Jump to content

Talk:String instrument/Archive 1

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

History

I think there should be a section on this article regarding the history of the string instrument. The first string instruments emerged in central asia. First evidence comes from the persian language and literature. 'Tar' wich is an old farsi word means string, and has lent its name to intruments like the guiTAR.

still used today in modern iran, the string instruments they have there are predecessors to the modern day violin and guitear. The first bow used was in central asia aswell.

This article is entirely limited to western classical instruments. To be 'encyclopedia' class it needs either to be fully rewritten or to be retitled to indicate it's only dealing with western classical tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quelasol (talk • contribs) 03:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. There's some mention of Asian instruments, but nothing about Central Asian or East Asian or Southeast Asian, and not much about South Asian instruments. I was hoping to learn something about the history of Chinese stringed instruments here. 2601:441:4480:53B0:75F7:A76:AEF8:6661 (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I also agree wholeheartedly. This article has a MAJOR flaw, which is that it ignores string instruments form other parts of the world, such as Persia, which by most accounts precede Western string instruments. This article is very Euro-centered! Joozoon (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Categorization

This categorization of string instruments makes nice logical sense, but it feels awkward to me. I think harp & piano are more closely related than harp & banjo. How does organizing them by root instrument or shape instead (the guitar-like ones together, the violin-like ones together, the harp-like ones, etc) seem? Or maybe just separating the "plucked" and "strummed" instruments, which seem quite different to me. --Dreamyshade

Tricky.... I agree with you about harp & piano. Shape seems to be good, but there are bound to be exceptions. Plucked / strummed / struck / bowed seems good too.... but when a violin player switches to pizzicato, does the classaification change? ;-) -- Tarquin 19:50 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

I've just rewritten the article, although haven't really changed much in the classification part. I think really that any classification is going to feel awkward - instruments just don't fit into neat little boxes like that. There is no classification system which is universally accepted and completely satisfactory (even Hornbostel-Sachs, which is widely used in academia, has its detractors), so we're not likely to get one here. It's better to keep things simple, I think, which to my mind means saying whether an instrument is usually bowed, plucked or something else, and leaving it at that. It may even be better to do away with subdividing the list altogether, to make a list like:

I think the article is OK as it is right now, but if somebody wants to have a go at doing it a different way, well, you know where the edit link is! --Camembert

Is it right to add Shamisen to plucked instruments? anobo 02:56 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Certainly is :) --Camembert

Chordal

They may also be called chordal instruments...

Really? Seems to me a "chordal instrument" would be one that plays chords. Any examples of people actually calling string instruments "chordal instruments"? --Camembert

You are right, my bad. I took it from wrong usage. Mikkalai

Amplification

please explain scientifically how the sound is "amplified" by a passive piece of wood or passive metal bell on a horn or phonograph. i don't understand how this works. Does it just increase the surface area of the vibrating object, allowing it to move more air with the same amount of energy, increasing the efficiency of vibrational energy to acoustic energy transfer? not actually "amplifying" the sound by adding energy into the system? - Omegatron 02:10, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. An acoustic instrument (passive, in the engineering sense of the word) sounds louder than a string between two rigid supports, because the bridge and body couple the vibration to the air more efficiently than the string alone, as well as concentrating sound in certain directions. But the net effect is a louder sound in the room, or in the ears of the listener(s), so "amplification" does seem appropriate, just as a lever may be said to amplify force or range of motion, each at the expense of the other. Granted, it is not so in a strict engineering sense, since there is no external energy source being gated or valved, but I have no problem with that part of the article as it now stands... Just plain Bill 15:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Torban

I found this sub-stub article about the torban, but I never heard of it. Does anyone know where it could be listed? Because it doesn't have any links pointing to it... Jaberwocky6669 07:08, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

"Stringed instrument" or "String instrument"?

Doesn't "string instrument" sound somewhat less literate than "stringed instrument"? They're not made of string. My dictionary uses the latter to refer to them, and has an entry at stringed specifically to refer to instruments. Would anyone object if I moved this article, and the corresponding category (-ies)? —Michael Z. 2005-10-10 17:36 Z

Hello Mzajac,
This is a very curious matter. I share your intuition that "string instrument" sounds "less literate" than "stringed instrument". Yet, when I looked at the most authoritative of all reference sources, the New Grove, that's what they actually prefer. It looks like "string instrument" may be used as a kind of in-group term among musicologists. Perhaps they are imitating the German form of the word, Saiteninstrument.
Is sring a US usage and Stringed UK? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.55.24.223 (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
Your argument that string(ed) instruments are not made of string does not convince me--"wind instruments" are not made of wind, "grocery stores" are not made of groceries, "lyrebirds" are not made of lyres, etc. In English, a compound word XY need only be a Y that has something to do with X; the Y doesn't have to be actually made of X.
On the point of policy you raise, I could go either way. However, my rough inclination is that we should emulate what the professionals do, using "string instrument", and not try to impose our own preferences.
Yours very truly,
Opus33 14:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm no music expert, so I posted here first.
This is purely academic: but wind instruments are instruments of wind, grocery stores are stores of groceries, and to me string instruments sound like instruments of string. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2005-10-16 15:24 Z
The point is that "Stringed Instruments" is what we are taught in school, so it is an 'official' classification - it makes a lot more sense, and it doesn't sound like they are made of string. The problem with "String Instruments" is that it is jarring and comical, thus someone coming across the title or the term in another article will be distracted from the article to laugh at, or ponder the odd wording. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

List of string instruments

The list is getting really long, so I'm moving it to List of string instruments. Karol 19:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Soundboard resonance

I just put the word "beautiful" back in to the Through resonance section. Some resonances are pleasant to most ears, some sound horrible to most ears, and much ground to cover in between. Think of a bell vs. a dented panel of sheet metal, for two extremes. If one were to say "The resonances of a Vigdorchik violin are beautiful, while those of your run-of-the-mill del Gesu are loathesome." that would be unacceptable POV. As it stands, the word describes one of the aims of a diligent instrument maker. Just plain Bill 04:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you have the correct phrasing just here:

Some resonances are pleasant to most ears

Thats what I think should go in instead of beautiful. Beauty is in the eye (ear) of the beholder.--Light current 16:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I drove for the middle ground and changed the word to "pleasing". Can't see how anyone could argue with that. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Except me!. Ive changed it to give the subjective viewpoint. It is now factual and I hope this is satisfactory.--Light current 19:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm easy. It works fine by me, this way. __Just plain Bill 19:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Linking "louder" doesn't really reach the realm of over-linking, in my opinion. Among other things, the link (when piped from Loudness) says:

Note: Loudness, a subjective measure, is often confused with objective measures of sound intensity such as decibels. Filters such as A-weighting attempt to adjust intensity measurements to correspond to loudness as perceived by the average human. However, true perceived loudness varies from person to person and cannot be measured this way.

which may be useful info in this context. That said, I don't feel strongly one way or the other on this one, though I incline to keeping the link. _ Just plain Bill 15:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I say take it out. Basically, who cares what the article on loudness has to say? In the context of the explanation of what a soundboard does, the concept of loudness is absolutely obvious on its face, and requires no tedious quibbling. It is plainly being used here in the context of perceived, as opposed to measured, loudness. Apply Occam's Razor.
By the way, I hope my recent edit serves to show the horrible effects of overlinking, and to hopefully help curb that instinct, far too prevalent throughout this site. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 23:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I care about loudness. Is very important in music. Also please dont disrupt the article to make a point. Please see WP:POINT. Thanks--Light current 00:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference between loudness and sound volume (SPL) is far from obvious to many casual Earthling readers. Worth pointing out in this context? I already said I think so. If you don't care about the link, then don't click on it.
Occam's Razor? What competing theories are being tested here? If you mean "Apply some parsimony," why be parsimonious with connections to other information in an encyclopedia?
_ Just plain Bill 00:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

Two tiny refs at the bottom can't possible encompass all that is string instruments in a comphrehensive manner, and their also not inline cited, a new requirement for Good Articles. Plus this never appears to of been reviewed in the first place. Homestarmy 17:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Piano

Perhaps we should discuss whether piano should be included here. Traditionally the piano counts as a percussion instrument, even though it has strings. For example in orchestral scores it is grouped with the percussion section and not the string section. Stephen B Streater 19:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it really is a string instrument: my music dictionary (Harvard Concise) starts the definition with "a stringed instrument", and the entry (several pages long) doesn't mention the word "percussion" at all. I think this is kind of a misnomer, actually, referring to the fact that the strings are struck. The fact that it's grouped with percussion in orchestral scores is probably due to the fact that the piano is not normally an orchestral instrument, unless in the role of solo instrument or playing "percussive" parts. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The Oxford Companion to Music, on the other hand, starts A stringed keyboard instrument with a hammer action..., so this would at first glance appear conclusive. However, a look at stringed instruments says: Instruments sounded by ... strings ... In Western orchestral and conservatory usage, the 'strings' consist of instruments of the violin family and the double bass, ... guitar and harp. The piano and harspichord, however, are usually categorized with the organ as keyboard instruments.... So perhaps we should mention of the keyboard alternative if piano is included. It also says to see INSTRUMENTS, CLASSIFICATION OF, which starts: There are innumerable ways of classifying instruments ... Stephen B Streater 21:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a precision instrument And is good for learners Seth Temple (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Harp

This article is shockingly negligent in making no mention of the harp, lyre, etc. --Aaron Walden 22:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The caption with the picture at the top...

has nothing to do with the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.122.153.67 (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add http://www.classicalmusichomepage.com/reference/strings-reference to the external link section? This page directs to all the best reference material on the web for strings. Thanks. Ndifrancesco (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing the pitch of a vibrating string#Density

Changing the pitch of a vibrating string#Density seems utterly bogus. Can anyone name an instrument, or even describe any physical means, where a vibrating string can have its density changed to produce new pitches? This sounds totally made-up, and certainly is unsourced. --24.23.178.162 (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Changing the strings to a lighter or heavier gauge changes the linear density. Simple facts like that don't need sourcing. Obviously not something one wants to do in mid perfomance. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem here is that section was misnamed density, when it refers not to density at all but instead to linear density. It's a bit like saying I was only doing forty kilometres when what you mean is I was only doing forty kilometres per hour. This may be acceptable and understood in informal conversation but in an encyclopedia it's just plain wrong. I've fixed it. [1] Andrewa (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that works. I've removed the "citation needed" tag from a statement about as controversial as "cloudless daytime skies are generally blue," and have done some copyediting for more clarity. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Scope of article

Since we already have the article chordophone, why is this written to cover the same category? The term "string instrument" is almost universally used in the Western music definition (meaning pianos don't count), so the scope of this article should only cover strings as defined by western orchestral music. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This article clearly includes piano in string instruments. A very good next step in bringing order in this would be if you provided a reliable source that supports your statement that "The term 'string instrument' is almost universally used in the Western music definition (meaning pianos don't count)". --Ettrig (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree. And I think it wise to note that not everyone is happy to use the HS categories and descriptions for general organology in English, rather than just for ethnomusicology in German, which is what Hornbostel and Sachs designed the scheme to cover. This is controversial outside of Wikipedia, but has gone largely unchallenged here. See my lighthearted take on it.
There are actually more terms than just these two, notably stringed instrument and just strings. Chordophone and string instrument do sometimes contrast, but it's complicated and not all sources are consistent.
See http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/114479/chordophone chordophone, any of a class of musical instruments in which a stretched, vibrating string produces the initial sound. The five basic types are bows, harps, lutes, lyres, and zithers. The name chordophone replaces the term stringed instrument when a precise, acoustically based designation is required. cf http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/569200/stringed-instrument stringed instrument, any musical instrument that produces sound by the vibration of stretched strings, which may be made of vegetable fibre, metal, animal gut, silk, or artificial materials such as plastic or nylon. In nearly all stringed instruments the sound of the vibrating string is amplified by the use of a resonating chamber or soundboard. The string may be struck, plucked, rubbed (bowed), or, occasionally, blown (by the wind); in each case the effect is to displace the string from its normal position of rest and to cause it to vibrate in complex patterns.
Note that Britannica uses stringed instrument not string instrument, and are actually having a bet both ways, they imply that the terms contrast but then define them not to! And there's also the question of where the electric guitar fits against the observation amplified by the use of a resonating chamber or soundboard. Modern HS has a separate high-level category electrophones, again not without controversy, and while the electric guitar has generally ended up back in chordophones and the electropneumatic pipe organ in aerophones (contrary to what our article currently says [2]), it's still not entirely agreed what HS class of instrument I'm playing when I put my electric bass through the digital subs unit built into my bass amp. A midi tracker would be similarly problematical, and as for hybrid pipe and electronic organs, don't even ask. And the same could surely have been asked of the large Wurlitzer theatre organs with their percussion sections, or even of the traditional untuned zimbalstone stop found on many baroque organs both new and old.
A piano, for example, is a box zither, as is a hammered dulcimer, and both of Britannica's articles would include them both in their respective scopes. Wikipedia is not a lot better if any; Our article on box zithers currently [3] doesn't even mention the piano, but read the article carefully and the piano is covered, and is currently included in Category:Box zithers. [4] Andrewa (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

"3rd bridge" Out of place, and Inaccurate

The section "other methods" seems devoted to methods of activating the strings other than plucking, bowing, or striking. 3rd bridge is not a method of activating the strings, but rather a method of dividing the string for obtaining a different pitch or timbre. It is not a "plucking method" -- the string with the extra bridge may be plucked, bowed, struck, etc.-- in other words, activated in any of the ways already previously described in the article.

It is also incorrect to say that the string is "struck" (or otherwise activated) "on the unamplified side." There is no reason why the string may not be played on both sides of the third bridge, and quite often, it is. Furthermore, with instruments like the hammered dulcimer or cimbalom, the strings are routinely played on both sides of the bridge(s), and both sides are equally amplified by the resonating body of the instrument.

This section needs to be moved and rewritten, or eliminated.

Sul tasto vs. flautando

The article says it's the same thing. I remember dimly (from some old German orchestration book) that flautando is actually playing with little bow pressure and faster bowing, regardless of the bow position... am I wrong?! -- megA (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Collaborators needed, History of Stringed Instruments

I am beginning a new article which could possibly add to the Stringed Instrument article. I came up with a tentative outline: [History of Stringed Instruments]. If anyone would like to edit, add, refine, write sections or contribute commentary or help with access to obscure/out of reach materials, please join me.Jacqke (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Article begun. Actual title is History of lute-family instruments.Jacqke (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge Chordophone here

The article Chordophone and String instrument both cover the same subject (an instrument that makes sound by vibrating strings) and don't explicitly state their differences (except that Chordophone refers to instruments not typically classed as String instrument which is a minor difference that can be covered in the String instrument article. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 00:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree that these are the same. My problem with merging is that both are members of a different group of classification articles. Chordophone is part of the Hornbostel-Sachs system of classification that includes idiophones, membranophones, aerophones, electrophones. String instruments are part of the western classical music system an go with brass instruments, woodwind instruments, keyboard instruments, friction instruments, etc. Both groups of articles need to make the groupings more explicit at the top of articles within their group. Instruments (for example the mandolin article) have both sets of classifications listed in the infobox.Jacqke (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@KAP03:I have been looking...no one has improved the Chordophones article for a long time. It has almost no content and only one source. Why have two "top" that completely overlap. Both need significant expansion. I withdraw my objections to merging the articles, if anyone is still around to consider. Jacqke (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge take 2

I'm merging this soon, unless someone shows up to make objections. My argument:

I find myself confused when writing articles, as to which article to link to, Stringed instruments or chordophones. A significant problem is that low level readers may be turned off to reading an article with obscure words thrown in at the beginning. The jargon word "chordophone" is useful to some, but it remains jargon, specific to a limited group of specialists.
Others have been confused as well, as I have seen both articles linked to for base definitions. I have used stringed instrument and had others change my link to chordophone.
This would not be an issue, except chordophone is underdeveloped with little content and is difficult to read. It is an attempt at a dictionary definition attached to a list (shoved into paragraph form).
Stringed instrument is much easier to read, more interestingly written with better content. Furthermore, stringed instrument is understandable to almost any English speaker in everyday conversation. Chordophone...not so much.
I understand that these two articles may have been intended to address two different purposes, but the chordophone article has not been developed. I see no development in its future, either. Outside of it's definition, I see no purpose for the chordophone article that couldn't be addressed early in the musical instruments article.
I propose merging chordophone into stringed instrument, with a strong emphasis on putting the word "chordophone" and its use in classification in the introduction, with links to the Hornbostel Sachs list. Most of its content can be merged into String instrument#Types of instruments. I am willing to do the work and merge the two. Jacqke (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I oppose the idea and my main reason is I don't see the need for a general page on stringed instruments at all? What is this page trying to convey unless someone is trying to look up a collective name for stringed instruments? To take out chordophone would mean taking out the other 3 as well or taking out chordophones would be illogical. Also Stringed Instruments is very English centric and would look odd to say the least from the viewpoint of other languages.

Ok. I can see English centric, although I dare say that chordophone is jargon in most languages. Would you rather see stringed instrument moved into chordophone? Jacqke (talk)

To my mind yes. I can't really see anyone having to look up the very basic "what is a Stringed Instrument?" and everything else that is on that page would just as easily fit in here. 81.104.204.138 (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC) 17:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sketchs

Show a sketchs of string instruments so that it would be more helpful an for better understanding too 2409:4042:4D9F:EDDA:544B:502D:1421:F2D9 (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The patent "String Instrument"

The patent "String Instrument"[1] of Kei Nakano, which has been played by him since 2015 for the guitar. This new patent is like a mirror to all kinds of string instruments. If tuned to conventional string instrument for the right handed person, it is able to use for the same instrument as lefty in general, and vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.170.139.151 (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Does it meet the general notability guidelines? regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "日本特許第6709929号　【発明の名称】弦楽器　【特許権者】中野　圭". patents.google.com. Retrieved 2023-06-30.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:String_instrument/Archive_1&oldid=1205935320"