Talk:Vuvuzela/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Discussion page rules

This page is reserved for discussing the article. There are other websites for classified ads and for questions to the general public.--Marc-Olivier Pagé (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


Check this out:

rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


Could someone in the know please add a pronunciation guide to this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Roughly VOOH-vooh-ZEH-lah, if someone knows how to put that into phonetic script. Zaian (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

can't edit

{{editprotected}} i can't add this because the article is semi-protected:

please insert:

and "a giant hive full of very angry bees[1]".

after "a goat on the way to slaughter." i have heard the bee comparison in the media coverage more than anything else. HateVuvuzelas (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Tim Pierce (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


"Brazil and Latin American countries"

Brazil is a Latin American country. The quote implies it is not. It should be changed to "Brazil and other Latin American countries". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Done FlorianB (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw red horns of this type used at football games in Atlanta, Georgia while I was in the high school band from 1967-1970. There were not many, perhaps only one to three fans fan would be using them. Even one was very annoying to the band. (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Virginia Giglio, PhD Music Education, Ethnomusicologist

plastic vuvuzela was toy instrument

The vendor website BoogieBlast claims in their FAQ: "The vuvuzela was introduced to South Africa as a toy for kids to blow, and hardly got off the ground. Selling the vuvuzela proved almost impossible, until the full potential was realized by the local soccer supporters. The first prototype was from America and changed somewhat for more comfortable blowing and effectiveness. We have researched the history of the Vuvuzela, and follows a trail back to a women's Chinese basketball team, AMAZING... The word, VUVUZELA, was first used by a few soccer supporters. There are many claims to what the word really means, but more generally it means to pump up ones performance in a truly South African manner. Many have tried to lay claim to the vuvuzela and Trademark, of this word, but let the truth be known, it belongs to the supporters."

(AerialTheShamen) (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In Mexican soccer games since I have memory

Maybe early 80's, maybe late 70's, but you have thousands and thousands of Mexican soccer game TV broadcasting videos of those years which definitely would verify the citation needed after the claim. I am from Texas but like soccer and we always associate that sound with Mexican games. My guess is that it was used in the 1986 world cup in Mexico so it became popular elsewhere. Also, the "wave"of public on stadium's bleachers come from that time. -- (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any pictures / videos of that? I mean like simple horns, we have them here in Germany too (as for instance shown in this cartoon advertising a popular TV show in the 1970s: -- (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have learned from a Mexican friend now that there are those popular horns called Cornetos and even found a (bad) video with one in it - they really look exactly like a vuvuzela: -- (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

do re mi?

".. emit a loud monotone like a foghorn or an elephant."

  • But although most foghorns (apart from this one) can't, adult elephants seem to be able to easily manage more than just a monotone. For the vuvuzela it sounds as if breath pressure alone can at least achieve a semi-tone, but am unable to find any source for hertz. So can anyone with perfect pitch tell what that particularly annoying tone actually is? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
B flat. (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
If anyone, even without perfect pitch, could find a WP:RS, maybe this fact should be added? I don't suppose those team supporters' bands will have transposed any of their match tunes to fit? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You can't transpose a tune for an instrument which essentially only plays one note. It plays, as someone said above, a B flat, the one by Middle C. With a bit more effort you can get the note a (very sharp) octave higher though you don't hear this played much. With even more effort, and risking the horrible polythene mouthpiece edge starting to cut into your lips, you can get the next note, the 3rd harmonic, about a fifth above that - by then a rather sharp F#. After that things get a bit out of hand, and painful (believe me I have tried) and you cannot reliably get the next note, two octaves above where you started, let alone anything higher. A look at the physics of the trumpet will show that, if we flake out at the 3rd harmonic, we are still 5 harmonics (about an octave and a half at this point) below the point where you could start to play a recognizable tune, which is in the zone of the 8th-16th harmonics. In other words, with apologies for the waffle, it is not a viable instrument for playing tunes. It would need to be a LOT longer than this for that to be feasible. It's simpler than a bugle, tunistically at least if not physically, and you know how little variety they can get :) ... best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we actually need a WP:RS on the pitch? It's actually a simple observation, like "the sky is blue on a cloudless day" or "there are lots of people in this football stadium" which I am not sure requires verification - it just is. People can check it themselves, if they do not have perfect pitch, with a tuner or computer or smartphone tuner application, and make the direct observation. I think it could perhaps go in as it is not a contentious claim and cannot really be challenged - the note heard on TV is a Bb and that's pretty much it, I feel. Including this fact would be helpful to readers and is not really OR or anything else wicked, I think. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, although I guess "a blue sky" might vary a lot more between observers than a B flat. And I certainly wasn't suggesting one could get a tune out of this horn. Presumably, though, it's not a "pure tone" - it has some kind of characteristic timbre? I was more interested in the effect that the continuous drone of a B flat might have on different World Cup nationalities' supporters' tunes. Perhaps another reason why it's a shame we have no bagpipes at the 2010 matches? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and what's the pitch of the referee's whistle? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Heh good question. I had a very nice Acme Thunderer which I could have checked (having first donned ear defenders) but it's in Uganda now and I am not. Mind you I do seriously wonder about other pitches of vuvuzelas but clearly if they do exist they are a tiny minority compared to the many thousands of standardized-sized polythene ones which have flooded the market. There must be some happy manufacturers out there. DBaK (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
.. but if FIFA can't even tell us, I'm not sure who could. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

kelp vuvuzelas

Mention this: The environmentalist Carnegie developed artistic handcrafted vuvuzelas from the natural plant material kelp.


Dunno how to get that in since we try not to turn articles into online catalogues. But they are gorgeous! :) DBaK (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Bet they're not B flats. Adam? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


Does anyone have a recording of a vuvuzela we could add to the page? -- (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Here you go:
I'm a bit clueless about inserting media into articles these days so please feel free, if any of them seem useful. I'd certainly stay off 1-4 as it's mainly for laughs, and indeed I'm not sure that even the 1-3 one has that much value since it's mostly not played like that - the "single note" one is what we're mostly hearing. Up to you though, edit away! :) DBaK (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I've had a go. Clued-up people, please feel free to fettle it. Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

About this Talk page

Please see the Talk page header above, and read (at least) the four key points in the white box - observing them will really help this Talk page to stay useful and comprehensible. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

word choice

"football" should be "soccer" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. "Football" is entirely fine in this context. There's no need to adapt the vocabulary of this article to this one usage. DBaK (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
It should actually be "association football"
No it shouldn't. "Football" is entirely fine in this context. There's no need to adapt the vocabulary of this article to this one usage. Or do you think that every American-based football article should specify that is is about American football, and so on. Context is useful here. DBaK (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually maybe you are right, for the first appearance: it does indeed appear that many/most American football articles do specify at or near the start which flavour (or indeed flavor) they mean. Sorry. I will change it and see if anyone objects. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: and indeed that's just what the 2010 FIFA World Cup article does. One AF at the start and F thereafter. DBaK (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Does "hooligans" really fit this context? It seems that the term almost conveys that only certain people would use the vuvuzela as a weapon which doesn't seem to be realistic. If we broaden this term from "hooligans" to "people", then I think it would focus more on the fact that it might be used on a weapon rather than focusing on the people who are using it. (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture

This Is Serious Mum had a three-part song on their 2001 album De RigueurMortis called "Fielding At Long-on" - originally known as 'Who The Fuck Blow That Plastic Trumpet?' Someone else can decide whether the sports fan's plastic trumpet being immortalised in song rates a mention ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to add this below information under the section on popular culture with a link to the YouTube video. Devenirchaud (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


musical use

The vuvuzela can not only toot a single very loud note. Like any other natural trumpet it can be played musically. E.g. there is the Vuvuzela Orchestra and the Rainbow Vuvuzela project (both can be also found on YouTube). Please add this to the article.

When blown at moderate intensity, the volume 50cm away is only about 80dBA (I measured mine), so it will be only deafening loud when blown that loud intentionally, which makes it also well suited for musical practising. Like a digeridoo it can make plenty of different timbres by mixing human voice into the trumpet tone.

An easy method how to play musically:

Hum with your voice the notes you want to play and close your lips to make them vibrate by your voice. Press the mouthpiece gently against the lips until you hear the notes coming out of the vuvuzela. Blow during this to make the notes sound louder. Your voice tone will help to make the air in the instrument oscillate at the intended pitch. (Make a slow siren tone with your voice and listen how different pitches behave.) You will notice that some notes sound clearer than others those have a beat frequency in them; although you can vary this a bit by lip tension and mouthpiece squeeze, you can not make all notes of a chromatic scale sound equally clear. You may notice that the louder you blow, the less notes sound clear. Don't worry - this is the normal behaviour of a natural trumpet or lur (which the vuvuzela essentially is) and the reason why modern trumpets have keys and trombones have a slide. This play method works well for low and medium pitched notes. High notes still need a different technique with blowing through strong lip squeeze, which pitch is hard to control and needs (like with trumpets) a lot of training to sound more melodical than an elephant.

(AerialTheShamen) (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

But this is multiphonics not everyday brass technique, does not sound musical in inexpert hands, and is hardly mainstream. To all intents and purposes the allegation that it only plays one note, or two or three at best, is true. Introducing multiphonics into a discussion of playing this toy plastic trumpet is a bit like pointing out that a VW Beetle can fly as long as you install wings and a rocket engine! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Having said that, I wish we could get longer ones, preferably *much* longer, as it would be more of a laugh musically. On the other hand, I suppose one could start making holes in it so it could be played like a cornetto, but it would be hard to get right and I don't want to wreck my precious (and very expensive!) vuvuzela! :) DBaK (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
To some extent, I do agree that an extreme type of using a Vuvuzela need not to be described as a mainstream playing method here (by a section showing “how to play it musically”); for those who are that much interested, rest of the web is full of opportunities for self-learning.
However, I think we should show that Vuvuzela doesn’t have to be a single-note instrument and can be played differently (otherwise this would be ignoring the updated knowledge). Therefore, I suggested to add the below text at least under the external links section.
p.s. Dear DBaK, in “inexpert hands” a VW Beetle can crash into a wall too... :) But this didn't prevent us to put a link in the VW Beetle article to show how the National Lampoon magazine depicted Ted Kennedy flying to the sea with a Beetle (the Chappaquiddick incident, without wings and a rocket engine, and even without a Beetle herself), right? Rainbow Vuvuzela ensemble project is a way of playing it, and should not be ignored. Kind regards, devenirchaud Devenirchaud (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


Despite other sizes exist, the average vuvuzela is not "about 1 meter long" but only 60 to 65cm (check the vendor websites), much like a trumpet.

Yes, up to a point. The plastic one that seems so common is about 60-65 cm and this seems to be a standard. It's misleading, however, to talk about its length compared to a trumpet, which is S-folded, so that the overall outside length of the trumpet is meaningless here. An unfolded B flat trumpet would be more than twice the length of the small vuvuzela, at somewhere around 135-140cm. I wish that longer vuvuzelas could be obtained easily in the UK as it would be somewhat more musical. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly it is clear that other lengths are made: See for example this: [2] but sadly we don't seem to be seeing (or hearing) much of these - certainly not in the UK anyway, and by the look of the telly not in SA either. DBaK (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded the lead slightly to incorporate the problematical fact that the 1m horn doesn't play the note we hear so much - it's the very common 60-65cm size that makes that B flat. A 1m horn would be a fair bit lower. Hope this helps, best wishes, DBaK (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Bought mine in 1967

As a student at the Univ of So. California I bought one sold at a football game. It was blue, so it must have been sold to support UCLA. Origin for sports applications at least in the 1960's.

Ccronan (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)CcronanCcronan (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Me too. They passed red plastic versions out in 1984 at hockey games where I went to school. The article reads like the plastic ones didn't come into being until much later. Not true. (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. At Yankee Stadium in New York in 1967 I got a plastic one as a souvenir from a vendor which is exactly like the red one pictured in the article, down to the molded grip in the center, the only difference being stripes molded into the flared bell end, like the old Yankees "bat and Uncle Sam top hat" motif. Rogwherm (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)rogwherm

Edit request from Musnyanita, 14 June 2010


I would like to place this group:

Musnyanita (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Facebook group? Adds nothing. SpigotMap 14:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

On the Vuvuzela as indicative of South African football culture

According to this article by a south african football fan and analyst, the current use of the vuvuzela during world cup 2010 matches is not consistent with the south african tradition. He asserts that the horn is used to show disgust at your squad in the final moments of a game they are losing or to intimidate the opposing team during a hard press offensive onslaught. Not as a general background noise. If the claim is to being asserted in this article that is because of a preservation of culture that they have not been banned, it is worth mentioning that some feel FIFA's understanding of the cultural use of the horn may be warped/shallow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

an article with a similar sentiment (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Football rattle

The nearest British football has ever come to this pandemonium? and thas was in the 1920s?? But the nearest wiki has is Ratchet (instrument). Oi vay! what's to be done, already? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Origin or Controversy?

As part of the Origin there is a quote from Jon Qwelane saying he no longer watches soccer because of the vuvuzela. How does this fall under Origin? Shouldn't it be under controversy? (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree and have moved that paragraph to the 2010 World Cup section. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Completely preposterous entry...

I do understand that emotions flourish during the World Cup, but claiming that the wheel was invented by the hosting country is a long shot. The wheel was invented by prehistoric Neolithic men, most likely to transport stuff, look here: --Bowzee (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong information!!!

In the article it says a new Vuvuzela was anounced with a decreased (20 db) sound level on 14th of June. This kind of Vuvuzela is already being produced in Germany for a while, so it is not true it's a new Vuvuzela! —Preceding unsigned comment added by217.24.58.160 (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Poor Grammar

The use of 'which' in the first section should be changed to 'that.'

Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2010

I'm not sure which it should. DBaK (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The which harkens to the lowered dB mouthpiece itself, so it's very ok.
  • Vuvuzelas that are made of plastic are cheaper.
  • The football fan bought a vuvuzela made of plastic, which was cheaper.
  • The company makes vuvuzelas made from plastic, which are cheaper.
...and so on. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. But bear in mind that in BrE the "that/which" distinction does not get observed much and no-one much minds, so the comment is a bit WP:ENGVAR-ignorant. I must add that I was deeply, deeply upset by the gratuitous capital letter above on Grammar, but I am trying to cope with it. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not all bad

The intro covers "controversial" by expanding on all the negatives and criticisms. It should also cover the positives - some people must like them, or they wouldn't be so popular. It should cover both the positives and negatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Very fair point. DBaK (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
PLEASE REVERT. Looks like somebody messed with it and now it just covers positives.
I added a neutrality tag to the top of the page recently, but the article is getting a lot of edits and somewhere along the line it looks like it was removed. This article is still in serious need of editing for neutrality, however. There is a list of several negative comparisons made in the media, but as suggested, there must also be positive aspects or they wouldn't be so popular. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Yup. But in a couple of weeks it will calm down a bit and the article can get more balanced without being edited every 15 seconds by strongly-opinionated drop-in editors or whatever. We will look back on these days and laugh. Toot toot! DBaK (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

consolidation of controversy

Every section seems to have something about the controversy. Could that all be collected together in the section of that name?--Hugh7 (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It should have been but the version up there right now is a mess. The controversy bit's been over-consolidated into the wrong place. Please see below for a plea for someone to make sense of it. DBaK (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

EQ vuvu removing

I don't know whether this is what the german engineer was talking about. Ms.henrick (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversy edit - a bit of a disaster

An earlier edit, which also did quite a good job in sorting out much of the text, has rather wrecked the controversy section. Much of what now appears in the text before the Controversy header is actually about the controversy and the controversy section now looks, frankly, a bit stupid, having been reduced to just a couple of lines. I am sure this big edit was made in good faith but it now quite desperately needs sorting out by a calm and good editor. I don't think I'm the man for the job right now - any takers? DBaK (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

How-to bit moved out of lead, should it be here at all?

I (just moments ago) moved a how-to quoting 235Hz and whatever out of the lead. I thought it was far too specific and that it was weird and duplicatory(?) to give the frequencies, unexplained, when we say it's a Bb - there is no point in repeating this in another form. Few enough people know musical notation but to quote frequencies is probably of use to even fewer. to be honest, I am not sure this should be in at all - it just quotes a rather bloggy to-do site and there are probably millions of them out there, and if we were to lose that then the frequencies - if they are accurate - don't add much My inclination would be simply to take it out but I'd like to know what other editors think. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^