Talk:Old time fiddle

Revison of June 30/ Article improvement issues

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Old_time_fiddle&action=historysubmit&diff=437133419&oldid=436950441

Bare URL

 Done

RE: Improve lead

 Done

• Further polishing in process per WP MOS.

RE:Deletion

of "Old time musicians bristle at confusion of their brand of music with other styles as noted above."

As an expertise-holder, I assert that the statement is true and uncontroversial but perhaps for the word "bristle". That is simply decent writing but it is not essay-like nor is it an asseriton of "personal" views. I think what you mean is that it is not in encyclopedic tone and there is a different template for that, altogther. If that deletion is supposed to be explained or commented by the {{Essay-like template, please use the template that specifically expresses the complaint, or, perhaps better yet, don't use templates.

I am surprised that it was deleted rather than {{ cited for Citation needed, or even, at most, {{Dubious...

RE: Essay-like|date=June 2011

I think the issue, if there must be an issue over that, is ((Citation needed.

It isn't really a "personal" essay, which is a way overused template concept. The template should have variants because there can be non-encyclopedic deviations which may have some qualities in common with "essay" style of writing, but are probably more like other styles which are not quite exactly what you would call essay. Maybe sometimes the issue is it is POV/inadequately sourced. That is not the same thing as "personal essay" writing and it is something of a bite on writers to template their work as "personal essay" when that is not accurate.

"personal essays... represent what you think, what you feel, about a given topic"

The issue in a lot of the articles receiving the personal-essay accusation template is not that they are representing what the writer thinks or feels, the issue is inadequate sourcing of what may be a consensus opinion amongst, say, Old Time fiddling experts. Please revise the template or use a different one or better yet simply contact article originators at their talk page without inaccurate templating.

Proposed action:

1)leave the sentence deleted OR

2) find attribution and reinstate the sentence.

3)Modify: change "bristle" to "distinguish", etc.

In any case, nothing personal. GeoBard^Rap 23:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

References/Home made instrumentation

There is no rationale given for deletion of references to demonstrations of homemade instruments. These were hand compiled citations. Please provide a source to replace these or restore the citation perhaps in an external links section thanks.

whiskey bottle boxes, and similar ad hoc materials.

.

Youtube can not generally be considered a reliable source, since its "content is largely user-generated." A youtube video may be considered reliable if it can be shown to be "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No that is old WP ideology. Video of government conferences are on WP all the time. And obviously for music, they are essential. This is a big waste of time if you think that there can be valid encyclopedization of music related topics without allowing links to video/audio tracks. Give me a break. This is not a dead tree encyclopedia brittanica. This is not even worth arguing about. I guess the idea of a WikiProject on anything to do with music is a total waste of time if we are at the point of edit warring on the dubious proposition that video links are a problem. I am disgusted. You are just piously repeating something written somewhere, and you are not citing it, and whoever wrote it was not a musician and has no clue. At least put in a link. I am going to look at other venues for my work if this kind of argument has to come up. But for the record show which irrelevant context you are quoting. You don't even state whether or not it is policy.Yes, I am very annoyed at this. The least you can do is find the secondary citation of home made fiddles. WHat the dickens is the big problem with using actual taped footage??? GeoBard^Rap 01:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem with video as such. The unreliability of most YouTube videos has to to with the fact that they are posted to that site by users who may or may not be experts in the relevant field. (That link goes to a subsection of the "Reliable sources" link which was given in my previous comment, by the way.)

A bigger issue is the weight that ought to be given to the use of cigar-box fiddles and other non "standard" instruments in this genre. My limited observation of old-time fiddlers tells me that the great majority of them play violins. To be more precise, they play instruments that were manufactured as violins. Having text in the lead saying "old time fiddle players often construct these instruments from cigar boxes..." can be taken to mean that cigar-box fiddles are prevalent in old-time fiddling, which is not consistent with what I have seen in OT fiddling circles. The home-made violins I have handled and worked on have looked a lot like violins, with the easiest differences to see being in the edgework of the top and back plates.

I do not believe cigar-box fiddles should be mentioned in the lead paragraph unless reliable secondary sources say they are a prominent feature of OT fiddling. Trade violins, or factory fiddles, have been so easily obtainable that for most fiddlers it makes little sense to go to the trouble of making one out of a cigar box. That may have been different in different times in history, but without reliable sourcing, it is no more than an outlying factoid, far from the center of what OT fiddling really is and has been. It might make sense to mention improvised fiddles in the body of the article, or to include Cigar box fiddle in a "See also" section, if we had such an article. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

OK I agree so I moved the discussion out of the lede and to the bottom here is this edit: Done

ARTICLE SECTION: The instrumentation==

The fiddle is essentially a violin which may be somewhat modified to accomodate old time styles. However, the term "fiddle" is at times used for instruments which are not violins but a merely bowed string instruments without the characteristic shape of a violin. REF TAG en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fiddle|Citation needed CLOSE REF In some cases the term is used quite loosely in that old time fiddle players often construct these instruments from cigar boxes, whiskey bottle boxes, and similar ad hoc materials. Nevertheless, the primary instrument is the violin, which may be modified with a flatter bridge to allow for playing double stops. Many Old time fiddlers are also luthiers and some of the instruments they craft are sought after by concert violinists and are valued in the thousands. TEMPLATE: Citation needed}}GeoBard^Rap 23:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Jay Ungar?

Who calls Jay Ungar an old-timey fiddler? As notable and accomplished as he is, his style is certainly a lot more violinny than, for example, Clyde Davenport or Lester McCumbers. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually he is just listed as a Teacher not an OT player

There probably are better teachers of OT but Jay and Mark have pedagogy down also Darol Anger. But revert it if you want. BTW you must play one bad ass Beaumont Rag if you know enough to do this edit: [1] I like your edits you are expert sorry about earlier thought there was a move to bar videographic documentation, which IMHO would be stupid. GeoBard^Rap 02:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Videographic documentation deleted without reference

These are pasted from earlier version for inspection after deletion which was performed without reference to the WP policies, which are changing, and which were not written with music and musicians in mind. If this has to be an interminable edit war, probably persons seriously interested in online collaborative encyclopedia production on the topic of music will simply migrate from WP to somewhere that wikilawyering from people with no interest or background in music will not detract from the mission of producing quality encyclopedic content.

-

• Bruce Molsky Cotton Eyed Joe

-

• Craig Duncan Cotton Eyed Joe at Rocky Mountain Fiddle Camp

-

• Asleep at the Wheel Cotton Eyed Joe (Western swing style)

1

• Bruce Molsky Cotton Eyed Joe

corrected to

• Bruce Molsky Cotton Eyed Joe00:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)GeoBard^Rap 01:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

2

• Craig Duncan Cotton Eyed Joe at Rocky Mountain Fiddle Camp

COMMENT: This is an excellent demonstration of the point that "A characteristic of Old Time Fiddle is the integration of spoken/sung vocalizations into the fiddle playing."

It is a great link and the article would be better off if it had been left unperturbed. However, the old, stale policies which were written for non-musical content will be wikilawyered to the hilt and end up draining vast amounts of time to get formal adoption of the inevitable, much-needed boilerplate spelling out the exceptions to those general policies which are appropriate for the performing arts. To minimize the inevitavble drain on my time and energy, I am going to engage that debate later rather than sooner and go ahead and re-integrate that link with contextualizing text. But these edits, based upon old, uncited guidelines, are not helpful and eventually there will have to be a general rfc or some other process if they are going to continue. GeoBard^Rap 01:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

3

Alternative version. Hm. This is a priceless comparison. I know all about the various policy objections that could surface and they will need to be raised and discussed eventually. However, there is no hard rule against external links and this is not a case of "link - farming". I am going to wait around though for a better test case and not take the bait of getting into a flame war. I am a musician and a music teacher, an "expert" in the sense used in the various discussions about "expertise" being driven away from WP. And the facile removal of content, in this case I can only speculate because of some dusty old WP rules that were not written with music topics in mind, is an obstacle with little apparent benefit to the encyclopedia.

I will probably sit on this for the time being but eventually there will be a "test case" of this type of deletionism and a broader discussion. Or, I will simply find other venues and let the issue go away of its own accord. But clearly when you are talking about performance art, a different state of affairs obtains than any state of affairs that pertains to many other topics, and if there is in fact some clear, pertinent policy in support of this kind of edit, the policy is not a good one. GeoBard^Rap 01:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Another unhelpful edit, which I am reverting.

[2]

If you believe there is a WP policy which requires captions for all images. please post a link to that policy.

Your edit summary objects that the image, which is in the section entitled "Instrumentation", is a violin. That is true. A fiddle is a violin. Did you not know that? If you believe that the distinction is pertinent, please discuss it here rather than wheel warring, thanks. GeoBard^Rap 01:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

By now you have probably seen what I said below about that edit. Just for future reference, wheel warring is when administrators get into an edit war. Here, I haven't yet even seen any real edit warring, just normal bold changes, customary in the Wikipedia process of editing and improving articles. Be well, __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that insists on captions for images, but I personally think that images in general should have captions to indicate to the reader what exactly they are seeing. I imagine that most readers over the age of about 5 will be familiar with what a violin roughly looks like, so if this particular image is just a generic picture of a violin, I'm not convinced that it serves much purpose on an article about old time fiddles. And if modern violins do differ in some ways from the fiddles described in this article, then I think the image most definitely needs to be captioned to explain that it is a modern violin and what the differences are. And, as already mentioned above, simply reverting other editors edits or making changes does not constitute edit warring (unless of course reverting is performed repeatedly), so please assume good faith, and be a bit more open to other editors' comments on articles you have written - especially when they are intended to remove some of the clutter and make articles clearer. --DAJF (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

""Yes I agree I usually put captions, time permitting. I am just headed out the door and don't have time to read any further into your message and won't because if I read it I will want to compose a reply and that will take time. But yes I agree about captions, but the remeddy is to add a caption not to delete the image. I will read the rest of your message tommorow and if it seems appropriate reply. Thanks. GeoBard^Rap 03:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

VL100 image

I am of two minds about the removal of the violin image thumbnail from the "instrumentation" section. DAJF is correct in saying that it shows a modern violin. I am familiar with the history of that individual violin, and can say with certainty that the bridge top curve was the standard 42 mm "classical" radius when I took that picture. Even though there are fine tuners built into the tailpiece, it is wearing synthetic-core strings for the bottom three. I can also say with absolute certainty that its player at that time used it as both a violin and a fiddle, although not in an old-timey style.

At the moment I don't have a picture of an old-timer's fiddle handy. If someone feels strongly that the section needs an accompanying picture, I have no objection to putting that VL100 back, but I think we can do better, and am willing to wait until a more representative image of an old-timey fiddle comes along. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Those features are not visible to the naked eye. It is physically impossible to determine the curvature of that bridge from that angle of a shot so I can't understand why you even bring that up. Nor is the string :core visible. Truly, I am baffled at your comments, and usually you are spot on...

But yes, if you get an "old" fiddle, replace the picture, for aesthetic reasons. But it will still be a "modern" fiddle, ie., based on Strad or Guarnerius or similar.GeoBard^Rap 02:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The tail silk on those strings looks like the white/red barber-pole of Tonica, which is a synthetic-core string. The side view shows the relative elevation of the middle two strings above the outer two. Someone who has spent a lot of time looking at violins could make an informed guess about the bridge top from that image. It doesn't look like a flattened bridge. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

They probably are Tonicas, and there are fiddlers who use them. The purpose of the picture in that article is to show what a fiddle looks like, not the coloration of the string wrapping.Now if you have the original and blow it up to full screen you can surmise that it is a standard bridge but (1) plenty of fiddlers use a curved bridge, in fact, most do, and (2) you are biased because you took the picture and know the instrument thus are in no position to judge objectively whether or not the bridge is flate (3) the proper photo for that discussion would be a bridge close up and anyone who has ever worked with blueprints knows that the angle of these shots are not the angles with which to demonstrate the bridge curvature, which is virtually indetectible from these angles.(4) the matter is accounted for in the text (4) as I understand it, you took that picture and posted it in the article "fiddle" so who are you to complain? (5) the instrument is in fact a fiddle, unlike the he Byzantine lira, the Chinese erhu and so forth. (6)This is obviously a situation where the enjoyment of arguing for the sake of arguing is trumping (a) WP objectives and (b) the community of fiddle playing. If you have a fiddle with a close up on a flatter bridge lying around the house upload it to WikiCommons. Personally, I would rather play, listen to, write about or read about fiddles, fiddle music and fiddle players than entertain scholastic argumentation. WP is not a debating society.GeoBard^Rap 01:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I cut that particular bridge using a standard template. The bow hair does not read a blueprint when it tilts to a different string. That picture can stay, or it can go, but to me it still looks like excess baggage in the layout of the section where it is placed. It's a plain vanilla violin, with nothing in its character to suggest old-time fiddling. There is a fiddle in the Bill Hensely image at the top of the page, if anyone needs to be shown what a fiddle looks like. __Just plain Bill (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the fiddles of half a dozen old time fiddlers in a pretty decent session and most had plain vanilla violins, as you call them. Please respect the instrument. If I can dig up my camera I have flat bridges why don't you take a picture of your fiddle, Bill. This discussion is getting to be a real Mountain Out of a Molehill doncha think??GeoBard^Rap 23:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to see one of my fiddles, look no further than the top image in the Viola article, and here is one of my bridges, with not too many things wrong with it. Yes, I sometimes fiddle on a viola.

My violin is nothing special, and Wikipedia doesn't need a picture of it, although I like the sound of it better than I liked the sound of that entry-level Eastman box. By "plain vanilla" I meant the kind of violin that a good shop might rent to a beginner, or that a teacher might use for teaching Twinkle and Lightly Row to little kids in settings where she didn't feel like putting a nicer instrument at risk. That is an exact description of that particular VL100, not a matter of respect or disrespect. That violin was comfortable to play and sounded OK, but it is made of plain wood (look at the neck) and had a plain voice, not very flexible or interesting.

Old German (or Saxon, or Bohemian) trade fiddles are typically made of more highly-figured wood, and are suitable for being played in the festival parking lot, for street cred, by professionals who go into the studio with pedigreed Italian violins. Different tools for different occasions. That VL100 is not typical of the sort of tool most old-timers choose. I haven't removed the picture since you seem willing to spend so much energy defending it, but remain unconvinced that we need an oddly placed picture of a generic violin in that section. Why do we even need a picture there? A reader who doesn't know what a violin looks like is only one click away from the violin page, linked in that same paragraph. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Bill it's like this. I don;t know that I am "defending" anything, in fact, when I teach martial arts I discount defensiveness and the notion of defensiveness because as often as not it exacerabates things...I teach "protection" which is quite another matter. Now, not everyone who uses Wikipedia has been playin' fiddle since they were little kids, like us, and not everyone is second, third...Nth generation as you, I guess, and I am with this businees of scratching on strings and wooden boxes...it should be obvious some people are going to want to print out the article, eventually, when it reaches GA status, to hand out to the kids they are teaching or whatever. And they are not necessarily going to want to download and print out the whole entire articel on "fiddle" if what they are all about is Old Time Fiddle. And I know that I have a student that I am taking to the Old Time session and from the perspective of an instructor I know that having everything in one concise article makes more sense than a whole bunch of different articles. So each article should contain overview to some extent. As opposed to a fragmented Balkanized WP. So when way down in the article we seek to explain the difference in set up between OTF and standard violin, one of those differences is four tuners. That is basic. I don't know but that one out of a hundred classical violinists will use four tuners. It is anathema. They think it kills the tone. They think it looks amatuer. Etcetera. But when I go to OT gigs people got grouting sponges for shoulder pads and all kinds of tuner metal and in some cases no chin rest, nuthin' but a red mechanic's rag for a shoulder pad, and what not. But none of this makes any sense to the presumed WP reader without some kind of graphic. So please yeah break out your digital and upload something more specific to OT. But in the meantime, it seems like depriving the readers of a small visual where we are talking about bridges and tuners and what not, that would be downright mean, doncha think?GeoBard^Rap 18:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

PS I don't mean to imply that I know anything about OT. I am not an OT specialist. I've played on flat bridge and curve bridge and set my own soundposts and cut my own bridge but that don't make me OT. I got Virginia and South Carolina and Georgia i my blood I got relatives what fought for General Robert E Lee and then lived in Wyoming and Colorado but none of that makes me OT. OT is OT. Maybe you are pure OT. I am glad to have you criticizing I am learning a lot from you even in subtle ways. But I can't just fold and go along with every opinion you got on account of maybe you can probably kick my ass with those shuffles and probably got an OBS that would put me to shame. I never said I was Mister OT. But I know how to write and I think readers want what I got. Common sense sez that a temporary picture that has warts is better than none whatsoever. GeoBard^Rap 18:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Benny Williams who played with Bill Monroe passed away recently and there is not a huge amount of secondary sources. I was hoping someone from this discussion might be able to help find some second party citations.GeoBard^Rap 22:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed photo addition.

I hid the existing photo no one seems to like very much and added more b&w old photos to keep a unified visual. Maybe this one can be converted to b& w ??

no caption sorry mate

23:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed external links policy

If you go to edit the External Links section, you get an edit notice.

This is it:

Please prefer links which are meta-indexes or highly authoritative on account of the fact some WP editors get mad if you put too many links up- -IF YOU REMOVE ANY LINKS PLEASE PASTE THEM INTO THE TALK PAGE that way we can make sure a good resource doesn't get lost in the shuffle. We can replace the link somewhere else thanks. --

I am asking people to stick with it. Personally, I like lots of links but others won't so that is that. Geof 02:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Two Sources concerning Michigan fiddling

I came across these two sources:

• An explanation of French-Canadian fiddling in Michigan
• A list of recordings displaying the music of Michigan fiddlers

Enjoy. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

"Composed music in the tradition" section purpose

I'm a bit confused by this section - what is it's purpose? Wagon Wheel is not really related to old time fiddle specifically. It is co-written by Bob Dylan and Ketch Secor of Old Crow Medicine show. The tune has an old timey feel and uses a fiddle, but a "composed music in the old-time fiddle tradition" could mean something else - old time fiddle tunes (instrumental, dance oriented) that have have a verifiable composer.

Examples of this would be "Red Prairie Dawn" composed by Garry Harrison, which is played frequently at old time fiddlers conventions. Another could be "Half Past Four" which was composed by the legendary Kentucky old time fiddler Ed Haley in the early 20th century.

"Wagon Wheel" differs drastically from "Blackberry Blossom" and "Orange Blossom Special" which are instrumental fiddle tunes. Blackberry Blossom doesn't have a sole composer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackberry_Blossom_(tune)

What kind of information is trying to be conveyed with this section? It seems to me it should be split into differing sections: "Composed music in the tradition" which lists verifiable tunes that have a distinct composer, and "Influences on contemporary music" which can include the likes of "Wagon Wheel". Thoughts? `Jmpilot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The "edit notice"

While running autowikibrowser through a list that contained, among other things, a lot of American folk-art articles, I came across this article. It contains a long "edit notice" in hidden comments, threatening sanctions if people remove video links from the article. I'm removing it for a number of reasons, including:

1. It appears to come from a conflict over a decade ago.
2. Some of the sanctions seem overly severe (WMF ban, etc.)
3. Spam can be a valid concern, and the "edit conflict" may unintentionally have an impact of biting newer editors who are trying to combat that.

I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 03:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)