Talk:Ten-string guitar

message: Please see Talk:Ten-string extended-range classical guitar#Wikispam for discussion relevant to this edit. Andrewa (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikispam

message: Those who live in glass houses should not cast stones. Yet again Andrewa falsely accuses me of that which he himself is guilty of.
To the allegations: FALSE, the link tenstringguitar.INFO is neither intended to promote a website nor is it a link to a blog. This site promotes scholarly information about the 10-string guitar as envisioned by Narciso Yepes, information that is not readily available elsewhere on the internet. As such, the link is totally valid. So Andrewa's claims against me and the site are simply dishonest. (Not unexpected.) Along the same vein, Andrewa's claim that a link he posted in this edit  does not fail any criteria of "links to be avoided" is also false. According to criterion no. 2 "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" must be avoided on wikipedia. Yet Andrewa supports this site's page  knowing fully that it contains proven misinformation.
Compare the claims made there  by Janet Marlow with the verifiable statements made by Yepes . Andrewa's claims that these are saying the same thing are clearly either mistaken or dishonest. That is, Marlow claims "there are FOUR missing sympathetic resonances on the six string guitar ... C, Bb, Ab, and Gb" which have less sustain "than the others". While Yepes states that "On the six-string guitar only four notes of the scale have natural resonances or overtones, E, A, B, an D" and that the other EIGHT sympathetic resonances are missing. 
Marlow: Four missing resonances: C, Bb, Ab, Gb (thus, eight present resonances: Db, D, Eb, E, F, G, A, B).
Yepes: Eight missing resonances: C, G, Bb, F, Ab, Eb, Gb, Db (thus, four present resonances: D, E, A, B).
How can Andrewa honestly claim this is saying the same thing? How can Andrewa defend linking to a page that misinforms readers about Yepes's logic behind his invention of the modern 10-string guitar (in breach of WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2), while accusing those of us who link to more scholarly information of being on a soap-box and or being in breach of WP:LINKSTOAVOID? Is this honest scholarship?
Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Another false accusation made by [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]]

message: I've removed link to  as linking to this page is presently in breach of WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2, as the page presently contains some factually incorrect statements, including:
*Stating the tuning of the decacorde incorrectly (in Helmholtz notation) with strings 10-9 given as C' and D' (an octave too low) rather than C and D.
*Making a false analogy between the viola d'amore and Narciso Yepes's 10-string guitar. Yepes has verifiably denied this connection:
"Normally, the tuning of the four supplementary bass strings is C, Bb, Ab, Gb. In that way I have overtones for all twelve notes of the scale. Many people have said to me that this is the same principle as that used for the viola d'amore, which was an early eighteenth century instrument with seven strings that were mounted underneath the normal ones and vibrated in sympathy. But there was a problem with that instrument: The tuning - of both the bowed strings above and the sympathetic strings below - was D, A, F, D, A, F, D, and the F was either sharp or natural, depending on whether the key of the piece was D major or D minor. Thus when you played a D you had not only the sound of that one string, but also the sound of all the other Ds on the instrument, so you had a very big D! But, when you played G, for example, you had absolutely nothing in the way of resonance. My idea of the 10-string guitar is exactly the contrary - to provide sympathetic vibration for the notes that do not have this kind of reinforcement on a normal 6-string guitar." 
SOURCE: Snitzler, L. 1978. "Narciso Yepes: The 10-String Guitar: Overcoming the Limitations of Six Strings". Guitar Player 12: pp. 26, 42, 46, 48, 52.
*A claim that Yepes used these strings only as resonators.
Otherwise, I would be happy to link this page, when/if its author decides to correct these points.
Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed link [[WP:LINKSTOAVOID]] article 2

message: The "Yepes" guitar was certainly originally developed by Yepes, but there is now a significant body of musicians using ten-string extended-range guitars, including instruments from Ramirez and Bernabe identical to those used by Yepes, with different tunings. Probably, these should not be called "Yepes" guitars at all. The article does not reflect this at present.
While I appreciate that this is due to being particular about sources, it's something that needs to be fixed. Being particular about verifiability should not lead to inaccuracy, and the article as it stands could be quite misleading. Andrewa (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Yepes

message: Removed text:
In a more indirect usage, the bass strings allow various pitches (from the high-pitched top strings) to be supported by resonance from the bass strings. Certain tunings of the bass strings (such as the one most often used by Yepes), attempt to give supportive resonance to all 12 chromatic notes.
This is confused and confusing. This usage is just the usage already identified in the previous bullet point ... added resonance from the extra strings. This was Yepes' original intention and the reason for the design, not a separate one at all. Andrewa (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More on resonance

message: Could someone add the range of the ten string guitars IPAexpert (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  range