Talk:Shawm

message: Much of the new text, while very good, is almost exactly duplicative of previously existing text.  Perhaps the two could be reconciled, preserving the best parts of each version.  Badagnani 09:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New text

message: It appears that the German Schalmei is still produced, or at least still in use today.  I discovered this discrepancy when I looked for information on the Schalmei after viewing a video of a modern band with many Schalmei players.  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gqwk0dgttk)  I have also seen that a collector has photos of what looks to be the same instrument, with comments that they had seen use in Germany as signal horns.  (http://www.horncollector.com/Other%20Instruments/Schalmei/Schalmei%20Horns.htm)
Should these merit discussion in the page on schawms, or do they merit their own page, with a link from the schawm page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjw1961 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern shawms 

message: I'm German, sorry for my horribly english. The "Schalmei" what you mean is official a in Germany called Martinstrompete. But you are right. The most call the "Martinstrompete" "Schalmei", too. For example the Droyssiger Schalmeienplayer's play only Martinstrompeten an have in there name the word "Schalmei". Bonditsch (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern shawms are not Schalmeien

message: i thought that it was a medieval period instrument --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.93.94 (talk • contribs) 
:It originated in the Medieval period and was used in the Renaissance as well.  Badagnani 03:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which period is it from?

message: Removal of the shawm's loud sound is very wrong.  That is one of the defining characteristics of this instrument (which I play).  Badagnani 22:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. I'm trying to think of a way to convey that information that is less subjective than just "loud". Maybe a comparison would work. Is it louder than the modern oboe? As loud as a modern trumpet? MarkBuckles  (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, since you play the shawm, maybe you'd be willing to make a recording and release it to public domain? I'm sure that would be a great help to the article and convey more information about the sound than any words could. MarkBuckles  (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, see what you think of that the lede now. I think the reference to the bore (comparible to the oboe) help us put the quality of the sound in context, rather than just calling it "loud". Thoughts?  MarkBuckles  (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volume 

message: The article alleges that adding a cap to a reed softens the sound.  This is more a function of the shape of the bore than whether the reed is capped or not.  For an example of a capped reed instrument that rivals the shawm in volume, see the Rauschpfeife.
Skyesong03 (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfectly true, and I notice that the claim in the article does not cite a source. Before we change it, though, it would be a good idea to find a reference, lest we be accused of changing one wild claim for another.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to capped reeds misleading 

message: "Its name is linguistically related to the Arabic zamr, the Turkish zūrnā, the Persian surnāy, the Chinese suona, the Javanese saruni, and the Hindu sahanai or sanayi.[ref: Anthony C. Baines and Martin Kirnbauer, "Shawm [scalmuse, shalm, shalmie, schalmuse]", The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, second edition, edited by Stanley Sadie and John Tyrrell (London: Macmillan Publishers, 2001).]"
A linguistic relationship between shawm (ultimately derived from the Greek root kalam-) and Persian surnay appears extremely unlikely. This claim also completely contradicts the etymology given at Zurna and Sorna in Wikipedia and at zurna in Wiktionary. Does The New Grove really claim this? I don't have access to The New Grove, so I can't check this.  --Lambiam 20:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Baines and Kirnbauer do seem to be saying this: "The term ‘shawm’ has developed more than one meaning; since Hornbostel and Sachs (‘Systematik der Musikinstrumente’, 1914) it has been used as a generic term denoting both single-reed and double-reed aerophones, but in organological literature it is applied for the sake of precision to double-reed instruments only, many of whose names are linguistically related to ‘shawm’ (e.g. the Arabzamr, the Turkish zūrnā [sic, no space]], the Persian surnāy, the Chinese suona, the Javanese saruni and the Hindu sahanai/sanayi)."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistically related?