Jump to content

Talk:Pipe organ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articlePipe organ was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 19, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 1, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 26, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 25, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
August 16, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 7, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
July 9, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jessmhill. Peer reviewers: Alisa.coffey.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back & forth with the Robert Huw Morgan performance

[edit]

The video showing Robert Huw Morgan performing BWV 542 on the Stanford Memorial Church's Fisk-Nanney organ has been removed several times (by various IP users) - many times with out reason given, but most recently with the reason that it is a "controversial performance displaying inappropriate style and technique".

I'm going to re-add the piece for this reason: The musician is a highly celebrated organ scholar; the instrument is a large and important example of a pipe organ at a highly notable location; the piece being performed is a notable composition by a notable composer. Additionally, the organ is said to reproduce the sound of Baroque music as authentically as possible, and this is an excellent performance with high quality sound recording.

Even if it were true that it was controversial and the style & technique are inappropriate, that doesn't merit deletion. This isn't an article about organ style and technique. If anyone still thinks that the video is inappropriate, please give detailed reasoning here. I'd like to see a source detailing why the performance was controversial. – jaksmata 17:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The performance by Robert Morgan has again been eliminated. The organ is an important instrument and other recordings of it are important contributions to the field. This recording violates the historical principles of performance in Kittel, C.P.E. Bach, Sorge, and others. Such a discussion page is too small to quote them all and no sources have been given in support of this performance or in support of other statements made by the person initiating this discussion. In addition, the video is harming the reputation of Robert Morgan and it would be to his advantage for it to disappear.

If you want to put a video there, find another one. This is a page to promote the pipe organ and a section to promote Bach. It should not be used to promote or damage the reputation of anyone or anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipe Fan (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not here to "promote" anything, it is an objective encyclopedia article on the instrument. The video depicts a piece of organ music being played on a pipe organ; both of them are both notable in themselves, and not so hugely atypical of the music or the instrument that they will mislead readers. The person we should be thinking of when choosing a video here is someone who is wondering "what does pipe-organ music sound like" and so on, not someone who is seeking advice on historical principles of performance.
By all means, replace it with a better video that does the same job, but the bottom line is that in the absence of such, the article is better off with it than without it. Barnabypage (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is that video harming the reputation of Robert Morgan, the performer? Is he ashamed of it? Are the various accounts that have been removing the video related to Robert Morgan? If so, please read WP:COI. – jaksmata 14:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The latest removal of the video called it an "offensive bare-foot performance" and a "universally despised" practice ([1]). I'd like to call the editor's attention to WP:CENSOR - an official Wikipedia policy - just because you find content objectionable or despicable, that doesn't mean it should be removed. – jaksmata 20:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd echo BarnabyPage's comments. Presumably Robert Morgan knows it has a license for usage in the public domain? So there shouldn't be a problem there. For the purposes of this article, all a reader would want to see is how is the instrument played, and what does it sound like. They won't know enough about technique to glean anything positive or negative from this video; nor will they be looking for authentic performance practise. Some of us may not like the video per se, but it's probably better than nothing. What would be more valuable would be one displaying more things like registration changes and using different manuals for different tone colours etc, or maybe not a piece, but some sort of technical overview of the instrument, that sort of thing. Until something like that turns up, we cannot remove this video for some sort of censorship, because we don't like it.—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I hear that is objectionable in the video of Morgan playing is because he does it barefoot. How stupid is the objection? Very much so. I don't think you can really object to how the organ is played as long as it is played well. There are people without hands who play the piano with their feet. There's a guy from China who does that. You can do a search on YouTube for that. Playing the organ barefooted while not the typical fashion it's played can certainly be done. Furthermore, the person who removed it argued that the video is "not a representation" of pipe organ performance but rather a "showcase of one". That's an untenable argument. Notice, the meaning of representation means that it is an example of the thing itself and not the entirety of the thing itself. That's what representation means. It represents. It doesn't give you the whole thing itself. Giving you the entirety of the whole thing is not called representation. That would be the whole thing itself which in any case any video wouldn't be able to do. Yes, playing barefooted on the pipe organ is a representation of playing the pipe organ. There are many other ways to represent it too. Thank goodness that the video hasn't been removed as of this commenting! --69.134.24.167 (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masonism & the social history of the organ

[edit]

This bit on masonic organists was tacked on to 20c repertoire before being deleted:

Organ music plays an important role in Freemason ritual such as the installation of a new Master of the Lodge, initiation of candidates, passing to the second degree and raising to the third degree[1]. Johann Christian Bach was a Freemason. [2] Sir Arthur Sullivan, Sullivan of 'Gilbert and Sullivan', was a Freemason and the Grand Organist of the United Grand Lodge of England in 1887.[3]

I disagree with the OR rational, though I agree it would be preferable to give the original references buried in List of Freemasons directly:

  1. ^ http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/organistintro.html
  2. ^ http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Freemasons#M
  3. ^ http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Freemasons#H
  4. ^ "Johann Christian Bach". Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon. 2001-03-19. Retrieved 2010-01-12.

As I see it, the issue is where the material belongs. We already have a twofold history of construction and repertoire, so maybe a third section on the use of the instrument is called for: a general reader might well be interested in how an instrument that once accompanied the screams of martyrs came to have pride of place in the Western church, the origin of Organ recitals, how and when organ playing crept into Synagogues, whether indeed Johann Gottlieb Naumann wrote the earliest organ music for Masonic rites, the rise & fall of cinematic theater organs, etc... Sparafucil (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fribourg orgue.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Fribourg orgue.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 29 November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Builders section

[edit]

In September 2011, an IP editor added a 'Builders' section. Besides lacking substance, the section favors living pipe organ builders, bordering on promotion. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, Wikipedia is not a trade directory or a resource for conducting business. I propose that this section be removed. Perhaps a 'See also' section could be added under which would a appear a link to List of pipe organ builders. —Waldhorn (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking responses to the above, I've gone ahead and removed the Builders section. Please discuss concerns here. Thanks!  —Waldhorn (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure

[edit]

Many descriptions of pipe organs mention air pressure in ″ units (e.g. 100″ or 50″). May I ask, what is this unit and how to convert it to standard SI units? Is it inch of water? Or inch of mercury? Thanks! --Xth-Floor (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is inches of water. --Danmuz (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stops

[edit]

As a newbie trying to follow how all these parts work, I find this bit ambiguous:
- Sometimes, a single rank of pipes may be able to be controlled by several stops, allowing...
Does this mean the rank in its entirety can be activated by multiple stops (for example, singly by 8' Diapason, and in combination with others by Mixture V)? Or does it mean that a portion of a rank can be controlled by a stop? I think the paragraph is trying to illustrate the latter.

If correct, something like this may help:
- Stops can be used to control portions of a rank, allowing... For example, a portion of an 8' Diapason rank may also be made available as a 4' Octave. When both of these stops are selected...
Written that way, the rest of the paragraph follows easily.
Pbyhistorian (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With a borrowing scheme, in addition to there often being more stops than there are total ranks, the ranks themselves are generally extended an octave in the direction of the additional desired borrowing. Thus, an 8' Diapason rank can be extended an octave from, say, 61 notes to 73 to provide for the final upper octave needed to borrow for an 8' Octave. Moving in the other direction, should you desire to borrow a 16' off a core 8' rank, you would extend the 8' down an additional octave, although many builders when extending down leave off the final octave or borrow the final octave from another existing 16' in order to save material and space. For a thorough discussion of the many flavors of unification/borrowing/extension/duplication, try giving the following books a read. You can read the Audlsey and parts of the Barnes online from their links.
 —Waldhorn (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Footnotes 27 thru 30 are dead links. I believe that all external links must redirect to the site. I think that the dead links should be removed and replaced by links that redirect to the sites.--Kevjgav (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Pipe organ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

also known as

[edit]

Apologies if this has been discussed before; I've been away from Wikipedia editing for a while. But the choice of "also known as" synonyms seems a bit random to me. We currently have "church organ, chapel organ, grand organ, or Baroque organ" but in that case why not "concert organ", or "cathedral organ", or "classical organ" or any of several other terms? Personally, I'd be tempted to leave it at "church organ" - of course church organs aren't strictly speaking necessarily pipe organs but it's probably the most widely-used alternative term in general parlance. Barnabypage (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The dude who pulls the stops (assisting the organist)

[edit]

How is that dude called in English? I wonder why the article doesn't mention the fact that with complex arrangements, the organist him-/herself can't be bothered with pulling and releasing stops, because organ sounds might be required to change rapidly. That's why there's an assistant to the organist, who does this (and who has preferably a little knowledge about organs as well). In my native German language, this dude is called a Registrant. But even with a small r, this term is virtually unknown in English---or, at least, extraordinarily rare. -quintaton- 2.242.182.127 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Registrant" is the term I've very occasionally heard in English when I've heard the role given any specific name at all - otherwise there's generic "assistant" or, of course, "page-turner". :) Barnabypage (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pipe organ. 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) 16:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Pipe organ. 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) 00:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically incorrect use of the word schematically in label of animated tracker action.

[edit]

I can not find the method to change this word to the more correct grammatical form Schematic. Would a more knowledgeable editor please take a look at the description underlying this image which is opposite the heading "WIND SYSTEM" in this article. Thanks, Spyglasses 19:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Pipe organ for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Pipe organ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pipe organ until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change of BC/AD to BCE/CE

[edit]

Autodidact1 has changed BC/AD to BCE/CE on the article without reason, contrary to WP:Era. They did this in an edit on 22 July, and it was not mentioned in their edit summary. I reverted last night, pointing out WP:Era, but they've reverted that. Looking through their edit history, they seem to be doing it on more pages, these examples with not so civil edit summaries. --Inops (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not so; I said that the BCE usage was now the preferred one, at least among rational people who reject the Theocratic usage, "BC". Autodidact1 (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Era links to MOS:STYLEVAR which says "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." I don't think your personal preference against what you see as a "theocratic" usage is a good enough reason. You're welcome to bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, if you think otherwise. We're likely to get other people involved that way. --Inops (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Autodidact1 (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I'm amazed that you've, after being here since 2010, not grasped the need for civility. My argument has nothing at all to do with religion; you're just violating a perfectly reasonable policy in place to avoid wars over conventions of style. --Inops (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "lynch mob"? What are you talking about? --Inops (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Divisions?

[edit]

This article talks about "divisions". Where are they defined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinhirne (talk • contribs) 12:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Names

[edit]

Per this edit by an IP, I understand the motivation for this change, but it seems like a tautology to me, and quite wordy, considering it's inside the infobox. I would say that pipe organs have more names than these two, such as "theater organ", am I right? Elizium23 (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Baroque organs

[edit]

I've added a brief summary of the Italian Baroque organ as I felt it has an important place in musical history, and is quite different to organs across the rest of Europe. My single reference is a book by Peter Williams. I'm painfully aware that generalisations can so easily knock up against multiple exceptions, so, for example, I've written that these organs were often single-manual affairs, based on Williams' statement "Second manuals remained exceptional..." even though plenty had them. Please do let me know if you disagree with anything I've written. I wanted to add something on pitch and temperament, as there seems to be an Italian flavour here (Williams quotes Antignati as saying that the pitch of an organ can be "come si vuole", "as you like", i.e. at the builder's discretion, depending on the local taste). But the matter of pitch and temperament goes way beyond Italy and is a huge subject, so I've kept out of it. But if anyone has any thoughts... Elemimele (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Organ range

[edit]

I just can't make sense of the graphic on this page that shows the organ range. The center staff says "range of a typical organ with 2" to 16" pipes" and shows a range of C1 to C9 -- that's pretty clear. Then, to the right, there is a staff of "sound possibilities" with each C labeled with a pipe size, the implication being that the range of an organ with given min and max length will match the diagram. If that's the case, why is C7 marked as a 1" pipe when the middle staff shows the 2" pipe reaching C9? Similarly for the lowest note; the staff on the right has C1 for the 64' pipe, but the center graphic shows C1 for the 16' pipe.

Possibly I am just misreading it, but I can't be the only one. What is the actual range of a 64' to 1' organ? Assuming the middle graphic is correct for 16' to 2', then would it be C-1 to C10? 217.180.201.122 (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action description

[edit]

In the initial description of tracker action, I replaced "mechanical" with "only rods and levers". This might be a bit erroneous or imprecise, but "mechanical" was far worse - a straight pneumatic action is also entirely mechanical, and needs to be excluded. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(It's true that only a beginner would not know that, but this opening description is precisely the place where it's necessary to cater to beginners.) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

[edit]

After reviewing the article, I think the article might not meet the good article criteria anymore. My concerns are outlined below:

  • There are multiple uncited sentences and paragraphs throughout the article, some of which have been tagged with "citation needed" templates,
  • There is an extended "Further reading" section: can these be used as sources, or should they be removed?
  • Many citations quote the source: this is usually no longer necessary and could cause copyright concerns. Can these be removed?

Is anyone willing to address the above concerns? If not, I may nominate this article at WP:GAR. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Pipe organ

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Not enough improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has numerous uncited sentences. Deprecated and unreliable sources are used (such as Answers.com) while there is an extensive "Further reading" and "External links" sections that can be used as inline citations or removed. Z1720 (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have put out a message to User:Cor anglais 16, who was a major contributor in the past, regarding this reassessment. I will try to address some of the issues but I'm in no way familiar with the literature so apologies if I fall short. Reconrabbit 12:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pipe_organ&oldid=1252165994"