Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Content deleted Content added
Andrewa (talk | contribs)
Andrewa (talk | contribs)
wikispam
Line 44: Line 44:


I thought long and hard about this longish name. The obvious altenative is ''nine-string classical guitar'', currently a redirect here. I didn't choose that because it would include harp guitars and the decacorde, but I wouldn't be all that upset if the other name were chosen, and the article rescoped to match the name. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 03:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought long and hard about this longish name. The obvious altenative is ''nine-string classical guitar'', currently a redirect here. I didn't choose that because it would include harp guitars and the decacorde, but I wouldn't be all that upset if the other name were chosen, and the article rescoped to match the name. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 03:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

==Wikispam==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ten-string_extended-range_classical_guitar&diff=274157926&oldid=273694727 these edits] by Viktor appear to be promoting his POV with regard to ten-string tuning.

The link he has added to his personal website is [[wikispam]] IMO.

The link he has removed is the best I can find to set out the various tunings. I'd love to find a better one. But while I don't wish to comment on the rest of the site, but there is no misinformation on the page to which I linked.

Both sides are describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings. Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:31, 2 March 2009

To split or not to split

This article is in the process of being split from the ten-string guitar article, and may well end up being merged back there... we'll see how it turns out. Splitting was a suggestion of another contributor at talk:ten-string guitar, and does solve for example the problem of what to do with the Partial bibliography section from that article, which has become the Further reading section here. Andrewa (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the potential problems with this approach is that it could become a content fork. That's obviously not a danger right now as I'm the only active editor of either article. Andrewa (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The split is looking a better and better idea... The section on history is already larger than appropriate for the more general article, and the sections on repertoire and references should expand to be so. Andrewa (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some things to do

Repertoire

It would be good to list some specific pieces under some or even all of the modern composers who have written specifically for this instrument. Andrewa (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tunings

Details of scordatura tunings, in particular those reputedly used by Yepes himself for his lute music transcriptions. Andrewa (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Andrewa (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

I've said the question of to what extent these various other stringings and tunings compromise this aim is somewhat controversial, but is it really? Frankly, this is currently based on the archives of talk:ten-string guitar and the history of that article, in which one particular contributor took a soapbox stand defending the Yepes tuning and attacking all others, as he has also done in various blogs and discussion groups. A reliable source to show that this view has support would be good. In particular, something by someone who realises (as Helmholtz pointed out long ago) that the theory of music is based on physiology not just physics.

The original Yepes tuning appears to me, like the ten-string itself, to be something of a fringe view at present. Most classical guitars still have six strings, even those sold by the Ramírez company, whose most noted luthier invented the modern ten-string. And most ten-string players use other tunings. I could be wrong here, and I don't want to stray into WP:OR. But mainly, some evidence would be good. Andrewa (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind about that... my best guess following a great deal of ongoing discussion at http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/10string/ is that the Yepes tuning is most common, followed by baroque/romantic, with Marlow last of the common three stringings. Still a bit speculative, and no reliable secondary sources to cite. Andrewa (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Marlow's Approach Guide: Self-published, not published by Mel Bay

Marlow's list of publications with Mel Bay (including no "Approach Guide"): http://www.melbay.com/authors.asp?author=1675

Amazon.com lists the publisher as "Janet Marlow Music LLC (April 2005)", not Mel Bay: http://www.amazon.com/Playing-Ten-String-Guitar-Approach-Guitarists/dp/1599752611/

I happen to have a copy of Marlow's Approach Guide in its DVD format: clearly self-published.

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, thank you, and my mistake evidently. Mel Bay has published work by Marlow, and cites her as something of an authority on ten-string guitar, but the method does appear to be self-published. Andrewa (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

I thought long and hard about this longish name. The obvious altenative is nine-string classical guitar, currently a redirect here. I didn't choose that because it would include harp guitars and the decacorde, but I wouldn't be all that upset if the other name were chosen, and the article rescoped to match the name. Andrewa (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispam

these edits by Viktor appear to be promoting his POV with regard to ten-string tuning.

The link he has added to his personal website is wikispam IMO.

The link he has removed is the best I can find to set out the various tunings. I'd love to find a better one. But while I don't wish to comment on the rest of the site, but there is no misinformation on the page to which I linked.

Both sides are describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings. Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue. Andrewa (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]