Talk:Violin/Archive 2

Pizzicato

Actually, this comment is directed at Bookworm9531, who edited this section. A small matter concerning language only, but I'm wondering why you felt compelled to add the phrase "with respect to the notes' darkened portion"? Isn't "above or below the note" obvious and self-evident?

This kind of language is far too common in Wikipedia in general. There seems to be a tendency to over-qualify and describe things that would be perfectly clear with fewer words. Heaping on more words doesn't necessarily make an article more "scholarly" or accurate, or indeed anything except, well, harder to read.

I won't change this, but you can if you feel so inclined. --ILike2BeAnonymous 00:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Pruned it. Hope that's OK. Just plain Bill 02:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, is cool.

I added something to this section (snap pizzicato) that I didn't realize until later was already in the separate article on pizzicato. So if anyone feels this (violin) article is overweight and wants to start lightening it up, go ahead and remove this redundant info. --ILike2BeAnonymous 04:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Bow strokes

I've put a few words into the blank martelé and collé headings. Far from expert or classically trained, I can't claim that they are definitive. Your input, please... Just plain Bill 05:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

peruvian violin?

it would be interesting if someone who has the knowledge or knows where to find out could add to the violin stuff to talk about peruvian violin? i know that it is fairly common in traditional peruvian music and that when the spaniards went to puru they brought many stringed instruments including violin. everyone knows of it as classical and for fiddle but there is so much other great music that is played on violin

Well, yeah, the violin is found in many forms throughout the world. I have a Mexican Indian violin, made by the Tarahumara indians, basically what they call a "tourist" instrument: very crude, but also very recognizable as the standard violin shape. Most violins throughout the world that aren't indigenous look like, well, violins. Other than that, not really sure what you'd put in an encyclopedia article about it. --ILike2BeAnonymous 05:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Styles/popular music

OK, folks, we're having trouble with this paragraph:

Though strings were heavily popular and relied upon in almost all types of music genre recordings in the 60's and 70's, disco music, which surged aggressively onto the music scene in the early to mid 1970's, also relied heavily upon strings within its compositions. The 1980's saw an insurgence of electronic music mimicking strings with little or no use of traditional strings in music compositions. Now, strings are making a comeback in pop music.

[Meta-question: what's the easiest way to put in text as a block quote? I used a ":" prefix and italicized everything.]

So if we analyze this, we get:

• Strings were used in almost all popular music in the 60s and 70s;
• Strings were still used in disco in the 70s (no change);
• Strings were not used in the electronic music of the 80s;
• Strings are now making a comeback.

So why not boil this down to its essence--something like:

Strings were used regularly in most types of popular music, but the rise of electronically-created music in the 1980s saw a great reduction in their use, as real strings were replaced by synthesized string sections. However, strings are now (as of this writing, 2006) making a comeback in pop music.

(I intentionally used "electronically created", to distinguish from electronic music, which is properly a separate genre.) Of course, this is ignoring the question of accuracy of any of these claims. I leave that to others; I'm just trying to make better sense of this hash by copy-editing here. --ILike2BeAnonymous 02:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No argument here; it's consistent with my worm's-eye view of those decades. I'll take any clarifying shrinkage we can get. How about something like:

Up to the 1970s, most types of popular music used bowed strings, but the rise of electronically created music in the 1980s saw a decline in their use, as synthesized string sections took their place. Since the end of the 20th century, strings have begun a comeback in pop music.

-- Just plain Bill 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Done (just removed superfluous "bowed"). Kösönöm szépen! --ILike2BeAnonymous 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ez semmi. ÉN nem beszél Magyar (oops, wrong button. I still don't understand it. :-) ) Just plain Bill

"Bowed" may be superfluous in an orchestral context, but a lot of folks consider mandolins, bouzoukis, citterns, banjos and such plucked instruments to be "strings" as well. I'll put it back in... Just plain Bill 05:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Except that nobody but a man from Mars (or a bouzouki player, but we won't go there) would think of plucked instruments as "strings"; that term is generally understood to mean bowed strings implicitly (as in "lush string arrangement"). --ILike2BeAnonymous 08:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. In my world, it's less about big lush gorgeous tone with constant vibrato, and more about lifted springy infectious danceable rhythm. After all, a violin has strings, while a fiddle has strangs, and a red neck. My fellow denizens of the Red Planet all agree swith me. See List of string instruments. Just plain Bill 15:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

vocabulary: "Luthier"

"Luthier" strikes me as a word seldom spoken in English, but much used in writing, because it has been seen in other writings. At least one well-regarded individual, who attends to Stradivari and Amati instruments regularly, calls himself a "violin maker." What to do? Just plain Bill 18:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

A violinmaker will refer to himself (or herself) as a "luthier" when speaking to a group of snobs who he/she hopes to impress. A cynical way of saying that it's the same thing, basically. (Of course, luthiers are not restricted to making violins; the word derives from one who makes lutes, so it's also applied to guitarmakers, mandolin makers, etc.) I'd probably just go ahead and use the common term, "violinmaker" (or violin maker if you prefer), which is actually more precisely descriptive. --ILike2BeAnonymous 01:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about it. Along with what you just said, "luthier" does seem a bit precious. And yet, not just any wood-butcher who has read a book or watched a video should be turned loose on a violin of any decency. There is something to be said for working under the supervision of someone who knows how, and has been doing it for a long time. The simple phrase, "I was taught to do it this way..." deserves a bit of respect, in my opinion, and using the French word may be one way of trying to convey that. I'm not proposing any change at the moment, just musing. Just plain Bill 03:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, not any meat butcher who has read a book or watched a video gets to be a neurosurgeon, either, so I don't see what the problem is. (Of course, neurosurgeons are certified and all that, but violinmakers are subjected to the scrutiny of their peers and customers, so there is something of a regulatory process at work.) Presumably, when one calls themself a violinmaker, they can be trusted to be properly trained in their craft. (Unless, of course, the violinmaker in question is H.S. Wake; you know what I'm talking about, right?) --ILike2BeAnonymous 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Never met Mr. Wake, only read one of his books (rehair & bow repair) and heard an opinion or two... enough said. But no, just calling oneself a maker or repairer is not enough to gain my trust, based on one naif and one BS-er I'm aware of in my little world. There are probably a lot more of each sort to be found. In any country but Germany, board-certification is unavailable, and clients or customers need to do their own research. Back to the question, in my own writing, I'll go with "violin maker" and reserve "luthier" for occasional use to connote matters of lineage and training in the traditional ways. That is, hardly ever. Well, I guess that's off my chest. Thanks, Just plain Bill 05:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If we're talking about a violinmaker, I see no problem using the term violinmaker; I alsu use "luthier" frequently and interchangeably with "violin maker"; I don't see harm in using either one. Especially since, in Wikipedia, we have an article on Luthiers and it can be linked whenever it's used, so people know what we're talking about. J Lorraine 08:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Musical Styles (Jazz)

I don't think the violin deserves to be called a "key" instrument in jazz.... When you think of typical jazz music, do you think "I need a violinist?" ....I certainly don't. If any orchestral string instrument deserves to be called 'key' in this idiom, it's the bass. I'm going to try rephrasing this.

I agree; the violin is actually a pretty rare bird in jazz. I can't even think of a jazz violinist currently playing (there must be some, but they're surely not well known). --ILike2BeAnonymous 09:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the violin is certainly not a major instrument in jazz. LDHan 10:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard of Joe Venuti or Stephane Grappelli?--Light current 22:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Regina Carter is still around. Didn't she record something using Paganini's Cannone Guarnerius not too long ago? Just plain Bill 13:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Regina Carter is a good example of a jazz violinist; Stephane Grappelli is another. So they do exist....

Let's see: Grappelli's dead, making Carter just about the only living example of the genre (apart from Michael Urbaniak (sp?), Jean-Luc whatshisname, and a handful of others). So I rest my case: violin is just not the most happening instrument in jazz. --ILike2BeAnonymous 04:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

At this particular moment in time!--Light current 04:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, "at this particular moment in time". What, do you have a time machine? ILike2BeAnonymous 04:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No but I got plenty of records with Stephane Grappelli on em!--Light current 04:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, good for you; so do I. (And I do mean "records"—you know, those big black round things.) Say, here's something you probably don't have and might not have heard: I've got a recording which may be one of the earliest examples of jazz violin ever, played by someone I used to know: a guy named Bud Gould, who I knew (and played with) in Arizona. He recorded "Honeysuckle Rose" and "Salt Peanuts" with none other than Charlie Parker on some of his first recorded sessions, along with some really crazy scat. Bud also played trombone; when I knew him, he was a violist (and retired music prof); we played in an orchestra at one point. Good stuff. ILike2BeAnonymous 05:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Youre giving your age away here!--Light current 21:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Erhu shouldn't be here

The erhu is not really related to the violin, except for being a bowed string instrument. (This occurred to me as I was considering adding gadulka to this article as well, but then thought, naah, the gadulka is descended from the rebec, an entirely different ancestry.) Am I right? I'll leave it in for now. --ILike2BeAnonymous 02:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree; it doesn't really belong in a violin article. There are numerous other bowed strings which are also not violins, some of which may be found in List of string instruments. No harm in keeping it for now, or even adding the gadulka, or kamancheh, or kokyu... but not the bowed psaltery. I don't know if there's a general sense of where to draw that line. Just plain Bill 04:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to add the gadulka, because it's a descendant of the rebec, not the violin. Not even a close genetic background. For the same reason, I'd advise against adding any of those other instruments you mentioned. The line ought to be drawn at instruments that are in the violin family, not to include all bowed instruments of about the same size. --ILike2BeAnonymous 06:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The only possible plausible reason I can think of for keeping "erhu" is that it is often called a "chinese violin" -- not a very good reason, and actually, if we need to redirect people to erhu, maybe it should be on the top of the page as I have seen on other pages, e.g.

this is an article about the classical Western musical instrument. For "chinese violin", see "erhu".

However, if a person is looking for an article on chinese violins, are they not likely to type in "chinese violin"? So a "for other uses" type of link at the top of the page is rather too drastic a measure to compensate for the (imaginary?) group of people who might actually be looking for the erhu when they type the single word "violin" in the search box. Do other encyclopedias mention the erhu in their violin articles? I won't remove it yet, because I think the erhu is interesting :) However I see no real encyclopedic reason to retain the link besides the fact that I happen to like reading about the erhu.... J Lorraine 10:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there shouldn't be a specific link to erhu, why single out erhu? There are many different bowed instuments, a link to "bowed string instuments" would be useful. The erhu article already has "chinese violin", so anyone looking for it will find it. Also, the erhu should not be called a "chinese violin", and is not a type of violin. LDHan 12:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there is a small group of US American violinists who are taking an interest in the erhu and Silk Road music, and playing it. If memory serves, the notion of playing a string with a horse-hair bow arose in Central Asia within historical times (about 1000 or so?) so the erhu is related to the violin just as you and I are related "by way of Adam." It's fun to speculate that it may be closer to the prototypical bowed string, just as bushmen may carry some of the oldest extant human DNA. As far as retaining or deleting its mention in "See also" here, I don't have strong inclinations one way or the other. Just plain Bill 13:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I still think it (erhu) doesn't belong here, for reasons already given, but to satisy the curiosity of folks who wander into the article looking for other types of bowed instruments, I think a link at the top of the article, as suggested above, would be useful. (I'd call the link "Other bowed string instruments".)

By the way, just noticed there's no separate article with that list (that link goes to a bookmark in the "List of string instruments" page). Separate page, anyone? --ILike2BeAnonymous 16:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There is Category:Bowed_instruments. A "bowed string instuments" article listing different instuments each with a short description would be better. LDHan 17:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

vibrato, directional tone color

See, for example, this Strad Magazine article. Just plain Bill 23:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not put that link in the article, as a source? We have a definite LACK of citations in this article. J Lorraine 00:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm removing this, and challenging you on this. Not to demean Prof. Weinreich, but this is basically the results of one man's investigations into a phenomonon fraught with subjectivity. Just because The Strad published an article on his (admittedly very interesting) experimental work doesn't make it a settled matter by any means. Besides, for all we know, if tone color is directional like this with the violin, it may well be that way for other instruments, so it may not apply uniquely to vibrato, which is what you were describing.

Besides, if one were going to put this in an encyclopedia article, it ought to be in the form "Research by Gabriel Weinreich suggests that vibrato ..." rather than stating it as if it were an established fact.

I'd like to see a lot better evidence for this before it's reintroduced into the article. --ILike2BeAnonymous 01:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. My time as an analog electronic hardware design engineer working on RF diffraction losses over terrain and working on sonar transducers' beam patterns gives me a sense that the radiation pattern (or ensonification pattern, if you will) of a violin has a frequency-dependent beam pattern, with some rather fine structure (corresponding to Weinreich's "porcupine quills") that changes direction rather dramatically with small changes of frequency. Considering the aperture's (in this case the body size of the fiddle) relationship to the wavelength of the significant harmonic content (upwards from around 3000 Hz, at the so-called "singers formant" so important to the voicing of a fine violin) leads me to believe quite easily that the structure of the "beam pattern" of a violin is all sidelobes, without a distinct main beam. It is a violin, not a sonar projector, after all.

The fact that Joe Curtin saw fit to keep this article on his site adds a bit of weight to it, in my estimation. Your estimation may differ. For what it's worth, the choice of "shimmer" came from the writings of a scientist and luthier, someone whose pronouncements I find to be devoid of bologna. Again, that is in my estimation.

Do with it what you will; I've offered my input. Just plain Bill 05:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In the cool grey light of the morning after, I'd like to point out that plenty of material is available on line on Chladni patterns, which point to a mechanism for explaining the complex acoustic directionality of a violin as opposed to a wind instrument or a human voice. Martin Schleske's wire-frame animations, also cited in the violin article, illuminate related modes of vibration, and are based on measurements of an actual violin. Besides that, they are fun to watch. Just plain Bill 15:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That a violin's beam pattern is multi-directional and frequency-dependent should not be in dispute. Google "violin directional" for a few more possible cites. "This pronounced "fracturing" is important when it comes to the musical liveliness of the sound." comes from this page on Martin Schleske's site. For some reason, people think a violin sounds better with vibrato liberally applied (although I prefer to hear it used very sparingly.) I will stand by the claim that this is "in large part" due to the interest added by the interaction of the moving beam pattern with the room acoustics. What part of that seems incorrect? Just plain Bill 02:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've had some time to push the words around a bit. See what you think of this...

The disputed statement, in its original form:

The true purpose of vibrato has largely to do with adding interest to the sound, in the form of a shimmer created by the variations in projection of strongest sound. A well-made violin virtually points its sound pattern in different directions depending on slight variations in pitch.

A somewhat stodgy, academic rendition of the same idea, with a bit added:

The extensive use of violin vibrato shows that many musicians feel it adds something of value, an interesting quality to the sound. In summary, this added quality has to do with the way changing pitch produces slight changes in the overtone mix, as well as producing changes in the directional pattern of the emitted sound, especially from a finely-built instrument. The changing sound direction interacts with the acoustics of the room, and may be heard by the listener as an added "shimmer" or "liveliness." See [Schleske} and [Weinreich].

An extended discussion of the artistic considerations of vibrato, the "when" and the "what for," is beyond the scope of this article.

The same information, presented more compactly, in plainer language:

The "when" and "what for" of violin vibrato are artistic matters of style and taste. In acoustical terms, the interest that vibrato adds to the sound has to do with the way that the overtone mix and the directional pattern of sound projection change with changes in pitch. By "pointing" the sound at different parts of the room in a rhythmic way, vibrato adds a "shimmer" or "liveliness" to the sound of a well-made violin. See [Schleske} and [Weinreich].

Unless I see strong objection, or suggestions for improvement, I propose to put the third one into the article soon. Just plain Bill 17:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

With regard to "Besides, for all we know, if tone color is directional like this with the violin, it may well be that way for other instruments, so it may not apply uniquely to vibrato, which is what you were describing." From the Weinreich reference:

“The human voice and most orchestral instruments,” he explains, “send out sound which is either equally strong in all directions or, if it does have a directional pattern - which happens especially at high frequencies - that pattern changes only relatively slowly as the frequency is varied. In the case of string instruments, however, not only are they strongly directional, but the pattern of their directionality changes very rapidly with frequency.

I believe Prof. Weinreich has done his homework in this regard. Just plain Bill 17:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're aiming at, but now the problem is that what you propose adding is overly pendantic and sprawls all over the place. Sorry, that's just the way it appears. After all, this is an article on the violin, not "Directional Tone Color". So how about something more along the lines of

Some researchers believe that vibrato involves not only a pulsating change of pitch, but also a subtle pulsating change in the perceived direction from which the sound of the instrument comes. The theory is that the direction of sound is dependent on frequency, especially within the range of the violin. This theory, called "directional tone color" by [insert reference or name here] seeks to explain the "shimmering" quality of a note played with vibrato on the violin.

... or something like that (feel free to hang a little more meat on bones and correct mistakes which no doubt appeared in my hasty typing. (But it shouldn't be much longer than that.) Whaddya think? --ILike2BeAnonymous 19:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Never for a minute do I intend to refer to "directional tone color" as such. It happens to be in the title of an article that points something out: Sound is directional. That is not a theory, but a simple observable fact, familiar to any working musician these days. That is why amplified artists use monitors on stage.

Tone color, or timbre, or overtone content, sometimes called "harmonic content," are equivalent terms. To go into Fourier series or aperture effects on directivity (narrowness of beam, integrated around a circle or a sphere) or the beam patterns of phased and shaded acoustic projector arrays would be pedantic, more so than would be useful in the violin article.

I very much agree that it should be no longer than that, See what I put back into the article. I believe that every word of it is about as debatable as "Clear skies on this planet are generally blue in the daytime."

It says three fairly simple things in as many sentences, with one more sentence for the reference cites.

• Vibrato is used for artistic reasons not discussed here, and the acoustical "mechanics" of it are the following:
• Vibrato exploits the fact that the timbre of a violin sound varies a bit with varying pitch.
• Even more so, it exploits the fact that the directions of "pointing" of a violin sound vary dramatically with pitch.

That seems pretty focused to me. More depth could be added to the vibrato article. Just plain Bill 04:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Spam link

Removed a spam link [1] by a warned user.--Dakota ~ ° 01:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of cosmetics to clean strings

I've removed the reference in the "Maintenance" section that advised it was OK to use cologne (or shaving lotion previously) to clean violin strings. Once again I challenge this small but problematic detail.

In my own experience, I have never heard of anyone using these types of cosmetic products to clean violin strings. Alcohol (rubbing, isopropyl or even denatured), yes (with the warning in the article about getting any on the finish of the instrument), but not cologne, perfume, shaving lotion or anything like that. Now, I don't know for a fact that this stuff is harmful, but certainly in this context, where it might be taken as an authorative suggestion for cleaning one's strings, it would be better to err on the side of caution. What is the effect of all that accumulated fragrance and other stuff on the strings?

There seems to be a creeping tendency in this article towards neato-keeno, piquant little factoids like this. The responses so far seem to indicate that this is "common knowledge", but we know just how reliable that is, don't we?

If there's a significant amount of evidence that this is, in fact, common practice, then it can go back in; if a good number of violinists say that they do it, or that they've seen others do it (I don't expect to find documented references to this). Until then, let's just leave this interesting but potentially problematic little "fact" out, OK? --ILike2BeAnonymous 18:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nowadays some violinists keep alcohol prep pads in little foil pouches in their case. I now do. I wish I had had some handy when we were visiting overnight a while ago, and some unnamed culprit set my bow down on a glob of butter or oil, leaving a four-inch slick spot. No rubbing alcohol in the house, nor denatured spirits that time. In the days before air conditioning, and before "fragrance free" events, you can bet that more than a few fiddlers kept a small bottle of cologne in their case for various purposes.

In my stereo fixing days, myth had it that rubbing alcohol was not good for the rubber belts and rollers of tape decks, since it may be contaminated with oil of wintergreen. (We did use more aggressive organic solvents on the rubber parts, and got away with it.) I have seen a well-regarded luthier say on a public forum that rubbing alcohol is OK for violin uses, with the usual varnish caveats.

Eau de Cologne is defined as containing less than 5% "essential oils," which can be pretty fair solvents themselves. Lavender oil is very volatile, and leaves scant to no residue on evaporation. Citrus peel extract is used nowadays for an eco-friendly degreaser. Using an electric-shave product containing oil would be ineffective and not too bright, but the article didn't say "cosmetics," it most lately said "cologne." This page recommends "a tiny drop of 4711 Eau de Cologne" in the absence of rubbing alcohol or other officially sanctioned cleaners. If you dig around on various violin boards and forums, you will find other mention of this usage.

best regards, Just plain Bill 19:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I seem to like post-scripts-- ;-) I do understand that information can be mutated in its application. For example, tracheal mites infest honeybees. One registered treatment in the US was (still is? I'm out of that loop) menthol, applied as crystals in fabric pouches on the top bars of the comb frames. From that, word in the bee clubs was to give the bees Luden's cough drops, since bees will take anything with enough sugar in it. One hive I inspected had anti-histamine cold remedy tablets sprinkled on the bottom board, from an understandable mutation of that advice. Can you say "duh?"

Point here is that there is only so far you can go in protecting people from their own failure to get the message accurately. I lean towards giving out info about what works, and letting the shallow end of the gene pool bail itself out. Capisce? You all have a super terrific day, now :-D Just plain Bill 20:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A bit more: Someone, reliability unknown, on Maestronet mentioned that Yehudi Menuhin recommended "expensive cologne" for cleaning strings. Googling finds an old newspaper story that says the pharmacy in Los Gatos kept 4711 in stock because Mrs. Menuhin was fond of giving it as a gift. That doesn't prove anything, by itself. But,

On Fiddle Forum, a poster of well-known reliability, who has been gigging out steadily for over 20 years, says:

in the topic: Do fiddle strings go dead

After each playing session, wipe them down gently with a soft dry lint-free cloth (yellow dusters leave yellow lint, and you have to get it off, which is a bind).

This takes about 3-5 seconds, under the strings as well as on top. I also wipe with a spot of cologne down the whole string from time to time to remove rosin and grease. When I do that, I always put a cloth over the body of the fiddle, under the fingerboard & up to the bridge, to protect it from any errant drips, though I barely wet the cloth.

Don't rub too hard, as you can damage the string windings.

I also clean the fingerboard and neck with cologne, but the neck cleaning's a personal preference: I don't like varnish on a neck.

gc

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, and "someone might apply it sloppily or interpret it incorrectly" is not a reason to omit the description of an effective technique. Rubbing alcohol is typically 70% alcohol with water, with possible fragrance contamination. Cologne is 70% to 90% alcohol with water, with some refined fragrance essences. No worse than what rubs off on the strings and fingerboard from your fingertips.

This doesn't seem like a piquant factoid to me. It's something that simply works, and leaves a pleasant smell on the instrument, if that's what you like. Just plain Bill 02:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Bill, whatever. I'm very impressed with your scintillating intellect; I think we all are.

Let me just leave you with a little musical joke (you may have already heard this), and see how it might apply here:

Q. What's the definition of a gentleman?

A. One who knows how to play the trombone, but doesn't.

--ILike2BeAnonymous 07:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

or bagpipe, or banjo... got it. Hey, for every word I put into an article, there are three that I've considered and kept to myself. Thanks to being checked by folks such as yourself, I've learned not to just pull stuff out of any old place and put it into the 'pedia. For me, it's less about a display of scintillating whatever, and more about choosing words carefully. Be well! Just plain Bill 13:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

oh dear. However much I dislike Anon.'s tone of voice in this discussion, I must agree with ILike2BeAnonymous on the item being discussed: I don't think that mentioning cologne as a cleaner should be part of an encyclopedia article. However, I don't think the "should" sentence construction should be in the article at all; it makes it sound too much like a 'how to' manual. Would you agree that this ought to DESCRIBE how instruments in the violin family are maintained, instead of tell people HOW TO maintain them?

J Lorraine 08:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I agree; that prescriptive language in that section always seemed out of place to me. --ILike2BeAnonymous 08:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the sense of the Maintenance section from prescription to description. (Also moved that paragraph about changing strings from that section to the "Strings" section.) --ILike2BeAnonymous 08:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

alcohol and varnish

Violin making and maintenance mentions that alcohol is to be avoided altogether. In a bland, safe world, that is good advice. I'm thinking of swapping the verbiage, so that the parent article Violin does not seem to recommend any solvents at all for cleaning strings. If someone digs further, they will see it mentioned as a possibility on the child page, surrounded with the usual disclaimers. Comment? Just plain Bill 21:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes: again, a comment above says it all. This is supposed to be an encyclpedia, not a how-to manual. So just say what is used, not what should be (or should not be) used. Since alcohol is used, it should probably be mentioned. Pretty simple, actually.

- :By the way, as long as I'm writing: I'm curious to see if you can produce any supporting evidence for "bow bugs". (The article you linked to here says nothing about them eating bows, or bow hairs.) I've never heard of such a thing. (I do know about worms, since I own an instrument with worm damage.) --ILike2BeAnonymous 22:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

(The dermestid article now mentions bow bugs.) Just plain Bill 01:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Bow bugs exist; they eat bow hairs, or their larvae do. They are a species of dermestid beetle, similar to (maybe the same as, I don't know) carpet beetles and museum beetles. If you play a bowed instrument, you can ask the person who rehairs your bows. They are sure to be familiar with these critters.

I'm puzzled at a bit of inconsistency here. People do actually use cologne, people such as Yehudi Menuhin, perhaps. Other people use nothing but a dry cloth. Based on some other input elsewhere, I am content to leave cologne out of the article, largely for prescriptive reasons. In many circles, people avoid the use of alcohol because, as one teacher once told me, "it is cobra poison" as far as (spirit) varnish is concerned. I've used a variety of solvents in a shop setting to clean violin bodies. I will not describe those solvents, nor the techniques of their use, in an encyclopedia article.

Right now I'm just rambling, and happy with the status quo, for the most part. I would still rather see the Violin article state that "the use of alcohol is to be avoided," because that is a simple fact in the real world. It is discouraged in most cases. In other cases, it is used, but I'd rather not have that fact in the first article someone sees when researching an instrument they may not have much experience with. Just plain Bill 23:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Re: "bow bugs": I didn't see anything in your reply that remotely resembled verification or documentation of this. Do you have any such stuff? Because I'm skeptical, you see.

2. Re: alcohol, etc.: In order to completely cover our asses, we could stuff the article chock-full of warnings to clueless violin owners, something along the lines of those idiotic little "user manuals" you get with certain gadgets:

• Do not play the violin in or near the bathtub. The water may injure the finish and cause glue joints to open.
• Do not leave your violin exposed on the dashboard of your car under direct sunlight.
• Do not use paint remover, gasoline, caustic cleaning solutions or abrasive substances to clean your violin.
• Do not attempt to blow dust out of your violin by taking it to a service station and using their high-pressure air hose.

OK, I can see you're begging for mercy, so I'll cut it out. You get the idea. I'm not really mocking you, since you seem to share my point of view (yes! POV! guilty!) on this somewhat. We can't protect every idiot from themselves. The world should not be turned into a guided, padded Disneyworld for the sake of the clueless.

This is a variation on a theme I'm campaigning against here, which is the "man from Mars" approach, where articles get dumbed-down on the assumption that the reader knows absolutely nothing about the subject, that they're a complete tabula rasa. Critical thinking, man! --ILike2BeAnonymous 02:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you play a violin? Five minutes poking around in the first three pages that Google shows for "bow bug" gives the following:

Johnson Strings Lundin's Violins Cauer Strings Magazine Evans-Pughe Strings of Hitchin, Ltd.

I still think it is a good idea to include "The use of alcohol is to be avoided, as it easily damages violin varnish in ways which may be difficult or impossible to restore." up front on the violin page. A significant segment of the violinistic population lives by this excellent advice. Very few teachers feel the need to advise their students not to play in the bathtub of a gas station rest room. A whole lot of them tell their students not to use alcohol. Go to any online violin forum and ask the question, "What kind of alcohol is best for cleaning my strings?" and see what response you get. Just plain Bill 04:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:bugs: OK, I'm convinced. Never heard of the critters before. (I do happen to know Rich Ward, so I'll take his word for it.)

Re:alcohol: Well, alcohol is fine, so long as you don't get it on the finish—if it's spirit varnish. And if some student drips alcohol on their Chinese fiddle, no harm, no foul, because it's not finished with spirit varnish anyhow. --ILike2BeAnonymous 04:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The harm comes when they step up to an older French or German instrument, having formed the habit of blithely splattering alcohol all over the place. Just plain Bill 15:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's their problem then, right? --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It might be their problem for the moment, but human beings seldom last as long as a hundred years in playing condition. Well-tended violins can go three or four centuries, that we know of so far. Just plain Bill 14:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

So what? Again, this is an encyclopedia, not a how-to manual on The Proper Care and Maintenance of Your Violin. Description, not prescription. --ILike2BeAnonymous 18:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple fact described: lots of people avoid using alcohol, either because they've been advised not to use it, or don't care for the hassle of protecting the finish when there are easier ways that work just as well. Just plain Bill 23:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Where is the Trivia section for this article? --Locke 10:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Odd question; why do you ask? Wouldn't it be better to ask "Is there anything that merits inclusion in a "Trivia" section here? This isn't an article about a sitcom, you know. Do you think all Wikipedia articles should have "Trivia" sections?

If you know anything that qualifies, maybe you can let us in on it here. --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I never intended to be directly, i just want to relate this article with one of my articles. My article is Tomb Raider music, about a video game that is having a good relation with your violins (the entire series of video games are playing violin tunes on background). I suggest that there it should be a Trivia section which would link to my article. --Locke 22:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

a mention of this doesn't have to have it's own trivia section. You can mention it as an aside at the end of the paragraph on popular music. J Lorraine 20:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, please do; that's a perfectly valid example of pop music, so far as I'm concerned. (But let's not get too "friendly" with the links, OK?) ILike2BeAnonymous 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)