|WikiProject Musical Instruments||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Percussion||(Rated B-class)|
Hm, something seems wrong, I can't edit this page (I wanted to make minor adjustments, shrink photo to 300 px & move other language links to bottom). I tried both logged in and logged out with 3 browsers, same result. I only have the probem on this page. Puzzled, -- Infrogmation 03:24, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
An addition to this article should be made on four mallet technique and its pioneers. This was pivotal to the change in the instrument from a trivial lead solo instrument to a pianistic accompanyment. I'll do some research and try to add it.--malber 20:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The explaination of the misnomer is not completely correct. The movement of baffles within the resonance tubes alters the resonnant frequencies and the harmonics. Thus certain harmonics become more and less amplified as the rotor cycles. Also the ending sentence of this paragraph, "The sound is dated and many modern vibists eschew the effect altogether." Does not make much sense in this context and I question it's accuracy. Unless somone can give a good opposing argument, I will edit the article accordingly shortly. --18.104.22.168 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Can someone add Laura Macfarlane to the list of vibrophonists? Her band of 11 years, with 5 CDS, should qualify her, along with numerous world tours and fan clubs in more than a dozen countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Macfarlane I saw her paying her father's vibrophone at a performance on Friday night wildly received by over to a hundred people. AdamT 22.214.171.124 13:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think she should be added. Her article here says only that she plays vibraphone, hardly a ringing endorsement of her "notability" as a vibist. Keep in mind that this list is not supposed to be a repository of every musician (or garage-band member) who ever picked up a pair of mallets. That's what's known as cruft. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Modification to the History section
I felt that the history section, although there was perhaps a germ of truth in it, was largely inaccurate and lacking detail, so I've rewritten it based on data from an article in "Percussionist" magazine from 1977. Percussionist is a juried research journal published by the Percussive Arts Society.
This is my first attempt to edit a Wikipedia page, and I hope I've conformed to the culture. I wanted to mark the text with the a superscript pointing to the new reference, but I coulnd't figure out how. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Tpvibes 21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I've replaced the construction section with a significantly expanded section. A question in my mind about the new content is whether it is too long and too detailed. Comments appreciated. Tpvibes 13:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Tpvibes, I think there is enough that is distinctive about this instrument, and enough curiosity about it, that a thorough discussion of its features is warranted. However, information such as how aluminum stock is acquired, or how a damper bar is fastened to the instrument is not germane to the discussion, is of very narrow interest and does not belong in the wiki article. Talking about 'headaches' for modern players is 'shop talk' and is expressly discouraged in Wiki. I have taken the liberty of cleaning up some sections: The damper discussion should be about the entire damper mechanism, not the felt pad, as there is technique involved in the use of the pedal etcetera. I have retained the discussion of mechanical issues without the personal ins and outs and by integrating the recent innovations. Also, I added damping technique later in the article. I think this is useful information, but as you can see I'm not citing it so I will take my lumps if someone deletes it.
To Damp vs To Dampen: Engineers seem to use dampen/damper/damping, where others use dampen/damper/dampening. I find the former more consistent with what's going on although dictionaries affirm either gerund form. justcary (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I followed one of the citations in this section and found a mirroring of the entire Wiki article. This is odd, I don't know if that constitutes self-reference or which is the chicken or egg. I'm worried that one individual is deeply invested in this article and will reject these edits. There is extensive detail on the tuning of bars that is not specific to the vibraphone and perhaps deserves its own article. I should leave that in for further discussion. justcary (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Studio 49 is worthy of mention in the manufacturers section, but the placement of the first mention implies that they began manufacturing vibes in the 1960s or 70s -- I can't find any confirmation of that and on the contrary it looks to me like they probably started in the 1950s.
If they did actually start in the 60s or 70s then the correct place to mention them would be in the next paragraph, where new entrants to the market are mentioned.
However, I don't regard Studio 49 as having enough of a presence in the industry to be mentioned there. This is not a comment on the quality of their products -- I don't have any direct experience with Studio 49 vibes but have only heard good things about them. I regard Studio 49's place in the industry as roughly equivalent to Saito's -- good products but having too little worldwide distribution/marketing to have an extended influence.
Therefore I've included Studio 49 alongside Saito in the list of second-tier players that continue in the business, but deleted other mentions. I wish there were space to cover more manufacturers in more detail, but there needs to be a cutoff somewhere.
If the person who added Studio 49 (or anyone else) disagrees with my changes, please continue the discussion here or on my Talk page. Tpvibes 14:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Popular music examples?
This section should either be deleted or integrated into other parts of the article. There's no need for a seperate section just to give a list of every popular song that has vibes in it. Glassbreaker5791 02:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Tpvibes 19:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I tend to feel the same way about all of the list sections of the article. They present problems of accuracy (Bobby Darin a notable vibes player? Morning Dance an example of jazz vibes? -- Samuels' solo is on marimba). And where do you stop? Why is the list of classical pieces longer than the jazz list? Why is the category "Classical and Film Scores" and not just "Music" with all subcategories?
On the other hand, I'm not exactly sure what to replace them with, and don't want to just eliminate them. Any suggestions?
Tpvibes 19:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- It might be possible to incorporate these into the playing styles section- "This style is sometimes used in popular music, for example the song X by bad Y." MorkaisChosen 19:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Lionel-hampton-king-of-the-vibes.jpg
Image:Lionel-hampton-king-of-the-vibes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Add fair use rationale -- hope it's sufficient.
Tpvibes 15:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Servo motor controls
It would be nice to have a better explaination of what controls the musician typically has for the motors on the models with computer controlled servos, and more detail about which companies make the vibraphones with this functionality. JNW2 (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I have personal experience with this, but that doesn't pass muster in a Wiki article. Yamaha's stepping motor control includes touch-activated on-off, a speed control slider, and retention of the starting rotational position of the drive shaft. When turned off, the shaft is gently rotated to that starting position. Musser has used a stepping motor for decades; the Musser controls have only a mechanical on-off and simple speed control dial. I believe the motor is used in copiers and Musser is only exploiting its availability, size, and low-speed capability. The article is incorrect about the 90s being the advent of these motors; I have a 1980 M-55 with a digital stepping motor. My 1976 M75 has the older sewing-machine style motor. justcary (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Resonator fans cause pitch vibrato
A 15-Jul-2008 addition to the resonator section says, "Additionally, in this context, there is the extra consideration that the rotating plates interfere with wave-fronts in the resonator tubes to cause doppler-effect pitch variations. This can be observed using an oscilloscope." I've heard this said before, but it seems to me to be something that needs a reference to back it up -- otherwise it's just hearsay. If 126.96.36.199 could provide a reference that'd be good. If not it might be best to delete the addition. Tpvibes (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
16-Feb-2011 The correct measurement instrument to observe such amplitude variations vs. frequency (i.e. pitch variations) is a Spectrum Analyzer, NOT an Oscilloscope which can only display amplitude variations vs. time (i.e. sound volume variations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
28-Jul-2011 Regarding 16-Feb assertion above: I'm not an engineer, but I can easily observe pitch shift such as Doppler effect on an oscilloscope if I tune the scope to the resting pitch of the source, so the wave appears stationary, then modulate the pitch slightly (e.g. moving it toward or away from a mic) which causes the wave on the scope to roll right or left. Pitch shift in a vibraphone bar with motor on should be equally observable with the same equipment. justcary (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
28-Jul-2011 While I find the discussion on Vibraphone versus Tremolophone entertaining, it is un-cited shop talk and as such does not belong in a Wikipedia article. The term Vibraphone started as a trademark, not generic nomenclature, so there can be no argument as to its descriptive accuracy. At http://www.pas.org/experience/onlinecollection/leedyvibraphone.aspx we see that a 'vox humana' effect (as it was called on a pipe organ, and understood to be a tremolo) is what the developer sought. 'Vibraphone' was the Leedy Corp's trademark for the resulting instrument. Since the two sides of the argument are cited as "Some" and "Others", it seems reasonable to remove it without waiting for further discussion and so I shall. justcary (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Reference to resonator tuning
There's been a long-standing request to create a citation verifying that resonators are tuned slightly off of perfect to create a balance between loudness and sustain. A reference has become available, written by Nico vanderPlas, the builder of arguably the highest-quality vibraphones available. The article is available on the web, however, access requires membership.
I don't know what the policy regarding references to material with restricted access is, but it seems to me that this is allowed. There are many references (in this article and in others) to material that is only available in print (such as the books referenced in the article) or available as part of a subscription journal with web access for subscribers (e.g. the Howland reference in the article).
If you feel I'm wrong on this please explain the reasoning when you delete the reference. Also, if you delete the reference, restore the citation required indication. Tpvibes (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)