Talk:Denis d'or

message: Where can I find a detailed descripton of this instrument, or at least some reputable sources? How could electricity be used to modify the sound?
Can someone please explain the sense of the following sentences?
* But the most special feature was that Diviš (temporarily) charged the iron strings with electricity in order that the sound quality might be enhanced — "purified" so to speak.[...] Additionally, he installed a slightly sadistic gimmick so that, any time he wanted, the player could be given an electric shock.
--Doktor Who 08:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Description

message: For your information: No painting, drawing, or photo of the Denis d'or is extant! — Editorius 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This also goes for audio files. The only known prototype was lost in the 18th century, long before sound recordings were possible. --Enyavar (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Is this real? Badagnani (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Real?

message: Sounds neat, good to know about. The instrument itself is an interesting topic. But I'll suggest that the speculative claim that this was "possibly the first ELECTRIC musical instrument in history" is not encylopedic (especially at the top of the article!) ( A claim, so far, backed up by one cite behind a paywall).  It was hard for anything to be ELECTRIC in those times. What would the source of 'electric' power be? (Interestingly , battery inventor Alessandro Volta was only born in 1745 ... the same year the Leyden jar first showed up!)This instrument isn't mentioned in the Divis article, possibly for good reason? Grove is a great source on music, but maybe not on technology. Probably a good idea to stick with the known facts and save the speculations until more sources are found. Twang (talk)
:Hi  first, the Denis d'or is mentioned in the Divis article. Strg+F is your friend. As I wrote before, there is little known facts about the instrument, and I also don't like the claim that it's practically the grandfather to all electric guitars. Because it almost definitively wasn't. I'm however surprised that the Clavecin électrique so far hasn't been mentioned in the article. I'll change that. --Enyavar (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  * The Divis article is not cited. * The Divis article mentions two sources of static electricity. 'Electric' instruments cannot be powered by static electricity, which hasn't the longevity to power anything.  * The paragraph which states: It is disputed whether the Denis d’or sounds were also produced by electricity or if it was an otherwise acustical instrument like the clavichord, apart from misspelling 'acoustical', is not sourced. * The 120years article (most of that site is reputable) says: Several accounts describe the instrument as an electro-acoustic instrument where the strings are vibrated using electro-magnets. 120years knows better, and says so in the last paragraphs of the article. At that time, there were no power sources ... not even batteries ... to make electromagnets possible ... not until Volta invented batteries, decades later. In short, any claims for the instrument being 'electric' ... apart from giving shocks to the lucky guests ... are speculative and unsupported by existing (cited or not) sources. The first line of the present article is a farce. Twang (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm not sure what you're saying in the first bullet point, so please restate if it's important.The second point I'm not arguing against: Powered instruments weren't invented until more than a hundred years later, as far as I know. After having read up on it, my personal opinion on the matter is that Divis was indeed charging his instrument with statical energy. That might then have produced some effects that were designed to awe the audience, and most of all the player who got shocked. That way, Divis convinced everyone that his "invention" was a powerful and "electric" instrument. Given what we know of how the 18th century regarded the novelty of electricity, the weirdo was guaranteed to impress at least some audiences with that. Which is how we even know about this instrument.Your third point was, apart from not correcting an obvious typo, a good one, which is why I moved that external link to the corresponding claims.Your last point seems to be that the 120years-page adds additional information; in my opinion however it's just a very condensed translation of Sitter. That link may solely be kept because not everyone will want to read through Sitter's short essay, as that one is in German. Finally, what is wrong with the statement "in the broadest sense, possibly the first electric musical instrument in history"? In the broadest sense, Athens was the first democracy in history, too. --Enyavar (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

text:  You're so right about Athens. The answer to what is "wrong with the statement...." is nothing, so long as it's not misleading. Your 'personal opinion on the matter' may be right, and if the article makes it clearer that Divis was a P.T. Barnum, not an instrument-designer, it's better for it. Twang (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little evidence to support 'electric' claim