Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moodswinger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Moodswinger

The result was Merge with Yuri_Landman#Moodswinger (non-admin closure). SilkTork *YES! 19:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Moodswinger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Tricky one, this. It's an interesting but little-used instrument, and the article is almost entirely OR - much of it apparently by the instrument's inventor. There do not appear to be any substantial independent sources that we can use to tone the article down or assess its neutrality and accuracy. Possible merge to Yuri Landman? Guy (Help!) 11:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Message from Yuri Landman

My COI-contributions have been nominated or tagged several times POV, OR since I started contributing from ± january 2007. I totally agree on the COI claim. At first I used wikipedia to raise more attention for my work for Liars. Currently this is not longer necessarry, so you are free to erase all info about me.

About the OR: Also wikipedia has been one of my main sources to understand more about what really happened especcially on the Moodswinger (and less about the Moonlander, because this instrument contains less theory in its design). When I built it, I had no idea what it all contained in a harmonic way. So what actually happened: To get more fundament for not being deleted while I was working the theory out, I created a HOAX called Third bridge guitar, which is now on wikipedia for ± 1,5 year. This term is made up by me. Third bridge guitars don't excist. All info on this topic is derived from other topics like harmonic series. Although the term is made up by me, the mechanism isn't. Bluthner Piano, I discovered later, used it in ±1880. Harry Partch notices the stringdivisions in his Genesis (but didn't work it out like I did on the Moodswinger, because he worked completely acoustic). The Guqin has similarity in scaling system. Branca made more primitive versions with only octavedivision, Neptune made some drum stick systems, Bradford made an instrument, but no one of these people works with the scale on the Moodswinger as far as I know. Lee Ranaldo told me Branca's instruments work the same but have a lot less mathmetics in it. All the relations I've put in on wikipedia are discovered and composed by me on your site for my own learning proces and telling/teaching other people more about string resonance, which is also a HOAX-topic I made up to raise more fundament for my work as a microtonal instrument builder.

So currently you have:

which all contain a large amount of OR. They are all true, but I cannot prove this to you.

I've explained my theory to quiet some musicologists among which Kyle Gann and prepared guitarist Peter Yates (of Elgart/Yates who wrote Prepared guitar techniques). They understood exactly what I was claiming and agreed on what I was telling, but this still is OR because the theory is nowhere being published.

Best wishes, YuriLandman (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Moratorium on deletion: As the nominator said, a tricky one. How about allowing some time to find some source material (besides Mr. Landman's own) on this? Surely there must be something somewhere. Perhaps Mr. Landman can suggest, or find, some sources. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Can't offer anything more here but a feeble WP:ILIKEIT. I certainly can't find any policy to support not deleting this article other than WP:IAR but if you will allow me to opine: I would rather see 10 to 20 more articles about obscure, overlooked delights like this than another dozen featured articles about Pokémon. I believe articles about such treasures improve and do not harm the encyclopedia. I find the "promotion" claim a bit incredible--who on Earth would buy one of these abominations? It's just fun to read about.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, so would I. But the problem is the same as for most of the fiction cruft: lack of decent sources. Maybe a merger? Guy (Help!) 09:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete/Merge I agree, this is a well-made article on something (at least to me) very interesting. But then, this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia with certain inclusion standards for topics, like WP:N. And my impression after reading the external links provided below is that this is not notable enough. Therefore a cut-down mention in Experimental musical instrument or Yuri Landman or Liars (band) or some other appropriate place, and as sources permit, is all I can currently see about it here. If the outcome of the discussion indeed will be merge, then hopefully a better place can be found for the full article and linked to from one of those places. (wasn't sure if i should vote here or below.. feel free to move it for editorial purposes) --Minimaki (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advise

I can help you out a bit. Branca was on of the first who used the third bridge mechanism of playing indirect. (so pluck the string on the left side and the mathmetical related counterpart on the right starts to resonate in related overtone + it's own stringlengthfrequency. This duotone sounds like a clock (listen to the intro of Good Morning, Captain of Slint's Spiderland for instance or Confusion is Sex). The term 3rd bridge is from this site : http://www.nonoctave.com/heroes/buzz/harmonic.html. So the term as a description does exist to explain the construction of the instrument. I think for that reason it is quiet useless to erase Third bridge guitar as a topic, as just has happened, but that's something I leave up to other people. The phenomenon excist (Branca, Sonic Y, Pencilina, Moodswinger, Fred Frith, Prepared guitar, prepaired piano, aliquot stringing, lutheal). I am the one who calls this officially Third Bridge, not only on wikipedia but also here:

and here in Dutch (3e brug) in a video-interview

and in almost every other interview I've done.

Since I started promoting this technique in 2007 the term is also taken over by other people, on for instance:

Currently I'm giving lectures about the theory (as I already did on the Output Festival), so people are more and more aware of what I'm telling about the technique. Wikipedia was my first way to promote the Moodswinger. (when I started I didn't know this site was so strict in rules about OR, POV and COI). After wikipedia all the other interviews and articles appeared in the media.

So you can use the term. I cannot because of the NPOV, but if you consider me as an artist/builder you can refer to, the term third bridge excists. That's up to you. Not to me. I was the one who decided to give the main technique a suitable name. Also outside wikipedia currently, so there are sources for the term.

User Guy wants to have decent sources, which is off course good. About the sources:

  • Oddmusic is a very reliable source for experimental musical instruments (there is no bigger site than this one about this topic.) So anyone on this site has some relevance involved experimental experimentalism. You cannot spam on this site and you certainly have to make something odd/new to get on this site.

If you want to dive more into the theory of the moodswinger I just suggest you calculate the stringlenghts. For instance: When the fundamental is 100 Hz, the 4/5 is 125 Hz and the 1/5 is 500 Hz. So 1/5 related to 4/5 gives a tone two octaves higher then 4/5. This tone is happening on the knotposition of the third bridge. (otherwise the resonation is fading and not giving a resonating sound) When the bridge is slightly next to 1/5, you get Beat (acoustics), which can be very usefull in some way, because it is more natural then a wave-pedal, but that's an opinion. The clean harmonic optimum is on the dotted positions.

So what exactly are you still missing as a source? I can understand the topic is difficult, but it is just a very accurate calculation. You don't need a source for calculating stringratio's.

I can imagine you doubt if the instrument does have a proper sound as claimed in the table. Note that the table is about the theory of the scale, how the scale is constructed, why it is constructed like this. I wasn't the one who invented the scale. The scale is almost similar to the Guqin, who works with flageolets, which is a different technique, but works on the same physics.

Finishing: I understand the OR issue (although it is just calculation) and it was a problem in jan 2007, but currently you are dealing with a different situation. I'm giving lectures, articles have appeared, Leather Prowler is made with it. Pitchfork is a very reliable source for taking my work serious enough as an artist I assume. What exactly do you need for sources?

There are no other people working on third bridge guitars like I do as far as I know. So for the scale-problem, if this is the problem, you just have to check accurately and compare it for instance with the tables at harmonic series, guitar harmonics, overtone. The Moodswinger-scale is derived from those tables. The harmonic tables must be also in books about the Guqin, Pythagoras, Hemholtz and all the other musical scientists from the past. It's not very hard to find those. Any musicologist can probably tell you about this.

If you need more info just ask a concrete question about what you are missing where. Then I'm willing to answer them. Every fact is quiet easy to prove I assume, so we can work this out, I'm sure.

Best regards, YuriLandman (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable self-promotion. Additionally, the filibustering of the AfD by the article's creator is highly inappropriate and disruptive. Dlabtot (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think he's doing anything evil, he seems quite keen on Wikipedia and just needs some guidance I think. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(reply to comment two above this one) WTF?!?!?! The guy has been completely up-front, not to mention courteous, about what he's done here, and you come down on him like a ton of bricks? Sheesh. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty clear from the sources provided that it is highly unlikely for anyone to have heard about this really cool-looking but completely non-notable instrument other than by reading Wikipedia. I give the editor the credit he is due for effectively using Wikipedia for self-promotion. I agree that he has been upfront and courteous about it. Dlabtot (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding my conflicting situation. Like I said: In jan 2007 it was definatelly self promotion, raising more attention to prepared guitar, third bridging and the most mathmetical 3rd bridge instrument, the moodswinger. But in march 2008 this is not necessary anymore, because attention for my work raises enough, due to the donations to Sonic Youth + Liars, the pitchfork article and addition in the oddmusic.com-gallery. These 4 notable sources are generating the most publicity currently, not wikipedia as assumed above by Dlabtot. After the first rush of promotion I became more familiar with the 'rules' on wikipedia (no selfpromotion, OR, COI, NPOV etc.). So I also did other edits, to change my behaviour and something strange happened. At the time I built the moodswinger, I was only aware of the appearing resonating overtone. I started explaining more, because some contributors weren't familiar with common prepared guitar techniques, like the screwdriver technique. Suddenly the moodswinger became an article which was explaining the chord coherence between the attack tone, the overtone and the complementary tone. Almost all 3 tone chords are derived from these 3 tones which are harmonically related to eachother. That is why the article is so difficult to understand for some people. This accidental rediscovery is done by me in 2007 on my own instrument, but most probably also by the ancient Chinese on the Guqin (same scale) and pythagoras in 600 bf.Chr.. I cannot imagine they didn't notice this. Kyle Gann en Peter Yates (of Elgart&Yates guitar duo + UCLA) also confirmed my chord related results when I explained it to them. So you could call it OR, but I really doubt if it is. When you are not familiar with the topic it soon looks like it, but if you dive a little deeper you will notice the moodswinger article is just retelling an old story in a new situation where electricity excists. If you feel the object is non-notable, because only 3 models excist, I probably cannot confince you otherwise than telling you the art science object (try consider it art or science instead of just a musical instrument) receives attention in ± 15 articles, interviews and video-interviews, the lectures I'm giving at international festivals and currently in a documentary. I didn't mention the chord relation, because this would definately raise OR situations. I only gave the calculated pitches. In my opinion people who don't understand these calculations should not be involved in judging if this is OR or not, but they are allowed to judge if it is promotion. That's all I can offer you. Best regards, YuriLandman (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.