Talk:Oud/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

by all other accounts, the lute is not the predecessor but the European version of the oud.

Oud page getting unwieldy...

Friends, there are millions of people in the world who play oud. There are also hundreds of makers. We need to split off List_of_Oud_Players and List_of_Oud_Makers, and get everyone's self-promotional affiliate links off of the main oud page. eliotbates (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

---Why is Yuval under "Palastine" (under oud players)? in his article he is said to be of Israeli descent.--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.7.55 (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Origins of the oud

The oud can not have been derived from the kopuz, as the kopuz was a long-necked lute with a bowl resonator carved out of a single piece of wood, with frets similar in form to the baglama-saz (and therefore nothing like the oud). Cinuçen's comments need to be read not as a well-researched history of the oud's origins, but instead as part of a standard mode of Turkish cultural historiography which ascribes Central Asian origins to every thing that currently exists in Anatolia. Cinuçen, to his credit, didn't persist with this origins theory later in life. eliotbates (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the "History" section, the first and last sentences of the entire section completely contradict each other. The first line informs that the lute and oud in fact descend from a common ancestor, while the last sentence claims that the oud was brought to Europe where it developed into the lute. Not being, hmm, anyone scholarly in particular, I can't really figure out which is correct. But both? No way. ~ john1987

Sorry to say oud to lute lineage is plain wrong. The real picture is a lot more complex.There were European lutes predating oud.Galassi 16:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

the oud may have come before the lute

It may have been brought brought to Europe by the occupying Muslims or by Crusaders returning from the Middle East. When European musicians began to develop polyphonic techniques, they adapted it to the demands of harmony.

Instruments that organologists would define as lutes existed in Egypt in the time of the Pharaohs. A well-defined musical culture was clearly a part of the Greek empire in the time of Alexander the Great, and plucked string instruments were clearly a part of it. Ancestors of the p'i-p'a and biwa were in use in China and Japan several thousand years ago.

---

The guitar is not derived from the lute nor from the oud. The guitar evolved independently out of instruments having a waist, the vielle, viola and vihuela.

Origin of the name Oud?

The Lute wikipedia article says "The words 'lute' and 'oud' are both believed derived from Arabic al‘ud, 'the wood', a derogatory term used by early Muslims for musical instruments of different types, because any instrumental music was proscribed for them."

But here it says, "its name is derived from the Arabic word al-oud 'the wood', which is probably the name of tree from which the oud was made." Oud is also the name of the agarwood or aloewood tree, but I can only find one article saying this was the tree used for the instrument.

It does not seem likely al-oud is both a derogatory name for any wooden musical instrument, and the name for the expensive aloewood. Unless it started as a respectful name for the wood, which later became derogatory (as Arabic predates Islam)? Or else is the tree oud unrelated to the instrument oud?

My main question is whether the oud instrument takes its name from the oud tree?

Ian100 19:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a question to the Talk:Lute page asking for a citation/source for the claim that al`ud is a deragatory term. I've read hundreds of articles on the source of the oud, and I've never seen this claim mentioned before.

jeff 06:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Lute the word in Aramaic, Phoenician and Arabic means “gay”, “merry”, and is associated with music. Lute is also the way you pronounce Lod (as in the ancient prophet). Hope this will be helpful. LebaneseBebe (talk) LebaneseBebe (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Richard Hagopian is an oud player

84.154.59.165 made an edit removing Richard Haggopian's name from the list of oudists, claiming that he plays the duduk, not the oud. He may play the duduk, but he's definitely an oudist. Check out his Wikipedia page or check out this Web site that talks about him: [1]. I've reverted the edits to add him back to the list.

jeff 14:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oudi Hrant image is probably copyright protected

The image of Oudi Hrant that was just added to the page is a copy of the CD liner from one of the collections of his recordings released by the Tranditional Crossroads label. Unless they have given permission to post it here, it should probably be removed.

I think some significant changes need to be made...

1) Tunings. The most common tuning taught in conservatories in Turkey today, the one developed by Cinuçen Tanrıkorur and used often by Necati Çelik, Yurdal Tokcan and Mehmet Bitmez (B F# B E A D) is not listed, and the naming of the various tuning systems currently listed are not based on any local (Turkish) source. There are many other tuning "systems," however, which have developed - I think a more general description of tuning (the lowest 2 strings are very flexible in their tuning, depending on the makams that will be performed, while upper choruses are always tuned B E A D) would be more accurate.

2) Under "Regional Types," I believe an Iraqi type oud should be added. They use a fundamentally different bridge construction, and Iraqi ouds today typically have 13 strings and a different tuning system.

3) A section on electric oud should be written.

The only model of electric oud that's in regular production that I know of are those made by Viken Najarian [2]. Are there other models that are widely distributed? Instead of just strictly electric ouds, I think a broader article that also discusses pickups and other forms of amplification might be in order

Yes, in Turkey there are several makers of varying styles of electric ouds. Saadettin Sandı [3] (Istanbul), Haluk Eraydın (Aydın), and at least 2 other makers have current in-production makes of electric ouds. Before Viken Najaryan, in the US, John Bilezikjian had designed an electric oud that he performed both in traditional Armenian and in more Western rock contexts (personal communication, 1993). There is also a 30+ year tradition of electrifying Anatolian instruments, most notably the 'ud and the various members of the saz family, which has led to numerous artist-created one-off instruments.

4) A section on current geographic distribution would be welcome. The way the article stands, only in the Middle East is there a current living oud performance tradition. However, the oud is important in Morocco, Kenya, Sudan, Malaysia, and other countries not typically considered part of the Middle East.

--85.106.206.211 23:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Martin isn't really a "famous oud player"

I'm removing Jeff Martin from the list of famous oud players. While he may play the oud occasionally, he's definitely more known as a guitarist and a songwriter. In fact, if you look at the details of his latest recording on his web site [4], you'll see he doesn't even play the oud on it. I suggest that we limit the list to those people who are actually known as professional oudists. jeff.lopez-stuit 18:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

New Picture on the page is probably not an oud

I don't think the new picture on the page is an oud. It appears to be a lavta. To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "fretted oud". Is there any source information for this picture that can prove what it really is?

That oud was originally fretted but lost frets eventually is STANDARD SCHOLARSHIP.Galassi 19:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source for this standard scholarship? Here for instance [5] , is a good history, adapted from the New Grove Dictionary of Music, that only makes reference to fretted models appearing on some ouds in the 1900's. Please provide us with a source. jeff.lopez-stuit 20:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The image comes from 12th cent. Iberoarabic Ms. explicitly stating that that oud was fretted. Ask any scholar in the field of medieval lutes and ouds. And Eckhard Neubauer certainly agrees. Eckhard Neubauer, "Der Bau der Laute und ihre Besaitung nach arabischen, persischen und türkischen Quellen des 9. bis 15. Jahrhunderts," Zeitschrift für Geschichte der arabisch-islamischen Wissenschaften, vol. 8 (1993)Galassi 21:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no citation, but my oud teacher agrees with the above statement: that the oud typically had frets, and lost them as Arabic classical music moved towards emphasizing melismatics and employing microtonality in the maqamat. I do not know when this happened, but I will ask and see if I can get more sources for this information. Hraesvelgr (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging Required

The Oud is the same thing as the Lute, but that's just its Arabic tranliteration in English. I'd suggest it should somehow merge with the Lute article asap.

This is absolutely untrue. The two instruments have different structures, different playing methods, and a completely different repertoire. Just because the names of the instruments may appear to be transliterated (which is itself a questionable assertion), doesn’t make them the same instrument.jeff.lopez-stuit 23:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect article

I think that according to the oud history, evidence of the oud was found in the ancient Egyptian times much before the histroy the article mentions.

Also, there is no mention of the electric oud or how it originiated. I think this article is lacking a lot of important features and would like any possible help to refine it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A J Damen (talk • contribs) 13:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Tunings

All the descriptions of the tunings need to include "highest to lowest" or "lowest to highest" to avoid confusion. Different musicians order the strings differently in their minds; some think of the highest-pitched string as the "first" string, while some think of the lowest at the "first." Dyfsunctional 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Spanish "alaud"

The article says...

[..]The name of this instrument is luth in French, Laute in German, liuto in Italian, luit in Dutch, (all beginning with the letter "L") and alaud in Spanish.

But I, as a native speaker, know not of such a word as alaud in Spanish, and the Diccionario de la Real Academia doesn't either.[6][7]

I didn't change the article because I don't understand wether the text is referring to the lute, which is called laúd in Spanish, or to the Oud, for which I don't know the name in Spanish.

Could somebody clarify this please? --cholo 22:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it refers to lute there. Could it have been called that way among some other Spanish speaking people (some dialect) now or centuries ago? Deniz^T_C 23:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

laud, in southern spain, refers to a particular instrument much more similar to a mandolin. There are 4 sizes of laud instruments. In Granada and Sevilla I heard the term "oud" used (I don't know how it was spelled) and not laud eliotbates (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Aloud= the oud. Oud = oud. Loud= the oud. Therefore it is entirely possibly that lute in the Romance languages is a corruption of aloud, loud, etc. however the word lute itself is of Semitic origin. LebaneseBebe (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

People are arguing about transliteration from Semitic languages into English. LebaneseBebe (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, alaud is Portuguese, whilst the Spanish word is laud (which also refers to the Laúd). More specifically, in Spanish, the oud would be, I beleive, be called laud arabe (arabic lute) do distinguish from the European lute and the Spanish laud linked previously. Respubliko de Gvapolando (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Daron Malakian

Does he really play oud? i haven't seen that mentioned anywhere else before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.181.9.93 (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Move oud players and makers to a separate article?

I suggest that the lists of "famous" oud players and oud makers be moved to a new article. These lists are expanding at a rate that they are as long as the rest of the article. The article should focus on the instrument, not the people that play it. It would definitely make the article more readable if the lists were in a different article.

I also question the veracity of the names on this list that don't have sources, and there are a lot of them. At least some of these names (Daren Malakian, Sandy Bull, David Lidnley, Gayle Ellett) are pop musicians that may play oud occasionally, but aren't known for being "oud players", and definitely aren't "famous" for it. There are a number of other names that don't have any source at all.jeff.lopez-stuit (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Udi Hrant CD jacket.jpg

The image Image:Udi Hrant CD jacket.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Gianfranco Lotti?

"Gianfranco Lotti suggests that the "wood" appellation originally carried derogatory connotations, because of proscriptions of all instruments of music in early Islam."

Who is this Gianfranco Lotti, and why should his suggestion (opinion?) be in the article? The only mention I can find of that name on Google is of an apparently famous designer of handbags. I'd just as soon delete this bit.

67.176.99.229 (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Good observation. I've removed it. Middayexpress (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Famous oud players

I'm not sure what the problem was the last time this was done, but I've again removed the nonnotable oud players from the list, as well as the groupings by country. The list needs to be restricted to persons who are notable because they play the oud, not just anyone who has played oud, nor notable people who happen to know how to play. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of notable oud players cited in this article, many of whom have their own Wikipedia articles devoted to them and their art. The list you reduced the List of famous oud players section down to only mentions a fraction of these musicians, and does not indicate from which country/musical tradition they hail. That, in a nutshell, was the problem. Middayexpress (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't need all that information in this article, as it is already provided in the respective articles for each artist. Furthermore, if a player is not notable enough for a WP article, they are not notable enough to be listed here.

Furthermore, I don't believe there was a citation provided for even one of these allegedly famous oud players. BLP must be sourced, and if it is not, it needs to be removed. Please provide citations for all players you wish to keep in the list. The rest will be taken down. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Blanking such a huge amount of content, including entire nations, is damaging to the article. Editing in this case needs to be done very thoughtfully and with care, and with collaboration and consensus between editors interested in this topic. If it is believed the list is too long for this article, list of notable players can be split to a new article, as we do for very many other instruments. Badagnani (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Per WP policy, editing is to be done boldly; BLP information and external links are to be added thoughtfully. If you want to include people on this list, you need to find some citations. If you want to keep a list of external links, you need to be more judicious in selecting candidates for inclusion, rather than reverting to restore commercial websites and dead URLs. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The blanking was and is wholesale, summary, and without consensus. Please restore the blanked text pending a thorough and careful discussion of this issue. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The blanking was anything but wholesale. The list of allegedly famous oud players was trimmed down after a thorough review. From the list, I first removed all the external links and wikified links to actual pages. I then removed the players who were not notable enough for their own pages. After that, I evaluated each player's WP page to determine whether the individual was a notable person who just happened to play oud, or a person who was notable because they play oud. The first group was cut, the second was kept. After that, they were alphabetized and organized. The paring down was, in fact, done thoughtfully. It should not be recluttered with a list of contextless, unverifiable information. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The blanking was very damaging to the article and should be reversed pending a thoughtful, collegial discussion. The structure of nationalities was eliminated and comments were brought up that this was problematic, yet the blanking editor blanked again and again, insisting on imposing his/her version before the discussion had developed a consensus. The proposal that the list of players be split to a separate article was ignored. The tone is highly aggressive and dismissive of the importance of our article's content. Let's work together to create the best article possible, discussing in a collaborative manner. Let's begin by reversing the wholesale blanking, and discuss until we develop a collegial consensus. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to discuss the issue, but I'm beginning to grow concerned that although you're participating in the discussion, you may not actually be listening to what's being said. To reiterate:

1. Information needs to be cited to a reliable source.
2. BLP information especially needs to be sourced.
3. External links cannot be added indiscriminately.
4. Spam links must be removed.

Again, if you want to restore information, please go ahead and do so. Just make sure that you're adding citations and complying with our policies on external links. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point, and that is that many of the artists listed in the famous oud players section of the article do indeed have Wikipedia articles where it is already explained that oud-playing is what they are known for; that is what establishes their notability as oud players. The list you have wittled the article down to omits a whole slew of these artists, divorces their oud-playing from any specific musical tradition by leaving out mention of their national origins, and all without consensus. Also, WP:EL and WP:LINKSPAM pertain to external links, not to internal links, so they can't be used as a reason to remove these internal links. Many different editors have contributed to this section of the article; you can't just throw out a bunch of oud players while retaining only a few you personally deem "notable". At any rate, I've re-added many of the prominent oud players that have Wikipedia articles & removed those without any. I've also restored the formatting so that readers may know at a glance which specific musical traditions each of these artists belong to. Middayexpress (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish I were missing the point, but I'm not talking about wikilinks. I'm talking about the external links -- you'll find them under the heading "External links" -- that you have repeatedly been restoring. Those need to go.

I've also gone through again and cleaned out the players who are not notable for their oud playing, or at least whose notability cannot be verified. From here, I'm wondering what the point is of grouping these artists by country. Are we grouping by their nation of origin, their ancestry, their musical tradition? Whichever it is, how does that information, which is already available at each artist's own WP page, add to the reader's understanding of the oud? — Bdb484 (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice those external links, nor do I have any particular interest in including them. But I do, however, fail to see how removing literally every last external link as you have done falls under either External links or Spam links.

At any rate, the artists are grouped by country because they each represent different musical traditions. Just because two instrumentalists play the oud does not necessarily mean that they are playing the same genre of music. This is not difficult to understand, I think. Whatever the case, I have added link-throughs to each of these artists' respective countries' musical traditions (i.e. Music of Yemen, Music of Turkey, etc.). This way, readers may know at a glance which specific musical traditions each of these artists belong to, and further read up on those traditions if they want to. Middayexpress (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're trying to do, and I can see how the groupings make that information readily available. What I don't understand is how that information is useful to a person who wants to understand the oud. I can appreciate the differences in musical traditions, but this isn't an article about genres, it's an article about the oud. I'm trying to understand how segregating the oud players by nationality explains anything about the instrument, which is what the article is about, as opposed to explaining facts about the players, who are incidental to the article.

With respect to the external links, I didn't see any that complied with WP:ELNO. If I missed something, I hope you'll restore it. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the oud in general: its construction, history, development, distribution and its use, which is why it is mentioned in the article's lede that it is "commonly used in Middle Eastern music." The respective musical traditions are linked to rather than discussed (that's what internal links are for i.e. for further reading). This isn't "segregation" but organization, as I've repeatedly pointed out. And it is quite a common practice on other articles on specific musical instruments too (e.g. Flamenco guitar), nor is there any Wikipedia policy forbidding it. Middayexpress (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Good job cleaning up the linkfarm. Given the size of the "Notable oud players" section, it might be better to split it into its own list article. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea if the list keeps growing in size. In fact, this is something the editor Badagnani proposed as well very early on (albeit to no apparent effect). Middayexpress (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Why ud is categorized under Persian instruments?

Persians entered very late to middle east,and took the cultural of the local Semites and Elamites.

Actually there are ancient Hittit,Semite and Egyptian depictions of Ud-like instruments long centuries before persians came.

Humanbyrace (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The ancestor of the oud is the Persiam barbat and though the oud was long on the periphery of the Iranian world, these days it has seen a revival in Iran. Like other instruments, it is used in the Iranian radif system and can certainly now be regarded as Persian by adoption as much as Arab or Turkish.

JESL2 (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no way you can prove that the oud is a descendent of the so called barbat, because oud was also used by Aramaeans, and Phoenicians (go look up the Phoenician dictionary). So enough with your Iranian complex of trying to appropriate everything. Your sudden interest in things such as the oud are funny, after denying any Middle Easterness for decades lol.

I agree, it is not Persian. It is Semitic, with the name, also Semitic. Start an article for barbat. Because the word oud predates Arabs and is also Aramaean. So we can argue about whether or not you stole the concept from Semites (where it is still heavily used today as an instrument, and not used as widely in Iran), and created the barbat, but what is clear is that oud itself is Semitic. Not Iranian. It is Persian by adoption. It is not Arab by adoption. It is Semitic, Arabs are Semites, Phoenicians are Semites, and so on. I can argue that everything that exists in Iranian culture is mine by adopotion. Take it easy on the appropriating. It is not right to bring your subjectivity here. LebaneseBebe (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Etymology

I took a stab at cleaning up up the Name section – it's inaccurate to say that the words oud and lute are suspected to derive from the Arabic word for a piece of wood. English borrows the Arabic word for the musical instrument (in transliterated form, oud) to refer to the musical instrument. Lute (and all the related European words) were also presumably derived from the Arabic word for the instrument, not from a word for a piece of wood. What's in question (as I understand it; I don't have references handy) is the original application of the Arabic word for a piece of wood (or the Persian word for string, or whatever) to the musical instrument. Feel free to improve further if you can! /ninly_(talk) 04:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Music lesson Staatliche Antikensammlungen 2421.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Music lesson Staatliche Antikensammlungen 2421.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Goblet drum 01.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Goblet drum 01.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Defining features"

"A tapering neck: The oud, unlike the lute, the mandolin and the guitar, has a tapering neck with courses of strings converging towards one another at the pegbox end. The parallel courses found in lutes, mandolins and guitars are not necessary as music in the maqam system does not consist of series of chords."

This is demonstrably false. I can't speak to lutes, but guitars and mandolins do in fact have tapered necks. Also, parallel courses of strings are not necessary for forming chords. I would propose doing away with this section unless I have missed the point and someone can show me the error of my ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisr18 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with most of this, but the oud does have a much more pronounced taper (and this may be better described as a change in string spacing from nut to bridge) than other chordophones. Chords are relevant because you need a wider string spacing on the neck if you are going to be playing polyphonically than if you are only playing single notes, and maqam basic music is largely monophonic.--Ericjs (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Oud is not a Greek instrument

The Oud is not a Greek instrument. Therefore I feel that the template & edits that Koyrda66 added should not be there, it is also the same edits that previous blocked sock accounts ((BouzoukiGr & Peoplok) of Plouton2 has made in the past. I welcome other users to comment about this. ProfessionalScholar (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Risha removal

I've removed those pictures of the rishas. They're really not that helpful to the article and are making the page look untidy and unprofessional. Sbgrant (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Relation to Barbat

From the pictures on both the Oud and Barbat articles, it seems to me that they are the same instrument. I propose the article be combined unless there is anyone else that doesn't agree. --Arzashkun (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

How about researching it and summarizing what the sources say? --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, they should not be combined. They are two different instruments. I feel better that you don’t appropriate my culture. LebaneseBebe (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Courses and strings

How does this article manage to leave out mention of something as basic as the number of courses / strings? --Ericjs (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

No mention of the tuning?

I see some references in these comments to previous notes on tunings, but it all seems to have been deleted. This is the first article I have read in Wikipedia about an instrument that does not included any technical musical information about the instrument at all. Seems like a gross omission for such an ancient and important instrument. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.160.12 (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Whole article needs rewriting

The whole article needs rewriting, for many reasons. Most of the information is not (or poorly) referenced. There are too many factual errors, especially in the History section. There are no indications about Ancient ouds. Modern ouds cited are only iraki ouds. I have started rewriting it all, while keeping what seems correct. I have finished the introduction, and intend to finish the re-writing within the end of the week. Suggestions are welcome. Muhaqqeq (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhaqqeq (talk • contribs) 21:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Finished rewriting, with pending questions

I have finished, for the time being, rewriting the article. A few citation need still be provided. One citation (no. 20 in the following) is a Newspaper article: "19th-century writer Muhammad Shihab al-Din related that it "places the temperament in equilibrium" and "calms and revives hearts."[20][verification needed] Following the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of the Ba'athist regime in 2003, however, the increasing fervor of Islamic militants who consider secular music to be haraam (sinful) forced many oud players and teachers into hiding or exile.[20][verification needed]" Although I found the quoted phrases in the article, I wonder if this can be a reliable reference for what Shihab al-Din said in the 19th century, as the journalist cites no references for this. Another problem arises with the title of this reference [which is: Erica Goode (May 1, 2008). "A Fabled Instrument, Suppressed in Iraq, Thrives in Exile". New York Times], which suggest that the instrument has been "suppressed" in Irak, which is not the case today. If somebody have answers to these questions, more reliable info or references, this would be greatly appreciated... Muhaqqeq (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311013511/http://tdk.org.tr/TR/SozBul.aspx?F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6AA849816B2EF05A79F75456518CA&kelime=ut to http://tdk.org.tr/TR/SozBul.aspx?F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6AA849816B2EF05A79F75456518CA&kelime=ut

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Barbat, and the origin of Oud

I don't understand the excessive mentioning of the barbat. This should just be an article on the barbat rather than the oud. LebaneseBebe (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BIAS

User:LebaneseBebe shows WP:BIAS by continuously removing or downplaying references to Jewish/Israelite connections to the oud or its historical antecedents, without any justification. The claim that only Mizrahi Jewish music incorporates the oud is false, and the insistence on excluding mention of a Biblical Hebrew cognate as if it were indistinguishable from or identical to Canaanite or Aramaic is blatantly incorrect and biased. Removal of a citation showing this is unjustified, and LebaneseBebe's claim that Syriac predates Biblical Hebrew is factually incorrect. LebaneseBebe's biased falsification and vandalism of this article is unacceptable, and the user must either adequately source their claims or cease and desist attempting to revert corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batanat (talk • contribs) 23:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Oud Jewish

I have listed oud under Jewish as Mizrahi and sephradi, otherwise you might as well as list or as Austrian, British and so on. LebaneseBebe (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC) LebaneseBebe (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sephardi* LebaneseBebe (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you're claiming that Ashkenazi Jews = Austrian, British, etc.? Which is false. Again, your edits vis-à-vis Jewish relation to the oud are recurrently indicative of WP:BIAS, and I would ask you to please desist from making changes on the subject unless you can give adequate citations. Batanat (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

text from article

I am moving text from the article here in case it can be added back into the article.Jacqke (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

However, in both Turkey and Iran, as well as in Arabian countries, the main short-necked lute in use today is the oud. The oud has a particularly long tradition in Iraq, where a saying goes that in its music lies the country’s soul. It lies at the core of the music of Modern Egypt and other Arabian countries. A ninth-century Baghdad jurist praised the healing powers of the instrument, and the 19th-century writer Muhammad Shihab al-Din related that it "places the temperament in equilibrium" and "calms and revives hearts." Following the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of the Ba'athist regime in 2003, however, the increasing fervor of Islamic militants who consider secular music to be haraam (sinful) forced many oud players and teachers into hiding or exile.

References

Make changes for a better article!

Hello! I have edited this page, but the latter has changed. I wanted to say that I think the part below be under "history" heading and not at the start. This creates better formatting. I also add tunings to Arabic and Turkish. But it is deleted. Sorry for English language apologies. Thank you.: ფანდური (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

     "In the first centuries of (pre-Islamic) Arabian civilisation, the oud had 4 courses (one string per course – double-strings came later) only, tuned in successive fourths. These were called (for the lowest in pitch) the Bamm, then came (higher to highest in pitch) the Mathnā, the Mathlath and the Zīr. A fifth string (highest in pitch, lowest in its positioning in relation to other strings), called ḥād ("sharp"), was sometimes added for theoretical purposes, generally to complement the double octave.

     "In Pre-Islamic Arabia and Mesopotamia, oud for instance, used to consist of 3 strings only, with a small musical box and a long neck without any keys. But during the Islamic era the musical box was enlarged, another string was added (the number became 4), and the keys base (Bunjuk) was added. Historical sources indicate that Ziryab, has added a fifth string to the Oud. [4]

     "The Modern tuning preserves the ancient succession of fourths, with adjunctions (lowest or highest courses) which may be tuned differently following regional or personal preferences.

     "The first mention of an actual fifth string is by 11th-century musician, singer and author Abū-l-Ḥasan Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn a-ṭ-Ṭaḥḥān in his compendium on music Ḥāwī al-Funūn wa Salwat al-Maḥzūn.

     "The first known complete description of the ‛ūd and its construction is found in the epistle Risāla fī-l-Luḥūn wa-n-Nagham by 9th-century Philosopher of the Arabs Yaʻqūb ibn Isḥāq al-Kindī.[5] Kindī's description stands thus:

     "[and the] length [of the ‛ūd] will be: thirty-six joint fingers – with good thick fingers – and the total will amount to three ashbār.[Notes 1] And its width: fifteen fingers. And its depth seven and a half fingers. And the measurement of the width of the bridge with the remainder behind: six fingers. Remains the length of the strings: thirty fingers and on these strings take place the division and the partition, because it is the sounding [or "the speaking"] length. This is why the width must be [of] fifteen fingers as it is the half of this length. Similarly for the depth, seven fingers and a half and this is the half of the width and the quarter of the length [of the strings]. And the neck must be one third of the length [of the speaking strings] and it is: ten fingers. Remains the vibrating body: twenty fingers. And that the back (soundbox) be well rounded and its "thinning"(kharţ) [must be done] towards the neck, as if it had been a round body drawn with a compass which was cut in two in order to extract two ‛ūds".[6]

     "The first description of the "modern" oud is by ibn a-ṭ-Ṭaḥḥān. It is very similar to the construction of modern lutes, and to the construction of Western lutes.[7] The modern oud is most likely derived from the Persian barbat, which, in turn, probably stems from the Indian lute-type vīnā. Similar instruments have been used in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia for thousands of years, including from Mesopotamia, Egypt, North Africa, the Caucasus, and the Levant; there may even be prehistoric antecedents of the lute.[8] The oud, as a fundamental difference with the western lute, has no frets and a smaller neck. It is the direct ancestor of the European lute.[9] The oldest surviving oud is thought to be in Brussels, at the Museum of Musical Instruments.[10] 

I added much of this back into the article with references as I found them.Jacqke (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Smith reference

I am writing about the following which I have changed:

Smith and others argue that the long-necked variety should not be called lute at all, since it existed for at least a millenium before the appearance of the short-necked instrument that eventually evolved into what is now known as the lute, nor was it ever called a lute before the 20th century.

That line originally came from an anonymous writer, who gave no more information. <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lute&diff=155096119&oldid=155094091>.

I believe that the reference this came from was <Smith, Douglas Alton (2002). A History of the Lute from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Lute Society of America (LSA). ISBN 0-9714071-0-X.>, as it is the only source I have seen that makes sense. I don't have access to the book however to verify.

I have rewritten the sentence into something that should be easy to verify as true or false for someone with access to the book:

Douglas Alton Smith argues the long-necked variety should not be called lute at all because it existed for at least a millennium before the appearance of the short-necked instrument that eventually evolved into what is now known the lute.

Jacqke (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Earlier prehistory, needs sourcing. Some is valid but looks like original research right now

I am moving this from the article to here until it is sourced. Sachs and Dumbrill (see article for more info on these men) both talk about the early period mentioned here in their books. It looks like there is confusion and this needs to be adrressed carefully from sources.

Likely origin isn't proven origin, however, and there is a history of short-necked lutes in the Near East, Mesopotamia, dating as far back as 5000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent. Archeologists have found evidence of oud-like instruments in the Mesopotamian city of Ur dating back to more than 4000 years ago. The Mesopotamian lute arrived in Egypt and was already widespread there around 1700 BC. Archeology suggests that the Egyptians developed an early short-neck lute. The Near Eastern lute would go through many developments in the Hellenistic period. The lute was a major instrument in the Bronze Age Levant, in Canaanite, Israelite, Judean, and Egyptian cultures.

Jacqke (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

References

'Related instruments'

Why are all the 'Related instruments' listed in a list of bullet points? I wonder if it might take up less space simply listed with commas like on the Lavta article? Respubliko de Gvapolando (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Oud pronunciation

It would also be helpful to have link about how to pronounce the word "Oud".