Talk:Jew's harp

message: "The "jaw" variant is attested at least as early as 1774[10] and 1809,[11]"
See also Blue Laws (Connecticut), no. 35.
2001:171B:2274:7C21:C822:E68:E89D:BE33 (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another early use of jaw harp 

message: This article contained a reference to the so-called "Silk Road Foundation", also known as "Silk Road". It's an online publisher. The website can be found here:
https://www.silkroadfoundation.org
This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with Silk Road Journal Online, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
The Silk Road Journal in question is based primarily around  Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by researchers who appear to mostly hail from Russia and China. The sole editor of the publication, an American man named Daniel Waugh, has candidly stated that it has no formal peer review:
http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf
So, the Silk Road Foundation is a speedy publishing mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "'gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication'". A lot of researchers don't want to be published by Silk Road Foundation, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals. 
To my mind, this is very near to the definition of predatory publishing, with the exception that the Silk Road Foundation does not even provide the benefits of high-end predatory puboishers, like DOI. It's really more like an internet blog. 
The Silk Road Foundation is cited on various ethnical and archaeological articles on Wikipedia, often advancing pet theories, which is out of touch with WP:RS, which says that Wikipedia should prioritize high-quality, peer reviewed secondary research over this kind of stuff. 
Although I'm not aware of any controversial material in this particular Wiki article related to its Silk Road Foundation reference, and I have no enmity for the Silk Road Foundation or its publisher, or its authors, this source does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and should not be cited. Hunan201p (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: While Koch and Eulenstein get mentioned the composer who will be most recognized by Germans for use of the Maultrommel or Jew's harp is Carl Orff.  Many Germans are first introduced to the instument through Orff's Schulwerk music education pieces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Orff Please add. 2600:1700:1C60:45E0:B531:4DBA:1E06:66F7 (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Orff's article didn't appear to me to mention his use at all. That said, if you have one or more sources, you're welcome to add the information yourself. DonIago (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  German composer Carl Orff is missing  

message: The range of the mouth harp is an interesting topic and is not a one size fits all. It could also vary (slightly?) from person to person due to different shapes of people's mouths. The notes a mouth harp can make are the higher harmonics (of the frequency at which the mouth harp vibrates) that your mouth is able to reinforce. Your mouth can only contort to reinforce frequencies in a particular range. Think of whistling, it works the same way. The range of your whistle is the range of frequencies your mouth can reinforce (while in a whistling shape, which is not the same as a mouth harp playing shape). Personally, I find my mouth can reinforce frequencies in a range roughly 500 Hz - 3000 Hz. So let's look at an example. G2 is 97.9986 Hz, we'll call it 98. The notes I should be able to hit are the multiples of 98 that fall within that 500 - 3000 range. These are the 6th through 30th harmonics inclusive! The lower the base frequency, the higher the number of the lowest harmonic we can hit, but also the more harmonics we can pack into our range. In my experience, the lower the harmonic (as in the number of the harmonic, not the frequency), the more clear and beautiful the tone, so it is preferable to play as low as you can play comfortably if you're trying to play melodies. There is talk on this page of using two mouth harps, one tuned a 4th above the other, to achieve, I guess some superset of a major scale. But if your mouth harp is tuned low enough to have both the 16th and 32nd harmonic in your range (e.g. C2), that is a chromatic octave right there (16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 27 29 30 32)
Taking a look at the chart we currently have, it says a "tenor" mouth harp (not sure what that means) has a range from the 4th harmonic to the 12th harmonic. This is a factor of x3 between the lowest and highest note. My roughly 500 Hz - 3000 Hz range is a factor of x6. Unless I happen to have double the range of a normal human (and I don't think this likely), this chart is just plain wrong. There is no way to my knowledge to design a mouth harp that is limited to this range, you will either be able to go below 4, or above 12.
sources: Me, as a player of the instrument, and varganist.ru
I would like to edit this article to make changes regarding these things. But I'm hesitant to proceed without some guidance. I'm not sure if I should try to add a different note thing to replace the old one, nor am I sure how much of the information above is appropriate to include, as this is Wikipedia, not a mouth harp playing guide.
Mason Mackaman (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range of the instrument is not correct 

message: Is it possible to damage your enamel by playing it? 37.47.201.21 (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health impact?