Talk:Organ (music)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Organ (music) as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia. |
Contents |
[edit] "pipe" organ
Even though this was recently refactored, I think this article needs a lot of work. Just to give a few examples, Bach's name is never mentioned and frequency divider organs get as much coverage as "pipe" organs. Also, many organists find calling an organ a "pipe organ" to be redundant, as usually an organ is considered to be an instrument with pipes (e.g. answers.com), and if it is otherwise, then the specific type of organ is mentioned. In general, a lot more material about the organ and its music should be provided - right now the page seems in limbo between a disambiguation page and having actual content. Yes, redundancy is tedious, but it's easily avoided with summarizing instead of copying. -Sesquialtera II 22:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] external links (and references)
The "External links" section of this page presents a somewhat thorny problem. While the rest of the article is basically an information-rich disambiguation page, it settles into that role just fine; but external links tend to treat just one type of organ, whether it be pipe, theatre, or electronic. So, perhaps the optimal solution will be to select two or three of the best links for each topic (rather difficult and prone to argument) and include only those (instead of trying to find sites that cover all the kinds of organs that this page does). I suspect the same will hold true for references. -Sesquialtera II 23:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Keyboard or Wind Instrument?
Grove's Dictionary of Music defines an organ as a wind instrument, as do most other dictionaries, including Wiktionary.
The problem lies in that this article also encompasses the Electronic Organ.
How to reconcile this? Dsinden 05:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- I would think the short solution to this is to author a general article on keyboard instruments, in which could be added brief entries on pipe organ, electronic organ, reed organ, synthesizer, harpsichord, etc. What is your opinion? Erzahler 17:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
These definitional issues are only sticky if a purist approach is taken. While strictly speaking, the organ might be thought to be a wind instrument, just as the piano is thought to be a percussion instrument, they are in reality both better understood as keyboard instruments. No composer or musician is going to think of the organ in the context of wind instruments, since it doesn't have the possibilities for expressive control available with these instruments. I believe that the organ as a wind instrument is worth a passing mention at some point but should not be given prominence.
We do have an article keyboard instrument which is in need of a careful rewrite. The list of keyboard instruments is unhelpful in its present form since many of them are either novelties or historical curiosities. Yet, the rather richer and more relevant story of the development of the keyboard historically, and the relative importance of various instruments and their repertoire over time, is not told.
- I see what you mean. I just looked at that article, and I agree it is in desperate need of attention! Erzahler 21:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What to do about all this?
Regarding the articles at organ (music) and pipe organ, etc.: I propose that all the information from organ (music) be moved to respective articles on church organs, theater organs, electronic organs, etc. Seeing that this page is currently a glorified disambiguation page, the organ disambiguation page would be updated with links to all these articles. Then pipe organ would be moved to organ (music). It could still contain smaller links to the church organ, etc. Thoughts on implementing some or all of this, anyone? —Cor anglais 16 (Talk) 13:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting idea. The general pipe organ article is quite massive and might be intimidating to someone who wants to read it. Perhaps it would be better to move the appropriate sections to their respective articles. Maybe we should consider a general article on pipe organs with specific issues (church organs, theatre organs, etc.) written as sub articles with their own pages. Erzahler 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- (sorry to be so late in commenting on this.) I think the organ (music) article is more than a disambiguation page. Although I shudder at the thought of calling a Hammond B3 an organ, I realize that most people think of it that way, as a member of the organ family. I think the article is a nice way of presenting the basic types of organs and their historical and current uses. Considering that some people (including musicians) don't even know that there is a difference between the Schantz they hear at church and the Hammond they hear at a jazz concert are fundamentally different, I think it's important to put the two in clear distinction like this. The juxtaposition is simply something we cannot achieve through the use of separate articles, and this amount of detail is something that does not normally fit on a disambiguation page. I realize there is quite a bit of duplication of information, but I feel it is warranted to help get a sense of context. --W0lfie 17:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I recently posted merge notices on Church organ, and Organ (music) without checking previous discussions. My suggestion would be to move the small artices, such as Church organ into Organ (music), unless they are substantial articles (like Pipe organ which should be outlined and linked to from Organ (music). Mdcollins1984 09:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Separated articles for each kind of subjects about organ ? My opinion :
If you read French and if you go to the French wikipedia, you'll see that each article about organ are separated. Since I began to contribute to these articles (I entirely wrote the article about digital organs), I considered that the good way was to separate each theme. Not only to avoid confusion or too huge article (you have very long articles about important theme), but over all to have a more "natural" classification between each theme.
Even the "pipe organ" article and the "organ (music)" article should (would) be divided in more sub-theme. The reason is simple : wikipedia is growing and getting richness. Today, articles are little, because they are beginning. What about this in the next five or ten years ?
I think that the better way to build an article for Wikipedia is to begin with a map of the article (note that some articles are only maps and it is a very good idea). Once you have the map, each wiki-contributor can fill the void cases and obviously enhance, improve, correct...
Anyway, we must keep the "pipe organ" entry because the word "organ" is very ambiguous (with "body organ"). In French, we have not this problem : pipe organ is said "orgue" and body organ is said "organe" so, we do not have homonyms.
Don’t forget that we have the very useful link assembler that is "category". And Category:organ already exists. I agree that the better way is to "explode" organ (music) page and after…
we have choice to :
- create a new disambiguation page only for separate each kind of organ…
- or include each kind in the "organ" disambiguation page
[edit] another problem
As you can see, the "The Casavant pipe organ at Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica, Montreal." photography is empty. I do not know if it is a copyright problem, but the empty frame appears on more than one page. I think it is better to exchange this image with another pipe organ photography. In Wikipedia commons we have a huge number of kind organ photos. Sonusfaber 12:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] on the term "organ builder"
Google returns nearly 100,000 results for the phrase "organ builder." It seems to be the article's contention that organ builder is the correct term for someone who builds organ and -- as the article notes -- maintains them. This is not the case for some who, for example, builds chairs. One would not expect a "chair builder" to necessarily be involved in chair maintenance.
Organ builders by and large do seem to be involved in organ maintenance, especially ongoing maintenance of the instruments they have built. Perhaps this is part of the building process? But, who is brave enough to start the organ builder article? And does this term really need to be mentioned in Organ (music)? Perhaps it should be moved to Pipe organ? Dsinden 05:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Organ Chording in Pop Music
Based upon Al Kooper's involvment with Bob Dylan's electrified sound (as the Scorsese documentary points out "it revolutionized rock and roll") perhaps a section about the organ's prominence in 60's music and, most importantly, a section with some music theory behind it (as it is much different than traditional piano or any other keyed instrument). I could help with this section, as most of the time, an organ uses an inverted chord rather than the one being played by the rest of the musicians. Just a thought. :-) Mumpsy 18:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
