Talk:Glossary of bagpipe terms/Archive 1

there are many articles on the bagpipes; some general, others specific like [[Great Highland Bag pipe]] or Uilleann pipes. None of these articles define the terms they use, or link, to the extent that they should, other pages within or external to wikipedia. I believe it would be beneficial to provide a page where one can find the definition to technical terms that are not completely obvious even when read in context. We pipers tend tend to use technical words that we do not understand, or we simply take too much for granted. I must say that bagpipe tutors do go to great length to define musical notation. My surveys reveal that most pipers ignore these lessons and rush to the mechanics of playing.

There are probably 500 terms that need to be defined. joe 03:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i have started to write down terms found in my tutors but this exercise is more complicated that i originally thought. i am tired have to go to bed and hope no ones deletes the work i have done. joe 03:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DRV allowing a deleted stub to be recreated without review, I have undeleted the page, with the caveat that the editor place more information in this article shortly. -- Avi 03:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there are at least 500 terms for this article; and it is needed; particularly as a link from google. please do not delete this page. {{help}} i am getting punchy; i am working on too many articles at the same time. i need to go to bed. See u all in the morning. joe 04:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to Add terms

i still have a lot more terms to add. then i will define the terms. this is a more complex subject than i originally thought because of the many types of bagpipes. most of the pipers that i am interviewing are ignorant of other types of bagpipes, and are frequently ignorant of the anatomy of their own bagpipe and the technical musical notations. I haven't found a single source that defines all the terms used in pipe playing and piping technology. but most tutors do devote pages to musical notation to educate the aspiring young pipers. i was most fortunate to have studied the piano under Craig Kajar, and the highland pipes under Donald Lindsay, the cauld wind pipes under Hamish Moore and the uilleann pipes from my father. joe 15:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Computers have failed 3 times

i lost an hours work when the Viki computer crapped out. i really should do all this on my desktop but it is not an efficient process for me. much of this effort is coming out of my head in a creative way from all the texts and tutors that i have studied. one thought leads to another thought. frequently i check with some my work papers on music theory.

i studied music theory, piano, under craig najjar out of Boston. he is a sound engineer, a producer, rents out his perfect pitch ears to Broadway, a stunt pilot - scary, and an former professor at the Berkeley school of music in Boston. najjar was giving private lessons to two of my older grandchildren when they ages 5 to 10. the grandkids were gifted. so i took lessons at the same time because i am in to music synth and bagpipe synth. why am i babbling.

i have to save my work to my desktop frequently because wiki computers have been shaky lately.

i am guessing that i am about 25% thru this project. joe 02:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Report

i continue to make progress on this glossary. i am just amazed at how many specialized words we use in piping. this bagpipe glossary will be the first of its kind in the encyclopedic world. I also notice that a glossary of bagpipe musical symbols does not exist; nor can i find a glossary of actuarial symbols in use. joe 14:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Length Standard

i have noted that the wiki standard for article length is about 32K and that this article is already larger than 32K. however, i believe that the standard should not be applied to a list of definitions since an inquirer is not likely to read all the definitions at one sitting. joe 15:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update Progress Report

I guess i am about 50% complete on this subject.

when i was younger, i wrote a Technical book about managing pipe bands which i never got published because i was ON a rapid rise as an executive. I also did a great deal of research at Bell Labs with Max Mathews (father of computer music) on the harmonics of the bagpipe. It is safe to say that I have done more serious research on the bagpipes than most others around the world. so much of what comes out of my head and in these art ices is from past experiences, including all the stuff i have read. joe 15:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update Progress Report 2

this project has taken on a life of its own. much larger than i anticipated. It seems to me that it is really needed. I am surprised now that no one has ever undertaken to publish a book with a glossary of pipe/drum terms. joe 07:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of thoughts

This article is not a bad idea, though I've only just noticed it. A few thoughts:

Terms from general music theory probably don't belong here - types of clef, appogiaturas, etc.
If something could have an article in its own right, it doesn't belong here - e.g., African Blackwood, Strathspey, or Ivory.
The focus needs to be on terms directly relevant to bagpipes - I would suggest that entries on things like bodhrans, kilts, tin whistles don't belong in here (and most of them have or need their own article anyway).
There is a lot of stuff in here that is very dubious. I am firmly of the belief, for example, that no piper has ever deliberately played a neutral third and that no pipe maker has ever intended a chanter to play a neutral third. I've never heard a singer sing a neutral third, not even in archive recordings. I don't know of any piper that deliberately tunes to an even temperament. In drumming, it is a ruff, not a rough (as in four stroke ruff). I don't know a single person that knows or cares about Pearston's rather wacky note feelings (what about Lament for Donald Ban, in, umm, D?), and so on and so on.

Like I say, the article is a good idea, but it needs to be accurate, focused, and well researched. At the moment, it isn't. Calum 17:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

interesting page

There's some good info here, but as Calum says, there are also some errors here.

>By the Right Quick March: The Pipe Major directs the band with words that express the tempo - Right Quick March.

A "right quick march" doesn't exist. The Drum Major directs the band to play a quick march, yes, but the phrase "by the right" is not related to the tempo. This tells the band which file (in this case, the right file) to take their dressing from. The right is usually the side the pipe major is on, either on his own, or as the right hand person in the front rank. You often hear "by the center" as well, with "by the left" being far less common.

i don't know who left the previous comment. but it is not entirely accurate. nor was my definition entirely accurate because it was poorly written. I have corrected the definition. the statement "by the right quick march" serves several purposes. (i) it directs the band to dress right. (ii) it directs the band to step off smartly at a quick march pace which varies in tempo depending on a number of factors. But the expressing itself, "by the right quick march" sets the tempo based on the speed and precision that the command is given. AT LEAST THIS IS HOW WE DO IT IN CONNECTICUT.

WHEN ADDRESSING a MASS BAND, the pipe majors usually dresses off the center with the command "by the center quick (slow) march. joe 01:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my comments on above recommendations

i have been on the road for quite some time and will respond as soon as i get home in a few days. there is an error on the graph showing embellishments. i show an E gracenote in stead of a G gracenote. i will fix this when i get home.

67.142.130.40 03:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wictionary?

Oppose. See Category talk:Glossaries. Rfrisbie^talk 17:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose.joe 19:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oppose. Glossaries on Wikipedia are integrated into Wikipedia in that their entries lead to encyclopedia articles, so Wikipedia glossaries match the scope of Wikipedia, Wiktionary glossary entries do not. Wikipedia glossaries service Wikipedia, Wiktionary glossaries do not. Wikipedia glossaries serve as navigation aids to Wikipedia, Wiktionary glossaries do not. Copying and transwiki'ing Wikipedia glossaries to Wiktionary is fine, crippling Wikipedia by removing them is not. The Transhumanist 04:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than 150 glossaries in Wikipedia and they serve the public well. I use them frequently, rather than using a dictionary.

I believe we should make our wikipedia as useful and fact based as possible. Wikipedia has come under criticism for its robots that hack away at good material without professional expertise. I have sources for about 99% of the entries in this glossary and will get around to including them in the future. The sources will provide a wealth of information for serious users. Most of the enteries in this glossary link with other parts wikipedia. Eventually all of the pagpipe articles will link to the glossary to provide comparitive information.

A new competitor, called Citizendium is emerging to rely more heavily on people with subject matter expertise to guide the editing process.

Wikipedia has to be more cautious in fine tuning its contents.

I would not favor moving this glossary into wiktionary.

A glossary is a list of specialized or technical words with their meanings.

A dictionary, on the other hand, is a list of words with their definitions, a list of characters with their glyphs, or a list of words with corresponding words in other languages. Dictionaries also provide pronunciation information; grammatical information; word derivations, histories, or etymologies; illustrations; usage guidance; and examples in phrases or sentences. Dictionaries are most commonly found in the form of a book. Some dictionaries are also found in electronic portable handheld devices.

The Glossary of Bagpipe terms is not a dictionary. Nor would it fit well within Wiktionary because many of the definitions serve to explain differences between the music, technology, customs of the various bagpipes described in wikipedia. Keep in mind that there are at 45 separate articles on bagpipes in wikipedia. Many of these need to be linked which i am in the process of doing so as to provide users with reliable information.

Most dictionaries assume that bagpipe means Great Highland Bagpipe. Or some other ethnic bagpipe if the dictionary is intended to serve an ethnic audience.

Wikipedia has 45 articles on the various bagpipes. And there are about 10 ethic bagpipes described. And this list of ethnic bagpipes will be expanded to include many other important type bagpipes. (Minor nit: all of the bagpipes are "ethnic" to some group. Fenevad 12:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the various bagpipes, particularly the important difference in technique, technology, written music, musical theory and so forth.

Wikipedia has a great opportunity to provide important information to users of wikipedia thru linking of articles. It is also very economical to create stubs that provide detail explanations and comparisons. Otherwise the main articles will become cluttered.

Some issues

A fairly large number of the entries are not really good glossary entries in that they don't define the headword. Look at “full set,” for example: there is nothing there to explain what the term is and the commentary only makes sense if you already know what it means. In fact the definition presented is rather misleading. I don’t have the time, but this page would benefit strongly from having someone with lexicographical experience go through it and rewrite many of the entries to (1) define the headword rather than/in addition to providing commentary of benefit primarily to pipers who already know the terms, and (2) assume a non-specialist audience (look at “cran,” for example: only a piper could decipher that entry). In addition, there are some accuracy problems for a number of entries, where the definitions provided are quite dubious (e.g., “flea hole,” which I will correct from talking about making the pipe go above its normal range(!) to raising other notes by a semi-tone, a rather different proposition).

An additional issue is that there are many entries that properly have nothing to do with bagpipes per se, but rather to do with (usually Highland) piping culture, e.g., “Day and Evening Wear.” I don’t know that these need to be moved, but I feel that they do tend to promote the notion that the GHB are “the bagpipes,” so it might be worthwhile to create a separate glossary of GHB performance and cultural terms and reserve this list for specific terms related to bagpipes as instruments.

While there is a lot of good content on this page, I would suggest that the community needs to thoroughly vet the entries for accuracy (particularly for non-GHB terms) and look hard at how to make it useful and not perpetuate a GHB-centric image.

Fenevad 12:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]