Talk:Recorder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Recorder has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
September 26, 2006 Good article nominee Listed

	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.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

I don't think Jarrett played recorder on that album - the only reference I can find to a recorder album is this

http://mcaserta.com/kjd/disc-5.html#ss5.9

in which Jarrett plays the harpsichord.

Keith Jarrett plays recorder on the 'Spirits', 'Foundations" and "Morning of a Star' albums. See the Recorded Recorders database for more information at http://www.recorderhomepage.net/records.html

Contents 1 Adorno 2 Fingering section 3 History section 4 Need for cleanup? 5 Condensation 6 Double thumb hole 7 Fipple flute or internal duct flute 8 I have a *metal* recorder 9 Question 10 Pictures? 11 William Rowland 12 GA Re-Review and In-line citations 13 My plans for updates to this article 14 Makers 15 inconsistency of range 16 Bass or Basset? 17 recorderer? 18 Which more common in ensembles - sopranino or great bass? 19 Modern Composers 20 Range of the Recorder 21 German Fingering 22 Flute-o-phone 23 Larger images 24 About the name 'recorder'

[edit] Adorno

"The instruments have been criticized by Theodor Adorno for having poorer tuning of sharps and flats and an ‘insipid and childish’ sound. [25]" Really? My understanding is that Adorno's ‘insipid and childish’ comment was directed at all recorders, not specifically those with German fingering. And the reference cited says nothing about intonation. David Peacham

"Actually, what I wrote lambasted the German Recorder Movement: 'One has only to hear the sound of the recorder – at once insipid and childish – and then the sound of the real flute: the recorder is the most frightful death of the revived, continuously dying Pan'. T.W. Adorno (1956). Dissonanzen. Göttingen.

[edit] Fingering section

I removed the extensive section on fingering as it appeared to violate the copyright of [1]. It was added by User:Nibblus in this edit. Notice how the original edit ends midsentence, a classic symptom of cut&paste. —Blotwell 04:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History section

This is a bit misleading, starting, as it does, with the 18th century. For instance, the implication is that recorders were originally called flutes. If so, why does Hamlet say "Ah, ha! Come, some music! Come, the recorders!" Bluewave 08:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a lot of evidence that both "recorder" and "flute" were used interchangeably in Shakespeare's day. The traverse flute was called just that. Synonyms, you gotta love 'em.

For comprensive notes on the origin of the word "recorder" see Lander, N.S. (1996-2007), A pipe for fortune's finger and A memento: the medieval recorder.

[edit] Need for cleanup?

I was a bit surprised to see this article tagged as needing a cleanup—I had thought it read quite well! To me, the areas that could certainly be improved are:

• The introductory paragraph would be better if it summarised the article.
• The section on playing the instrument has had different bits added by different people (including me) and there are places where you can see the "Polyfilla in the cracks"
• we could do with some references
• Perhaps we should compare with the German article on the same subject, which is tagged for its excellence
• Anyone know why its called a Recorder and not a Player or something?

Any other suggestions? Bluewave 09:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've had a first go at implementing my own suggestions! Bluewave 15:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's great to see that we've gone from "needing a cleanup" to "good article"! Bluewave 09:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

For comprehensive notes on the origin of the word "recorder" see Lander, N.S. (1996-2007), A pipe for fortune's finger and A memento: the medieval recorder.

[edit] Condensation

The article says that plastic recorders are "more resistant to condensation". I play plastic and wooden recorders and generally find the plastic ones are more prone to condensation. This is probably because the cedar plug in the wooden wooden ones is quite efficient at absorbing moisture, whereas it just collects on the plastic. Anyone else care to comment? Bluewave 09:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps what they mean is that condensation is less potentially damaging in plastic recorders? Since they can't absorb it. Makemi 17:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That makes more sense. They are certainly more (or even totally) resistant to condensation damage. Bluewave 17:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Plastic recorders are more prone to moisture drops in the labium degrading the instrument's tone. Benglar 22:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that wood reacts to multiple wetting/drying by swelling and shifting. This can be a problem when a recorder is new, degrading the performance of the recorder and eventually requiring maintenance on the block or the windway. Plastics do not have this problem although they can clog up as noted above. I modified the sentences to be a bit more generic.Ohmiwik 16:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double thumb hole

82.27.246.170 mentions double thumb-holes on the back of some recorders for better tuning. I have only seen anything like this in some designs of the larger recorders (great bass and bigger) where the hole cannot physically be reached by the thumb and so there is some keywork to control the covering of the hole. In this case, the usual "pinching" of the hole for the upper octave cannot be achieved and the keywork makes use of a double hole. So, my first question is: is the double thumb-hole used more generally on "ordinary sized" recorders? On the specific claim about better tuning, I am a bit sceptical: I find the positioning of the left hand thumbnail quite critical and that it varies amongst the notes of the upper octave(s), so I am surprised that a fixed pair of holes would be an improvement. So my second question: is there truly any benefit in tuning or is it only implemented for reasons of practicability for the keywork? Bluewave 17:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think that may have been my fault. Someone put that recorders have ten holes, nine in front and one in back. I wasn't sure if this was simple vandalism so I tried, and failed, to clarify. I didn't mean to say that there are double-thumb holes. I was attempting to refer to the double holes for the pinky and ring finger of the right hand, which to my understanding are for tuning. I'll try to make it more clear, but please feel free to fix my awkward prose. Makemi 18:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah OK I see what you mean. I certainly read it like there are some with double thumb holes, which got me thinking (bad idea)! And of course you're right that strictly speaking, lots of recorders have got 9 on the front. Bluewave 18:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have tried relegating that sentence to a footnote. As it was, I thought it now read as if it was the double-holed recorders (rather than just recorders in general) that evolved in the 14th century. The use of double holes is described in the previous section and I can't find an easy way of alluding to it in this section without detracting from the discusssion about the history of the instrument. If anyone can improve on the footnote idea, please go ahead! Bluewave 12:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just put in a bit about pinching the thumb hole in the how the recorder's played section. If it reads badly obviously give it a polish, but it definitely needed mentioning as it's critical after one octave + a few notes Mawich 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fipple flute or internal duct flute

This article has flipped backwards and forwards a couple of times between these different descriptions of the family to which recorders belong. All of my personal reference books (mostly at least 15 years old), including the Oxford Companion referenced in the article, describe the family as fipple flutes. Doing a quick Google on both terms suggests that both are in use (although fipple flutes wins by a big margin). I suggest that we include both terms in the article unless someone can put me right on why one or the other term is definitive. Bluewave 09:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw that and was kinda lost. I don't know much about flute/recorder terminology, but I read part of the New Grove article, which says: "Since nobody can agree what [fipple] means, to avoid further confusion its use should be abandoned." so I just left it, but WP does have an article on fipple flutes, not internal duct flutes. I don't really have an opinion, just thought you should know what the most recent Grove says. Makemi 19:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have a *metal* recorder

The article says:

“

Today, high-quality recorders are made from a range of different hardwoods, such as oiled pear wood, rosewood or boxwood with a fipple of redcedar wood. However, many recorders are made of plastic, which is cheaper, is resistant to damage from condensation, and does not require re-oiling. While higher-end professional instruments are almost always wooden, many plastic recorders currently being produced are equal to or better than lower-end wooden instruments. Beginners' instruments, the sort usually found in children's ensembles, are also made of plastic and can be purchased quite cheaply.

”

Implies that the materials listing is exhaustive. (Also the picture at the top of the article depicts only wooden instruments.) Should the article include reference to other possible materials? Or am I mistaken somewhere? (I could upload a picture of my recorder if you like, since Googling "metal recorder" returns the perplexing first hit: "I have never heard of a metal recorder, although it is possible that one has been or could be invented. Also, recorders are not typically used in marching bands. Modern metal flutes are." Mine is most certainly not a metal flute, since it's a recorder [no valves/open holes you cover with the fingers, blow into mouthpiece as opposed to across, etc. It is also not a tin whistle: it has 8 holes, including a thumb hole, and the hole closest to the base is offset for the right pinkie, as usual])

Gyula Gruber developed the "Silberton", an all-metal soprano recorder made entirely of nickel-plated brass, and an alto made of rosewood with a metal head-joint and two keys for the lowermost finger hole. Both feature a sytem of adjustable voicing achieved by altering the position of the block and the height of the windway. Both were of cylindrical bore. Later the German firm Hopf produced "Silberton" instruments which they now offer as "Gruber System" recorders by Kobliczek in sopranino, soprano, and alto models. Today, Gruber is making them again by himself as signed handmade recorders in small series, also in pure silver. For details see the on-line database of Recorder Makers.

[edit] Question

Why is it called a recorder if it is used to play music, not record it? --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 22:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article, which answers this question. Bluewave 16:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, my bad. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 22:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

For comprehensive notes on the origin of the word "recorder" see Lander, N.S. (1996-2007), A pipe for fortune's finger and A memento: the medieval recorder.

[edit] Pictures?

Does anyone want me to upload more pictures of recorders to this page (perhaps with labels showing different parts) as I can do this if there is consensus to do so. I can take pictures of anything from descant up to bass (knick or crook type). I wasn't really sure if the article needed more pictures but, well, any thoughts anyone? Hydraton31 00:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to be able to add pictures that enhance the text, rather than just adding more pictures of recorders. Pictures of some of the historical examples; renaissance versus baroque; maybe some modern innovations like the Dolmetsch square-section great bass. Probably a bit of a tall order! Bluewave 14:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was sort of thinking of taking pictures of recorders and then labelling the different parts of them (like on the German article with labium etc) so that it is something more than just more pictures and would make the article more informative by showing readers the different sections of a recorder. I accept that just throwing more pictures in would not add to the article but I still feel that labelled ones might add something.

Hydraton31 20:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not give it a try then. Bluewave 06:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

One moment please... --Hydraton31 16:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this mini-project, I am going to encounter some delay for several reasons. Please see my talk page for information regarding this. --Hydraton31 04:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added the pictures to the article but the formatting is not that great, feel free to improve as I seem to be unable to, sorry.. --Hydraton31 21:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Rowland

A few sentences have been recently added regarding William Rowland. Is there anything notable about his music? Was surprised to see him mentioned in the same breath as Hindemith, Britten etc. His work may be the only one to use all the members of the family, but there are certainly plenty of other modern concerto-type works for the recorder (eg Malcolm Arnold). Is his work notable or just one of the many pieces written (usually for school and amateur ensembles) by non-notable composers? Bluewave 11:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not finding anything very hopeful either on google or in Grove on this guy. I was having a disagreement about the use of the word "blockflute" with the newcomer who added that, though, so in the interest of not biting too hard, I left it in. I would support its removal, though. Mak (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 03:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added some citations. Any additions or improvements on my sources would be welcome! Bluewave 09:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My plans for updates to this article

I would like to incorporate some of the improvements I made on the Esperanto article about recorders to the English article. In particular, I would like to put in some of the new graphics and tables I created, as well as some of the references which are not included in the English article. If anyone has a serious objection, let me know right away. Thanks. Gerry --Gerrywright 20:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Anything that makes a "Good Article" even better must surely be welcomed! I think there was some earlier discussion about fingering charts and whether they are appropriate for inclusion, so that might prove controversial if you are thinking of adding them. The charts showing the range of each member of the family look quite nice, although some might disagree about the upper ends (I guess most serious alto players would expect to go above top G but great basses are not always reliable in the same part of their range). Personally I don't like the bullet lists of composers, players, etc, if you are thinking of using them. Anyway, give it a try and see how it looks! Bluewave 16:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue with the fingering chart had to do with posting copyrighted material. But, I did not copy the chart I made up for the Esperanto page. I created the chart from my own knowledge of the fingerings. However, if it would make people feel better, I can put in a reference to a source that goes into a lot of detail about recorder fingerings. As for the ranges, I wanted to show the notes that are typically attainable by intermediate level players. I think that if we want to show the extended range we need to put in an additional smaller note after the standard range note. Since it took me a long time to make up the original graphics, I would like for someone else to do that! Anyway, it probably only matters for the alto and maybe tenor recorders. I have never been able to reliably get the extended range notes on the bigger recorders, and I have never had the courage to try them on the smallest recorders. Gerry--Gerrywright 23:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just looked at the fingering charts. The fingering for F# in the 3rd octave needs to make it clear that the end of the recorder is covered. Is there any way this can be added easily to the chart (even just an asterisk with a note below)? Also I was a bit surprised by the fingerings for F# and G in the 3rd octave. I've always played /1346 rather than your /12467. I know that either fingering is possible but I thought the former was more usual. I've just tried it out on a couple of recorders and /1346 certainly gives a much more reliable and stable top G and a more accurate sounding F#. However this may just be because my recorders have got accustomed to the way I play them! Also /1346 seems a bit less clumsy in fast passages, but again that may just be because I've practised like that. Bluewave 10:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I think you found a mistake in my table. I will fix it. I usually use 13467 for these notes, because 1346 is a little sharp on my recorders. Gerry--Gerrywright 12:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. On mine /1346 tends to be sharp and /13467 a bit flat! I suggest the figure still needs something to indicate that the bell is covered in the top note (top G and F# look the same). Also maybe a note to say that higher notes are playable but fingerings vary from instrument to instrument (someone below pointed out the inconsistency of the chart with the text and I guess that is the reason). Bluewave 11:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I haven't addressed this yet because I have had other things on my plate and I was trying to decide on the best way to handle it. --Gerrywright 13:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just looked again at the chart and wonder if the fingering for top F is right. I play /145 not /156. Bluewave 11:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear! I must have had a brain fart when I did the 3rd octave! I will fix it. Thanks for taking the time to check the chart.--Gerrywright 13:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be made clear that the best fingering for a note on any given recorder can vary according to type, size, keywork, and dynamic effect desired, not just the highest ones. The high Bb/Eb, for example, is almost always better as /12--56h (h=half-hole)but some on a few recorders /12-456- is better. I have several recorders with high F#/C#s that do not need a covered bell. The low Bb/Eb forked fingering is also quite variable - I use 4 different fingerings depending on which recorder I'm holding. Thanks for working to improve this article.68.35.55.186 04:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the low Eb is always a bit variable. In consort playing, I tend to use a different fingering if, say, I'm playing in Bb major and the Eb makes a minor third with C, versus playing in E minor where "the same" note acts as a D# to play as a major third against B. I guess the fingering charts just need to show the "standard" fingerings and we assume that players who are exploring more of the subtleties of the instrument will check out some of the references and will have to experiment with their own instruments to find the fingerings that work. Bluewave 10:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished editing the fingering chart (which I think is very useful and good to have here, even if it is "original research"). I thought having the notes listed as F(C) and so forth was cumbersome, so I separated the notes into two columns. (I would have put the Tuned-in-C column first as I play soprano, but I've respected the original order. :) I also used the Unicode flats and sharps to make it prettier, but if that causes a readability problem for anyone it can be changed back to "B-flat" etc.) --ScottAlanHill

20:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Two additions to the article: Under recorder players, please add:

Dan Laurin Saskia Coolen

To the bibliography,

Vinquist, Mary. "Recorder Tutors of the 17th and 18th Century: Technique and Performance Practice." PhD dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1974.

You also need to research the articles by David Lasocki and his dissertation. User: Mary Vinquist (Aug. 15, 2007

[edit] Makers

Who makes the best recorders nowadays? If somebody wants to buy a good beginner recorder that will last them 5 years or so... what makers are the big ones? We should mention the top few makers, I think.--Sonjaaa 06:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I had thought about adding something on this previously but found it difficult to come with something that was useful but wasn't blatantly promoting particular makers. I had thought of adding to the section on makers and saying something like "Modern materials and production techniques present today's players with a wide range models at different prices, all of which have an acceptable tone and can be played in tune over a range of about two octaves. For example, a wide-range of mass-produced plastic recorders are produced by global companies such as Yamaha and Aulos. In the middle price range, several European manufacturers such as Moeck, Mollenhauer, Kung and Dolmetch all produces ranges of wooden recorders. At the high end, various specialists produce handmade recorders: for example, Tim Cranmore in England, Ralf Netsch, in Germany, and the Prescott Workshop, in the U.S.A. Players' requirements vary greatly: for example, a different recorder might be chosen for consort playing, rather than solo work. Hence, specialist recorder shops offer a range of models to suit different needs and some offer online advice about the different options.[2]" However, the above leaves out Kobliczek, Paetzold, Zen-on and loads of other manufacturers so I decided not to put it in the article! Bluewave 09:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you add that discussion more or less as you wrote it and add a link to the Recorder Homepage's Recorder Makers on-line database instead of Saunder's page. I have played recorders from all the makers you mention and I don't think you've unfairly categorized any of them. It is clear that you're not recommending one type or maker over another. Be careful with umlauts and spelling however.68.35.55.186 04:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The mention of maker John Wilman here seems out of place and should be moved. Although his instruments were outstanding, John has not made recorders for many years.

Regardless of any debate over which current makers merit inclusion, the failure to mention the importance of Fred Morgan to modern recorder making (unless I missed it), especially with regard to the historical models, is a huge omission, IMO. His work deserves inclusion as an important contribution to contemporary recorder making and playing irrespective of which/whether other makers are mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.69.228 (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] inconsistency of range

The words in the article say the range is two octaves and a fifth at least The graphics of range and the fingering chart show two octaves and a note This is inconsistent. Can someone who knows how please improve the graphics Alligin

Who makes the best —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.33.9.79 (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I suggest adding a caption to the table which shows the ranges. I'd do it myself but can't work out how! I suggest something like "For each member of the recorder family, this table shows its lowest playable note and a nominal range of two octaves and a tone. This is the range typically quoted by manufacturers of medium-priced modern instruments. In practice, the playable range is dependent on the individual instrument and the skill of the player (see main text)." Bluewave 11:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I put in the chart and the graphics, I will take responsibility for clearing up the issue. Bluewave has some good suggestions that I think can improve things.--Gerrywright 13:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bass or Basset?

Does anyone in the English Speaking world refer to the Bass in F (the intrument below the Tenor) as a Basset? I have met hundreds of players in Britain and have never heard it referred to in that way - we just call it a Bass, with the next lower instrument being called a C-Bass or Great Bass. I wonder if the English version of the article was originally in another language - David S

I am a treble player but I have never heard of a bass recorder being called Basset. Sotakeit 15:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have heard and seen it used when discussing Renaissance consort recorders - to help distinguish between the true basses (the C-Bass and the mighty contrabass in F) from the (hardly bigger than tenors) basses in G and F often found in those consorts. It's a better term really. - B2

I'm English and I've heard it called the Basset. The problem is that for some/most people, it goes Bass, Great Bass, Contrabass; but for other peole it goes Basset (in F), Bass (in C), Great Bass (in F), Contrabass (in C). I don't know where it comes from but it does seem to be a general concensus on the former and the latter is just about to confuse people... - M.

[edit] recorderer?

what is ther term for a person who plays the recorder? please include the term or terms used in the first paragraph of the article.--74.56.212.27 19:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "recorder player" is the usual term in England. eg the recorder players' society is called the Society of Recorder Players[3] (not the Society of Recorderers and Recorderists!) Bluewave 20:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which more common in ensembles - sopranino or great bass?

While the soprano, alto, tenor and bass are the most common for ensembles, which of the other sizes is fifth most common? Which is used more often, the sopranino or great bass?

The great bass is pretty expensive, so I think it probably depends on which kind of ensemble. Inkwell 07:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a simple answer - certainly not one that could be usefully included in the article. Most ensemble players can play more than one "size" of recorder. A lot of ensemble players will have a sopranino that they can play if asked to, but it depends on whether they choose to play pieces written for sopranino. As pointed out above, the great bass is an expensive instrument, but ensembles which have one at their disposal are (at least in my experience) very keen to make use of it. Some viol music plays well with the lowest part on a great bass and a lot of SATB music sounds good transposed down a fourth and played on A T B GB. Bluewave 16:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, the great bass is much more welcome and useful in ensemble playing and should be considered the fifth size. Most consort Renaissance music does not include an obvious sopranino line and it balances poorly with the larger instruments. The sopranino comes into its own in Baroque concertos and playing with strings or other modern instruments and are indispensible in recorder orchestras. I agree with the comment about transposing above, but note that the transposition is not automatic unless the alto and bass are in G instead of F. 207.108.248.88 19:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I modified that paragraph to make the point I made in the comment above. Although I have to say it is just my opinion, I've been an ensemble player for many years - we use our great bass every week and a sopranino twice a year and then only to preview orchestra pieces. Ohmiwik 16:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Composers

The article should mention Carl Dolmetsch and the Haslemere Festivals which were the mechanism for introducing most of the modern composers listed to the recorder. Louis Andreissen should also be mentioned; his work "Sweet for Recorders" was seminal in the introduction of the recorder into avantgarde music. OldTownAdge (talk) 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Range of the Recorder

The section on the range of the recorder really needs a rewrite. At the very least it needs to reference Ganassi - Opera Intitula Fontegara for the renaissance instrument and its range of 2 octaves and a sixth, and it needs to say that the baroque instrument had a normal range of two octaves and a tone, which a few composers (e.g. Vivaldi and Telemann) extended further. See Anthony Rowland-Jones: Recorder Technique

The claim that the Baroque had a wider range than the Renaissance recorder is obviously false, as is the claim that the Renaissance recorder could not play chromatically in tune. I see there is no citation! A lot of this stuff on recorder ranges looks like "original research" (to put it politely) rather than based on public sources. (Sorry about lack of signature - especially after I moan about a similar fault in others below!) OldTownAdge (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that section needs more attention. I revised the sentence that implied that all ren. recorders could play the Ganassi range in the hands of skilled players. This is not true. Little if any music of his period had parts that exceeded the basic 1+1/6 gamut. Playable instruments from the period do not have the extended range (see Adrian Brown's discussion and database [4]). Ganassi himself claims full credit for discovering the extended notes and then proceeds to use them only once or twice in his own diminution tables. So the claim that Baroque instruments had a wider range than Ren. instruments is true in a general sense: most instruments that survive have the 2+1 range. Ohmiwik (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment. And it is also true that the idea that Baroque instruments were restricted to 2+1 may also be an artefact of modern publishers. Telemann certainly uses F# freely in his virtuoso works - e.g. in the obbligatos in "Der Geduldige Sokrate" - but these works are rarely published outside the Collected Works. We should mention the unfortunate fact that most preserved recorders are rich amateurs' instruments, (and this is not just true of recorders), but I don't really believe that this makes much difference to the ranges. OldTownAdge (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German Fingering

The reference to German Fingering is very misleading. German fingering is not in use at all in any modern instrument, simply because it is grossly out of tune. See A Rowland-Jones: Recorder Technique and E Hunt: The Recorder And Its Music - both references forty years old and German fingering was dead then. OldTownAdge (talk) 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, how do you explain the fact that large firms like Moeck, Mollenhauer, Kueng and others continue to manufacture German-fingered recorders to this day? Someone must buying them.

Others? And how many? They form a very small part of the catalogues of even these three companies. I dare say there are a few places in Germany still using them, but they must be an infinitesimal part of the total recorder production. (BTW, please sign your comments; it's nice to know who I'm talking to.) OldTownAdge (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flute-o-phone

I'm not sure if that spelling is right, but that's what the recorder was called in my school. Is that something different or just an obscure term? The playing method was the same, though the end was open like a horn, as opposed to the style shown here. The box for it was marked Recorder though, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.108.3 (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Larger images

This article has several images, but significant detail is missing in many of them. Since there's no issue of fair use, consider making them about 50% larger. 67.169.126.106 (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About the name 'recorder'

In the book Recorder Technique by Anthony Rowland-Jones (ISBN 0 19 318604 7) (OUP 1959) the writer states the following:
The word 'recorder' is associated with the verb 'to record' which refers to the warbling noises made by birds, particularly young birds in the nest, and the name might have been transferred to the musical instrument because of its being used to teach birds to sing (see The Bird Fancyer's Delight, ed. S. Godman, pub. Schott). Alternatively the connection may have been simply in the similarity of the recorder's tone-quality to bird-song, for the word was used for bird-song generally, as in Jonson's madrigal in The Triumphs of Oriana (1603) - 'Then tune to us, sweet bird, thy shrill recorder'. Another possibility is in the use of 'to record' in the sense of 'to sing softly' or 'to hum', and this might have led to 'la flûte douce' being termed a 'recorder'.
Rein de Vries 82.73.122.41 (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For comprensive notes on the origin of the word "recorder" see Lander, N.S. (1996-2007), A pipe for fortune's finger and A memento: the medieval recorder.