Talk:String instrument

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)

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:

• aeolian harp, strings moved by the wind
• cello, bowed
• piano, a keyboard instrument with hammered strings

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

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)

Loudness link

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)

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)

External link

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)