Talk:Glass harmonica

Glass Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Musical Instruments Start‑class Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Percussion High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Percussion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Percussion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PercussionWikipedia:WikiProject PercussionTemplate:WikiProject PercussionPercussion
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glass harmonica article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

"The Music of Madness: Franklin's Armonica and the Vulnerable Nervous System" in Neurology of the arts: painting, music, literature, Frank Clifford Rose.
Glass Armonica from KXJZ's Insight.

Article name

Why is this article called Glass harmonica when all the references in the article call it armonica? Shouldn't we simply move the article to armonica? --Walter Görlitz 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Glass harmonica" is a generic term referring to any rubbed glass instruments (including those with glasses mounted in wooden boxes). The "Armonica" is one very specific variety of glass harmonica, and Finkenbeiner's instrument isn't exactly an armonica due to many design differences. Franklin was not the first person to play a rubbed glass instrument. Thus the recent change putting his invention at the very top of the article should be changed back, as it paints an incorrect picture. Badagnani 06:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, a clear distinction must be made at the beginning of the article. That "also known as" part is very misleading. I got to this article looking for Franklin's glass armonica (linked from Benjamin Franklin) and it was very strange to see the different name. Maybe the armonica should have its own article. (Antonio.sierra 19:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Harmony

With the danger to be considered just another Greek, I think that harmony is based on a Greek word. Pls refer here: http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harmony

I think in general that it is better to either make the effort and search 2 seconds for an information instead of just declaring as fact one's opinion or leave the information totally out.

accidentals

the coulours when talking about franklin's armonica says As are reds etc, while 'accidentals' are white. i would not say this is exactly true, as an accidental would be more in refernce to the notes on a page of music being outside the key signiture, as opposed to being in to relation to a note. I am however not familiar with american musical terminology in relation to the british, as such i haven't edited the article. Please would someone who is knowledgeable about american music theory/ wording see if the article is correct.Telekinesis99 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, as an accidental would also include naturals, and the phrase is only referring to sharps and flats. If you know of a better way to phrase it, please change it.Broolaf2 23:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Glass harmonica" may refer both to the "armonica" as well as musical glasses

This well known album by Bruno Hoffmann, who played the musical glasses, labels his instrument as "glass harmonica." The Franklin invention is the "armonica," but "glass harmonica" has been used as a generic term referring to both the armonica and musical glasses. Badagnani 03:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BADAGNANI you are WRONG! Very soon I will be taking out ALL references of glasses filled with water as "Glass harmonica" playing. If you insist on your false interpretation of the word then I will be taking it up with other people. The very nature of the name, "Glass harmonica" means that it is capable of producing musical tones in harmony--- something wine glasses cannot do, because you have to play them one by one. Please cease and desist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.218.118 (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please place new comments at the bottom of the page. Regarding the use of the term "glass harmonica," I've provided evidence below, that the Bruno Hoffmann album uses the term "glass harmonica" for the set of wine goblets in a box. "Armonica" is the Franklin instrument and "glass harmonica" is a generic term that may refer to either the set of glasses or the Franklin instrument. Badagnani 04:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Hoffmann called his instrument a "Glasharfe" (glassharp) on several of his recordings and I read an text about his instrument, where it was mentioned, that he used the name "glassharp" for a set of musical glasses, which where in a special arrangement on the table. I think, sometimes the musical glasses (I call them "Gläserspiel") are called as a "harmonica" from musicians, who do not have a original armonica. Someone wrote in this discussions, that it is not possible to make harmonies on the musical glasses. This is not completely true and is no single criteria to distinguish both instruments. In the "Adagio für Glasharmonika" KV 617a there are only 2 or three bars which I can not play on my musical glasses. There are other details which differ at both instuments: playing the musical glasses makes a sound like a vibrato at each turn around of the finger at the glass, because the finger changes its position to the glass at each moment. Playing the harmonica makes a more constant sound because the finger is at the same position every moment and the glasses move themselves. I think, the term "Harmonika" has got a new meaning in the 19th century, when the accordion has been invented and was called a harmonica too. Since then it has been neccecary, to call the glass harmonica "glass" harmonica. Martin Hilmer 30.11.2008

Nutcracker

Why is the reference to the Nutcracker's originally calling for glass harmonica being removed? Badagnani (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Peter Sterki's book [footnote] pg. 97 he says that the Nutcracker's first draft was for glass armonica. However, I'm Peter Sterki, and since my book was published, I and others have done more research, including consulting with the Tchaikowski Society in Moscow, and the first draft of the Nutcracker did NOT call for glass armonica after all. Future of editions of my book will have that assertion removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.173.204 (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the question is, how did that information get into the book in the first place? That is, was there some kernel of information that was correct, such as that Tchaikovsky *thought of* using this instrument at first? Badagnani (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what he was thinking. But fact is, that Tchaikovsky had already used the celesta in an orchestral piece 'The Voevoda' (1890-91), and his letters show that it was always his intention to use it in the ballet 'The Nutcracker', which he was then just beginning to write. The autograph scores and first editions of both the suite and the complete ballet show the solo part for celesta, with a note that this may be played by piano if the celesta is unavailable. Tchaikovsky never employed the armonica in The Nutrcacker, or any other of his works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.140.223 (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you Peter Sterki too? It is not clear who is speaking. This doesn't explain how the glass harmonica reference made it into the first edition of the book. Badagnani (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main goal of my book was to make clear, that there are a lot of wrong stories about the instrument. (Unfortunately it is written in german) Some pieces for armonica still are lost, others are mentioned in historical articles or dictionaries. From the Tschaikovsky-Society I could learn, that there is no evidence for the Nutcracker. If you don't believe me please contact forum-AT tchaikovsky-research.net. Peter Sterki --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.140.223 (talk • contribs)

So what was the origin of that story? Or is the origin unknown? Badagnani (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The origin must be in some older article I read during my research. After 7 years I can't remember where exactly. Anyway. Does it matter? - The information is wrong. (Even in Bruno Hoffmanns Book you will find misinformations about the armonica.) Peter Sterki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.140.223 (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's important because now that this Wikipedia article is out there (and has been reproduced in its old, incorrect form), it should be important now to add a sentence in the article mentioning that this belief is a fallacy (with citation about your research at the Tchaikowsky institute). Badagnani (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you requested, I went back through my notes and found the reference you are asking for. "P.I. Caikovskij, Glasharmonika-Part in der ursprünglichen Orchestrierung des Feenballetts Der Nussknacker, 1892, St. Petersburg": Reckert, Sascha: Glasharmonika. In: Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Hrsg. von L. Finscher. Kassel 1994ff. Bd. 3, Sp. 1413.

- This misinformation is also in my book, pg. 97. (Sterki, P.: Klingende Gläser. Bern 2000) Peter Sterki

Reversion of my edits

Badagnani, reverting ALL 24 careful edits from an experienced editor because you didn't like one of those edits is unreasonable. I don't have time to detail my reasons for all 24 edits so I will mention just a few:-

You have reverted my "glass harmonica" back to "Glass harmonica" (but musical instrument names are NOT capitalised.)
Elsewhere you have reverted my “glass harmonica” to “glassharmonica” (but the instrument name IS 2 words.)
You have reverted my "1980s" to "1980’s" (which is just silly, dates are not possessive!).
You have reverted my “there is no scientific theory” to “there is no known scientific theory” where “known” is superfluous because it adds no extra meaning to the phrase. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was unsure how to evaluate the large edit as I'd noticed things were removed, but without explanation. Some of your edits were indeed good. Badagnani (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life is too short for me to explain a major editing session on the article's Talk Page, particularly since I am (as you are) highly experienced in editing so the vast majority of my edits are good ones. However, thanks for your understanding. It would be best if I take the article off my watch list asnd leave you to edit it as you wish. Regards - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bloch and his glass harmonica

why not change the name of the article to "Thomas Bloch and his glass harmonica" if the first thing we see on the page is Thomas Bloch? IIIIIIIII (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" players

I'm going to pare down this list a bit. Many of the names are unreferenced, and the people themselves don't have articles. It seems to me that if they are indeed notable, someone will write an article about them, and then they can be on the list. They should at least have a citation that demonstrates some iota of notability. Cadwaladr (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glass xylophone

Saint-Saens' Carnival of the Animals usually substitutes a celesta (a percussive instrument) but sometimes a glass harmonica is used; however the article suggests that Saint-Saens intended a percussive instrument with the same name, but gives no further details. The learned discussion above sheds no light on this. --Straw Cat (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for quote in "purported dangers"

I'm not sure whether or not a citation through Google Books is allowable or not, but I found the quote requiring a citation in the Purported Dangers section of the article: http://books.google.com/books?ei=Tm9US-bHDI-cMrOwgYIN&cd=1&id=jf7WAAAAMAAJ&dq=The+armonica+excessively+stimulates+the+nerves&q=excessively+stimulates#search_anchor

The full text of the book is not available, but you can clearly see that the quote is correct, if perhaps missing a [...] or something between the sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartGilbert (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Handel

Who added that Handel composed for the glass harmonica? He died before it was invented. We have to watch for this sort of thing, as allowing such wrong material to be added undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. 173.89.236.187 (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends a bit on what you mean be "invention". The article has a version in existence by the 1740s, and Handel lived until 1759. He cannot have composed for Benjamin Franklin's glass harmonica, no, but it is feasible that he may have written for this earlier instrument. I have never heard that he did, but further investigation is called for. Thanks for calling attention to this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checked, found nothing, deleted Handel. Thanks again.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... seem to be German"

Is it just me, or is there something a bit odd about the phrase "... all the commonly cited examples of this rumor seem to be German, if not confined to Vienna."? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1180639.1180751 Mrfoogles (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]