Talk:China cymbal

message: I've removed the  tag. There's no mention of this article at Wikipedia:Requests for expansion, nor any discussion here obviously. The article seems to cover the main points already, so the tag serves no purpose. Andrewa 03:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand notice removed

message: Current article reads:
However not all chinas are "trashy". The Zildjian Oriental Classic China produces a rich and broad sound with little trashiness in its hit.[1]
However when you follow the link, it leads to http://www.zildjian.com/EN-US/products/productDetail.ad2?catalogID=1013&typeID=13&productID=1267 at the Zildjian website which says:
20" ORIENTAL CLASSIC CHINA Unique among Zildjian China cymbals. Features a dramatic, swooping and very broad upturned lip in a truly authentic, original Chinese fashion. Together with a unique hammering technique and thin taper, the Classic Chinas produce a fabulous, explosive "China" sound with richness and full-bodied, yet trashy overtones.
Confused? Someone is! AFAIK all china types are at least a little bit trashy, and the Zildjian cymbal cited is an example of this. Andrewa 20:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trashiness?

message: I've removed the wikilink to bell. The article at bell has nothing to do with the use of the word here. But it does suggest another possible article, bell cymbal. Andrewa 13:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikilink to ''bell''

message: Current article intro reads a "trashy", offensive, and explosive tone. Their origins can be traced back to the gong in both sound and shape, which is similar to material I've removed before.
Problems:
1. Explosive: Not really. Smaller, thinner cymbals tend to be explosive; Big thick chinas behave very much the same as any big thick cymbal, with a slow attack and decay. Many non-china splashes and crashes are far more explosive. But in any case explosive tends to be a sales literature term, rather than a good description of the inherent sound of a particular cymbal... In play, whether a cymbal sounds explosive is far more dependent on the drummer's technique than on the cymbal (but bad drummers are often conned by these promises). 
2. Offensive: I know what they mean, but some chinas are very mellow and non-irritating, particularly the better ones from Ufip and Saluda for example.
3. traced back to the gong... in... shape... Not really. Talking of the gong makes even less sense than talking of the drum... there are lots of significantly different gongs from bowl gongs to orchestral tamtams. China cymbals do take after the chau gong in sound, but not in shape... it has no boss, so if they did, they'd have no bell. 
I'm not going to remove it a second time, I'll just post this warning that I think this material is inaccurate. Andrewa 09:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explosive?

message: I found it strange that the first paragraph labels the China cymbal as sounding offensive, in addition to the trashy comment.
I don't think that China cymbals sound offensive at all. What about the rest of you? I'm going to edit out this remark, and if all of you don't agree, then you can put it back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.25.188 (talk • contribs) 
:Perhaps grating would be a better term. They certainly don't ever sound sweet like a thin crash can, although they can sound mellow. 
:But I agree that this particular claim is best removed. It's not true of all china cymbals; It sounds like a promotional description of a particular series or model of cymbal. See my comments above. Andrewa 00:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Offensive" sound?