Talk:Ten-string guitar/Archive 3

Refactor in progress

See also user:andrewa/ten-string guitar scratch pad. Andrewa (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Progress (against the outline):

See /Archive 2#...Go for this outline. Andrewa (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Restructure

Done as foreshadowed, in that the new sections and headings are there, if a bit stubby.

Old sections have been left in the appropriate new section. They'll progressively disappear. Andrewa (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Refactor the section on Yepes etc

Started. A big challenge, with lots of unanswered but answerable questions. Andrewa (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The main work on this is done. There are still large sections with rather esoteric phrasing, but the layout is now logical, and duplicate material is largely removed.

This edit is the most radical, deleting a great deal of material I considered either repetitive or just plain unencyclopedic. The others are basically refactoring. Comments on it are welcome; Have we lost anything important? Andrewa (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorporate material previously rejected

Started. Andrewa (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

user 83.93.43.128 attempted to add Egberto Gismonti to the list of composers, but was reverted with the comment Not the same instrument. He writes for a 10-stringED guitar, but not for the historically significant instrument discussed here. Gismonti is described in the article on him as playing classical 10-string guitar. Question: Which instrument does he play and write for? Andrewa (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

B.C.Rich material... some of it's back. Need information on particular players, and to double-check the string config... this says it's the treble strings that are single! Andrewa (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Contact contributors of previously rejected material

Still to even start. Andrewa (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Abuse replaced by a welcome at Janet Marlow's user talk page. I've also asked her about some photos, see below. Andrewa (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome placed at User talk:9frontier9. Unfortunately this user posted this reply to Viktor and has not edited since, and has no email connected to their user page. Andrewa (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to resume editing place on user talk:58.161.124.131, another user who confonted Viktor over the content of this article (with civility faults on both sides in this case) and has apparently quit Wikipedia as a result. Andrewa (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't quit as such, more that I simply cannot be bothered editing frequently. I only added the BC Rich instrument, because I've never seen a similar instrument made by any other brand and no other page mentioned it. I still use wikipedia frequently, but I think that because of excessive personality conflicts due to people being people, I will forget being an editor (unless I come across vandalism, which I'll do my best to fix). Victor is obviously very protective and conservative about music, and I doubt he will ever change his methods of editing wikipedia. An interesting idea that just sprung to mind, was perhaps seperating Narciso Yepes style guitar, from the others. I dont know how strict wikipedia is on seperation and whatnot of articles, but I think it might be a good way for you to keep civility in this case. If I do come across any good sources or information regarding the 10-String Bich, I will leave links or references on the talk page, so you and other editors can appropriate them to wikipedia guidelines, however I wont be actively researching the guitar in the forseeable future. Thank-you for your appreciation and kindness and good work with the current state of the article.58.161.124.131 (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood.

It had also occurred to me that perhaps this page should be a high-level page, with other articles on the details of particular types of ten-string guitar, as you suggest. Viktor has in several places said that the Google ranking of this particular article's URL was important to him, so I don't think he'd find this an acceptable solution. But his block has expired and he hasn't yet returned, so we just have to deal with that if and when he does turn up, and meantime we do the best job we can without him.

One question is whether the detailed article should be about all extended-range ten-string classical guitars, or just about the Yepes tuning. I'm forming the opinion that the Yepes tuning is used by a vocal but decreasing minority of ten-string classical players, and I've even been told (still to confirm) that Ramírez specifically designed his "Yepes" ten-strings - designs which are still available from his family firm - to accept the variant tunings too! If that's all true it explains a lot, and it would also mean that a balanced article on extended-range classical guitars would be no more acceptable to Viktor than the current more general article, and perhaps less so.

Good to hear from you! Did you see that another of my correspondents (via email) found another electric 10-string design? Andrewa (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That thing would be extremely hard to hold, I've played 8 string Ibanez guitars and couldn't fit my hand around them.

Is there any information on it's factory tuning? Musicians using that many strings on electric guitars are usually playing in a subgenre of jazz or heavy metal, and metal guitarists are known for down-tuning. I personally wouldn't be sure it uses Yepes' tuning, so I'll have a look around and see if i can find any info for you.58.161.124.131 (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Little progress. This is important to avoid straying into WP:OR, but it's going to be the longest job probably. There's lots of good stuff already in the article that's poorly phrased, and that while verifiable isn't adequately supported by the existing citations. The rephrasing comes first, as it's pointless to provide citations for stuff that won't survive the refactor anyway. Andrewa (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Reality check

That comes last! Andrewa (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Andrewa (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the initial refactor phase is over so far as I'm concerned, so I'll remove the underconstruction template.

I'll keep improving the article, perhaps a bit more slowly, there's a long way to go to Good Article status. In particular:

• Need at least one photo - preferably more.

• Still some esoteric wording to rephrase.

• A whole section (on the ten-string jazz guitar) is missing... just a heading so far.

• Balance is still Yepes-centric IMO... for example:
  • We should have diagrams giving other notable tunings of the extended-range classical guitar.
  • The Partial Bibliography is two works by Yepes, and one by Ramirez on the Yepes guitar.

• Alt text for the tuning diagram.

• Lots more references to find.

See Where we've come from below. Andrewa (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed material

Removed from see also the wikilink to Yuri Landman#Moonlander. The relevance of this highly experimental 18-string electric guitar to the 10-string article escapes me... Any theories? Andrewa (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed section:

Standard tuning

The standard tuning of the modern ten-string guitar is (from string 1-10):

• e^I - b - g - d - A - E - C - B♭ - A♭ - G♭

(as written in the Helmholtz pitch notation system) which can also be written enharmonically as:

• e^I - b - g - d - A - E - C - A♯ - G♯ - F♯

In the so-called Scientific pitch notation, or American system, the tuning is written (from 1-10) as:

• E4 - B3 - G3 - D3 - A2 - E2 - C2 - B♭2 - A♭2 - G♭2

This is the string configuration and tuning, that was originally developed with the idea of enhancing and balancing sonority, by allowing bass strings to vibrate in resonance with all 12 chromatic notes.

NB. In both pitch referencing systems the octave starts on C. Thus, correctly, string 7 or C should be that with the widest diameter and lowest pitch. String 8 is thus a minor seventh above string 7, not a whole tone below it. Numerous authors, apparently not au fait with these systems of notation, have misrepresented the instrument's tuning in print. It is thus no surprise that numerous guitarists have also adopted erroneous string configurations in order to tune one or all of strings 8, 9 and 10 an octave lower than they ought to be.

It seems to be all either pointless repetition of material already in earlier sections, or controversial hearsay. The only thing that might be saved is the tunings expressed in Helmholtz and Scientific notation... assuming they are accurate, I have not checked. But the wisecrack about so-called Scientific notation should go at least, and surely the diagram that shows the tunings on the music staff is the preferred way of specifying the tuning? The others are just confusing IMO. Andrewa (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, this edit removed a great deal of text. IMO all of it is either repeating something already said better elsewhere in the article, or is unencyclopedic for some reason... unverifiable opinions, mostly. But I may have missed something, there was a lot to wade through. Andrewa (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

More removed sections

The following section was considered for moving to the more detailed ten-string extended-range classical guitar article, but it gives no specific works, the composers are already mentioned, and the quote from Yepes is unsourced, so sadly there's no useful material in it. If the quote could be sourced that would be different. Andrewa (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Works specifically composed for the instrument

Aside from the fact that the instrument opens up possibilities for more faithful transcription of music originally written for lute or keyboard, it also opens up new possibilities for original composition, as exemplified in the solo guitar works of the great Modernist composers Maurice Ohana and Bruno Maderna who wrote substantial works specifically for this instrument.

Of course, the final reason is that, if I have a 10-string guitar, I have within it a six-string guitar; but if I have only six strings, I do not have 10. I have all the advantages and none of the disadvantages." However, he warns, "it is very difficult to find a well-made 10-string guitar, and the number of poorly made ones on the market have led many guitarists to assume that those instruments are bad because they have 10 strings. No - they are bad because they are bad!

— Yepes, 1981

Another radical edit

This edit removed the last of the unsourced Yepes quotations, with some reluctance. I hope some of them might return if we can source them. The other material removed has been refactored and included in the Ten-string extended-range classical guitar article, or was already there. Andrewa (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos

Some photos are essential if we're to even think of Wikipedia:good article status. I've asked Janet Marlow, and Viktor, they seemed two good possible sources as they're both active players and obviously have access to instruments, they both have websites with suitable photos already, and both have accounts at English Wikipedia. Any other suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

After some consideration I've removed the Photos section, which consisted of one external link Narciso Yepes with his ten-string guitar. It's an interesting idea to link to images in this way rather than copyright-clearing them, and I can't offhand think of any MoS section or other guideline or policy that forbids it, but I'm still uneasy about the concept. So very interested in other views. If it stays of course we can and should expand it. Andrewa (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

We now have two photos courtesy of luthier and ten-string enthusiast Michael McBroom. More to follow. Andrewa (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the following section from the article, and written to www.narcisoyepes.org and other contacts to seek GFDL released photos of Yepes. Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos

• Narciso Yepes with his ten-string guitar,

Ten-string jazz guitar

See http://www.janetmarlowmusic.com/ and particularly this image captioned Janet Marlow and Luthier Mike Shishkov (with?) a ten string jazz archtop guitar made for JM. At this stage it's not notable enough for an article of its own IMO, but it probably deserves a mention in this one. Andrewa (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Janet Marlow

There have been at least two problems with mentioning Janet Marlow in this article up until now:

• She set up a userid User:Marlowten and userpage that is blatent advertising, and at the same time added a link to one of her own sites to the article... not a good start!
• The principal author of the article up until then, User:Viktor van Niekerk, disagrees violently with her use of alternative tunings and possibly other aspects of her method.

When I do a google search on "ten-string guitar" I get her site as the top hit, and our article as the second (your results may differ for several reasons). This indicates (not proves) to me that assuming that the ten-string guitar is notable, so is she. (And it also shows we're doing well despite some hiccups... no surprise.)

I also note that she is the author of the ten-string method published by Mel Bay Publications, which is an excellent line for any guitarist's resume. Andrewa (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong about this... it was and is self-published. Mel Bay has however published music arranged by Marlow for the Marlow Method tunings. Andrewa (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Where we've come from

Just to baseline... this is the article before I started to edit it. There's lots of room for improvement still, and room for discussion about many content issues. But I'm hoping that it's plain that progress has been made. Andrewa (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should also say... I've posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guitarists#Ten-string guitar just asking for collaborators on this rewrite. I also had a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments but it appears to be inactive, sadly. I've emailed one of the former participants who listed steel guitar among his interests, and I'll contact others through their talk pages and who knows, it might even get it going again. Andrewa (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical guitar is also marked inactive, and the most recent news item in Portal:Classical guitar is dated October 16, 2007. Hmmmm... Andrewa (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Baroque tuning

The baroque tuning seems a little strange to me... two strings tuned alike! But that seems to be what is described both at http://www.tenstringguitar.com/tuningsforthe10string.html and by the previous text of our article, which read since 1963 ten-string guitars that seem to be modern in appearance have been appropriated by some proponents of the abovementioned Romantic ten-stringed guitar, tuning the additional strings diatonically from D to AI (a system also known by the misnomer "Baroque" tuning). Hmmm... Andrewa (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed... I had it wrong. Once you know what they're describing, all the various convoluted accounts on the web start to make sense. Just took me a while... Hope our page is clear!

Another point is that while this is commonly called the baroque tuning, that's something of a misnomer... it's far more closely related to the music of the romantic period than to that of the baroque period. But baroque seems to be the most common name. Andrewa (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed

Current article reads:

Johann Kaspar Mertz is known to have played ten-string harp guitars. Based on surviving instruments and urtexts of music written for it, the following tuning was used:

• e^I - b - g - d - A - E - D - C - B_I - A_I

This is possibly WP:OR anyway, but it would be good to know exactly which urtexts support the claim. The Johann Kaspar Mertz article has links to four online libraries containign urtexts pertaining to him. I looked at the indexes of two of them, and if any of their contents are written for harp guitar it's not obvious to me which.

But I'm inclined to leave this one in for the moment, it's an interesting snippet and IMO accurate, as Viktor wouldn't have left it in otherwise. Elsewhere he refers to his own private library as one of his sources. This may be an example. But medium term, it may threaten WP:GA status. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Current article reads:

A ubiquitous misconception (also among 10-string guitarists) is that these additional strings are intended to simplify the execution of bass notes by playing as many of them as possible on open strings, as on the lute. However, this approach is not consistent with the performance practice of Narciso Yepes. Actually, he played all notes between the tones of the open 6th and 7th strings as stops on the 7th string, not on individual open strings. This is evidenced in autograph manuscript sources indicating his own fingerings, which also show an implementation of the open (and stopped) strings 8-10 that, however, never becomes gratuitous or perfunctory.

Lots of interesting stuff there, in need of rephrasing - at least borderline WP:WEASEL. And needs a citation of course, maybe more than one... I put a fact tag on it a few days ago. Andrewa (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

But I think the main citation problems are dealt with, so I'm removing the Morefootnotes tag. Andrewa (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Insignificant resonances

Central to Yepes' choice of tuning for the extra strings is his decision that harmonics representing factors other than 2 and 3... that is, other than intervals of octaves and fifths... don't contribute significantly to the resonance.

Another ten-string player has written to me and called this into question. Now, this isn't the place to pursue the original research that might settle these competing claims, but it does suggest that there may be another notable POV out there which the article should report. Andrewa (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This claim has started some very lively email! Please, you are very welcome to write to me stating and supporting your POVs on this matter, but if you hope that I will be the one to include your material in the article, it must include citeable sources that establish that it is encyclopedic. Preferably, sources available online (and without requiring me to create a user account, let alone pay for one) if you want me to check them quickly.

I also frequent Ku-ring-gai municipal library (who of course have some inter-library loan facilities), Macquarie University library, and Fisher library at Sydney University, but my time at these libraries is precious, so it may take a while. Better to provide refs here where other contributors can use them as well. TIA Andrewa (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Article split

Partly in response to a suggestion above, I've started an article at Ten-string extended-range classical guitar just to see how it went. I was in particular open to the possibility that I might just merge the result back in to the section here in the fullness of time, and still am.

But it's going surprisingly well. Despite the still longish nature of this already radically cut-down section, there is much room for expansion... The history, repertoire and references sections for this instrument were for example sadly lacking in detail.

In hindsight it might have been better to have instead moved this article and started a new more general article here, but I can still argue that both ways, and in any case that opportunity is now past. Andrewa (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Baroque guitar again

Over the weekend I found an image of a ten-string baroque guitar from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and a quick check of their website came up with some details of this and another in their collection, both of them described as guitars by their organologists. In view of this, I've promoted the baroque guitar from its position in the also-ran list to having a short section in this article. Andrewa (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is a guitar. But it is COURSED. It is a FIVE-COURSE guitar, not a 10-string guitar.

Nobody is disputing that it's a five-course guitar.

The question is simply, does it come under the scope of this article? It seems to me that, under Wikipedia's article naming conventions, it does. Are you disputing this?

Or do you wish to change the conventions? Andrewa (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Alder Andrewa is misusing his status as an admin to distort proven musicological conventions/facts in a personal vendetta against Viktor van Niekerk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.133.166 (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Viktor's longer post and my reply at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Administrator has been misusing his status to launch a personal vendetta. Andrewa (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Now dismissed and archived. Andrewa (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)