Talk:Hornbostel–Sachs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Musical Instruments (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Percussion (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Percussion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of percussion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Turntable used by DJs as ideophone[edit]

"A fifth top-level group, electrophones, instruments which make sound primarily by way of electrically driven oscillators, such as theremins or synthesizers, was added later."

Should Turntables (when used by DJs as "musical instruments") be added to this classifiation system and if so, which category sould they go in? Have any attempts been made to do this?203.214.75.1272005 (UTC)

  • Tricky, but rightly I'd say a turntable is an ideophone (more precisely a lamellophone), since the vibrating element is the needle, which is (part of) its body. But probably some spoilsport has decided it's an electrophone. Tom Duff 02:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A turntable is indeed an idiophone (not an "ideophone," which is an onomatopoetic word...a very different animal). The amplification system, which need not be electronic (see, for example, a gramophone), can be replaced or removed without affecting the instrument's ability to make sound. A true electronophone becomes mute without the presence of electrons (hence the name). Instruments that are merely amplified (Fender Rhodes electric piano, say) are electro-acoustic, remaining in their top-level classification but receiving modifying numbers and dashes within the Dewey Decimal system to indicate their specifics.144.92.157.165 20:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Rikyu

Broken link[edit]

While I'm here, the link to The original system as published in 1914 (in German) is broken, but the Internet Archive has a copy. I'm not sure what the party line is on Internet Archive links, so I haven't updated it. Tom Duff 02:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Revisions on chordophones and electronophones[edit]

Greetings! I made some changes to the discussion of chordophones and electronophones--please take a look. These are based on discussion in Tellef Kvifte's Instruments and the Electronic Age: Toward a Terminology for a Unified Description of Playing Technique (Oslo: Solum Forlag, 1989). I haven't figured out yet how to add bibliographic information to an entry...when I do I'll get that in.Rikyu 20:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Another top-level group[edit]

I read that the AMIS and Galpin are considering a sixth top-level group: the "Hydrophone" or "Hydraphone". This new grouping is supposed to include all water-based instruments, like the Japanese water zither. Anyone else heard of this going on? - NDCompuGeek 16:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why they can't be included under the Aerophone group, with the classification reworked to include anything that uses a *fluid* (a term which encompasses gas, liquid, plasma, vapour, super-fine powder...) as its sounding medium instead of merely gas...? 193.63.174.115 (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hornbostel-Sachs lists and templates[edit]

There are a good number of Hornbostel-Sachs pages, such as List of idiophones by Hornbostel-Sachs number and List of musical instruments by Hornbostel-Sachs number: 11 and List of musical instruments by Hornbostel-Sachs number: 111 and List of musical instruments by Hornbostel-Sachs number: 111.1 and List of musical instruments by Hornbostel-Sachs number: 112 (there are more) and all the templates that those later pages use, like {{H-S1}}, {{HS11}}, {{HS111}}, {{HS111.1}} (there are more). Some of templates have had or are having their own individual WP:RfD, like {{HS111}}. Are all of these really necessary? A search for all articles in the main Wikipedia space with the term "Hornbostel-Sachs" in the name returns 145 results. Banaticus (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing some work on this list and I think you make a good point that there are too many search returns. I would like to simplify things a bit. I'll continue to make it better. Ninehouse (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, why is it necessary to have individual pages for each classification as well as a complete explanation of each classification on this page? Too much repetition and, I think, unnecessary detail. It would make more sense to me to have the complete explanation on one page, and build lists of relevant instruments (such as blown idiophones) through tagging. Rikyu (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
That is a problem throughout Wikipedia. It results from the lack of an overall editorial board. Broad topics often have sub-topics with their own articles, sometimes 3–5 levels deep. Where an article has sub-topics with articles devoted to them, sections for those sub-topics should have just enough information about the sub-topic to give the reader an overview. The {{Main}} template at the beginning of those sections should point readers to the article that has full coverage. Duplication of content doesn't help the reader, and makes maintaining the encyclopedia's quality and consistency more difficult.—Finell 01:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hornbostel–Sachs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation. What's the source for the article's text?[edit]

The majority of the text of this article is copied from one or more of the Hornbostel–Sachs texts. This article could easily be a copyvio.

What exactly is the source(s) for this article (and all of the Category:Lists of musical instruments by Hornbostel-Sachs number articles)? What license are those sources available in?

There have been many versions of Hornbostel–Sachs published. Some important ones are:

Comparing the small differences between the versions, I think most of this article comes from the 1961 version. In particular, not that the section on Electrophones (5) is very small because few electrophones existed in 1961, while this section was expanded significantly by MIMO.

The Galpin Society is located in the UK, and UK copyright law at the time was the lifetime of the author plus 50 years. Anthony Baines was one of the translators, he died in 1997, so this text will be in copyright until 2047. So this article is probably a copyright violation. --Hirsutism (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, some of the text was translated from https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornbostel-Sachs-Systematik by User:Ninehouse:
This article Friction membranophones (23) - Instruments in which the membrane vibrates as a result of friction. These are drums which are rubbed, rather than being struck.

Friction drums with stick (231) - Instruments in which the membrane is vibrated from a stick that is rubbed or used to rub the membrane

...

Harp lutes (323) - The plane of the strings lies at right angles to the sound-table; a line joining the lower ends of the strings would be perpendicular to the neck. Notched bridge

Galpin Society Journal, 1961 23 Friction drums - The membrane is made to vibrate by friction

231 Friction drums with stick - A stick in contact with the membrane is either itself rubbed, or is employed to rub the membrane

...

323 Harp lutes - The plane of the strings lies at right angles to the sound-table; a line joining the lower ends of the strings would be perpendicular to the neck. Notched bridge

Musical Instrument Museums Online, 2011 23 Friction drums - The membrane is made to vibrate by friction

231 Friction drums with stick - A stick in contact with the membrane is either itself rubbed, or is employed to rub the membrane

...

(no section "harp lute" exists)

It was discussed at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Hornbostel-Sachs-Systematik#URV that the de.wikipedia.org text was copied directly from the original 1914 version. Since German copyright is 70 years after the death of the author, and Curt Sachs died in 1959, the work is still under copyright. They talked about trying to get permission over OTRS, but I can't tell if they actually got permission from a rights-holder or not. --Hirsutism (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, for me there is two questions: (1) Is this article about the original Hornbostel-Sachs classification or is it about the the update history and use of this kind of classification or about how the classification is used today? I think the MIMO update of the classification is state of the art and everyone using the classification today should stick to the terms used there - this leads to the second question: (2) Is it a copyright violation to use the terms? It may be a copyright violation to use the exact same definition texts of the terms used in the sources however. If this article should reflect the state of the classification today it will have to cite the full list of the MIMO update in my opinion... SwA (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a copyvio to summarize the system, as this article previously did. Per WP:DERIVATIVE, "Generally, a summary (or analysis) of something is not a derivative work, unless it reproduces the original in great detail". It's the great detail listed here that may be a problem. --Hirsutism (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Hm, I get your point. But wouldn't the MIMO update of the classification also be a copyright violation then? I mean the classification is used worldwide by organologists and museums to structure their data and classify instruments. And because the name "Hornbostel-Sachs-Classification" is usually used isn't it like a permanent citation? (It is kind of like the Periodic table in chemistry...) Also Wikipedia itself uses the classification!!!! For the wiki page a summary would be one solution. But I think to make/keep this page useful for learning how to aply and use this classification (also for the wiki structure itself) it would be good to have: (1) a history section about the origins of the classification, it's changes and modern use (2) a short guide to how the number system works (3) all the numbers and headings as used in the MIMO update today. maybe including short descriptions for the top headings and instrument examples. To keep it simple and useful I'd suggest links to subpages about individual instrument groups instead of explaining too much on this page. What do you guys think? --SwA (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
PS: The 2011 discussion on the German talk page (as mentioned above) ends with this statement (summary+translation): "The publisher doesn't see a problem/violation to have the full text of the original Hornbostel-Sachs classification on wiki. However it is unclear who really owns the copyright." --SwA (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
PPS: I read trough the old article (see link from Hirsutism above) again and I think it would also be a possability to add info about the modern use and development of the classification to this version and then just add a section with links to the updates of the classification. This way we wouldn't have to include the exact headings and numbers of the MIMO update but just link to the original file(s)... --SwA (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

"New" Revision: Knight Revision 2015[edit]

Check out this "new" (2015) revsion of the H-S System: The KNIGHT REVISION of HORNBOSTEL-SACHS or K-REV, by Roderic Knight, 2015. http://www.oberlin.edu/faculty/rknight/Organology/KNIGHTREVISION.html --SwA (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)