/descant (that'd be in C)), and Sub-subcontrabass (three octaves below the alto/treble (that'd be in F)).
• Moeck describes a Bass in f, a Great bass in c, a Sub bass in F, and a Sub contra bass in C.
• Lazar's Early Music describes the Paetzold Basset in f, Greatbass in c, Contrabass in F, Subgreatbass in C, and Subcontrabass in FF.
• The Recorder Homepage seems to call bass basset, great bass bass, contrabass contrabass, and sub-great bass subcontrabass—if I understand it right; so this would make sense of the term sub-sibcontrabass, but only where basset and bass are distinguished.

All this needs looking into. I'll probably add to this as time goes on. -- Evertype·✆ 14:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Whichever term you wish to have displayed (contra bass/contrabass), we need to keep the wikilinks correct. Readers won't see them directly hence it ought not to be an issue. Please elaborate here if you disagree. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you but so far I am not entirely certain what the best terms are. So let's look into this some and then either we or some admin can help us sort out the articles and re-directs, with and without hyphens and spaces and whatnot. -- Evertype·✆ 14:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

For the link we don't require the best term, merely one which works, that is the name of the page as it currently exists. The displayed term is a different matter altogether. Perhaps we ought to consider WP:REDLINK and WP:RF. I would suggest to you that until such a time as that Sub-contrabass recorder exists as a page (not redirect) the link ought to point to Sub-contra bass recorder as a matter of courtesy to our readers. Regards. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the version of terms used on the Recorder Homepage follows Praetorius's terminology in the Syntagma Musicum (1619). Antony Baines also follows this terminology in Woodwind Instruments and Their History (1957, third edition 1967), but replaces "bass" with two terms, "quart-bass" and "quint-bass" to discriminate between the historical instruments in C and B♭ (Praetorius only describes the B♭ version, but museum instruments exist in both keys). David Lasocki, in the article "Recorder" in the New Grove (second edition) also cautions about this disagreement in modern usage, and tends in that article to follow Baines and Praetorius. When it comes to the biggest instruments, invented only in 1975 by the Paetzold brothers, he is unfortunately vague, though here I suppose we have the authority of the Paetzolds to go by, and doubtless should use their names for these instruments.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Navbox

I've generated a couple of alternative navboxes and would appreciate the views of other editors. Once I can determine the census I'll add the navboxes to Recorder (musical instrument) and all the individual recorder sizes. I'll then remove the "see also" section that points to the various sizes, which will save a lot of editing to get the correct links, or their absence. Feel free to add suggestions on the voting page. Once the navbox is created it will be like any other: available for improvement! To view the pages and vote please go to my sandbox. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I've done the navbox, with lowest notes for each instrument. There's some additional information in the "Other recorder types" section; we shouldn't lose this though it doesn't belong in the navbox. -- Evertype·✆ 22:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This looks good to me. Certainly it is better that the "see also" list format. I agree that all of the other recorder types should be kept out of the navbox. I imagine it can be taken for granted that this taxonomy is a modern (late-20th-century) English one, rather than an historical classification (which would vary by century and even geographical location). There is always an issue on Wikipedia of just how far an article should go to fully explain things like this, and in the present case it could get very complicated indeed. One tiny element of this has crept into the navbox, and that is the voice flute category. I hasten to add that I think it is important to keep, in part because of the historical importance of this particular size of recorder in the 18th century, but also not to fold it into either the alto or tenor recorder category, for reasons that I think are clear in the article on this instrument.

This brings me to a question about those "other sizes"—both historical and modern. Would it be wise to create separate articles for 18th-century instruments like the third flute, fourth flute, sixth flute, B♭ tenor, and so on, or would it be better to incorporate discussion of these into the articles on the nearest modern equivalent, as is already the case for the quint-bass and alto in G, for example? The third flute is a particularly awkward case for such treatment, since it lies halfway between the alto and soprano.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd vote for keeping the number of pages down and discussing variants on the appropriate page. I think that there might be milage in either creating one page labelled historical variants, or else beef up the discussion on the main page. Musicologists asside, how many readers know about and are looking for third flutes? Creating a lot of stubs which are either not expanded or else are repetitious doesn't help the general reader whereas drawing several small snippets together can create an informative and enjoyable article. That's just my 2d worth though. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be my inclination as well, and certainly the fourth flute and sixth flute can be discussed in the article on the soprano recorder (from an historical perspective, both of these instruments appear to have been more numerous in England than that weird little fifth flute thing, in C). The third flute is a particularly sticky issue, however, since it is neither a soprano nor an alto (or could be either, depending on your point of view). Thirty or so years ago, when I first encountered this beast in a Handel organ concerto arranged for recorder (third flute) and performed by Frans Brueggen with the Orchestra of the 18th Century, it would not have been so much of an issue, but this instrument shows up more frequently these days, at least in the hands of professional players. This takes me back to the other question I raised, about the level of detail appropriate for this family of articles. If we are only addressing amateur recorder players, they probably will not want to know much about instruments that they are not likely ever to own or play, never mind their historical prominence. On the other hand, if we are addressing listeners who will encounter such "exotica" with increasing regularity on the concert platform or in recordings, at least a warning shot across the bow may be called for. On the third hand, if advancing students with aspirations to becoming professional performers are part of the audience (and I am inclined to believe that such readers may occasionally happen by), then I believe we owe them the courtesy of a more detailed account, with pointers to where they can learn more.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like the third flute is similar to the voice flute then. Has it other names? Is it available from modern manufacturerers? -- Evertype·✆ 22:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"Similar" in the sense that it is not easily subsumed under one of the "standard" sizes, yes. I don't know of any other name for it, but the name "third flute" is also used to describe a modern transverse flute in E♭. I don't know of any mass-produced third flutes, but modern makers such as the late Alec Loretto and Fred Morgan] made them (and it is possible that "blanks can still be obtained from the Morgan workshop for these, to be finished by other makers), and Tim Cranmore is still making them, as far as I know. If I recall correctly, the third flute played by Frans Brueggen in that concert I mentioned was made by Loretto. Recorders in this same pitch were also made between the wars in Germany, but in that context they were thought of as the highest member of the D/A consort, and so were called diskant (soprano). This much would probably be best explained in the context of Peter Harlan's altos in F, E, E♭, and D, and the corresponding sopranos in C, B, B♭, and A.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)