Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Even though this was recently refactored, I think this article needs a lot of work. Just to give a few examples, Bach's name is never mentioned and frequency divider organs get as much coverage as "pipe" organs. Also, many organists find calling an organ a "pipe organ" to be redundant, as usually an organ is considered to be an instrument with pipes (e.g. answers.com), and if it is otherwise, then the specific type of organ is mentioned. In general, a lot more material about the organ and its music should be provided - right now the page seems in limbo between a disambiguation page and having actual content. Yes, redundancy is tedious, but it's easily avoided with summarizing instead of copying. -Sesquialtera II 22:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
If it 'aint got pipes, it 'aint an organ. It's a computer pretending.
The "External links" section of this page presents a somewhat thorny problem. While the rest of the article is basically an information-rich disambiguation page, it settles into that role just fine; but external links tend to treat just one type of organ, whether it be pipe, theatre, or electronic. So, perhaps the optimal solution will be to select two or three of the best links for each topic (rather difficult and prone to argument) and include only those (instead of trying to find sites that cover all the kinds of organs that this page does). I suspect the same will hold true for references. -Sesquialtera II 23:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I do have to say a quick glance after my last added external link made me notice that the whole section does not even fit my screen anymore (ahm, my fault too. Sorry.). Seems too much to me.
Right, to me, there's three ways of dealing with it: Choosing the best links of them all (difficult!), leave it as it is (somewhat unaesthetic) or pull together the most important information we link to. Now, I'm new, so - someone tell me what to do or think, please?
Misuro (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Grove's Dictionary of Music defines an organ as a wind instrument, as do most other dictionaries, including Wiktionary.
The problem lies in that this article also encompasses the Electronic Organ.
How to reconcile this? Dsinden 05:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
These definitional issues are only sticky if a purist approach is taken. While strictly speaking, the organ might be thought to be a wind instrument, just as the piano is thought to be a percussion instrument, they are in reality both better understood as keyboard instruments. No composer or musician is going to think of the organ in the context of wind instruments, since it doesn't have the possibilities for expressive control available with these instruments. I believe that the organ as a wind instrument is worth a passing mention at some point but should not be given prominence.
We do have an article keyboard instrument which is in need of a careful rewrite. The list of keyboard instruments is unhelpful in its present form since many of them are either novelties or historical curiosities. Yet, the rather richer and more relevant story of the development of the keyboard historically, and the relative importance of various instruments and their repertoire over time, is not told.
Regarding the articles at organ (music) and pipe organ, etc.: I propose that all the information from organ (music) be moved to respective articles on church organs, theater organs, electronic organs, etc. Seeing that this page is currently a glorified disambiguation page, the organ disambiguation page would be updated with links to all these articles. Then pipe organ would be moved to organ (music). It could still contain smaller links to the church organ, etc. Thoughts on implementing some or all of this, anyone? —Cor anglais 16 (Talk) 13:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
If you read French and if you go to the French wikipedia, you'll see that each article about organ are separated. Since I began to contribute to these articles (I entirely wrote the article about digital organs), I considered that the good way was to separate each theme. Not only to avoid confusion or too huge article (you have very long articles about important theme), but over all to have a more "natural" classification between each theme.
Even the "pipe organ" article and the "organ (music)" article should (would) be divided in more sub-theme. The reason is simple : wikipedia is growing and getting richness. Today, articles are little, because they are beginning. What about this in the next five or ten years ?
I think that the better way to build an article for Wikipedia is to begin with a map of the article (note that some articles are only maps and it is a very good idea). Once you have the map, each wiki-contributor can fill the void cases and obviously enhance, improve, correct...
Anyway, we must keep the "pipe organ" entry because the word "organ" is very ambiguous (with "body organ"). In French, we have not this problem : pipe organ is said "orgue" and body organ is said "organe" so, we do not have homonyms.
Don’t forget that we have the very useful link assembler that is "category". And Category:organ already exists. I agree that the better way is to "explode" organ (music) page and after…
we have choice to :
As you can see, the "The Casavant pipe organ at Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica, Montreal." photography is empty. I do not know if it is a copyright problem, but the empty frame appears on more than one page. I think it is better to exchange this image with another pipe organ photography. In Wikipedia commons we have a huge number of kind organ photos. Sonusfaber 12:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Google returns nearly 100,000 results for the phrase "organ builder." It seems to be the article's contention that organ builder is the correct term for someone who builds organ and -- as the article notes -- maintains them. This is not the case for some who, for example, builds chairs. One would not expect a "chair builder" to necessarily be involved in chair maintenance.
Organ builders by and large do seem to be involved in organ maintenance, especially ongoing maintenance of the instruments they have built. Perhaps this is part of the building process? But, who is brave enough to start the organ builder article? And does this term really need to be mentioned in Organ (music)? Perhaps it should be moved to Pipe organ? Dsinden 05:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Based upon Al Kooper's involvment with Bob Dylan's electrified sound (as the Scorsese documentary points out "it revolutionized rock and roll") perhaps a section about the organ's prominence in 60's music and, most importantly, a section with some music theory behind it (as it is much different than traditional piano or any other keyed instrument). I could help with this section, as most of the time, an organ uses an inverted chord rather than the one being played by the rest of the musicians. Just a thought. :-) Mumpsy 18:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This term redirects here, but I don't see an explanation of it. What is it? Rigadoun (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I came to this article knowing very little about organs (I edit mostly law articles, being a barrister). I do not think the article, as it stands, really meets wikipedia quality standards. Some of the writing style is rather unfortunate or confusing. Two specific points:
A diapason is a type of pipe, also known as a principal. They come in two types: open and stopped. The stopped diapason is really a soft flute, while the open diapason is a proper principal. They're sometimes referred to as "principle flutes"
There needs to be some sample videos libre showing an organist playing at the console. – Kaihsu (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
An unregistered account editor replaced part of the the lead:
All organs are descended from the pipe organ
with:
"Early organs have preceded into the formation of a “pipe organ”. However, in this article, these early history had been unnaturally split up into other articles. For details of the early history of organs, please check the list below." etc...
which seems backwards to me; the listed instruments of course use pipes, and are all defined as types of pipe organ. Or has a eurocentric bias been introduced into that article by defining it as a keyed (as opposed to levered/slidered) instrument? The easter egg link to Banū Mūsā is a type of Barrel organ, which draws attention to another parallel article that may call for merging. Sparafucil (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The same person (I think) has answered (inside a fact tag):
The fact tag (is this really useful, Jaksmata?) suggests that the problem is with "pipe organ" (not defined as European) when there may be an objection to "keyboard" in the first sentence instead. Grove gets around this by referring to the early lever systems as "keys" not necessarily played with the fingers. One could regard the slider system as just another variation. So what instruments are left out now? Sparafucil (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I can only point to Hydraulis defined as "a type of automatic pipe organ " and to the paragraph on Non-pipe organs, which explicitly names 19c free reed instruments and electronic imitations. What are these narrower definitions of 'pipe organ' based on? Sparafucil (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Section Hydraulophone lacks references, and may contains unverified claims. For example:
According to the references of Hydraulophone, in the proceedings of 14th annual ACM international conference on Multimedia Multimedia Conference of ACM, Hydraulophone was referred as a “velocity-sensitive music keyboard” rather than a pipe organ or a flute, so above claims are possibly incorrect. --123.224.215.88 (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC) [correct] --123.224.175.105 (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Pipe organ gives the original source for this epithet as Guillaume de Machaut, not Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. (Mozart may well have said it too, of course.) Any objections to changing it here? Barnabypage (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.