User talk:Ixkeys

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

"Instrument" vs. "musical instrument"[edit]

Hello! There appears to have been a slight misunderstanding.

Prior to 24 November, Wikipedia contained a random, inconsistent mix of usage. (Some article titles used the disambiguation "instrument", while others used "musical instrument".) Per Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation, "musical" is superfluous unless there is another type of instrument (e.g. a medical instrument) with the same name. Otherwise, there's no need to be so specific in the title; "instrument" alone distinguishes the subject from all other usage.

I invested several hours (and a great deal of care and effort) rectifying the accidental inconsistency, making sure to check for other uses of each term in the process. (I encountered four instances in which both musical and non-musical instruments share a particular name, in which case the disambiguation "musical instrument" was retained.)

You wrote "According to instrument 'muscial instrument' is not unnecessary precision but a necessary precision." Certainly, this is true of the term "instrument," which refers to many different things. Conversely, "caisa (instrument)" and "hang (instrument)" ‎each refer to only one thing (because there are no non-musical instruments called "caisa" and "hang"). —David Levy 13:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I did a little research and found that about two thirds of ambiguous musical instrument names were disambiguated with (instrument) and one third with (musical instrument) before your edits. So it seems reasonable to harmonize this situation by using (instrument). Let me do the modification on the two articles I have reverted. There are a number of links to the Hang article and you corrected only a few of them. --Ixkeys (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for moving back the articles.
Please note that I repaired the double redirects. Per this guideline, articles shouldn't be edited solely to bypass the non-broken redirects (though it usually is considered okay to include such a change when editing a page for an unrelated reason).
Thanks again! —David Levy 16:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
This guideline is confusing. After you have moved an article you are called upon to fix the links. And this guideline says no ?????. For example I fixed the link in Hang and Mr Love & Justice. Why shall I not? --Ixkeys (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
We're called upon to fix double redirects (redirects that point to other redirects), which load as links instead of leading directly to the intended articles. Most other redirects are not "broken" (i.e. they lead directly to the intended articles) so it's considered unnecessary (and a slight waste of resources) to edit pages solely to bypass them. (Additionally, some redirects have specific benefits, though that isn't true in this instance.)
Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken formerly contained a better explanation (including information about performance issues). I don't know why some of its text was removed.
Your edit to Mr Love & Justice was fine, as were others in which you simultaneously corrected capitalization. When a page requires editing for an unrelated reason, bypassing such a redirect at the same time generally is considered harmless. —David Levy 17:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Steelpan H-S number.[edit]

This is an interesting conundrum. Essentially when I expanded the List of Percussion Instruments I used existing H-S numbers if they were already in articles, which I believe was the case with Steelpan and the related Hang_(instrument). If you have an idea about what classification these should fall under I'm interested to hear it. I did find this forum thread elsewhere which has only served to muddy the waters further, with debate about even a basic classification of idiophone, membranophone or metallophone. I'm still not convinced that either can't be considered a gong. Gudzwabofer (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

After I deleted the H-S number of the steelpan I made a research to find newer implementations of the Hornbostel-Sachs System. When it was originally formulated in 1914 the steelpan didn't exist. This way I found the Revision of the Hornbostel-Sachs Classification of Musical Instruments by the MIMO Consortium. In this revision the steelpan has ist own numbers under gongs:
111.241.12 Gongs with divided surface sounding different pitches
111.241.22 Sets of gongs with divided surface sounding different pitches
I find the terminology ("gong") a bit bizarre and ignorant, but sadly it is as it is. The steelpan has two numbers because some steelpan types consists of two or more single instruments. I have added these numbers to the list. With the Hang it is a bit more complicated. Here we have a big No original research problem. All publications that ever stated a Hornbostel-Sachs classification of the Hang are based on the Wikipedia article. There is no reliable source outside of Wikipedia. The Hang is a problem for the Hornbostel-Sachs classification because two principles of sound generation must be indicated that belong to different Hornbostel-Sachs classes: The idiophonic (similar to the steelpan) and the aerophonic (the Helmholtz resonance). Without indicating both the functioning of the Hang isn't described completely. In my point of view the Hang cannot be classified with the Hornbostel-Sachs System because this System completely ignores sound generation in musical instruments by principles that belong to different main classes. As this problem of the Hang was never discussed by organologists the Wikipedia author is in a dilemma because he cannot indicate any H-S classification without braking the No original research principle. This problem is even bigger for PANArt's new instruments Gubal, Hang Gudu and Hang Urgu because in these instruments the described coupling process is the main instrumental process to generate different pitches of the Helmholtz resonance. These instruments are idiophones and likewise struck aerophones. But struck aerophones don't exist in the H-S System. --Ixkeys (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The gong terminology is I guess simpler than calling it a vertex vibratory percussion vessel. On the more specific category of the Hang, It's certainly a complex issue, I've noticed similar issues with some others and for now many just have a top level category. At the top level I'd say it's more an idiophone, as the primary vibration (and hence air movement) comes from the striking, and the opening acts more as a modulator. I'd say an aerophone is where the primary vibration comes from the air movement across a passive surface, whether that movement is from a mouth, bellows, breeze, or by moving the surface through the air in the case of something like a bullroarer. From what I can see of other Hang instruments, they'd all be similarly classed, aside from the Pang Sai which is primarily a string instrument and rather interesting also.Gudzwabofer (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I can agree with you regarding the Hang, that it is best categorized as an idiophone, when we are forced to use the H-S system (but it remains original research because there is no source outside Wikipedia). But when it comes to the Hang Gudu, this is not an option. You can play melodies with the Hang Gudu only using the oscillating air. There is no contribution of oscillating modes in the metal when you play this way. When it is played this way (usually the playing is hybrid using the air as well as the sound from the metal) it is a struck aerophone. Hornbostel and Sachs and their followers never took in consideration that aerophones could be struck to set the air into oscillation. Another example for such an instrument is this instrument used by the Blue Man Group. --Ixkeys (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd still say they're both pitched idiophones, essentially the vessel is modified to vary the sound, in the case of the Hang Gudu by the hand becoming part of the vessel, in the case of the Blue Man Group, it's a pitched percussion tube modified by a slide. The membrane of a talking drum is also modified, just in a different manner. This is what produces the pitch variation. Essentially all sound is air movement, what sets an aerophone apart is that it is the inflow movement of air which produces the initial vibration, which in turn modifies the outflow air, whereas in most other instruments there is only outflow air. In both the Hang and the Blue Man Group it is the striking of the instrument which produces the initial vibration, not inflow air. Even a windchime is still an idiophone because the wind provides the striking force, not the vibration.Gudzwabofer (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your toughts. I appreciate it very much to discuss this issue more in depth. You suggested a certain definition of aerophones (aerophones are instruments with inflow air). This could be a possible definition. But in the revised H-S System I linked above, aerophones are defined in a different way: "The air itself is the vibrator in the primary sense. In this group also belong reed instruments sounded by a flow of air in which the reed is the primary vibrator". In my point of view the problem we are discussing is caused by general non logical and inconsistent definitions of the main classes of the system. Hornbostel and Sachs critisized in their inital publication from 1914 that the criterion whether an instrument is blown, struck or drawn with a bow is not a good classification criterion because there are for example struck as well as blown string instruments. Also the used material cannot be the classification criterion because similar functioning instruments are made of different materials. Instead they stated (based on a former classification system by Mahillon) that the main classification criterion has to be the kind of the oscillating substance. But then they broke their own definition rules by putting the reed instruments to the aerophones although an idiophonic substance, the reed is the initial vibrator and by restricting the aerophone class only to blown instruments forgetting that air as vibrator "in the primary sense" can als be struck to set into vibration. The Hang Gudu and the Blue Man Group instrument show very clearly the inconsistency of the definition. They are the same as reed instruments with the only difference that they are struck instead of blown. But this criterion, Hornbostel and Sachs clearly critisized, cannot be a criterion to divide the main classes. If Hornbostel and Sachs would follow their own definiton rules they must put the reed instrument into the idophone class. And then (only then) also the Hang Gudu would be classified as idiophone correctly. With the inconsistent H-S-class definiton it is impossible to find a correct place for the Hang Gudu and the Blue Man Group instrument. If we dig a bit deeper the problem behind these definition problems is, that Hornbostel and Sachs didn't take in consideration that many instruments are using coupling processes for sound generation in which different ocillating substances are involved. The German Organogolist B. H. J. Eichler has written an interesting article about the inconsistency of the H-S-System. Sadly it is only in German. --Ixkeys (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I want to expand my thoughts a bit because you mentioned the wind chime. There is another interesting instrument for our discussion: the anklung. I guess, the anklung is the model for the Blue Man Group instrument. There is a difference between wind chime and anklung: While the main oscillating substance of the wind chime that also determines the pitch is the stiff material (usually metal but it can also be wood). In the anklung the air column is the main oscillating substance that also determines the pitch. The stiff material of the anklung is only the initial vibrator similar to the reed of the reed instruments that set the air column into oscillation. Classifying both instruments as percussion tubes in the H-S-System completely ignores this important difference. The underlying problem is here as explained above, that the H-S-System is completely unable to handle coupling processes of stiff substances and air. --Ixkeys (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a lot of complexity involved with these. I guess I'd go with the primary or initial method of oscillation (which is what I meant by inflow air) In the case of a reed instrument, the air oscillates the reed which in turn oscillates the air through the rest of the instrument (which is what I would define as an outflow, or secondary flow, much like water after it has fallen through rapids, or electricity going through a transformer), in the case of the Hang the hand oscillates the metal which in turn oscillates the air through the opening. Even a membranophone works under a similar principle, although few are usually played by altering the bottom, unless the bottom is also closed, in which case the oscillates air resonates between both membranes. In the case of a piano it is a hammer which strikes the string, but the string which oscillates, but if the strings were blown into, I suppose that would be more complex, as both the method used by the player and the oscillating medium come into play. As It would have input air vibrating the strings in the same way a reed is vibrated it could be classed as an aerophone, but it could still be classed as a chordophone as the primary oscillation still takes place in the strings. I have also read that people say the hang has elements of a membranophone due I guess to the type of sustained and self-reinforcing resonance which is not present in most idiophones.
There is definitely room in wikipedia for more to be put into pages on the broader academic debates on both Hornbostel-Sachs and Musical_instrument_classification, as the pages so far are more of a basic description, although that would require discussion with on the relevant talk pages with people from the Musical Instruments WikiProject, which I think is far more active than percussion. Also there's no reason we can't make mention of these debates on the individual instrument pages, especially in more complex cases like these recent inventions, in most ways percussion is the most complex and broad classification undertaking compared with other classes. But I guess for each instrument we do need some sort of a consensus on a single classification, although we could list them as debatable for now, just as I've done with the origins of several instruments in the list. I'll have to look more into the H-S academia on primary and secondary oscillation.Gudzwabofer (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Some thoughts about what you called inflow and outflow: Hornbostel and Sachs decided to divide the main classes regarding the vibrating substance. So they distinguished in vibrating air, vibrating stiff material, vibrating membrane and vibrating string. Methods to set these substances into vibration are distinguished in sub-classes. What you called inflow is a method to set a substance into vibration. The inflow air itself doesn't vibrate itself. Blown air can be used to set any kind of substance into vibration. An example for a blown chordophone is the wind harp. The air blown to the strings doesn't belong to the instrument and doesn't vibrate itself but excite the strings to vibrate. The strings transfer this oscillation to the surrounding air that also doesn't belong to the instrument as transport medium to the ear. This way the wind harp is a classical chordophone with no coupling processes involved. The strings are the only vibrating substance. In the case of the reed instruments we have also not vibrating air as method to excite the oscillation. But these instruments have a coupling process: First the reed is stimulated to vibrate by the blown air and secondary the air column is coupled. The surrounding air is the transport medium. These coupling processes are a problem for the H-S-System.
So we have to distinguish between the vibrating substances that divide the main classes and the method of stimulation (striking, blowing, drawing with a bow, plucking, rubbing etc.) that can only be used to divide sub-classes. What you called inflow is the stimulating method blowing.
You are right that our discussion is nothing that can be introduced in articles on single instruments. My point in this discussion is the following: There are instruments like the anklung that I personally think are incorrectly classified. But there is an organological literature that classifies the anklung this way. So a Wikipedia author must refer to this literature and classify it in accordance with it. But for new instruments that were never classified in organological literature and which are not easy to classify as "classical" idiophones, chordophones, membranophones or aerophones without coupling processes, the Wikipedia author has the no original research problem. Because he himself has to consider the properties of the instrument and decide how they are best classified in the existing H-S-System. My point is that Hang Gudu, Hang Urgu and Gubal cannot be classified in the existing H-S-System without ignoring neccessary physical processes for sound generation. We either need an alternative system or perhaps an extention of the H-S-System. But this is all original research and forbidden for a Wikipedia author. These thoughts became a topic for Wikipedia when an user created an article about the Gubal. He classified it in accordance to the Hang as idiophone. I tried to discuss this problem on the talk page but didn't get any feedback. Then I decided to be a little bit cheeky and classified the Gubal as aerophone and waited what would happen. It happened nothing. The problem is: It is usual to classify all instruments described in Wikipedia with a H-S-class but it is forbidden to do this for the Gubal. So what can we do here?
For the Hang I can agree "mit Bauchschmerzen" (even if it pains), as we say in Germany, to classify it in accordance with the steel pan as idiophone as it is possible to see the Helmholtz resonance as a secondary process. But this is not possible with the Gubal, the Hang Gudu and the Hang Urgu. As a player who intensively dealt with these three instruments and someone who has discussed the physical processes and building methods of these instruments in depth with the inventors I would say that the Helmholtz resonance is a bit more important than the other processes. --Ixkeys (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
While original research is supposedly forbidden, some instruments are self evident, and I doubt very much that those pages would be questioned by the small handful of people who are semi-active in the percussion pages. I've probably just made my own judgement on some, especially things like the multitude of goblet drums for example.
The air harp I would concur is a chordophone, as the primary vibration comes from the strings, However with the Hang Gubal, as with the other Hangs, while I haven't seen one up close, from the videos I would still say that the primary vibration is coming from the instrument itself, with the sound being modulated through the opening. It doesn't seem to me that the Hang acts as enough of a bellows in order for the primary vibration to be coming from the air through the opening and create all of the heard sound. Most sound is coming from the vibration and reverberation of the vessel itself. It could be argued I suppose that the body of the Hang acts as a kind of reed, but in the case of a reeded instrument, the reed vibration is much more similar to the lip buzzing through a brass-wind mouthpiece, and the substantial sound still comes from the air vibrating through the rest of the instrument. If there is sufficient air current being created by the vibration in the vessel to make the sound through the opening greater and substantially different than the sound from the rest of the vessel itself, then I would agree there is a point to be made, and with the lack of a neutral academic opinion on this we would have to resort to original research, leave it unclassified, or go with the best available academic consensus we can find.
There seem to be a few Hang players in Melbourne, and from memory there might even be a busker, I'll see if I can have a chance to see one in more detail and place my ear closer. If two editors can agree on what they've seen up close, surely that is better than having nothing at all in wikipedia. And we all know that if that other great policy neutrality was strictly enforced half of wikipedia wouldn't exist. But I'm sure there is much out there written on both sides of this if we can dig far enough. Most of what I've seen so far though is written by Hang players, which is a problem for something niche, but apparently not so much for the articles using pharmaceutical company funded studies into medications.Gudzwabofer (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I tink you have misunderstood me. As I wrote above, the Hang is not the problem here. I can agree (even if it pains) to classify it like the steelpan as idiophone. The problem are the new instruments Gubal, Hang Gudu and Hang Urgu. These instruments are quite different to the Hang. This is easiest to understand if we look at the Hang Gudu. The main differences to the Hang are obvious: It has an elastic, spring like, tuned ring (called the Ring Ding) arround the the opening and it has no tone circle. It is played differently and it sounds differently. Have a look at the Hang Gudu presentation by Sabina Schärer, one of the inventors. The instrument has two main sound sources: The air resonance in the vessel (Helmholtz resonance) and the sounds of the metal of the vessel. The players combines the melodic air sound with the percussive sounds of the metal of the vessel. The Ring Ding acts as stimulator of the Helmholtz resonance. I want to draw your attention to the piece that the band is playing from 3:55 on in the presentation video. In this piece the Hang Gudu has the function of the bass of the band. And the sound of this bass is generated only (!) by the air. The melodiy line depends only of how the opening is influenced by the left hand of the player. The Ring Ding is involved but only as stimulator of the oscillation of the air in the cavity. The Hang Urgu is a sort of bass Hang Gudu tuned an octave lower. The Gubal is similar to the Hang Urgu but have a tone circle with tone fields that can be added to the playing as third source. But when used in the Pang ensemble the sounds of the tone circle are used sparely. The main function of the Hang Urgu as well as the Gubal in the ensemble is the bass. Here is an example. It is very important that you use good speakers or headphones. With little speakers of notebooks, tablets, smartphones or with earphones you will not hear the air sounds of the instruments good enough to understand its main function for the instrument as well as for the music played with them. --Ixkeys (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)