Talk:Hurdy-gurdy

message: I deleted this:
"concerning a certain, ahem, scandalous practice related to the hurdy-gurdy."
Not very encyclopedia-like.
Worldmaster0 01:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I partially restored it ("ahem" gone as per your wish, but "scandalous" in because the practice was scandalous by contemporary standards; this is hardly controversial). As for "not very encyclopedia-like", all I can really say is BFD: what do you think this is, Encyclp[a]edia Brittanica? Come on. Take a look around here. --ILike2BeAnonymous 01:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Most Hungarians actually don't relate it to the buzzing bridge at all, but rather to the sound of a warped wheel. Fenevad 16:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AHEM 

message: Anything on tuning, different keys it can be tuned in? Abbyemery 19:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Standard" tuning (for an instrument with one chanter and two drones) is A-E-A (chanter tuned to E). I'm sure there must be other tunings. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The above tuning is for Hungarian instruments. For French instruments common tunings are C/G (drones in C and G, chanter in G) and G/D. (drones in G and D, chanter in D), but all sorts of capoed and modal tunings are possible.  Fenevad 02:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have added a graphic addressing standard tunings to the main article. That should help. Fenevad 02:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The instrument is generally semi-chromatic, it is only the drones and trompette which make it diatonic. A significant amount of experimentation is being done at the moment, for example by Denis Siorat, to find a reliable capo system for these, bringing it closer to full chromaticism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuning 

message: Does anyone have a better image of a tekerő for the photos near the top? The one there is absolutely terrible and represents a very atypical and poor-quality instrument. I have a lot of photos myself, but none of them have clear IP that I can assign to Wikipedia under an appropriate license.
Fenevad 15:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have since replaced the problematic image with a better one, but would appreciate any replacements for it that are of a better-quality instrument Fenevad 02:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tekerő photo? 

message: If anyone has photos with clear rights that can be used to illustrate the section on types, please post them and add them to that section. I believe that will benefit the article considerably. --Fenevad 16:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of various types of hurdy-gurdies 

message: For ILike2BeAnonymous, please keep personal sniping about other's contributions out of the edit summaries, especially when what you are criticising is not in fact what you edit. While I appreciate the useful edits you made with the description "Clean up your 'cleanup': remove excessive details from lead", (1) they were not to what was referred to as a cleanup in the work I did, and (2) they did not actually remove any real details at all, but were instead primarily stylistic in nature. I don't know what I did to bother you, but ad hominem sniping and misuse of the mechanisms of Wikipedia to make it are not useful and you are the first to criticize others for similar lapses.
Fenevad 01:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks but no thanks. If your skin is really as thin as you make it sound, I suggest you take up something else as a hobby other than editing here. (Remember what it says right here below about having your stuff "edited mercilessly".) +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My criticism was rather about the inaccuracy of what your edit summary said. I have no problem with being edited, even edited mercilessly, and, as I said, I appreciated the editing. However, your description of the edit was inaccurate and therefore not useful for someone trying to understand what was done and why. I don't care if you edit what I wrote, but please at least be accurate in your description and don't take others to task for things you apparently don't actually want to edit... Fenevad 02:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of edit summaries 

message: I am wondering if it would make sense to move the organistrum to a separate article. There are enough differences between the organistrum and modern hurdy gurdies that I think it would help this article flow better if the organistrum information were separate. Any thoughts on the matter? -Fenevad 02:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should. --Bandurist 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need a txonomic tree meme, as you also need to describe the chiffonie and symphonie at the first level, and various regional types at the second level.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add it. The taxonomy here describes only extant types other than recreations of historical forms. But you are welcome to add in another branch for historical symphonie types. - 09:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organistrum status 

message: Can someone who plays using the Bourbonnais tuning please confirm that the graphic I posted is correct? I based in on Alden and Cali Hackmann's description of the tuning, but since I don't play this tuning (unlike the other two), cannot confirm it.  -Fenevad 02:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuning graphic 

message: The recordings section seems to clutter this article up a bit and many of the recordings listed seem to be rather marginal in terms of information about the instrument. What should be the criteria for determining whether a recording should be listed? Also, would it make sense to make the list of recordings a separate article to keep it out of the main article? This is an approach I've seen on articles for other instruments. Any pros or cons to this approach? If I don't hear any opposition in the next few weeks, I will probably go ahead and move the list of recordings out to the other location. -Fenevad 03:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After receiving feedback on Wikipedia's policies on long lists of links as part of the peer review process, I went ahead and moved the Recordings section to its own subpage and added a link from the first main section of the article. This keeps the information available without cluttering the main body of the article. +Fenevad 22:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After a quick look, I didn't see the link from the main article.  I'd suggest adding a "See also" section and putting the recordings link there. -- Takwish 22:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it after reviewing recent history.  I still think it would be better as a clearly-titled link under "See also." -- Takwish 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the link more prominent in its own section. I have tried to avoid a "See also" section since, at present, it would only have one or two items (I moved the only items that had been in that section to the infobox instrument template, which gives them greater prominence and actually makes their purpose clearer). I can recreate a See also section, if folks think it would be OK with just a few items... -- Fenevad 13:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your latest edit resolves my main concern regarding a clear description of the link, and you have a valid point regarding  the one-item "See also" section. Works for me. -- Takwish 23:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recordings section 

message: The following external links violate the guidelines WP:EL and I'd recommend removing them. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a link repository WP:NOT#REPOSITORY.
*http://www.hurdygurdy.com/mailinglist/index.htm - don't link to mailing lists
*http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/HurdyGurdyForum/ - don't link to forums
*http://simonwascher.info/drehleierbauerliste.htm - leads to wiki redirect (don't link wikis, personal sites, foreign language)
*http://www.overthewater.org/festival/ - commercial/promotional (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam)
*http://www.gurdy.co.uk/ - commercial promotional (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam) Nposs 18:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion. I have deleted all of the links except the first, which has been recast as a pointed to Olympic Musical Instrument's reference pages on the hurdy gurdy. I believe that this should allay your concerns. Best, +Fenevad 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Great working going on here. Nposs 01:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shooting yourselves in the foot in the process. The UK forum is by far and away the most active amongst players, and trolls are excluded. You have consequently cut yourself off from your major source of up-to-date information!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isn't that these sites aren't useful. Rather it is that linking to them in this fashion doesn't contribute to the article. Any and all of these can be linked (with specific linking to content) to substantiate points in the article. But general lists of links like this are problematic because they tend to balloon over time since everyone wants to get sites added due to the traffic driven from wikis. We haven't cut ourselves off from information at all: just because something isn't linked here does not mean that editors are unaware of it. I know that a number of the regular editors here are active in the UK group (myself included) and the U.S.-based group as well, so relevant bits have a path to make their way here and if you think something you gained from those groups is missing here, you are more than welcome to add it. I agree that the UK group is quite good, but a bare link to it here isn't considered appropriate for Wikipedia. -Fenevad (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links - suggested removal

message: I put the GA nom on hold because I think the article is visually confusing.  The placement of pictures seems arbitrary and the text wraps in an inelegant way around them, particularly in the last section.  Additionally, there is a combination of different heading types that is similarly inelegant.  The origins section is too long w/out a section break but later sections are too short, and there is a mix of different types of lists that seems a hodgepodge.  The article is pretty good otherwise and this is not a huge concern, but it would be great if someone who is good at formatting could make the article flow better on the page.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article caught my eye on the GA candidates list - so I've had a bash at improving the layout, hoping it is an improvement. SeanMack 13:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the look. My only concern is that with moving the listing of types into the section on design, there is now a mix of descriptive information about the instrument and its function with an organological classification. While the two are related, I find it a little confusing to get to something on design and be dumped straight into a list of types with brief discussions. I am going to move that part to the end of the section at the least, because I find it disruptive in its current spot. But thank you SeanMack for what is an overall improvement to the shape of the article. +Fenevad 14:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice edits - definite improvement. SeanMack 14:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, very much improved, I took the liberty of tweaking the picture placement to avoid the big spaces under the headings - shouldn't be a problem for anyone.  I definitely think this qualifies as a good article, I will pass it on the GA page.  Thanks to the editors for working on this article.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Something this article does need, however, is more inline cites.  Especially in the history section.  I'm sure all of that stuff is coming from somewhere, right? Also, to approach comprehensiveness, it needs a section on "the hurdy gurdy in culture" or something like that, mentioning how the instrument figures into other types of music besides hungarian folk, and how it figures into literature etc - such as a mention of its symbolic importance in Muller's Winterreise and Schubert's subsequent setting thereof, etc. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I have been trying to drum up some of this information (much of it is in the Nagy work translated by Lommel, but it would be ideal to rely on citations to other works that are more widely available (the Nagy work is somewhat difficult to get at present, although I believe a U.S. edition may be in the works at some point). I will work on this next. Thanks +Fenevad 21:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The authoritative English work is Samuel Palmer's 1970s study, although some articles in the Journal of the Galpin Society are also relevant. However, the modern instrument has moved on considerably in ways which this article does not reflect, including an entire school of advanced play in styles reminiscent of certain forms of modern classical music.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Palmer’s work has some major problems, including outright ignorance of some eastern traditions (although, in her defense, access to information on those traditions was pretty limited for western scholars during the Soviet years), and I would hesitate to call it authoritative as a result. Be that as it may, please feel free to improve the article with information on what you think is missing. It is only as good as what people will make it, and I rather suspect that most of the editors here are not using it in the styles you mention. -Fenevad (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: We need some way of deciding what counts as notable external links. Someone just added a YouTube video of a player. I'm loathe to remove it, as it is useful for showing the instrument being used, but it raises the question about why other much more notable videos on YouTube, like those of Gilles Chabenet, are not included. When we open that door up then suddenly we need a HUGE list of videos and the list becomes useless. I'm not sure how to handle this issue, so I'm wondering if anyone has some good suggestions.
Best, -Fenevad 01:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why WP originally banned memes on all living persons, taking the historians viewpoint that all participants had to be dead to permit NPOV. You need an objective view of performance, and that may mean deciding to be somewhat behind the times in deciding what was finally representative.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: There were a series of edits to the sections on classification recently. While I am certain that the editor meant well, the edits resulted in numerous inaccuracies (Hungarian instruments being listed under both small and large wheel), duplications (the zanfona appeared in three different places), and other problems, like the large wheel section treating French instruments as the exemplar, an approach this section was designed to avoid. I would request that editors in the future take the time to understand how this section works (it's really not difficult) before jumping in and making a muddle of it. -Fenevad 15:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits to Large Wheel section 

message: I just reverted or modified a bunch of changes from a "proffesional". My rationale is that they were simply wrong in most cases. Here is the list and the justification for reverting. If the individual who made the changes wants to clarify why he/she meant and change the article, that's fine, but the changes as they were created problems.
* Rolling fiddle. I can't find this term used anywhere at all, online or in scholarship. Wheel fiddle, on the other hand, is quite common and easy to find. Perhaps wheel fiddle rolling fiddle (-03:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I concur with all your changes and explanations. +ILike2BeAnonymous 16:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have played a folk harp for 25 years and am just learning to master a Gotschy HG. Firstly, some of the early Irish harps were tuned with distinct drone strings, although this no longer exists, of course. However, drone fingerings are common. Secondly, the early forms of guitar appeared centuries after the organistrum died out, and its sound-board bracing is later yet. The lute and guitar forms obviously reflect the hybridisation of these instrument designs in place of the box-shaped symphonie in the sixteenth century.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

text: As far as "romance music" is concerned, he may well be talking about the secular forms of trouvère music from the South of France from the late mediaeval period, which almost certainly were accompanied by some form of symphony, amongst other instruments. Paint wider than the tight term trouvère, to include all forms of secular music including the minne tradition and troubadour forms. Works like Dufay's lost ground motet for the L'Homme Armé mass seem to call for a form of hurdy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tips from a proffesional" 

message: A recent edit  added to the discussion the idea that HGs are thought to have descended from fiddles. It provides a vague citation to Baines. I'm not clear that the consensus is that the organistrum was a descendent of the fiddle, per se, rather than a parallel invention using some principles. Does anyone know if this change is accurate? I'm inclined to remove it as speculative, but don't want to if it's well accepted. Unfortunately the person who made the edit wasn't logged in, so I can't approach him/her for clarification. -Fenevad (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If the full text of Baines was accessible for free, I'd read it and verify. It's really hard to tell without being able to read any of the actual content of the review or the original book. A history of European folk music cites the Bröcker book without mentioning a connection to fiddles. Lark in the Morning might not count as a reliable source (although I think it should), but they say "The origins of the hurdy gurdy are unknown but one theory says that when the Moors invaded Spain they brought with them many stringed and bowed instruments." From Iowa State there's another reference to Bröcker. This page says the organistrum was common in the 12th century, so originating in the 11th century seems plausible. I think you're right that the argument for descending from fiddles isn't convincing.  I think you could cut it; it could always be replaced if someone comes back with a better and more accessible source. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a worked example of why the deletion of links to working sites is a bad idea. An extensive discussion I was part of on the HG forum concluded fairly definitively that the organistrum is derivative of various experiments associating a byzantine lyra with the toy attachments added to water organs in the 12th century. The only simila fiddle instrument is the Nickelharpa, where the earliest carvings show the wheel slot from a symphonie type of instrument - the wheel had been removed as it's notoriously difficult to maintain  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was that links to general sites outside of specific reference doesn't help. If you want to mention this sort of thing then you find a link to the specific discussion about the origins and link to that. Such a link will not be controversial and will add to the article. But the general links to the top level of fora don’t serve as references for content, which is why they are removed. Can you provide a link to this discussion? I'd actually be surprised at some of what you say because we know that key fiddles were formerly more widespread and I haven't seen any with a slot where a wheel was removed: instead the earliest ones I am familiar with are clearly designed as bowed instruments. In any event the origin you suggest contradicts most scholarship on the subject (which doesn't mean it is wrong, but rather that that explanation would need to be demonstrated), but perhaps the discussion you saw (which we can't see without a reference) introduces something new. Please feel free to jump in and edit and add such things in (along with your citations): that's how this improves. -Fenevad (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to fiddles 

message: In the UK we retain many of the French terms, such as tirette for the cord tensioning the trompette string. For this loose bridge, we use the term "dog", or the French "chien" which it is translated from, because it is what it looks like, a stylised Highland Terrier!
The ancestry of this is from the Trompette Marine, which was fashionable at the same time in the 16th century when the Hurdy acquired this feature, absent from Symphonies, an instrument which has a similar unstable bridge.
Where did you get that term from? It's roughly descriptive, sure, but it's not the correct terminology. I've been close to hurdy players for 30 years and I now have one I'm learning on. So although I'm not Chabennat, I'm first-degree friends with Clare Salaman of The Academy of Strange and Ancient Instruments and Sym, and Stevie Wishart, the leader of Symphonie. I'm also a Chester Minstrel alongside very many of the UK players.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.94.109 (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your question here? Where the term "buzzing bridge" comes from? If so, I’m surprised at your statement that it isn’t correct. it is actually the generally accepted term, especially when discussing instruments outside the French tradition, although dog and chien are both used in more informal discussion. In scholarly literature, buzzing bridge is certainly the term used and most players I have worked with know and use it interchangeably with dog or chien. I've been playing for well over a decade and buzzing bridge is pretty common in the U.S. and in most discussion I've been in. So it certainly is a correct term for the part in question and is arguably more correct than either of the terms you prefer when you leave the French tradition. -Fenevad (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buzzing Bridge 

message: Hello everyone, 
I have created five new userboxes for hurdy-gurdy players (see table below) in the gallery of music instruments userboxes. There is one userbox stating that the user plays the instrument, plus one userbox for each of the usual levels of proficiency.
You can now also add the following new user-categorization links at the bottom of your user pages if you wish to be included in the list of Wikipedian hurdy-gurdy players:
hurdy-gurdy
Category:Wikipedian hurdy-gurdy players
Category:Wikipedian hurdy-gurdy players-1
Category:Wikipedian hurdy-gurdy players-2
Category:Wikipedian hurdy-gurdy players-3
Category:Wikipedian hurdy-gurdy players-4
Enjoy! 
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.  (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New userboxes and user categories for hurdy-gurdy players. 

message: Dear All, 
Just a few minutes ago, I removed a file ("File:Ernst Müller Zitherspieler mit Bierkanne.jpg|thumb|200px"), which had been added at 16:52 on 25 January 2014 by Hafspajen.
The reason for my action, as documented in my edit summary, is simply because this illustration shows a beggar with a zither resting on his knees and holding a beer mug in his left hand. A zither is obviously not a hurdy-gurdy, as anyone looking at this illustration should have concluded; even the caption of the file says "Zitherspieler mit Bierkanne", meaning "Zither player with beer mug".  
Although I have edited the prose of this article several times since this illustration was added, I did not notice it until today, mainly because I tend to focus on the text of articles rather than on their illustrations.
I decided to leave the present comment section on this talk page because there was activity around this illustration, earlier today, where one editor correctly pointed out that it showed a zither and not a hurdy-gurdy, and another editor removed the comment because it had unfortunately been added to the caption of the illustration. So, I fixed the issue by simply removing the illustration altogether, as it should never have been added to this article in the first place.   
I apologize for not noticing this erroneous illustration earlier, thus allowing it to appear in this article for nearly 17 months!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 20:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of illustration of a Zither.  

message: Should there be a recording of the unique sound embedded for us who have never heard one?
User:108.206.158.232(talk) 22:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: User:108.206.158.232 There is a recording now Roostery123 (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for a sound recording. 

message: While I was listening to the sounds, it sounded a lot like an accordian to me.
Angrybirdsfan2005 (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sounds like an accordian