Talk:Moodswinger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


General announcement from Yuri Landman[edit]

Some wikipedians consider this article as self promotion. To solve this concern I no longer edit this article. I will follow this discussion page and give answers to questions about the instrument. I hope you will appreciate this solution.

Best wishes, Yuri Landman, 10th june 2007

Additional sources[edit]

Current article problems[edit]

The current issue has 3 labels:

  • Unreferenced|date=June 2007
    • Source :If someone can tell me which exact sources are needed, maybe I can answer them. Wikipedia has been my main source about the scientific theory.
  • OR
    • Original research and Unverified claims : I think this is an incorrect label, but maybe I'm wrong.
  • notability
    • Subject of the article : This is correct, I will no longer edit the article to take away the subjectivity.

Best, Yuri


________________________________________________________________________________________________


Hey, just some guy here saying that this article is not (entirely) self promotion. It may be self-promoting in some aspects, but I'm quite sure that the author (...) intended this to be informational, at least for the most part. Being an engineer myself, I use this technique among others. Anyways, this article: IS USEFUL AS AN EXAMPLE TO THOSE UNFAMILIAR WITH [PREPARED INSTRUMENTATION].

________________________________________________________________________________________________


While I really appreciate work of User:Tomaat on 3rd bridge and Moodswinger articles, though I deeply think that one general article on prepared guitar is enough than having 3 stub-like articles on same subject. Besides, sadly, it looks more like self-promotion of Moodswinger (according to comment on Image:Moodswinger.jpg, it looks like Yuri Landman wrote so many articles mention his product himself). --GreyCat 22:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuri Landman: "Merging 3rd Bridge & Moodswinger is okay by me. The main reason I separated it to 3 topics is that a prepared guitar is a guitar. A 3rd bridge instrument can be any (self created) electrical stringinstrument (see the Pencilina of Bradford Reed or Glenn Branca's instruments). So a 3rd bridge stringinstrument is one step further to a different instrument than the electric guitar, which is very limited and inconvenient for this technique. My Moodswinger has 12 strings instead of 6 and a calculated mathematical harmonic resonance scale. Bradford also used a few similar ptiches (1/3+2/3 & 1/4+3/4) in a more primitive scale. This resonance scale isn't on a normal 12-TET scaled instrument. Prepared guitars not only use a 3rd bridge, but also springs or other objects can be placed on the strings to adapt the timbre of the tone. So a prepared G. broader but sometimes less focused on harmonic mathematics. I'm from Holland, so please excuse me for my bad english."

Overtone diagram[edit]

I wanted to contact the editor who put in the diagram directly, but apparently can't do so since their username doesn't link properly. So I'd like to say that while the diagram is pretty cool (and obviously someone put a good deal of work into it), it's way too big for the article. Any chance of making a reduced-size version and maybe linking to the larger version? Or something? (Or we could just reduce it to a "thumbnail" in the article; anyone interested in it can click on it for the full-size version).

One other nitpick: your title said "overtones and undertones", but I don't think there's really any such thing as an "undertone" in this context. That would be a note that's a sub-multiple of a note; as far as I know, one can only generate overtones (that is, pitches higher than the fundamental) from a string. Correct me if I'm wrong. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

See Undertone series. -Violask81976 14:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Pretty iffy concept; the article starts out by calling the whole idea "theoretical", and the article contains a lot of spiritual mumbo-jumbo not based on any good scientific or logical foundation. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I've read the Undertone series before, but didn't understand the content completly. But what I have noticed playing the Moodswinger is that there is appearing a low note while playing a high note. I think that's what can be called an undertone. This happens for instance when the 3rd bridge is positioned on the first red bullet (1/3). The attack tone on the E-string (struck at the body side) is a B (990 Hz). The resonating overtone (at the head side) is also 990 Hz, but there is another softer lower tone appearing, which is the fundamental of the 2/3 part, a B of 495 Hz. When you mute the 2/3 on the other red bullet the sound is just the B of 990 Hz. The difference between these two sounds is clear. So the counterpart is resonating in an overtone and at a lower volume in it's fundamental. There aren't many similar instruments which are based on this technique, so this explanation is difficult to prove. The only two references I can give are people describing 3rd Bridge sounds as Bell-like tones. A bell tone is also a combination of a fundamental and very loud overtones, so I think this description is pretty close. Another reference can be songs with behind the bridge picking. At the intro of Slints Good Morning, Captain you can hear the tone is not only one solo high pitched overtone. It's a combination of low and high tones. I hope my explanation is useful. Best regards and thanks, YuriLandman 17:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the only thing you've described that could be called an undertone is the claimed "softer lower tone" of 495 Hz from a fundamental of 990 Hz. Seems to me that the presence of such undertones would be trivially easy to prove empirically; all one needs is simple sound measuring equipment with some kind of frequency analysis capability. The fact that they apparently haven't been makes me skeptical of their existence. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagging[edit]

I'm having some problems with the tagging on this article. I understand what {OR} is, but can someone specify more exact which unverified claims are in the article? Otherwise the tags are useless and false. I've mainly written this article myself, but I don't think there's any objectivity in the current text.YuriLandman 06:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Tagging 2[edit]

{notability} I think this tag is wrong. There is a chapter with 3 reliable sources about the Moodswinger and above in this discussion page 3 more. The chapter references is used for the musical theoretical terms and not for its {notability}. Please do not tag if you do not understand parts of the article, but ask me exactly what you don't understand. I put the refs in, because I couldn't imagine most readers know what for instance an augmented fourth is and which cents this tone has. If a ref is too hazy, you are allowed to remove it, but keep in mind this makes the musical theoretical background of the article less verifiable.

I cannot remove the tag because of [COI]. Can someone decide to remove the tag or make clear which refs are too hazy? YuriLandman 06:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)