Talk:Hang (musical instrument)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Musical Instruments articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] External Links
After a lot of external links changing in the last days, I thought about what internet recources should be linked in the Wikipedia Hang article. I made a new choice and these are the reasons for the choice of the external links:
1) Research Papers - Steeldrums by Felix Rohner and Sabina Schärer: Important resource of the hangmakers
2) Oddmusic article: A more detailed outline for readers who want to know more but don't want to search in many websites
3) Hang-Music Forum: Is the most visited Hang Internet forum
4) The Hang Internet Index: Is the most comprehensive listing of Hang resources avaiable online
Why I deleted single Hang Videos: 4) includes links to hundreds of Hang videos. There isn't a need to link just one single video. Wikepedia external link guidelines recommend to use only a few links. To give an adequate overview about existing Hang videos, you would have to link a lot of videos. This is undesired in Wikipedia articles.
Here you find the Wikipedia guidelines about External Links: Wikipedia:External links
If you want to change the external links, please discuss it here. We should'nt begin a link changing war.
Ixkeys October, 17th 2007
[edit] Obtaining a Hang
There seems to be some dispute over whether the difficulty of obtaining a Hang is a subject worthy of mention here, due to the idea that it "can change within months". I suggest we discuss this concept here before eliminating this information, since I think most people who come to this page do so in hopes of finding out how to obtain one.
First off, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia has so many up-to-the-second pages on current events that I often read it to keep up with world news. Have you seen the Main Page? Secondly, there is in fact no general rule that information is only encyclopedic if it is permanent and unchangeable (you should see some of the articles in an old book encyclopedia I have). Thirdly, the situation I've described has been true for more than two years and the hangmakers have expressed no intent to change the situation as far as I know. I'm sure it will remain true for many years to come, long after a large percentage of Wikipedia's other current factoids have become outdated. And fourthly, the unique availability situation is one of the Hang's most noteworthy and remarked-upon traits. Leaving it out would be like writing an article on Iran and leaving out its nuclear controversy because it "can change within months". Feel free to offer a rebuttal. Xezlec (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, my reason for the deleting was to short. Let's discuss this topic. The problem of the chapter ist besides the fact, that information are included that can change within months, that main parts of the chapter are more personal essay and journalism (look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#PUBLISHER ) than Wikipedia suitable information. Their is also a problem with references and sources.
In the Hang article recently the Articles-lacking-sources Tag was added. Being the author of the German Wikipedia Hang article and a contributor to the English version, I'm thinking about, how to solve this problem. Therefor I want do avoid to add a whole chapter increasing this problem. To publish information about the Hang purchasing situation you have to research in internet sources, read unpublished sources from PANArt, talk with people including the hangmakers, observe the Hang scene over a long period and put this puzzle together to a picture. This is typical journalistic work. I for myself did so and published the article "How do I acquire a Hang" at http://www.hangblog.org. But also this article is a problematic source for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia don't want newspaper articles or weblog articles as main sources.
My comments in detail:
"they are more interested in refining their art than producing mass quantities of hangs for those who want them" is personal essay not information. -- "For some time, hangs were produced in large numbers, but the exhausted builders have since changed their policy, and they now sell only a limited number of hangs in a year" is personal essay and doesn't describe the situation correctly. The result from my own research is, that from 2001 to 2005 about 850 instruments were built in a year and from 2006 to 2007 about 400. This is not correctly described with "large numbers" versus "limited number". -- "and hope to be invited to the "hanghaus" in Bern, Switzerland" is personal essay. -- "The price is at least 1200 Euro, but is not known definitely at any given time due to the secrecy in which the hangmakers conduct business." is personal essay. -- "Used instruments generally sell for thousands of dollars. There are reports of hangs being sold for as much as $9000 on eBay." "There are reports" is not a reliable source. The situation is diferentiated, there is a big difference between Europe and USA. Only a few ebay auctions took place in the last half year (under 20). Prices were between about 1.500 and 6.000 Euro. It is a dynamic situation.
My suggestion:
Instead of the current chapter let's add a short paragraph to the article:
"The hang is built only by its inventors Felix Rohner and Sabina Schärer in a little workshop in Berne. The hangmakers don't ship instruments nor sell them via music shops. To obtain a hang prospective custumers have to send a letter to achieve an invitation to the workshop in Berne. Offers for used hanghang are rare, and prices in internet auctions are very high."
I would appreciate if you could improve the phrasing of this paragraph because I'm not an English native speaker.
Ixkeys 8. December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 14:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Nobody wrote a comment to my entry by now, so I think it's time to make the change in the article. I will include an improved version of the suggested paragraph. Ixkeys (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for not responding sooner. Anyway, thanks for clarifying your points. But I'm curious what you mean by "personal essay". Also, do you really feel there is no acceptable way to convey information such as eBay pricing in a Wikipedia article? I feel that the amazing prices reached by some hanghang is noteworthy. Is eBay itself not an acceptable source? I'm often frustrated by the lack of information about certain kinds of things on Wikipedia. Even when something is well-known and generally agreed, people are reluctant to provide readers with that information unless it has been written about in a scholarly publication. This effectively rules out a lot of discussion of some topics. I'm glad paper encyclopedias are not as rigid in their policies! Xezlec (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- "Personal essay" relates to what is written about in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#PUBLISHER . An Ebay auction isn't an acceptable source. What does it mean, when an Ebay auction reachs 6000 or 8000 Dollars? How to assess Ebay hang prices isn't generally agreed but strongly discussed. What does it mean, when less than ten auctions (and all with US buyers - Europeans never bid such prices) ended with such high prices? To mention these prices without explaining the whole backgrounds and discussion would be a wrong information. I think, to mention "high prices" in auctions is the right way. Everyone who is interested in details can follow the external links and will find all avaiable information and discussions about this topic (especially in the Hang-Music Forum). Ixkeys (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Ok, I think the problem is that I didn't realize that websites were not valid sources (they were considered valid sources for papers when I was in school, and I made the errant assumption that Wikipedia would not be more strict). Having discovered that rule, it seems like the majority of Wikipedia should be regarded as uncited. Xezlec (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] On pronunciation
The name of the instruments is said to derive from the Bernese word for 'hands', which is 'Häng' in German spelling, 'Hang' in English. Accordingly, it should be pronounced like the English verb 'to hang' and not like 'hong' or 'hung'. The makers of the instrument pronounced it that way in a television interview some years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.28.155 (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Being a German native speaker and knowing the makers personally I can confirm that the German spelling of 'Hang' is 'Hang' and not 'Häng'. 'Häng' doesn't exist neither in standard German nor in Bernese German. The standard German word for the English 'hand' is 'Hand' (spoken 'hund' in the same way as 'hund' is spoken in 'hundred'). The Bernese German word for the English 'hand' is 'Hang' and the makers speak it like 'hung' in the same way as 'hung' is spoken in 'hungry'. Standard German speakers also say 'hung' like in 'hungry' when they mean the musical instrument Hang. 'Hang' like English 'to hang' is wrongly used by English native speakers who don't know the correct pronunciation. Ixkeys (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Today I had the oportunity to ask someone living in Berne and speaking Bernese German. And this is the result: 'Hang' means hand singular. The plural form is "Häng" and is pronounced like 'to hang' in English. The name of the musical instrument Hang is singular so it is spelled 'Hang' and pronounced 'hung' like 'hungry'. The plural form 'Häng' is not used for the musical instrument Hang. For the plural form of Hang (musical instrument) the Hang Makers invented the word Hanghang. The pronunciation 'hong' is completely wrong and never used neither by Bernese German speakers nor by standard German speakers. Therefore I will delete 'hong' in the article. Ixkeys (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] External Links
"You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked."
Hmmm...now what do we do here. Hangfan has been put up a few times and duly erased despite the validity and correctness of its content. Currently, hangblog (great as it is) has 3 links out of the toal 5 (now 6 as I've added the e-hang).
We're in a tricky place here - the hangfan site has HTML version of the research PDF files- should it be quoted as a mirror for those who dont want to/can't donwload PDF files?
We could all be accused of nepotistic behaviour here, however if internet website owners are going to put links to their own site ahead of others, then the only fair strategy is to include mirror sites.
I think that is then fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torbz (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Torbz, in October 2007 I decided to make a complete relaunch of the external links in the English Wikipedia article about the Hang. The reasons I pointed out in my post on this discussion page from October 17th. It was my interest, that other contributors would answer to that post, but nobody didn't. So by now everybody seemed to agree with my decisions. So it's nice to read you on this page to discuss the external link topic.
- It's right, there is a problem with the Hang links and somebody could think we act nepotistic. So let me explain my opinion to this topic. For a long time I only observed the English Wikipedia article about the Hang and didn't want to contribute, because I'm not a native Engish speaker. But I noticed, that there was nobody who undertook the task of developing the article. Therefor I decided to join and made contributions to the article: Updates about the second generation and about how to obtain a Hang and looking after the external links. There was a lot of changing with the links and many of them didn't meet the Wikipedia requirements. So I decided to accept external links only it they provide very important content and are not only one among many similar resources. My arguments for the external links I accepted or added since the relaunch in October 2007 are the following:
- Hang article in the Oddmusic Musical Instrument Gallery: This is a short continuative article providing the Hang sound models of the first generation Hang.
- Hang-Music Forum: This is the most visited internet forum about Hang topics.
- The Hang Internet Index: This is the most comprehensive directory of internet recources about the Hang.
- The two articles "History, Developement and Tuning of the HANG" and "Acoustics of the HANG" I put in the References section. These are no links to the hangblog. The links adresses the PDF files of the articles directly and he who follows these links don't land on the hangblog. I think, it is important to provide the Original of the articles to avoid any nepotistic suspicion. If you would decide to host the PDF files under your domain too, we also can link to this adress instead of mine. No problem - because Felix requested you like me to publish the articles.
- Let me know if you have any other ideas about the external links.Ixkeys (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hank Drum?????
has anyone else heard of the cheap alternative?? they are made from propane gas bottles and sound suprisingly well (how comparable they are i cant say as ive hear neither in real life) there are a fair few youtube videos and such so it might be worth a mention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.235.1 (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is not the place to discuss about musical instruments as regards content. This discussion page is only about the Wikipedia article. About the "Hank drum" you can find a lot of dicussions in http://www.hang-music.com Ixkeys (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Added Sections
I did not really add or delete any information here but tried to divide the information given into sections.
It could be better, the article did not lend itself to sections and these are pretty broad. It may be nice to see a section dedicated to the sound of the hang, the subject of the sound is touched upon throughout the article and it would be better to focus in on it.
