Jump to content

Talk:Vibraphone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alex Waterwall.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Hm, something seems wrong, I can't edit this page (I wanted to make minor adjustments, shrink photo to 300 px & move other language links to bottom). I tried both logged in and logged out with 3 browsers, same result. I only have the probem on this page. Puzzled, -- Infrogmation 03:24, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

An addition to this article should be made on four mallet technique and its pioneers. This was pivotal to the change in the instrument from a trivial lead solo instrument to a pianistic accompanyment. I'll do some research and try to add it.--malber 20:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The explaination of the misnomer is not completely correct. The movement of baffles within the resonance tubes alters the resonnant frequencies and the harmonics. Thus certain harmonics become more and less amplified as the rotor cycles. Also the ending sentence of this paragraph, "The sound is dated and many modern vibists eschew the effect altogether." Does not make much sense in this context and I question it's accuracy. Unless somone can give a good opposing argument, I will edit the article accordingly shortly. --65.105.113.194 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add Laura Macfarlane to the list of vibrophonists? Her band of 11 years, with 5 CDS, should qualify her, along with numerous world tours and fan clubs in more than a dozen countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Macfarlane I saw her paying her father's vibrophone at a performance on Friday night wildly received by over to a hundred people. AdamT 211.28.211.16 13:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she should be added. Her article here says only that she plays vibraphone, hardly a ringing endorsement of her "notability" as a vibist. Keep in mind that this list is not supposed to be a repository of every musician (or garage-band member) who ever picked up a pair of mallets. That's what's known as cruft. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, should every name currently featured on that list remain there? (I think not, but only have a clear vision of who should stay, not of who should go.) ---Sluzzelin talk 17:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it were me, I'd take a good look at all red links and any names tagged w/[citation needed]. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modification to the History section

I felt that the history section, although there was perhaps a germ of truth in it, was largely inaccurate and lacking detail, so I've rewritten it based on data from an article in "Percussionist" magazine from 1977. Percussionist is a juried research journal published by the Percussive Arts Society.

This is my first attempt to edit a Wikipedia page, and I hope I've conformed to the culture. I wanted to mark the text with the a superscript pointing to the new reference, but I coulnd't figure out how. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Tpvibes 21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Construction section

I've replaced the construction section with a significantly expanded section. A question in my mind about the new content is whether it is too long and too detailed. Comments appreciated. Tpvibes 13:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tpvibes, I think there is enough that is distinctive about this instrument, and enough curiosity about it, that a thorough discussion of its features is warranted. However, information such as how aluminum stock is acquired, or how a damper bar is fastened to the instrument is not germane to the discussion, is of very narrow interest and does not belong in the wiki article. Talking about 'headaches' for modern players is 'shop talk' and is expressly discouraged in Wiki. I have taken the liberty of cleaning up some sections: The damper discussion should be about the entire damper mechanism, not the felt pad, as there is technique involved in the use of the pedal etcetera. I have retained the discussion of mechanical issues without the personal ins and outs and by integrating the recent innovations. Also, I added damping technique later in the article. I think this is useful information, but as you can see I'm not citing it so I will take my lumps if someone deletes it.

To Damp vs To Dampen: Engineers seem to use dampen/damper/damping, where others use dampen/damper/dampening. I find the former more consistent with what's going on although dictionaries affirm either gerund form. justcary (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I followed one of the citations in this section and found a mirroring of the entire Wiki article. This is odd, I don't know if that constitutes self-reference or which is the chicken or egg. I'm worried that one individual is deeply invested in this article and will reject these edits. There is extensive detail on the tuning of bars that is not specific to the vibraphone and perhaps deserves its own article. I should leave that in for further discussion. justcary (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Studio 49

I agree that Studio 49 is worthy of mention in the manufacturers section, but the placement of the first mention implies that they began manufacturing vibes in the 1960s or 70s -- I can't find any confirmation of that and on the contrary it looks to me like they probably started in the 1950s.

If they did actually start in the 60s or 70s then the correct place to mention them would be in the next paragraph, where new entrants to the market are mentioned.

However, I don't regard Studio 49 as having enough of a presence in the industry to be mentioned there. This is not a comment on the quality of their products -- I don't have any direct experience with Studio 49 vibes but have only heard good things about them. I regard Studio 49's place in the industry as roughly equivalent to Saito's -- good products but having too little worldwide distribution/marketing to have an extended influence.

Therefore I've included Studio 49 alongside Saito in the list of second-tier players that continue in the business, but deleted other mentions. I wish there were space to cover more manufacturers in more detail, but there needs to be a cutoff somewhere.

If the person who added Studio 49 (or anyone else) disagrees with my changes, please continue the discussion here or on my Talk page. Tpvibes 14:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section should either be deleted or integrated into other parts of the article. There's no need for a seperate section just to give a list of every popular song that has vibes in it. Glassbreaker5791 02:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tpvibes 19:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to feel the same way about all of the list sections of the article. They present problems of accuracy (Bobby Darin a notable vibes player? Morning Dance an example of jazz vibes? -- Samuels' solo is on marimba). And where do you stop? Why is the list of classical pieces longer than the jazz list? Why is the category "Classical and Film Scores" and not just "Music" with all subcategories?

On the other hand, I'm not exactly sure what to replace them with, and don't want to just eliminate them. Any suggestions?
Tpvibes 19:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible to incorporate these into the playing styles section- "This style is sometimes used in popular music, for example the song X by bad Y." MorkaisChosen 19:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lionel-hampton-king-of-the-vibes.jpg

Image:Lionel-hampton-king-of-the-vibes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add fair use rationale -- hope it's sufficient.

Tpvibes 15:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Servo motor controls

It would be nice to have a better explaination of what controls the musician typically has for the motors on the models with computer controlled servos, and more detail about which companies make the vibraphones with this functionality. JNW2 (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have personal experience with this, but that doesn't pass muster in a Wiki article. Yamaha's stepping motor control includes touch-activated on-off, a speed control slider, and retention of the starting rotational position of the drive shaft. When turned off, the shaft is gently rotated to that starting position. Musser has used a stepping motor for decades; the Musser controls have only a mechanical on-off and simple speed control dial. I believe the motor is used in copiers and Musser is only exploiting its availability, size, and low-speed capability. The article is incorrect about the 90s being the advent of these motors; I have a 1980 M-55 with a digital stepping motor. My 1976 M75 has the older sewing-machine style motor. justcary (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resonator fans cause pitch vibrato

A 15-Jul-2008 addition to the resonator section says, "Additionally, in this context, there is the extra consideration that the rotating plates interfere with wave-fronts in the resonator tubes to cause doppler-effect pitch variations. This can be observed using an oscilloscope." I've heard this said before, but it seems to me to be something that needs a reference to back it up -- otherwise it's just hearsay. If 217.147.240.180 could provide a reference that'd be good. If not it might be best to delete the addition. Tpvibes (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16-Feb-2011 The correct measurement instrument to observe such amplitude variations vs. frequency (i.e. pitch variations) is a Spectrum Analyzer, NOT an Oscilloscope which can only display amplitude variations vs. time (i.e. sound volume variations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.127.117 (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28-Jul-2011 Regarding 16-Feb assertion above: I'm not an engineer, but I can easily observe pitch shift such as Doppler effect on an oscilloscope if I tune the scope to the resting pitch of the source, so the wave appears stationary, then modulate the pitch slightly (e.g. moving it toward or away from a mic) which causes the wave on the scope to roll right or left. Pitch shift in a vibraphone bar with motor on should be equally observable with the same equipment. justcary (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28-Jul-2011 While I find the discussion on Vibraphone versus Tremolophone entertaining, it is un-cited shop talk and as such does not belong in a Wikipedia article. The term Vibraphone started as a trademark, not generic nomenclature, so there can be no argument as to its descriptive accuracy. At http://www.pas.org/experience/onlinecollection/leedyvibraphone.aspx we see that a 'vox humana' effect (as it was called on a pipe organ, and understood to be a tremolo) is what the developer sought. 'Vibraphone' was the Leedy Corp's trademark for the resulting instrument. Since the two sides of the argument are cited as "Some" and "Others", it seems reasonable to remove it without waiting for further discussion and so I shall. justcary (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to resonator tuning

There's been a long-standing request to create a citation verifying that resonators are tuned slightly off of perfect to create a balance between loudness and sustain. A reference has become available, written by Nico vanderPlas, the builder of arguably the highest-quality vibraphones available. The article is available on the web, however, access requires membership.

I don't know what the policy regarding references to material with restricted access is, but it seems to me that this is allowed. There are many references (in this article and in others) to material that is only available in print (such as the books referenced in the article) or available as part of a subscription journal with web access for subscribers (e.g. the Howland reference in the article).

If you feel I'm wrong on this please explain the reasoning when you delete the reference. Also, if you delete the reference, restore the citation required indication. Tpvibes (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vibraphone Orchestra OGG file

The video needs to be flipped, horizontally, because it is reversed, left to right. Jimeffindandy (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vibraphone. 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}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sound example

The sound example for vibraphone is clearly a virtual instrument and sounds nothing like the real thing, should I replace it with a real vibraphone? /new user — Preceding unsigned comment added by AzeemKadri (talk • contribs) 11:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vibraphone. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four mallets

I understand that Burton may have started the 'modern' four-mallet technique, but it seems as if Norvo and Rollini are being unfairly dismissed in this article. Rollini used four mallets on xylophone before he picked up bass sax and made his name on it. When bass sax went out of style, he switched back to a mallet instrument to keep gigging. And since he had started life playing piano, I think we can assume that he was able to think in a 'piano-like' way on vibes. I would re-phrase the sentence to say something like 'the four-mallet techniques of Norvo and Rollini were largely dropped by later players until resumed and developed further by Burton.' Here's a video of Rollini playing with four mallets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdNzCNQmGG0

MarkinBoston (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Shilkret

In his autobiography Sixty Years in the Music Business, Nathaniel Shilkret claims that he requested the (or at least "a") vibraphone be invented for his Victor Salon Orchestra. He asked his drummer Joe Green to ask his brother George, who was a xylophonist, he could build the instrument. Can anyone speak to the veracity of this claim? (see page 112). AppaAliApsa (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Classical Piece

Many of the sources I've found place Berg's Lulu as the first use of the vibraphone in classical music. This contradicts another piece in the vibraphone repertoire, Grofé's Grand Canyon Suite composed in 1931, 4 years earlier, which uses it in the second movement albeit as more of an effect. Can anyone weigh in? I would hate for something so notable to go uncorrected. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Vibraphone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 17:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I'll be reviewing this article to help reduce the good article nomination backlog and to gain points in the WP:WIKICUP. Although quid pro quo is not required, if you fancy returning the favor, I have a list of articles in need of review here. — GhostRiver 17:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostRiver: I'd save you guys some time by simply quickfailing this. There are unfortunately many paragraphs that are completely unreferenced, tons of missing information available on google scholar, books, TWL, etc., and improvements needed in prose. I'll let you change the template.
@Wretchskull: You say there's "tons of missing information". Would you care to expound on that? Why? I Ask (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Why? I Ask: I do not want to discourage you, but this article isn't researched enough for GA. Apart from the issues I mentioned earlier, there are tons books and academic journals and magazines that aren't being used, and many of them can be found on google scholar, TWL, etc... Also, look at how many books there are on google books, which just shows that the article could be significantly expanded if you had the books. If you want a rough idea of how a quality instrument article looks like, take a look at the recently promoted Carillon. And by the way, as I've seen you comment on Aza24's talk page, there is no need of any in-depth reviewing if the article fails multiple criteria, especially sourcing. I'd be more than happy to help you out with your future GAN, but for now we need to focus on what should be improved.Wretchskull (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull: I'm going to be honest, but your advice is not really helpful. It would be helpful if you were actually mention what specific sources could be used, as I have scoured JSTOR, Google Books, and even World Cat alike. Since your comment a couple days ago, I have added over 20 more sources, and refined the prose, so please take a look if you would. If you were to specifically mention what could be added, both in scope and in sourcing (Aza24 has been helpful in recommending a section about repertoire which I am currently working on), then I would be grateful. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Why? I Ask: The article is in much better shape now. Just a few more comments: I'd move all book sources to Bibliography and use shortened footnotes when citing each book. Also, regarding expansion and more sourcing, I think it is a good idea to look at The Wikipedia Library (TWL). Currently, there are some videos and films being cited, which I would be inclined in replacing them with book/journal sources (preferably also many of the websites cited). There are 2000+ results of peer-reviewed sources at TWL when searching "Vibraphone" that I would take a look at. If you do not have access to TWL, tell me and I'll add the sources. Wretchskull (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull: Currently, I only move sources to "Bibliography" if they are used on the page more than once, as many other FA and GA articles do. And yes, I do have access to TWL, but many of the peer reviewed sources do not go into much depth about the vibraphone and usually just mention that the instrument was used in a particular piece. I was also careful to only add video sources that are of the utmost reliability (e.g., Vic Firth's video about restringing a keyboard instrument is both reliable and potentially useful for readers wanting to know more). For another video citation, not many articles go in depth about the use of the motor in the front ensemble, so I cited an interview with Iain Moyer (the current front ensemble arranger for the Boston Crusaders and a published professor) about the rare use of the motor in the marching arts instead. There isn't really a replacement source for that unless you cite individual manufacturer's models which definitely should be avoided. The only currently questionable source may be Deagan's film in the "History" section, but that piece of information is easily verified by the bevy of other sources in the section, so I'm not particularly worried. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Giving a close look to what Wretchskull said, I am inclined to agree. There are several paragraphs with no citations (including the entire "Range" and "two-mallet style" sections, and I am also concerned about the amount of trivia at the bottom. I do not think it makes sense to include a full list of classical works with a fairly popular instrument, nor do I think one sentence is relevant enough for a "Use in film scores" section. Other sections need to be expanded, such as the specialized techniques, which don't give the reader a sense of what they involve. I'm going to be failing this for now based on those two comments. I have not taken a detailed look at the prose, as the lack of citations are enough to justify my failure without a holding period. Please feel free to resubmit once my larger points have been addressed. — GhostRiver 19:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostRiver: I've considered deleting the "Classical works" section, but have always stopped considering there is a section like it on many of the other percussion pages (timpani, glockenspiel, etc). If you think it really needs to be deleted, then it shall be done. References have been added for range (I thought it was an example of WP:BLUE), and bowing can easily be expanded. Citations for two mallets can easily be done. Anything else? Why? I Ask (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostRiver: I have fixed all of the criteria you've mentioned. Please take a look and give me some insight as to what else can be done. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Marching instrument?

The lede ends with "...and in the marching arts (typically as part of the front ensemble)." But it's an electric instrument. Marching bands (I assume that is what "marching arts" with it's "front ensemble" refers to) don't normally use electric instruments, I don't think? I think marching bands use glockenspeils or something? Herostratus (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are electronic instruments in the front ensemble of a marching band, drum and bugle corps, or indoor percussion ensemble (i.e., the "marching arts"). There are even marching variations of the Vibraphone that were used before the development of the front ensemble, and that is why it clarifies "typically" ([1]). Why? I Ask (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, thanks--Herostratus (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vibraphone&oldid=1207578246"