Talk:Harp

message: Can anyone tell what sort of harp this is? from a mural in Ancient Crete [2700 to 1450 BC]
58.178.10.144 (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minoan/Cretan Harp 

message: Replaced the BMP image with a JPEG.  The original BMP is here:
Changed the caption on the Webster's dictionary harp illustration. That's definitely a medieval (Romanesque style, too) harp on the left, not what we harpers/harpists today would generally call a folk harp. The pedal harp in the pic isn't particularly modern one either, nor is it a good illustration, honestly. I'll see if I can find a better one.
--Cantrixargenta
I've changed a long-standing reference to it as a "string-percussion instrument" to just "string instrument". I can imagine a piano or a hammered dulcimer, for example, being described as a "string-percussion" instrument (though I don't think I've ever seen it done), because their strings are hammered. But with the harp, they're just plucked, so it doesn't seem to make much sense. --Camembert
I've always thought of a harp as a string-percussion instrument just because it is plucked. It is a stringed instrument, but it's not in the "string" family (with violins and basses and things). To me, plucking is a percussive movement: pulling the string and releasing it to create a sound. I've heard pianos described as "string-percussion", too, since they have strings and are hammered (similar to plucking). Other than "string-percussion", I don't know how to classify the harp/piano family, and that term doesn't seem to be widely spread. --Dreamyshade
You're right that trying to classify instruments is a troublesome thing - it has been the central subject of a number of books. "percussion instruments", however, are usually defined as "something which makes noise by being struck", and plucked instruments are not usually put in that class. "String instrument" is an awkward term, because classical musicians sometimes use it to mean only orchestral strings (violin, viola, cello, double bass), but it's also used to mean any instrument which makes sound through vibrating strings, so it's the term we should use here, I think. --Camembert
I wonder if we should just call the harp a chordophone. It's stringed and somewhat percussive, but neither orchestra strings nor percussion. When it has to be classified (in instrument books and things), I've seen it as "strings", but never "percussion". If we called it a chordophone, we could put "(string instrument)" in there next to it. This way, I think it would clarify that the harp isn't with the "orchestral strings", but that it's a stringed instrument. --Dreamyshade
Yes, I think that's a good idea. I'll make the change. --Camembert
Many harp makers do electric harps.  Did Lyon and Healy develop the first one?  If so we should probably note that.  If not we really should mention the other folks. --EEMalinoski
Camembert: Perhaps a look at a symphony orchestra is in order.  The harp is a member of the percussion family according to their classifications.  
EEMalinoski: I'm not sure about a Lyon and Healy electric harp, but Camac in France has been making them since at least 1997 if not earlier.  Do you have a date for a Lyon and Healy electric harp?
Also, Rather than a single line, I've written up a paragraph for the Wire Strung Harp.  I am a wire strung harper, myself. --brichard
In a symphony orchestra, the harp is all by itself. Dreamyshade 05:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: General

message: I'm reverting the article back to my 16 Dec revision because Purple Arrow's 17 Dec revert doesn't make sense to me. An-gabhar, I moved the early-European information in the Origins section to the Political Symbol section. It was misleading - there isn't one "European" harp - and the information about Irish coinage belonged in the Political Symbol section. Dreamyshade 05:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins

message: I think this article will clear up a few things about the Irish or Scottish harp origins, Its a historical fact that the Gaels came to Scotland from Ireland in the 4th centuary after the Romans left Britain and both Irish and Scottish cultures (pretty much the same culture if you ask me) have influenced each other, even today. But there were other celtic peopels in present day Scotland too, one of these being the Picts. 
In Scotland, the images of triangular harps appeared first about the 9th century, on the east coast, in Pictish stone carvings. Later carvings are found further west, and show a gradual development toward the advanced form of the oldest surviving Gaelic harps, which date from the 15th century.
Pictish harp carved on sandstone cross at Dupplin Castle, Perthshire. Late 9th or early 10th century. After J. Romily Allen, Early Christian Monuments of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1903, fig. 334B
"In Ireland, however, images of David carved on the high crosses (10th century) sandstone cross at Durrow Abbey, Co. Offaly, Ireland) show quadrangular instruments, possibly lyres. The earliest Irish images of a triangular harp do not appear until later: in metal, on an 11th century reliquary , and in stone in the 12th century."
Therefore Ireland could not have invented the triangular celtic harp, because of its use of the lyer at this time and its spread through non-Gaelic culture of the Picts to the Scots.
The oldest term in Irish for the Harp is the "cruit", crom-chruit, the gaelic Irish called the Picts the Cruit or Chuid. This also may be a link to the origins of the harp.
Until you come up with (factual) archaeological proof, then stop second guessing. I have asked experts in both the national museums of Scotland and Irelands Trinity college, both say the same. The triangular harp common to both Scotland and Ireland originated with the Picts on present day Scottish east coast and spread west and eventually to Ireland.
You are right though harping has existed in Ireland for over a thousand of years, but the non-pedal, triangular style celtic harp of today originated in scotlands east coast, so we just cannot airbrush these origins away too.
Also read these articles on the web:
http://www.silcom.com/~vikman/isles/scriptorium/harps/harps.html
http://www.alisonvardy.com/harp-info/medieval-harp-history.htm
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce082202.html
and 
http://www.clarsach.net/Bill_Taylor/traditional.htm
If you have anything to add feel free. - User:Celtic harper 16:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good post. The Scots don't particularly like it if you associate them with the harp, and the Irish don't like anything Gaelic not being Irish, so that's maybe why you get the hostility. For similar hostility, see Talk:Scotland#The_bloody_harp. - Calgacus 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Doesn't sound like you've got no axe to grind to me."About time Scotland stopped re-inventing history!"; well, you're enititled to your opinion, but revising flawed perspectives is quite a normal and healthy part of any historical debate; just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that everyone else should close their minds. Sorry my friend, it's not a reinvention. And your comments on the Dupplin cross are useless; "Irish knots" as you call them are part of insular art, and are just as likely to have originated amongst the Saxons as the Gaels. The Picts were not just blank receivers, they were one of the most artistically inventive peoples of the insular dark ages, which is why labelling Pictish art as "Hiberno-Saxon" is quite acceptable amongst Irish and English scholars, but seen by Picticists as a joke. It is in fact highly possible, and widely thought amongst scholars that the Picts did invent the clarsach. If you have this 600AD evidence, please post it. BTW, the Irish were Hiberni, not Scoti ... Scotus was a Latin translation of "Gael"/"Goidel", not Eireannach! Common misconception. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)  15:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that's up to you. You haven't made any case at all. Gaels were never confined to Ireland in the historical period (and certailnly not AD 800), and in fact the first occurences of the word "Scoti" are in reference to northern Britain; so, maybe you better get your "facts" straight, since you're so concerned with them. As far as you can see the knots are "Irish" - so? What, are we supposed to regard you as an expert on Pictish art? If so, why? Anyways, I'm still waiting for you to present the 600AD evidence you claim exists. It's the only thing you mentioned which might contribute usefully to the discussion; so please post it. Maybe after you do that, you might have a case to rest, rather than an end to a series of nonsensical whinges such as "About time Scotland stopped re-inventing history!". - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)  18:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical fact

message: Let's get something clear, the Dupplin cross is not the only Pictish representation of the clarsach. It is depicted on many Pictish stones, the dating of some perhaps very early. This clarsach was part of Pictish musical culture, and there is no reason to think they imported it from the Irish or Scottish Gaels, other than later affinity that the Irish have for this harp. The NPOV assessment is that the Picts had the clarsach, others had it too. Linking these by cause and effect is purely speculative, although it is interesting that the earliest Gaelic word for the harp is almost identical for their word for a Pict. Also, it should be made clear that the Picts were probably making use of the Gaelic language from an early date (the evidence that the Pictish kings spoke Pictish is nil BTW). The inscription on the Dupplin cross lists the name of a Pictish king (Causantín mac Fergusa) in Latin with Gaelic orthography; two languages were used in Pictland to write inscriptions, Latin and Old "Irish". So the potential for transmission was high. Irish sources also list something called the "Pictish metre", a poetic form of Gaelic originating in Pictland which was probably accompanied by a musical instrument. The form was notable, and it is possible that it came into Irelan with the clarsach ... but like I said, this is speculation.  - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)  16:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarity

message: Firstly, Sea Horn this page is for intelectual discussion only, and is not skewed for nationalistic reasons, ranting, or sword waving. It is you who has put this label on the posts, so I take great offence to this. 
Im saying this as an Irishman born in Northern Ireland of Scottish and Irish (Donegal) extraction and I’m very proud of both sides of my heritage (which is both sides of the devide). So with that in mind please get your facts right before you point the finger of malcontent at me. My post was emotional because someone (perhapse you?) delieted my findings on the talk harp page, not once but six+ times. So much I complained to the wikipedia main page and posted my findings on the talk harp page to at least discuss them.
Secondly, I approve of credible empiricle data, facts speak louder than conjecture and second guessing, therefore I will answer your post, with facts in mind, and not with anyother agenda, and will comment if certain facts are misinterperated. I have found from credible sources backed up with pictorial data.
The point we’re getting at is that not all celtic culture should have exclusively come from Ireland. That type of thinking is demeaning to the modern welsh, the decedents of the Picts on the east coast of Scotland, and the ancient (Brythons and Picts, who have no voice to defend themselves). My bias is purly in favour of the Picts and not the Gaels (who include the Scots the Irish and myself).
Sea Horn wrote on the 01:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, all you have is the Dupplin cross dating from about 830 AD. The cross until lately was classed as a Gaelic cross, and it carries obvious gaelic design. Then recently, maybe for nationalistic reasons, some are classing it as a Pictish carving, but not all Scots agree with that analysis. Very often the 'Dupplin harp' carving is pictorially misrepresented in drawings. My basic premise is that the triangular harp was not first used by the Picts, (who left no language or history), but originated in Mediterranean area and Middle East. Later, I believe that the harp was brought to Alba (now Scotland), by Gael (Irish) settlers in the first millenium AD. A bit more expertise needed, and a little less rant please!---Sea horn 13:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The harp was a symbol of the ascendancy of the Gaelic/Irish language and culture in Alba (now Scotland), and the end of Pictish dominated influence. But the Dupplin cross could be said to mark the beginning of a new Scotland as we know it today.-Bluegold 14:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about?! I've been on wikibreak and have never re-edited my former posts! All you've done is edit out the stuff you probably now realize to be blatant nonsense. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Harp discussion is not a nationalistic rant!

message: I'm, not gonna continue this article's revert warring. Myself, Celtic Harper and a few others have shown why blanket statement's about an Irish origin for the Celtic harp are not supported by evidence. At the very least, the article should be balanced. The statement "The European harp tradition seems to have originated in ancient Ireland over a thousand years ago. In Irish mythology, a magical harp, Daurdabla is possessed by The Dagda." is the main culprit, but the referenced section about the possible Pictish origins below contradicts this. I deleted this controversial section, but others like to reinstall it. The article is POV and biased. The tag is replacing the revert warring. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your continuing your history of helpful contributions Andy. Are you actually gonna contribute anything, or continue your rant of useless verbiage, ad hominem attacks and unexplained reverts? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh really, well check the edit history; then come back and tell everyone you weren't being truthful. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever spin you put on it, you've still reverted several times. So let's have an apology for "It's you who is reverting, not me". BTW, like your catchphrase, it just about sums your contributions up. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please explain ... - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Calgacus, far from owing you an apology, you owe your fellow Wikipedians an apology for what looks on the face of it to be a direct piece of disinformation, which I discovered quite by accident.  At 13.22 1 March 2006 +ref, you referred to a resource by the title of  Pictish Chordophone Depictions, Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies 36, Winter 1998 when you should have referred to this resource by it's proper title, namely A Reassessment of Pictish Chordophone Depictions "Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies" 36, Winter 1998.  I believe that this was a deliberate attempt to misinform the reader. MacPhersonAndy 23:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow. Talk about insane. You're really ploughing the depths now. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree! MacPhersonAndy 00:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calgacus, hope you didn't laugh yourself to death. Maybe I was rather harsh and mistakes can occur with cut and paste, as I know too well. But you came at me so strong that a good riposte was needed at that particular moment in time, hope there are no hard feelings. I have no input into that harp page so it wasn't me who made it biased, if it is that. I still believe the page is pretty well balanced, and let's be honest about this, there is a big question mark about the Picts and the chordophone, and that's academia speaking, not me. Also Celtic_Harper's addition about the 13 carvings, and all only in Pictland before 11th century is erroneous. MacPhersonAndy 19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the POV tag, as case is not being made. See Point of view (see also WP:POV). Bluegold 11:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: For a more balanced view of the early Gaelic harp history, follow this link Bluegold 03:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: It has been discovered on  WP:RFCU that , , , ,  and  , ,  are all socks.  has been engaging in sockpuppetry to further the wikipedian strength of his POV on this and other pages. Moreover,  is a suspected sock, but may be just, if Bluegold was telling the truth on the investigation page, Bluegold's work colleague trying to help him out. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry 

message: The article says she is a harpist with some orchestras and a teacher. Is she notable enough to warrant mention? Deepak 16:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who Marie Lorcini is, and when, where, why and how her name was inserted in the article, but there is no notability requirement for simply being mentioned in an article. There is a notability requirement for having your own article. This doesn't mean that anyone can be mentioned anywhere. It has to be appropriate, and this has to be examined on a case by case basis. But this also mean you shouldn't just get rid of another editor's contribution, if it is otherwise appropriate, useful and informative, just because it mentions a name which you think is not notable enough to warrant mention. If you've erased another editor's contribution mentioning that Marie Lorcini simply on that basis, then you have not acted according to policy. Contact Basemetal here 15:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found the version from where you removed the sentence mentioning Marie Lorcini. I agree that in this case the insertion of that sentence was neither useful nor appropriate. However as far as notoriety, Marie Lorcini is notable enough to have her own article in the a Web Canadian Encyclopedia: Marie Lorcini article. One should not just go about removing content from Wikipedia on (incorrect) dogmatic grounds just because one has nothing better to do, although I concede that in this case the removal of that sentence was justified on other grounds. Contact Basemetal here 16:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  marie lorcini 

message: You can go to www.alan-stivell.com where you find many elements about the main Celtic  harpist.
15:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celtic harp 

message: A musician does not = a musical instrument. This leads to confusion. This redirection should be undone.
--caroldermoid 17:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirection of harpist to harp

message: It says in the article under this title that these harps are known as Irish harps not cláriseach in Ireland, so why is "Wire-strung harps (clàrsach or cláirseach)" the heading if cláirseach is the lesser used term? Everytime 01:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wire-strung harps (clàrsach or cláirseach) 

message: Given the great number of different types of harp in the world, and the complaints here that this article is Euro-centric, I would like to propose that this page be radically restructured to make it work like for example keyboard instrument with a brief historiy and overview, and then links off to separate pages on all the different regional/historical types of harp. I'm not a wiki expert - can we start a draft version somewhere? StrumStrumAndBeHanged 18:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea very much. It will take someone with lots of time on their hands, though! Mona-Lynn 07:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A split might be a good idea, but you might run into trouble when you suggest the old article be replaced by your new one. Why not make changes to the existing article? That way it's easier to involve other users in the process. --Bensin 12:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure of this page

message: Although the Camac and the Truitt levers are well known and work very well, by far the most commonly used type is still the Loveland.  They are standard on Dusty Strings and, for some years now, Triplett harps. Several other makers offer them as options.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.138.38 (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be a separate page for the different lever types. Also, the passage about Teifi levers sounds like an advertisement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.167.68 (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sharping Levers 

message: The section "European-derived harp" begins:
Most European-derived harps have a single row of strings with strings for each note of the C Major scale (over several octaves).
I would have thought that, technically, "C Major scale" should read "C-flat major scale", because that is how the strings are tuned.  But the thing that stays me from correcting it thus is that I only know this to be a fact of the modern orchestral harp, and I do not know if it is true of other European-derived harps.
Should it be changed? - or should the wording be changed to suggest that the strings are not assigned to this or that particular major scale, but something more along the lines that the notes are tuned to the letter-names of a diatonic scale, the exact inflection of those notes depending on the pedal settings?
I'm thinking about changing it, but feel a bit diffident about doing so; if it were referring specifically to the modern concert harp, I would change it without hesitation.
Perhaps someone knowledgeable about European-derived harps in general could suggest the best way of handling it.  But I do feel the reference to C major at that point as it currently stands is quite misleading.  (The later description of how the harp pedals change the tuning of strings does clarify this a bit later on; but I feel the article should not be misleading even in the short term or even in a brief summary or overview.) M.J.E. 06:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of European-derived harp strings being set to C major scale misleading. 

message: How about an illustration that shows the "anatomy" of a harp?  The opening paragraph mentions things like "soundboard", "resonator".  It would be nice to see a drawing with these labels.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.197.12 (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration? 

message: The French method does not use "expressive gestures", that's the Salzedo method; the article had it wrong and backwards! I fixed it, but I am annoyed that it ever got that way to begin with. Blah, blah, blah! </rant>-Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blah backwards wrongness 

message: Why are the strings of the harp described as perpendicular to the soundboard?  Perpendicular means a 90° angle.  In the illustration those strings join the soundboard at an acute angle of less than 90°. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording may be awkward. The way I read it was in opposition to a guitar or violin, where the strings are definitely parallel to the soundboard. But is the frame of a harp synonymous with the soundboard? What I (perhaps too narrowly) think of as a soundboard seems to be missing from harps. Rivertorch (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perpendicular? 

message: hi am just looking 4 inspiration 4 a competition and was wondering if u cud help the idea is 2 creat a mascot 4 finn harps fc ani ideas???????  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.13.94 (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  hello 

message: I could not come up with a better name so please change it to something better.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.75.154 (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Structure and mechanism"? I reworded a little and removed the part about the 26th century B.C., which contradicts what's already in the article. The info on dates of origin needs to be sourced. Rivertorch (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: how it works

message: "French composers such as Claude Debussy and Maurice Ravel composed harp concertos and chamber music widely played today"
My memory may fail me but I don't remember any harp concerto from either Debussy or Ravel. In fact, the only harp works I can come up with for these two are Debussy's Chansons de Bilitis and Sonata en trio, and Ravel's introduction and allegro. Could someone tell me if I'm missing something obvious? 128.194.39.250 (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in music... 

message: The standard range of the concert harp is C1 to G7, not C1 (or D1) to G7. I feel that this needs correction. --Number Googol (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article apparently describes the range with all of the pedals in their middle positions. I'm not sure why. If you count pedal adjustments, there is indeed an extra half-step at both the bottom and the top of the range. But even if we state only the standard range, without counting the pedals, it should be stated as C1 to G7. So you're right; it needs to be changed. Go for it. (And cite a source, if you would.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playing range 

message: I just wanted to find an article on the modern orchestral harp, so I entered the word "harp" and got to this page of course. I then had to look right down to find the marvellous *section* "concert harp" on the modern orchestral harp, with description of how it works, diagrams, photo.
If I enter "concert harp" or "orchestral harp" in wikipedia I get taken to "pedal harp".  This page duplicates to a large extent the good section in this article, and in my opinion not as good as the section I mentioned.
There is duplication and incompleteness.  There could be a really good article on the modern orchestral harp (with the section mentioned as a starting point), but the material is distributed between "Concert harp" and "Pedal harp" articles.
The main picture at the top in both articles shows a nice medieval harp but the one next to it was only "modern" about 150 years ago. It looks like Queen Victoria used it.  P0mbal (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concert harp 

message: I am considering adding a cleanup tag to this article, or trying a major clean up. There are a number of big sections that duplicate content on other pages (e.g. concert harp, clarsach). There is also a large amount of non-encyclopedic trivia especially under concert harp.
I am proposing to re-arrange the categorisation, so as to give a short succinct overview of harp traditions in each region of the world, with links to their specific pages. Also to remove anything more than this and place it onto the relevant specific pages.
Also to shorten the introduction section and make it more general and less western-classical in content and approach.
If anyone has any thoughts or opinions on this please let me know before I start on it.
StrumStrumAndBeHanged (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Just noting that today's featured article in German Wikipedia is about harps in ancient Egypt (:de:Harfner_(Altes_Ägypten)), which ha sno parallel article heer. Perhaps someone is interested to translate some content for use on this page here. --Pjacobi (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Egypt 

message: Nabla (instrument) redirects here. Nabla states: "A Hebrew stringed instrument after which that symbol was named, see harp". There should be something about this thing in Harp (or in Nabla (instrument)). -- Tomdo08 (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nabla (instrument) 

message: Guitars, lyres, and kitharae are not zithers.  There are four basic subgroups under the Chordophone family:  harps, zithers, lutes. and lyres.  Guitars go with the lutes, and kitharae go with the lyres.  I cleaned up the Terminology section to fix this.
67.206.165.1 (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Organology

message: I agree that the ancient, Celtic, (folk?) and pedal harp pages should receive an overhaul, with the main "Harp" page serving more as a general overview; I wouldn't mind contributing, especially to the section on pedal harps, and can provide some assistance with references.  Actually, I'm willing to clean it up on my own if necessary, though it's always nice to have assistance with an ambitious project.
Does anyone have any valid suggestions, or was it simply a convenient page to stage arguments over where the darn thing originated?  As a student harpist myself, I'm fairly annoyed at how bad this page is; the harp has to put up with enough misconceptions already.  Has anyone realized that the only photos in the "pedal/concert harp" section are NOT of a modern pedal harp, but of an early, experimental model and a folk harp?  It's an embarrassment.
So, in essence; does anyone even care anymore?
Stelarinna (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We care Stelarinna, really. Be bold, and happy editing. RashersTierney (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup efforts 

message: Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional citations

message: Being a harpist of the French method I have chosen not to make any changes to the article regarding Technique (specifically the paragraph regarding Salzedo).  However I feel the paragraph desperately needs editing to remove bias towards the Salzedo method.  This section portrays the French method as a stuffy outdated technique and paints the Salzedo method as the modern and therefore superior method of playing.  Both methods are equally viable for harpists, as technique is individual to the player.  The paragraph is heavily in praise of Salzedo and is not objective.  If another harpist can see their way to writing an unbiased Harp#Technique section they would be making the article more informative for prospective students and enthusiasts. 14.201.0.119 (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salzedo Bias? 

message: I've just made some amendments re pedal harps.  I've added information re the missing pedal mechanism on the lowest C&D strings and (on most harps) on the highest G string.  The pedal harp mechanism is complicated enough, so this information usually gets left out when discussing how the pedals work, but that can lead to ambiguities re the harp's range.  Ideally I would like to replace the range illustration used here (C flat to G sharp) with the one used on the pedal harp page (C natural-D-natural to G natural) as a) we don't normally include scordatura options on other string instrument ranges and b) the illustration used on the pedal harp page has the benefit of pointing out that there is a missing semitone between the lower C and D strings however you tune them - but I see that there has already been discussion on this page re the range illustration, so I have left it as it is.  I've used Inglefield and Neill as a reference.
I've also added some information re the use of the fifth finger under Modern European and American Instruments, with references.
I've changed the mention of the upper middle to upper strings being made of nylon to "either gut or nylon" but I can't find a reference for this.  However, all my non-wire strings are gut, right to the top, and if you order Bow Brand strings, at least, you need to specify either gut or nylon for the upper registers.
I've been relatively bold re the technique section.  I agree with the comment above re Salzedo bias, and I've cut out details of his biography, his playing and compositional style and harp designing etc, which don't really relate to technique, and added some examples of his theory.  I've also removed some bits from the French technique part - the thumb is not really low relative to the hand - it's still kept well above the rest of the hand - it's just low relative to the Salzedo technique.  I've also removed the reference to musical choices, which seems unfounded and inappropriate.  I haven't been so bold as to remove the section entirely, although I have some sympathy with StrumStrumandbeHanged's point above.  However, given the rancour that occasionally exists (particularly in the US) between different schools, it's likely that people might approach Wikipedia looking for information.
Mohntorte (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent amendments re pedals, strings, fifth finger & technique

message: Mandanabeygi:Wikipedia Chinese translation "Origins Of Harp" Persia is not mentioned.Seems ‎like "the Persian harp of Perspolis/Persia in Iran " is not translated at all,and "File:Harp-‎Sassanid.png|Ancient Persian harps carved in stone" is not attached ‎also.<http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%B1%8E%E7%90%B4>.‎维基百科(英文)上提到的是“竖琴出现在古波斯”PERSIA-IRAN伊朗<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harp> ‎该文还有足够的照片和历史资料证明竖琴是古波斯（现在的伊朗）的乐器。and also on chinese free encyclopedia website called baidu "Persia/Iran" is not mentioned as the origin of Harp,which I wrote to them and hope it would be added to the article and it will be edited as soon as possible.Mandanabeygi.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandanabeygi (talk • contribs) 13:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins Of Harp-Persia 

message: The illustration for this section appears to include black (or very dark) text on a black (or very dark) background.  Completely unreadable.  Since the image appears to be a computer generation, would someone care to change the text to /white/ (or some other lighter color) so that it can actually be seen?  Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure and Mechanism Illustration 

message: To the person who added the contribution on the Tamil harp (or any other person who would happen to know Tamil): the contribution uses two different transliterations for the word யாழ் (harp) namely yaal and yaazh (that is, they transliterate the letter ழ் in two different ways namely 'l' and 'zh'). This can be confusing for people who do not know Tamil. Please make up your mind. Pick one or the other. Thank you. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 09:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I've waited and waited... No one fixed it. So I did. Don't worry about this any longer. Thanks anyways. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 23:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tamil Harp (transliteration) 

message: Section 6.3 ought to be moved. It doesn't make sense to leave it in the "Modern European and American instruments" section. It should be moved to the historical part, namely "Development and history". Please state any objection here. Contact Basemetal here 15:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 6.3 [[Harp#Wire-strung instruments ("clàrsach")|Wire-strung instruments ("clàrsach")]] 

message: For what it's worth, it seems to me that the fourth paragraph of #Folk, lever, and Celtic instruments reads like an advertising piece promoting Allan Shiers' Teifi semi tone.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passage reads like advertising 

message: This article has gotten into a pretty sorry state, though I can see where a number of editors have jumped in to make some needed improvements. Should we list here some ideas for how best to structure the article, and then dig into getting it fixed? Here are a few suggestions of mine. Feel free to add to the list and sign with three "~" tildes.
* "Clarsach" and generally the "Celtic" section is way too long, needs to be merged into the subject article, and/or into modern coverage or historical coverage of the Celtic harp MatthewVanitas (talk)
* Untangle the lede, ensure that we don't have too much dense organological taxonomy stuff right up front. MatthewVanitas (talk)
* Start matching all the classical harp stuff up with the main article, front-load the detailed into into the more specific article and greatly trim this section back to the essentials. MatthewVanitas (talk) 
* Organize the Indian sections of "Origins" to ensure we don't have undue detail, have some basic citations, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 
* "Multi-course harps" has way too much detail for an overview article, needs trimming back to fundamental details and excess moved to subject articles MatthewVanitas(talk) 
* The photo of the medieval harp with bray pins is dark and hard to see, needs to be replaced with a related and clearer image. MatthewVanitas (talk)
:Update: got most of the stuff knocked out, there's just some Euro-Celtic stuff in the middle that's quite a tangle right now. Anybody want to take a squint at how those can be trimmed down, flow improved, etc? After that, it's just a matter of gradually upgrading the photos, improving citations (and removing poor/dead ones).
:Once we get it more fine-tuned, I'd really like to solicit outside reviewers to see if we can bump this up to at least a B, if not higher. It's really a dang shame that an article on such a fundamental instrument has dragged down over the years. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major cleanup needed 

message: It might be useful to have a comprehensive "Classification" section to list all the types and subtypes of harps (and those that have "harp" in the name but aren't considered harps). "Terminology and etymology" has some of this, the lead has some, and some are in the various other sections. What does everyone think? Facts707 (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "Classification" section? 

message: looking for names of harps pictured with cherubs
thanks in advancr----  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.245.62 (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  proper name for the harp usually held by cherubs 

message: Need a section identifying typical string weights & tensions and resulting lengths for needed notes, which results in harp's shape.71.230.16.111 (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics of harps 

message: In the Types of harp section,can i add the yazh as a type of harp,as it even says that it is a type of harp on this  article?
Simulator-master (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding the yazh in types of harp