Talk:Bodhrán

message: Could somone put a page for crowdy crawn linked from the mentioning here... I could fill it out then with some info rather than putting a mini article in this one (theres a fair few nice stories about 'crowdy crawn') , ie if you search the internet you won't actually get any relevent sites because 'crowdy crawn' is also used in dialect to mean something like 'micallanious', the reason being that people used their crowdy crawns like a drawer to store misc stuff in... etc. I don't want to stick all this on the bodhran page.
cheers
(NM) 131.111.8.103
 
modern bodhráns are usually tuneable.
there are different tuning systems and the amount of tuning mechanisms is somewhere between 4-12 in a normal tuneable drum.
however there are also some bodhranmaker that put even more mechanisms into their drum
famous bodhranmakers where these tunable drums can be seen are e.g christian hedwitschak (www.bodhranmaker.de) from germany ; seamus o'kane and darius bartlett - both from ireland ; norbert eckermann from austria
----
Pronuciation. This page says "bow-rahn", but bow can rhyme with "go" and with "how", so this is no help. I reckon "Rahn" rhymes with "darn". The ceilidh page says "Bough-Rawn" - here Bough could rhyme with any of rough, cough, though, through etc - hopeless. And "Rawn" rhymes with dawn not darn. CONFUSED! -- SGBailey 22:08, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
:"Bough" means a large tree branch and is pronounced the same as the bow of a ship or the courteous bow to show respect. --Fire Star 19:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: crowdy crawn

message: This had to go (although I agree with the sentiment)! Christy Moore may deserve a mention in the earlier list. The other two have not recorded, as far as I can tell SiGarb 18:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been discussion and editing of the Players section since 12/2005. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to remoe the players section - it adds nothing to the article. Could you imagine the article on guitars including all the guitar players?  what's the point?  Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "musicians" section 

message: Hello, friends. – I'm restoring that image, as it's very good at illustrating how the tipper is held. I read the comments when removing the name (privacy concern), and see that  Vincent restored the image, but wanted his name there, or didn't want his likeness displayed at all. I think that's fair, and the privacy concern was resolved when he restored his name by direct editing action. The photo was removed again, asserting that it's "advertising". I don't think it's advertising (as per WP:NOT for advertising, article 3., but really article 2. Self-promotion is more relevant I think) just to have his name present. Referring to Conflict of Interest: Self-Promotion, I don't think his picture or the band Harmony Glen's page on WP fail the NPOV requirements. ... Since the photographer and subject have both indicated that they don't object to the photo's use on WP, I don't think we have an issue. Let's not get into an edit war over one silly picture. --David Spalding | Talk 16:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo of Vincent Pompe van Meerdervoort  

message: The list of "notable players include" is getting out of hand. I'd like to limit it to, oh, 20 of the most notable, but I'm sure someone's toes will be scrunched by removing a fav. Problem is, some notable players (Ringo McDonagh, for one) don't have articles (you can create one, I hear someone saying), and some obscure players have article links, so that's not a good rule of thumb. I'm open to votes from previous editors of this page for 5 of their favoritest players to leave on the list. Consensus rule, not voting, FWIW. TIA! David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, we have got to set some restrictions on the Players section other than just "anyone who can be linked to." I suggest we list "notable players" 1) for whom the bodhran is their primary instrument (not whistle players, accordian players, bagpipe players, who happen to tote along a drum, too), 2) who are recorded or written up in third party, reliable media sources (reviews, books, essays), and 3) whoi can be mentioned as having an influence on the Irish Traditional or Celtic Music scene. The list, and the page, is not served IMHO by having as many bodhran-playing yahoos listed as we can fit on the web. Got a contention to this, PLEASE ADD YOUR VOICE HERE. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, should be the primary instrument except in exceptional circumstances--Beaumontproject 21:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a shame to see it stripped back. I only just added my name and site the other week - mainly because I'm responsible for the growth of the online community relating to the Bodhrán (Bodhránii and now the Bodojo.com Forums) as well as developing the idea for reviews and other editorial content on a dedicated site (now an integral part of the Bodojo project Paul Marshall and I are now responsible for). The Bodhrán is my main instrument, as a percussionist and not a melodic instrumentalist, so it's nice to have a mention in these kinds of places for the work I've done for the community at large to date.--Cat Lake 09:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cat, I can see how you may be notable, but there are two policy/guidelines at work here. WP:NOT#IINFO (not to mention WP:FIVE) mandates that long lists are not what WP is for. Granted there could be 120 notable players that a congress of us old-timers could nominate without complaint, but we still ought not to list 120 players. WP is not an almanac. WP:LISTV also has a number of important criteria when assembling any list. Also, please review WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and External links to avoid (conflict of interest) carefully. Regardless of your c.v. and accomplishments (which I will not confirm or deny), writing about or listing yourself is strongly discouraged. I'm presuming that your intentions were other than self-promotion, but the list loses credibility if we let players list themselves. Better to let an unbiased third party write about you on WP. The usual requirements of WP:V, WP:RS apply.  David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not primarily to promote myself, not at all, but it was an attempt to ensure WP readers understand how far the instrument has come in the last 100 years and who is responsible for making it more of a mainstream instrument these days. This is currently missing from the WP page on the Bodhrán and there's no mention of it's evolution and the modern design techniques and playing styles used today.--Cat Lake 14:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Other policies and guidelines to considerWikipedia:Embedded list<BR />List guideline<BR />WP is not a collection of indiscriminate informationLists in WikipediaWP:Five Pillars
*Regarding the last point in response to Cat Lake's message, David Spalding is correct and spoke very diplomatically as well.  Regarding this thread in general, while it may be of benefit to be a little more discerning as to whom is included on the list, I am thankful at least that some person didn’t bitch about my removal of supposedly notable persons who could not even be linked. House of Scandal 18:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I did bitch about it to myself, but then I chilled out and reminded myself to find other things to do with myself. ;) Some eagle-eyed editors might've noticed that I incorporated some notable players into the text sections and removed one or two from the list. We could do more of that,.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)
===Growing again===
I see that once again anonymouse editors and registered editors are adding listings to the Players section. Be prepared to defend teh notability of the players as I or other editors remove them. Relevant policies which discourage listing yourself include WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:COI, WP:EL. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bodhrán#Players]]

message: I see that once again anonymouse editors and registered editors are adding listings to the Players section. Be prepared to defend teh notability of the players as I or other editors remove them. Relevant policies which discourage listing yourself include WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:COI, WP:EL. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Growing again

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 15, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: WP:LEAD - Lead needs several paragraphs.
:2. Factually accurate?: There are a LOT of unsourced statements.  Here are a few, chosen at random: The bodhrán was used during the Irish rebellion of 1603, by the Irish forces, as a war drum, or battle drum - Who said it was?  Peter Kennedy observed a similar instrument in Dorset and Wiltshire in the 1950s, where it was known as the "riddle drum", suggesting this instrument may have crossed over from Ireland to England, or vice versa. - Who said he did?  Although most common in Ireland, the bodhrán has gained popularity throughout the Celtic music world, especially in Scotland, Cape Breton, and Newfoundland. - Who said it has?
:3. Broad in coverage?: Has anything important/interesting ever happened re. this instrument?  Other then its history?
:4. Neutral point of view?: A good player of any style accompanies and enhances the tune, rather than uses the tune as an opportunity to show off or go through their repertoire of techniques. - Stuff like this needs to be cleaned up.
:5. Article stability? 
:6. Images?: 
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— Giggy UCP 04:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Bugger. I did some cleanup earlier this year, added as many WP:RS sources as I could, and tried to impose NPOV. The article continually gets WP:NOT#SOAP-violating Player additions, and uncited, biased anecdotes as above. I don't think this article would stay GA for very long. :(  David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: I'm puzzled that Christy Moore doesn't receive more (moore) attention due to him being one of the most notable players who doesn't use a tipper and who uses the instrument for solo accompaniment. (83.13.39.98 (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Christy Moore

message: Is it worth considering a short section about the image the instrument has within trad music circles. The old image of a session with one fiddle player and six bodhrans spawned many jokes which are part of the bodhran culture, including the damned 'penknife' comment which every clown in the pub thinks you've never heard before.(83.13.39.98 (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: image within traditional music

message: Commonly mis-pronounced /'bɒdrʉm/ (i.e. bodrumb)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.75.158 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: I've seen this painting (Snap-Apple Night) used in a couple of places (including at the moment here) along with the claim that is is a depiction of a Bodhran.
It's quite clear if you examine the painting that it is a tamourine. You can see the tambourine jingles and it is being held in the manner of a tambourine not a Bodhran.
Here's a link to a jpg of the painting.  http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b66/StephenChambers/Maclise_snap_apple_night.jpg
There is another version of this scene that shows clearly that this is a tambourine: http://www.pipers.ie/images/gallery/BG/Shaughraun.jpg
I don't know who did this version.
Basically, the Comhaltas article seems to be wishful thinking and the claim ought to be removed from the Wikipedia article. Ecadre (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Hohenloh  +   14:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you disagreeing with?  The fact that this is a tambourine?  You might say it's not clear and that it might be a bodhran ... but here is the question. There is *no* depiction of a bodhran in any picture or painting from this period. This is the only one that some people are claiming, and then resting the whole fanciful ancient history of the bodhran upon. Pictorially (as explained above) I think it is quite clear that this is a tambourine. It fits in with the period, tambourines are mentioned in many sources, both written and pictured. What is the liklihood of it being an instrument that was not used in Irish traditional music until the 1950's? Even those who claim an older origin to the bodhran than the 1950's concede that it was not used in traditional music. So, again, even if you contend that the painting is not clear, what is the probability that it was a bodhran? Nil.  Ecadre (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This picture is of a traditional Polish band. The drum on the right is like a cross between a bodhran and a tambourine. It is a single-sided drum, with jingles, played with a single tipper and the heel of the hand. http://www2.polskieradio.pl/nowatradycja/poprzednielata/2009/_img/opocznianka.jpg (188.146.91.65 (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a tambourine being played with a drum mallet. Why you think a Polish person playing a tambourine with a drum mallet has anything to do with a discussion on bodhrans is beyond me. Ecadre (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Daniel Maclise painting