Talk:Recorder (musical instrument)/Archive 2

Regarding this sentence: "The recorder's mellow tone and limited harmonics allows for the seemingly deeper sound.[31]" (http://www.tapiasgold.com/crb/instruments.html) The relevant cited text is, "Modern recorders come in soprano, alto, tenor, and bass, as well as less common sizes above soprano and below bass, but all of them are pitched an octave above the corresponding range of the human voice (so that a tenor recorder plays the same notes as a soprano singer). This is because recorders have fewer harmonics than many other wind instruments, and so sound lower"

I wish to remove this claim for a couple of reasons. (1) The source doesn't describe the recorder's sound as mellow (2) The claim that recorders "sound lower" is a subjective claim which is unverifiable (3) The lack of even harmonics in the recorder sound is previously noted in the lead section, where it has a more reliable source (4) The source misleadingly equates the size-name recorder to a description of the quality of its sound. There is no verified evidence to suggest that a the names of the sizes (SATB) suggest similarity in timbre or pitch to their eponymous voice types.

I question whether this source is reliable, and whether it's necessary to cite this source in particular as a reference for the names of the recorder sizes. This "rule of thumb" summarizes the information in the table under "Types of recorder." The source doesn't add any new, reliable information.

Doponotte (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I hadn't actually checked to see whether the source used the word "mellow". The claim of "sounding lower" is of course subjective, but well-attested. If you do not like this source (and I am not particularly impressed with it myself), Praetorius can be cited instead. I believe it is somewhere in volume 3 of his Syntagma Musicum (rather than the better-known volume 2), and this might take a short time to find. However, the observation is repeated by many later authors, both with (e.g., Anthony Baines's book on woodwind instruments) and without acknowledgement (as in the case of the tapiasgold source). I do not believe that Praetorius mentions harmonics, which is hardly surprising since the phenomenon was discovered only at about the time he published the Syntagma and I cannot recall off the top of my head whether Baines speculates on possible causes for the phenomenon.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Do remember that SATB is a modern usage. The English usage (which I suspect will be older that the American usage) is Descant, Treble, Tenor Bass. Traditionally the Treble (F) took the main line, a Descant was used for a descant line when needed. Consider, for example, older church music where the boy trebles took the highest line with the men supplying tenor and bass.

As regards "mellow". Have a look at WP:WHYCITE in particular "In particular, sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Citations are not required for all statements, only for contentious material. Claiming that the sun rises in the east doesn't need a citation, but ascribing green cheese to the moon would. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

After looking for an appropriate reference in Baines, I still find this claim to be spurious. Baines references a passage from Syntagma (also referenced in Sopranino recorder) which recommends the use of the recorders larger than the alto, as the smaller ones "scream." Baines also gives a historical note that recorders were played in combination with instruments and voices sound an octave lower "as if the octave difference did not exist." [x] This is, however, a note about historical use, not a comment on the sound of the recorders. At the very least, "sounding lower" is a misleading description. The distribution of the harmonics in the recorder sound does not, for example, cause the listener to hear a pitch lower than the fundamental. We should describe the sound of the recorder in ways which can be quantified, or present descriptions as the opinion of regarded authorities. Praetorius's descriptions of the sound of the recorder might qualify as the former.

This description of the sound of a recorder also does not belong in the section on the notation and pitch of recorders. It belongs in the lead section, as a description of the sound of the recorder, or in a separate new section on the sound of the recorder. - Doponotte (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I was wrong: the primary citation is in Syntagma vol. 2, page 21. It is the note to the column in Table VII referrring to the instrument we would today call the "tenor" recorder:

NB. Diese Flöte, sowohl auch die Q u e r p f e i f f e in diesem Ton, kann nicht allein zum Discant, wie ich es allhier eingesetzet, sondern auch zum Tenor eine Octav drunter, gebraucht werden. Wie es dann in gemein von etlichen Instrumentisten dafür gehalten wird, dass dieser Art Ploeck- und Querflöten, ein rechter Tenor am Laut und Sono sei: und derselben unterster Clavis, den Clavem c oder d im Tenor, und also ihren Laut auf vier Fuſs-Ton (nach Orgelmacher Mensur) von sich gebe. Und die Wahrheit zu bekennen, bin ich anfangs auch, weil es gar schwer im Gehör zu erkennen und zu unterscheiden, derselben Meinung gewesen; aber wenn man diesen Ton gegen den Orgelpfeiffen-Ton intonieren läſst, und eins gegen das ander im fleiſsigen Gehör eigentlich in acht nimpt, so ist es nur ein rechter Discant, da der Clavis c̄ oder d̄ am Laut zwei Fuss-Ton ist. Und gleicher Gestalt verhält sichs auch mit den Baß- und andern Flöten, so zu einem solchen Accort- oder Stimmwerk gehören, da die gar grobe und kleine Baß-Flöten nicht anders lauten und klingen, als wann sie eine Octav tiefer, und also der unterste Clavis in der eine Baß-Flöte das B oder C auf acht Fueß, in der gar größen Flöt aber das Dis oder F auf zwölf Fuſs intonirte, da doch dieser groſse Baſs-Flöten-Laut und Klang sich nicht weiter, als auff sechs Fueß-, der andere aber auff vier Fueß-Ton erstrecken thut.

OK, so that needs translating into English, and there is at least one standard traslation available.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. I'll try to find an appropriate place to put this, and find a clearer way to explain the phenomenon in terms of harmonics. Doponotte (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure. I'm sure there must be reliable modern sources that attempt to explain the phenomenon in acoustical terms, and I, too, will see what I can find. However, it is also worth keeping in mind that the instruments Praetorius was describing did not include today's more familiar (17th/18th-century) recorder types with a steeper bore taper. These have subtly different acoustical properties and may or may not be perceived in the same way as so-called Renaissance recorders.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Further to the above: So far, the earliest source I have found that tries to explain Praetorius's observation in terms of overtones is Curt Sachs's Lexikon der Musikinstrumente (Berlin 1913). On page 51, column b, Sachs defends Praetorius against the charge of ignorance leveled against him (as well as Agricola and Virdung) by Wasielewski and Nottebohm, pointing out the above passage as evidence that Praetorius, at least, was well aware of the phenomenon. Sachs is a little careless, I think, in allowing the reader to assume that Praetorius himself might have attributed the effect to weak overtones: "Prätorius wußte wohl, daß es schwer ist, die richtige Höhenlage einer Flöte festzustellen; ihre Armut an Obertönen läßt sie tiefer erscheinen, als sie in Wirklichkeit klingt" (Praetorius was perfectly aware that it is very difficult to determine the correct register of a flute; its paucity of overtones makes it seem deeper than it is actually sounding).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this documentation. I was not aware of the prior art here. Actually, I was unaware of the phenomenon altogether, which is reflective only of my ignorance. It does make sense, on consideration. I am considering moving some of the comments on sound production in the "How the instrument is played" section to a new section about sound and acoustics, and renaming the aforementioned section "technique." Perhaps this would fit well there. Doponotte (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

So far, everything I've seen you do has been just the sort of thing this article needs. Keep up the good work! (If I see anything in future that I disagree with, you may count on me to let you know, but I think this will remiain a productive discussion.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This section has worried me for some time, but I don't feel adequately qualified to address it. I find the section is a bit misleading in that it glosses over just how problematic the whole issue of dynamics is for most players. This isn't trivial in the context of the instrument's history! It can be argued that it was the recorder's lack of dynamics that made it unsuited to the classical orchestra, and led to its demise. The section promotes, fairly heavily, the technique of modifying volume by relaxing the fingers, creating "leaky" fingering, with the control of breath compensating on pitch, and thereby creating a changed volume at the will of the fingers. This is backed up by two citations, but they're both to the same (very well-respected) author, so they're actually a single view-point. The section uses quite strong language about alternatives: "But this is not the correct approach to recorder dynamics". The problem is that the technique is not widely known, and is really rather specialist. It's always hard in an encyclopedia, where references matter, to handle material that is conspicuous by its absence - it's hard to cite that the technique isn't there in an awful lot of other reputable books and tutors. Because this is a talk section, and I'm raising this only for discussion (with a view to creating a more balanced paragraph if possible), I'll list the view-points I know of (as a rank amateur) and their evidence:(1) "Recorders can't do dynamics". If you read message-boards in music forums, this is a frequently-voiced opinion of teachers whose students have just been marked-down by an examiner for failing to get adequate dynamics. The complaint is that examiners aren't specialists and don't know the recorder, and ought to understand its limitations. There are web-pages aimed at potential composers which warn composers not to expect dynamics from recorder-players. But these are not encyclopedia-adequate sources. The other source of evidence for this is the wealth of historical recorder methods (e.g.Hotteterre's). These describe fingering, articulation, and ornament, but rarely if ever mention dynamics (but again, how do you cite a reference that doesn't contain any reference to the subject....). Evidence against the view-point: there are historical examples of music undoubtedly composed for recorder, with marked dynamics (there's a famous bit of Van Eyck's Lusthof with an echo-effect marked in it). So historically, someone, somewhere knew about dynamics. I think Van Eyck used that particular piece to show off his virtuosity, and probably knew it was beyond most people's abilities, but that's a personal point of view.(2) Recorders simulate dynamics by careful use of articulation. This is a method found in many tutor books (e.g. Alan Davies "Treble Recorder Technique"). I believe it deserves a much stronger place in the section because it's what a wide range of players actually do, but it's quite foreign to a pianist or singer, so it deserves explanation.(3) Dynamics can be created by using different fingerings. This is also alluded to in a lot of tutors. There is no historical evidence for it (historical fingering charts and descriptions did not give alternative "quiet" and "loud" fingerings, but paid more attention to enharmonic variations) - it may be that it is a modern technique, but it definitely exists and works.(4) Dynamics are created by the finger-pressure, breath controls pitch. I, personally, have met this only in Rowland-Jones' approach, and never had anyone else mention it to me.So my question is this: Does this section reflect the real world, or is it unduly emphasising a single rather advanced technique? Does it need a bit of re-balancing? 79.65.232.201 (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I've archived a lot of old discussions, some going back to 2005, some undated. The latest entries were over a year ago. Hope no-one minds. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"egyenesfuvola (Hungarian)" is almost newer used in Hungarian (I saw this word first here, although I'm Hungarian...), and only for historical instruments, when we'd like to indicate the difference between different recorders. The appropriate Hungarian phrase is furulya. I think it should be corrected. Your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deakpe (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

While Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself, the Magyar article hu:Furulya adds credibility to what you say. Keep in mind that, in that section, multiple names in various languages (e.g. four in French) address various features (the block, the beak, number of holes, usw.) of the recorder, so the Magyar usage in that context (i.e. direct, not transverse) may be appropriate. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a popular YouTube channel - "Sh*ttyflute" that uploads songs covered with a poorly played recorder. Do you think it deserves a mention in this article? The channel got 400k views and Take on Me cover has 6 million views. It's notable enough, I think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk • contribs)

Notability and popularity are two different things. One indicator of notability is sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources. If you want to mention the shittyflute youTube channel in this article, you will need to find such sources. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There's been a bunch of mentions on the internet, including buzzfeed. Hard to get sustained coverage of something a bit ephemereal? It doesn't mean it wasn't notable at the peak of its popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.249.206.190 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Where is the hole one ? Near the whistle or at the bottom ?

Thanks.

--AXRL (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

As the accompanying tablatures show, the thumb hole is given the numeral zero, and the seven front finger holes are numbered from top ("near the whistle") to bottom (e.g., 0 123 4–67 is shown as the neo-baroque fingering for B-flat on the alto recorder). Admittedly, this could be made clearer in the text.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, note that you made a mistake by omission : when you say B-flat it is only valid for C-recorder (otherwise this fingering produces a F note).

--AXRL (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The fingering table overleaf shows B-flat for F-based recorders (e.g. alto), and F for C-based recorders (e.g. soprano) for this fingering, and I'm sure that's correct. I think you got the produced notes for this fingering on C/F recorders the wrong way round. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I did not see the word alto in the original answer ! --AXRL (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I have merged a few sections from a forked article. This may require discussion on how to incorporate the new content and source it properly. A reference to iUniverse gave a warning when I saved the changes, so that should probably be removed.

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:Recorder (educational uses)#Merged to Recorder (musical instrument)

dylansan (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The article states "Modern recorders are most commonly pitched at concert pitch (A=440 Hz), like modern pianos and orchestral instruments." But I believe this is no longer true. The three large manufacturers Mollenhauer, Moeck and Küng all use a1 = 442 Hz.

Mollenhauer: "Mollenhauer recorders are tuned to a1=442 Hz as standard." https://www.mollenhauer.com/en/recorders/recorders/recorder-pitches-3Moeck: "For some time now, the Moeck recorders have been tuned at a1 = 442 Hz." https://www.moeck.com/en/service/faq/the-tuning-at-a1-442-hz.html

Huber also now uses 442 Hz. https://www.huber-music.ch/cms/index.php?id=239

https://www.loebnerblockfloeten.de/de/blockfloeten/stimmung/442-hz

Yamaha is now apparently using a1 = 444 Hz https://www.yamaha.com/en/musical_instrument_guide/recorder/selection/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMPfeiffer (talk • contribs) 18:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This statement from the article in its current form requires clarification. While it might be reasonable to assume that most inexpensive educational instruments (in particular the descant recorder that many children still encounter at a young age in school) are molded plastic (though certainly not all), professional instruments are most assuredly still largely (solely) produced from wood. The one exception might be the French maker Bernolin, who produces resin-based instruments, but I believe these are still machined and worked much like wood stock: "Hand-finished" -- https://www.bernolin.fr/english/resin.htm

KMPfeiffer (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The word "most" in he statement you question refers to the number of instruments sold, not to the number of models of recorders. It's difficult not to believe that statement when you walk into any primary school music class or into shops that supply school-related equipment, including any department store. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's important to remember this is the lead, not the body. A full discussion should be in §3.1, "Materials". IMHO the lead is getting to be too long and detailed and needs a prune, not more explanations. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite see how to build in the reference for "block flute" (in opening paragraph). Here is the reference: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095512448 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMPfeiffer (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstood the opening sentence. It refers to the group of instruments to which the recorder belongs, internal duct flutes. Oxford does not say that those are called block flute. The name variant block for the recorder is mentioned later in the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Point taken, although I would add that the Oxford reference says "Recorder or flageolet, so called after its ‘block’ or fipple", thus "block", being a synonym for "fipple", can just as easily apply to the group of instruments -- the fipple or block flutes; however, "block flute" as an English-language synonym for recorder is in fact not mentioned later in the article. It should probably go in the section "Flute" and "recorder" as English would not fall under "Other languages". KMPfeiffer (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I admit I had never heard of "block flute" before, and even now when I search for it, it doesn't seem widespread (outside some dictionary definitions), and there there less than ten occurrences in all of Wikipedia. It seems more like a forced loan word, but mentioning it in the section you propose wouldn't hurt. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I had mentioned that "Hitchin'A Ride" by the English group Vanity Fare featured a recorder. It actually uses two of them, but this was deleted by someone, despite the article on the song referring to the instrument. I had also mentioned that "Windy" by The Association also employs a recorder, but the song's article does not refer to it. You can see the group performing the song on YouTube and a recorder is obviously utilized. - ScottyScholar ScottyScholar (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires citation to reliable sources. Presuming that "the article on the song" refers to a Wikipedia article, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. YouTube is also not usually considered a reliable source, and seeing something there and then writing about it is original research.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The article states "Modern recorders are most commonly pitched at A=440 Hz..." This is still incorrect. There are no serious manufacturers that I know of that pitch their standard instruments (as opposed to 415, etc.) to 440. I posted references to several of them some months ago (see archive) including Yamaha, Moeck, Mollenhauer, etc.

- KMPfeiffer

2003:EF:2F02:3100:4545:6392:9684:AA1F (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)