Talk:Sackbut

message: PLEASE don't remove stuff which doesn't make sense - it is probably correct, but just needs more explanation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.179.146 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Doesn't make sense

message: I'm going to redirect this to trombone - the sackbut is not really a distinct instrument from the trombone, but just an old English name for it. Of course, the kind of thing that is referred to as a "sackbut" differs from the modern trombone somewhat, because, like almost all instruments, it has evolved - but I think old versions of the trombone are better covered under trombone than here (especially as other languages - as far as I know - do not have separate names for modern and ancient forms of the instrument, and as there's almost nothing here anyway). --Camembert
Apparently this was a redirect since December 2002 (when the above was posted), until an anonymous user created an article in March this year, with no further explanation. I see no reason why any of this should not be at trombone instead; separate articles create nothing but confusion. I propose a merge. I'll wait for a while to see if anyone is watching this page before taking further action. EldKatt (Talk) 20:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree. As you can see, other users have been editing this. The sackbut is a legitimate historical instrument, which differs enough from the trombone in use and sound that it merits its own article, unless at the trombone article want every section to have "but the historic trombone blah". That has its merit, but this seems like too much info to do that. Makemi 22:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly did not intend to claim that this is not a "legitimate historical instrument" or anything to that effect. That was not the point of my suggestion. I was however fairly sure at the time that there was a precedent for having a single article for a single instrument, including all its history. Looking twice, though, I see separate articles for natural horn, natural trumpet and fortepiano, perhaps justifying, to some extent, this article. However, we still have one single article for oboe, bassoon, flute, harp, the violin family, and so forth; all of which have changed at least as much as the trombone. Should we aim for a Historical x for every instrument with any history to speak of? I don't know. The trombone article talks about, in the history section, the trombone in the Renaissance and the Baroque, which is what this article is supposed to be about. Should we remove this from trombone? Indeed, when, exactly, does the sackbut turn into the trombone? The border between these two articles is fuzzy. Some food for thought. EldKatt (Talk) 12:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I realize that you had no intention to denigrate the sagbutt. And it is food for thought. I did think about how I wouldn't want all mention of the history of the trombone to be purged from the main trombone article. I guess I'm thinking of this as something of a daughter article of trombone, where the most essential points should still be addressed within the trombone article, but not in as much detail. In addition, oboe-Shawm, bassoon-Dulcian, flute is already a sort of catchall article with its own category, and violin family-rebec, vielle, violone. I dunno about when exactly a sackbut should be called a trombone (When it's in Italy! Hah!). I perhaps wrote more intensely than I meant to because I didn't want to see this good (IMHO) article suddenly turned into a redirect. Makemi 19:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect: [[Trombone]]

message: Update October 28, 2007:
The sackbut is mentioned long before the middle ages, specifically in Daniel 3:5 (King James Version).
:Are you sure that counts as "long before the middle ages"? In the New American Standard the sackbut becomes a trigon, and is altogether left out of God's Word(R) Translation. Compare the cornet: it's a horn in NAS and a ram's horn in GWT. Willi Gers07 (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a mistranslation in your bible. The original text refers to buccina - straight natural trumpets. Technology to successfully bend tubes and make a slide, and hence make a double-slided wind instrument (i.e. sackbut/trombone) came in around the 14th century. 81.178.215.148 (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sackbut invention

message: Section seven (performance practice) has little to do with the sackbutt, I suggest that it should be deleted or moved to a different article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.6.133 (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on articulation is unique to wind instruments; the comments on improvisation give examples directly to do with trombone groups; the notes about temperament lead to a specific discussion of trombone tunings; notes on editions directly mention trombone. Granted the paragraph on musica ficta is relevant to 16th century choir, wind and continuo instruments, but it does extract the specific information related to performance practise relevant to music trombonists look at. So I think it all has value in being here, rather than being scattered amongst related articles and losing the trombone specifics. 81.178.215.148 (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Performance practice' section

message: Any preference for  vs. ?  has historical preference, so unless there is objection I guess I'll try to switch this article entirely to that over a hodgepodge. Hyacinth (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: References/Sources

message: The claim about chromaticism and doubling voices, which was discussed in 2011 in the previous section, is still in the lede. Its current incarnation reads "Unlike the earlier slide trumpet from which it evolved, the sackbut possesses a double slide, which makes it capable of playing fully chromatic scales, and allows for easy and accurate doubling of voices." This still makes no sense: 
# The wording "fully chromatic" appears to be an invention by whoever wrote it; I've never heard of it, and it's not covered at Diatonic and chromatic. What is this meant to contrast with? "Half chromatic" or "partially chromatic"? 
# Assuming what is meant is just "capable of playing chromatic scales". Still, it doesn't make sense, since any slide instrument can play chromatic scales, so there is no distinction from a single slide instrument.
# Maybe the intended meaning was scales of a certain length. But that would depend on the ability of the player to play high notes (where harmonics are closer) and the tuning of the instrument as well as on specific geometric measures of instrument and player. We would need a citation for that.
# The word "accurate" is patently false; the same mechanical advantage that allows a wider spread actually decreases precision by the same factor. 
# As Just plain Bill tried to explain, there is no reason a slide is required for doubling an instrumental part in unison or at other intervals. That this claim is still in the lede despite his patient explanations is a shame. — Sebastian 18:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim about chromaticism and doubling voices still makes no sense as of 2016 

message: I suspect the first picture in the article has a caption needing correction, was probably posted from elsewhere with an incorrect caption and the mistake was not noticed when the article was first published. According to my experience with instruments and the laws of physics, the longer instrument plays the lower notes. The two instruments in the picture in the middle should be tenor, The one on the left alto, and the one on the right base. Currently the caption says the one on the left is one of the tenor instruments. Considering the one third from the left is shorter than the first on the left I believe it should be the tenor along with the second from the left. It should read from left to right alto, tenor, tenor, bass.  I have never edited a caption to a picture so I'll leave this to someone with some experience. ☉Qψîδịzഴⓧ•—>Quisizyx talk 15:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First picture caption wrong 

message: "Musicians of the 16th and 17th centuries benefited from a broader base of skills than the average performer today."
This is vague, unsupported, and doesn't add anything of value to the article. To the extent that it means anything, it's probably false. I'd propose just deleting it.JohnMason (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @JohnMason feel free to be WP:BOLD and delete it, I agree I've not come across that idea so far.—Jon (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The following sentence, now the first in that section, was edited slightly in accordance. JohnMason (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superfluous sentence