Talk:Glass harmonica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Franklin's Armonica[edit]

There is currently a citation (#16) to a dead link. Normally, I'd just swap it out for the Wayback machine reference that seems to correspond to the referenced revision [1], but it seems someone claimed they were successfully able to access it earlier this year - which doesn't seem correct based on my usage of the wayback machine. Since this seems a bit unclear, I'll just leave this here and hope someone else can make sense of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.83.50 (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart[edit]

In contradiction to the statement "Mozart was enthralled by its sound, so even he composed several pieces for it.",cool! In my memory is the idea that mozart hated the instrument and only wrote for it because he was commissioned to do so. I will try to check this out. If someone knows for sure please comment here or edit the article.

enhandle

It seems that Mozart was acquainted with Mesmer and met him several times, starting in 1773, for what that's worth. [2] —Wahoofive | Talk 02:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand (from BBC Radio 4) that the 14 year old Mozart played Mesmer's instrument and then composed 2 works for it. Autodidactyl 17:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

The 'manufacture' and 'musical properties' sections seem to have been lifted from http://www.finkenbeiner.com/gh.html with some minor rewording. This would appear to be a copyright violation, so I've removed them. --Calair 04:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a piece somewhere that the musician insanity issue may have had some basis. Apparently (if I remember correctly), the rims of the bowls often had colored paint on them to distinguish one from the other. Supposedly, later analysis indicated the paint was lead-laden (surprise!) and musicians who frequently wet their fingers in their mouths wound up ingesting toxic levels of lead with extended playing. N.B. -- it could be that the glass itself may have had a high lead content, rather than an applied paint. It would probably be more stable in the glass itself, though, and harder to ingest. In any event, there is some suspicion that lead poisoning was the eventual cause of dementia and/or diminished mental capacity. Any corroboration?

I saw Dean Shostak in concert, and he said that one of the unique qualities of glass is that it produces no overtones. He used a strobe light to show us how the glass bowls vibrated. He lent no real stock to the idea that the armonica really causes insanity, but joked that the pure tones might be what drives people mad. I haven't found any documentation to back this up, but I would think it must be published somewhere. Mingusboodle (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read, it seems that the vibrating bowls damaged nerves in the fingers somehow. Broolaf2 19:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it was only the inside of the bowls that was painted (Ben Franklin used 7 rainbow colours for 7 notes of Octave), the rims were necessarily clean glass. Whilst spending thousands of hours licking and rubbing high lead glass was probably not a good idea, it pales in comparison to the lead in water pipes, storage tanks, food cans, solder, cooking utensils and pencils etc. Autodidactyl 17:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reports of vibration damage to the nerves are redolent of 'Vibration White Finger' which is one form of Raynaud's phenomenon. Autodidactyl 17:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Finkenbeiner: unsolved?[edit]

did an article ever exist for Gerhard Finkenbeiner? did anybody read this page about his death? --Crnk Mnky (65.13.21.153) 00:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no record of such a page in the appropriate deletion log. --Calair 02:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong name?[edit]

In another source I looked at, the performance Franklin attended in London was performed by Edmund Delaval. Broolaf2 19:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK then...[edit]

Who says that "perhaps the most famous pop culture reference" is that minor dead comedian's quip? Why would it conceivably refer to the musical instrument? Does he have a theme through his comedy of sideways references to unusual and/or obsolete musical instruments?

I didn't say it was the most famous reference ever. That is debatable. But, as you know, that wasn't the reason you gave for deleting the section entirely. Badagnani 04:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it, what information is available in that wisegeek.com page that is not or should not be in this article? If it's a source, what's it the source to? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but it was listed in the References section, not under "External links." And I did not find it unhelpful. Badagnani 04:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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"[edit]

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[edit]

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]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glass harmonica. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 12:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glass harmonica. 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:

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) 17:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Glass harmonica. 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:

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) 08:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"... seem to be German"[edit]

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glass_harmonica&oldid=1207436693"