Talk:Classical guitar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

My god, this article has improved since I blundered into it, trying to sort out some confusions, half a year ago. Good work fellas!

Technique[edit]

I added a section on technique yesterday. I'll have to go back at some point and add all the cross-references. Also, I suppose I should tidy up the grammar too. --Benzzene 10:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made quite a few changes to this page today. I would be happy to discuss them with anyone. Especially the things I deleted. For example, pick guards are not a feature of the classical guitar and so it seemed unecessary to even mention them. Also, classical guitar can be amplified but it seemed not quite right to discuss it in a description of an acoustic instrument. User:Wghezzi 04:05, 9 June 2006

Greg Williams[edit]

Does the information about Greg Williams focusing on playing Wedding Ceremonies in Northern Calfifornia really belong in an Encyclopedia article about Classical Guitar? I'm asking because I honestly am not sure.Randyoo 04:12, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I do not think he should be included. Did he school under any great guitar teachers\masters? Does not seem he has any claim to fame.(IchBin 01:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

(IchBin 01:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)) Added birth/deaths for Modern performers[reply]

(IchBin 22:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)) Added one more birth date[reply]

Metal strings[edit]

Why are the three lowest strings wound with metal?

When you say lowest I presume you're talking about pitch, If you hold a classical guitar and feel the strings you'll notice with the treble strings that the highest pitch string is thinner than the lower pitch treble strings, with the bass strings (the ones wound with metal) and wound with metal to lower the pitch. I presume they weren't wound metal, they would be unanable to get the strings that are pure nylon at a lower pitch as it would be difficult to get thick nylon and it would be very uncomfortable to play if they did get the strings that thick.

Nice link[edit]

http://www.eythorsson.com/en/

You can add this link. Nice scores. User:333 14:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean nice rubbish link it appears to be one of those domain name place holders more then anything else. Somebody here with more authority please delete it and my reply to it Alan Kroeger 19:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually it is well known link for guitar sheet music that is pretty well regarded. Click on "The Guitar School" link where you will find heaps of PDF's of student pieces, solos, duo, trio arrangements etc. So may well be worth keeping but perhaps as en external link? --Thewizardalbany 10:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well i am doing a repost on the acoustic guitar and need all the help i can get so if u know any info thats not made upi please fell free to post here! thanks for not helping


help me, i am doin a report on guitars and need more info. know any good sites or any info? post here and do not dare post made up stuff for i play guitar and know a lot and well be totlay pissed off if u do post jusnk please help me i am a man in destress!

Listing of features[edit]

Is this the best way to describe the guitar (as a list)?--Light current 15:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Maybe there's some virtue in having the very good diagram, and corresponding sections, but you're right, reducing things to a list tends to destroy the flow. A compromise might be found between the thoroughness of the list and the readability of the narrative. (On a side note, I found it curious that the article informs readers, correctly, that most classical nylon-strings don't use or need a truss rod, and then proceeded to explain a great deal about what a truss rod does, even how to adjust one.) Maybe the listed entries can be streamlined? C d h 03:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen a truss rod as part of a classical guitar. This should be removed from the description and the list. wghezzi 16 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.117.176 (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern performers[edit]

The link to Adam Holzman goes to a jazz keyboardist, not the classical guitar performing artist and professor at University of Texas. I don't really know how to fix that. --Amazzing5 01:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy[edit]

There is a lot of duplicate information between this page and List of composers for the classical guitar and some with Classical guitar music. Perhaps there could be --some-- merging (at least of information). This page has much better organization than the list, but not as many composers. I understand the concept of having the "highlights" so to speak, but it still seems like a lot of room for error. Also, very few of the composers show up in Category:Composers for guitar. --Amazzing5 16:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I merged the part Modern performers with the page Classical guitarists. I think that we should also move or merged the other lists of this page.

The article lacks information on the importance of the subject matter, we should really expand it.

User:Tommaso456 24 June 2006

Tabs[edit]

Would it be frowned upon to add a link to classical guitar tabs? If not, add www.classtab.org to the links. Lovok 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm not assessing whether tabs are good or bad, I'm just saying they don't belong in the field of classical guitar. It would be something like giving standard notation to a rock guitarist. F15x28 02:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Allthough tabs usually don't have as much information as sheet music they are still useful for many people. I myself think that it is nice to have the tabs in addition to the normal notes, as it is easier to visualize where you are supposed to place your fingers Hauberg 08:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been playing classical guitar for 4 years using only tabs. Lauro - Negrito, Adrienne, Natalia, many others. I think a link to tabs has a place 24.164.158.180 01:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuh! Sorry I disagree with the notion of TABS for classical guitar on the following grounds.

1. There are thousands of pieces available to play that have not been tabbed. Why would you deny yourself? 2. Part of the joy of having a training as a classical guitarist is being able to read music and participate in music making activities with musicians who play other classical instruments and are also able to read music. Why would you deny yourself that opportunity? 3. Playing classical guitar is not just a matter of learning to play a few pieces of music from memory primarily by memorising fingering patterns. 4. It takes years to learn to do it well and so it should! --Thewizardalbany 11:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While all of the abovementioned points I do agree to on a certain level, it cannot be denied that tablature serves to encourage guitarists to cross disciplines and begin training in the art. As another aside perhaps not immediately relevant to the discussion, original sources for the music of John Dowland (lute) and Luys Milan (vihuela)to name but a few appear only in tab form. Although it is not in the form we see today I would argue that perhaps we should not dismiss this century old tradition as inferior as we do owe the modern stature of the guitar in art music to the hard work of those that came before us. --Lennon808808 12:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Yes! - But why not just learn to read music to begin with for goodness sake. And yeah It is hard and takes time but all of us who have learnt to read appreciate what it ultimately provides - a vastly improved musical life! Then explore vihuela and lute music in their original notation if you feel the need but they are a damn site easier to read in standard notation!!!!!!!!!!!! But then of course if you were a vihuela player or lutenist, I would be inclined to learn the original notation but hey this is a classical guitar site! --Thewizardalbany 09:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You all talk as though tablature is a newfound thing, but it has been around since the 1300's, according to Wikipedia itself. Tablature can also be written with time markings, so that it looks just like standard notation, except with six bar lines and numbers instead of note heads. This was how it had been written for hundreds of years, along side standard notation. Just to let you know. 69.157.52.115 01:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed. Tablature is what you make of it, and with enough effort, can be quite detailed and informative (graphically and otherwise). It also seems out of character for a encyclopedia article to take a stand on what guitarists should or should not find enjoyable or pleasureable about playing the guitar. I don't mean to suggest that there is no room for discussion on the issue. There is, but doesn't it belong in the wiki entry devoted to tabs, or even a general discussion of the various types of notation? That would be the natural place to argue that some (not all) guitarists tend to look down on tab notation, whereas others incorporate it into their practice. C d h 03:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch-ish[edit]

When the Contents panel is hidden, the portal section moves up the screen and half of it can no longer be seen. Lovok 18:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geographically/culturally biased?[edit]

The first paragraph of the article says:

This instrument is most commonly used by classical guitarists playing classical music, but is also used for folk music.

This is not true in many parts of the world, where the kind of guitar the article concerns itself with (called acoustic guitar or simply guitar in many places) is one of the most common instruments (if not the most common) in popular music of all kinds, from folk to rock. Latin America and the Iberian Peninsula come to mind as the most prominent examples.

Of course, the current name of the article is Classical guitar, which doesn't help. I don't know much about guitars, but it seems to me that there is no difference between the acoustic guitar that is used as a popular instrument in so many places, and the classical guitar of the article. Acoustic guitar is currently a disambiguation page, and of the articles listed on it, it seems like steel-string guitar is the next in affinity with the acoustic guitar in those settings, but those guitars aren't always steel-strung (probably most of the time, at least outside of the US, they are not).

Maybe, if there actually is a subtype of acoustic guitar that is specific to classical music and different from the popular-music type, the article should be split in two; Maybe the name of the article should be changed, maybe even acoustic guitar should host the content that is here now, with a separate disambiguation page?

I am putting in a "globalize" tag. --Cotoco 04:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a difference between the steel-string acoustic and classical guitars. Classical guitar generally refers to the type used to play classical music, whereas folk music is generally played using an acoustic guitar. The two types are very close, but not exactly the same. I'm going to remove the tag. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, but you may have misunderstood me. As I said, in many places the NON-steel-string acoustic guitar, which as far as I can tell is identical to the "classic guitar" of the article, is the most common type of guitar used in popular music. Steel-string guitars might be the most common type of popular-music guitar in North America, but that's not the case in other places. --Cotoco 04:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference in the formalized use of particular techniques. Let say someone uses a guitar with nylon or gut strings and plays a type of folk music like... Flamenco for instance. Now some Flamenco players have classical style techniques and have had formal training. But Flamenco is not about Classical type technique it is about song forms and the technique used by the performer is entirely up to them. Flamenco guitars (as an example) are generally smaller and easier to play but in Flamenco there is not any formalized rule about instruments and there construction just general trends. The guitar type isn't always that important Classical Guitar is more about particular techniques under that you have formalized groups of styles Baroque, Romantic, etc. I also have to comment that a classical Guitar is a type of acoustic guitar so if there is something to change it has more to do with hierarchy then anything else. So I think the globalize tag should be removed and discussion of hierarchy should take place elsewhere. There may be errors but I wonder if it is just an error in understanding that the term classical guitar is an authentic technique and methodology and not a type of instrument. Alan Kroeger 19:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're still missing the point. What kind of instrument do people like, for example, João Gilberto or Silvio Rodríguez play? Which article should cover that instrument and the full range of music styles and performers that use it? Cotoco's claim is that the instrument is exactly the same as the one described in this article, and that this article is the place to cover it.
There's a very crucial ambiguity here that's not being acknowledged: the term "classical guitar" can be interpreted to mean a specific instrument that's used to play many different genres of music (Iberian and Latin American folk and popular music, including nueva trova, fado, some types of samba, bossa nova), or, alternatively, a specific kind of music that's played with that instrument, called "classical guitar." Therefore, the key question here is how to organize the two topics, and an answer that does not address that is simply a bad answer.
One proposal would be two article,: Classical guitar (instrument), and Classical guitar (music). Another would be to dedicate this article to the instrument, and create Classical guitar (music) to cover the classical genre. Yet a third is to use a different article to cover the instrument itself and its full range of styles and techniques; e.g. use either the Spanish guitar article or the Acoustic guitar article. 209.204.188.184 03:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The steel-string guitar wasn't in practical use until around the 1920's, and its chief use then was for dance bands because it is louder. By this time real folk music in America was nearly virtually extinct or would be soon. (What is now commonly called folk music is really a form of pop music.) The reason the steel-string guitar wasn't in practical use until around the 1920's is that it took some time to invent a guitar body that could withstand the tremendous pressure of steel strings. In short, the "classical" guitar is much closer to an authentic folk guitar than is a steel-string guitar, if not quite the same thing. TheScotch (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gut Strings[edit]

Nylon strings are not gut strings. Nylon is a synthetic material that was not created until sometime in the 20th century. Gut strings are made from ox's guts and have a good history of predating Nylon strings. I would like the section where it refers to Nylon strings as gut to be altered to be more historically accurate.

  • At Wikipedia, anyone can be an editor. If you identify a section that needs alterations or additions, and have the knowledge to make them, then please do so! Jerry picker 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solid vs. laminated wood[edit]

Where the article says:

> The finest guitars are built with a solid Western red cedar or spruce top, solid rosewood back and sides,

Inexpensive instruments are made with laminated rather than solid wood since laminated is cheaper and less susceptible to cracking during assembly and shipping. However, some of the world's finest classical guitars are also made with laminated back and/or sides not for cost or durability issues but because of the maker's theory of design. John Williams, the patriarch of players since Segovia's passing, plays a guitar made by Greg Smallman of Australia, the back and sides of which are made with laminated wood. Ana Vidovic, an incredibly talented player in her twenties, plays a guitar made by Jim Redgate that also uses laminated back and sides. Ramirez of Spain makes models with laminated sides and others with solid sides; his most expensive models use laminated wood. Christopher Parkening plays a Ramirez guitar. Friederich of France uses laminated sides; Angel Romero plays one.

Well materials, accepted construction methods, etc have changed through time ecological and availability of materials issues exist now that didn't even 30 years ago. So it is more a matter of describing these factors. Now you probably see a few complaints already exist about the length of this article. If there was an attempt to add an aspect of every deviation and variation then the article would have to be longer then it is. At the very least there would need to be a sub page for everything that is implied or written here. Best bet is to leave it out and get rid of terminology like "The finest" say something like this "Many guitars are built with a solid Western red cedar or spruce top, solid rosewood back and sides but there are versions that use laminated woods for all or portions of the instrument. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alankroeger (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Frets/fretwires[edit]

In the Frets topic:

> Frets are the spaces between the fretwires which are the metal strips (usually nickel alloy or stainless steel) embedded along the fretboard

This is non-standard usage, and I'm surprised to see it. Nearly everyone, if not everyone, uses the word "fret" the way this author is using "fretwire". The fret, in standard usage, is the metal wire across the fretboard. Players refer to fret wire only in specific discussion about e.g. how large they are on a particular instrument, or whether they are worn. Jrethorst 03:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

type of guitar[edit]

this article is far too long. it seems to treat the classical guitar as a unique instrument instead of describing the characteristics that set it apart from a normal guitar. this page could be cut down considerably if we remove all the information pertinent to guitars in general (i.e. how it's tuned, what the frets and neck are, etc) and focus on what is unique to classical guitars. 67.172.61.222 23:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Classical guitar is the "normal" kind of guitar. The evolution of modern steel string and electric instruments is in direct descent from the Spanish guitar of Sor and Tarrega.Jerry picker 23:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so why does it have it's own page when it contains the majority of the same content as the guitar article? 67.172.61.222 23:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repertoire[edit]

"the major honors for commissioning a modern repertoire for guitarists have to go to Julian Bream of Great Britain" I just don't understand since when guitar repertoire is attributed to Julian Bream! I acknowledge him as a great guitar player, but what is Andres Segovia's role then? Maestro Bream did not contribute to the repertoire to the extend Maestro Segovia did. Such statements pale Maestro Segovia's contribution to classical guitar repertoire.

(Flamur)

Modernising the physical characteristics[edit]

Not meaning to cause offence here, but I couldn't help but notice that the picture in the article was rather... old. I think that in order to keep up with the times, we should show a moderner guitar that can demonstrate to the reader that, classical guitars can have cut outs to access the higher frets and an example where a pick up is used with the option to change the tone of your guitar. --Mikeoman 23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. The shape and size of the standard classical concert guitar have not changed significantly since the innovations in design Torres made in the mid-19th Century. Although guitars can have modifications such as a cutaways or amplification, you will never see a virtuoso concert guitarist performing in a concert hall with such a guitar. The guitar pictured accurately represents how a true classical guitar appears today 88/rosette/88 00:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree completely ridiculous. I don't know many classical guitarists who would choose to use a cut away classical with a pick up rather than a decent concert guitar made by one of the many great luthiers in the world today that looks exactly the image in question! --Thewizardalbany 11:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Guitar Social Networking Site[edit]

Hi People

Very nice Wiki on the Classical Guitar! I have added an external link to a social networking page specifically for Classical Guitarists which I hope you or any of your Wiki viewers will take the time to visit and perhaps become a member of.

The site is called "The Classical Guitar Network" --Thewizardalbany 11:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of the guitar.[edit]

I would like to question the sources of the statement appearing at the beginning of the article.

"The history of the classical guitar and its repertoire span over four centuries, including its ancestor the baroque guitar."

While it cannot be denied that the two instruments by similar name are related, there appears to be little or no information either in the article baroque guitar, or in the article classical guitar in regard to the baroque guitar itself. It seems then to be slightly inappropriate to mention the baroque guitar as the 'ancestor' without justification and perhaps I might suggest that given the role of the Baroque guitar being closer in nature to other accompaniment instruments in the continuo ,as it was mainly strummed and almost never a solo medium, it would be more appropriate to follow the music of the Vihuela as a solo contapunctal instrument through to the 19th Century guitar music of the Classical period. Or alternatively I would suggest leaving them separate altogether and beginning the Classical guitar article not as an evolution of the instruments construction but rather an evolution of function\style beinning with the classical period. I believe the current opening statement to be both confusing and somewhat misleading.

--Lennon808808 12:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During final construction, a small section of the outside corners is carved or routed out and then filled binding material on the outside corners and decorative strips of material next to the binding, which are called purfling

212.159.75.178 01:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry but this is not the English language as I understand it.[reply]

Spanish guitar[edit]

"Spanish Guitar" redirects here. However, the article reads "Note: The classical guitar of northern Europe is often confused with the Spanish guitar. The Spanish guitar is an arch topped instrument with two f hole apertures in the body's sounding board and is of similar internal construction to instruments of the viol family. While the neck, freting and tuning pegs of the classical and Spanish guitars have much in common, their body construction are vastly different." But a quick Google images search easily demonstrates that the term 'spanish guitar' very much means a classical guitar used for non-classical Spanish music, I had to go through 13 pages of image results before seeing a single image of an instrument with f-holes, and even that one turned out to be an electric semi-acoustic on a domain holding page. It also showed a large number of performers who believed they had a music career playing Spanish guitar (and holding an instrument which looks like a classical guitar and does not have f-holes), I expect these gentlemen would presumably be offended to be told they'd "confused" their instrument with a Spanish guitar. I believe the quoted text from the article is therefore wrong, though I'm not a subject-matter expert to offer replacement text, it certainly seems that in real-world usage in the English language, a 'Spanish' guitar is virtually interchangeable with a 'classical' guitar other than the difference in playing style the instrument's used for. RorschachUK (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real name of classic guitar is spanish guitar, it was invented and developed in Spain, and the Spanish guitar is an evolution of Latin guitar (Spanish), Today all guitars are a variation of the Spanish guitar and why is known by the nickname of classical guitar, but his real name is Spanish guitar

The original name is Spanish guitar (classic, flamenco, Argentinian etc are derived from it). Often in Spain If you go to a shop you have to specify that you want a classic or a flamenco one, to distinguish the type knowing the two types are Spanish guitar ones (nylon six string based). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.134.167.78 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article organisation[edit]

I am of the opinion that the technical performance information, although well written and valuable, appears too early in the article. IMO the article should broadly follow the following outline: Definition, History, construction, repertoire etc and lastly performance information. The article is, or ought to be, primarily about the instrument itself, not about how it is played. I will leave this open to discussion for two weeks from and then return to make possible changes. RichardJ Christie (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello R!

You know I'll have to agree with you, the article Classical guitar is just not written in a well-structured way, which would be required if the article is to builds up a readers knowledge in a structured way. The article (in its present form) is also quite simply not an "enjoyable read". Its just a sortof juxtaposition mix of facts in no good order. Also, there a lot of things I'd change about repertoire and other things etc. Because a good article should also provide some background, rather than just a listing of facts (that's just boring, right!?) But working to improve an article is really just that: work! It takes effort...

(By the way: I doubt anyone ever read it in its entirety.) Perhaps some of the information on "performance" should be put into the article Classical guitar technique (but that article is also starting to get big and - at least for novice guitarists - confusing; or maby not ... ?) Anyhow I think that some points about performance and technique can remain in the main article such as the following...

  • Direct contact with strings

As with other plucked instruments (such as the lute), the musician directly touches the strings (usually plucking) to produce the sound. This has important consequences: Different tone/timbre (of a single note) can be produced by plucking the string in different manners and in different positions.

  • Tone production/variation and freedom of performance

Guitarists have a lot of freedom within the mechanics of playing the instrument. Often these decisions influence the tone/timbre - factors include: Since it is the hands and fingers that pluck the string and every person has different fingers, there are great differences in playing between guitarists; who often spend a lot of time finding their own way of playing that suits them best in terms of specific objectives: tone-production ("beauty"/quality of tone), minimum noise (e.g. clicking), large dynamic range (from soft to controlled loud), minimum (muscle) effort, fast "motion-recovery" (fast plucking when desired), healthy movement in fingers, wrist, hand and arm

There is not one definite way of reaching these goals (there is not a single definite optimal guitar technique): rather there are different ways of reaching these goals, due to differences in the hands and fingers (including nails) of guitarists.

When guitarists are performing music (while playing), they continually search (by actively moving/changing their hands, fingers) for a good sound in terms of tone/timbre, to enhance the musical interpretation. TheRationalGuitarist (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I´m aware that this talk is getting quite old, but I prefer to enter it here instead of creating a new talk on the same matter.

As much as I like the introduction I think the final 2 paragraphs could be deleted or merged with latter parts.

  • To state that the guitar is a "popular instrument" seems unnecessary(?), and information on existing guitar festivals, summer courses and competitions could be pointed out elsewhere.
  • To explain that the "modern classical guitar is usually played in a seated position" is a fact that we don´t need in an introduction and could be moved to technical aspects of guitar performing.

Deleting or moving these would raise the content-box to be included as one enter the page, which then again facilitates browsing on the article. --Svindland (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that "TheRationalistGuitarist" makes a lot of sence regarding points on performance and technique. No one has answered since his contribution almost two years ago. I will consider making the edit that he suggested.--Svindland (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I´ve done a comparison between the section performance and the article classical guitar technique and deleted the most obvious duplications. It may still be too long for comfortable reading???--Svindland (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truss rod[edit]

Current article has a section on truss rods, which states Most classical guitars do not have truss rods, as the nylon strings do not put enough tension on the neck for one to be needed.

Do any classical guitars have a truss rod? I'm skeptical. The strings don't generate enough tension to need one, and if they did they'd pull the bridge clean off the belly. High-end guitars often have an insert of ebony or similar stiffening material in the neck, but not a truss rod. Andrewa (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither have I heard of a truss rod in a classical guitar, and I have never considered the "rigidity of the neck to be a determant on a good instrument versus a poor one" nor have I ever heard this argument in my 7 years of studying classical guitar performance. I suggest it gets deleted as it´s certainly not of any importance. --Svindland (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I own an Ovation CC059 which has a truss rod. Admittedly the Ovation line is different in many ways, but "never say never", right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.100.165 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Like a piano"[edit]

Hi, I was the deleter of the piano comparison that has since been restored in the first para.

The reason I deleted it is that I felt, as one who has recently been arranging a fair amount of piano music for classic guitar and winds, is that it is not an apt comparison.

If you were to say, "much like three of the four parts of a string quartet (cello-viola-violin)" I could buy it, but piano harmony is quite a bit different and more complex than classic guitar harmony.

I'm not going to delete it again, but it might be nice if we could agree on a more modest assertion about the use of multiple voices in classical guitar music. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got my eyes on this, but no good cites to offer one way or the other. I have no problem believing that "piano harmony is quite a bit different and more complex than classic guitar harmony." Still, in one sense I think the piano simile is more apt than mentioning a string quartet: Specifically, a piano is usually played by a single musician who must supply the motivation for all the "voices" involved. I'm thinking of Horowitz's transcription of The Stars and Stripes Forever here, which I can't hear as anything more than a highly polished trick. No way that ten fingers managed by one single person can deliver the effect of several dozen individual musicians paying attention to a single work of music. That is an extreme example (I apologize for my negative view of it) and you might be able to make a better case for the guitar having something in common with a string trio or quartet, but I think even that may not qualify as a more modest assertion, given the bowed strings' ability to sustain notes more or less indefinitely. Carry on, and thanks! __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think the comparison is a well known and good manner to explain the qualities of a classical guitar. After all some of the most known guitar pieces are originally piano pieces... not to mention the word Asturias:) Compromises usually has to be made when arranging a piano piece for a solo guitar but merely in excluding notes that are not crucial to the harmonic context. And where it´s inferior in harmony as quantity of notes it´s superior in quantity of manners to shape and form the notes. Apart from this (and volume...) the two instruments have very similar musical qualities; - bassline, harmony and melody in one instrument - they both "suffer" from limited sustain of notes (no bow to maintain or even raise the volume) - they both get their sound from strings after action from fingertips - they´re both excluded from the company of orchestra instruments, except for the guest performance in concertos... Svindland (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

While I agree on removal of spam, I think that resources that are intimately related to the topic in question, and serve to enrich it, should be available as external links. In this particular page, sheetmusic for that classical guitar (if it is freely and legally accessible: e.g. scanned by international libraries - as is mainly the case here) should be available; as they can immediately direct the interested reader to the actual music, and thus show some of the classical guitar's repertoire. Also: images of classical guitars (esp. historic classical guitars) serve to show how these instruments actually looked. (I don't consider it a defect, if a wiki-page has a somewhat longer "tail" of external links, as long as this part has some minimum quality, is well-structured, and does not contain spam. MySorAccount (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting a discussion.
I've removed the image links again. Images uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia are strongly preferred.
I think the scores are off-topic, but have left them and started a discussion at WP:ELN.
I think the external links need to be trimmed substantially further. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Note however that not everyone has historical guitars in his collection, from which photos can be made and uploaded to Wikimedia. Or do you happen to have a Lacote lying around somewhere? :)
(Instead of hijacking photos from museum websites, or private collections; it is better courtesy to link to the resource.) MySorAccount (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since Lacôte is mentioned only as an example, I don't think a link to an image is helpful. Maybe a link to an article about Lacôte guitars, that includes images and gives some context. That's one of the problems with linking to images - little or no context. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I´m puzzled about how decisions are made on creating wikipedia articles. It seems like a deletion can be made without a discussion, and people who disagree are left at leaving a comment on "discussion" without any actual influence on the article? Is this the spirit of wikipedia? I agree with "MySorAccount", so does this give us the credit of reinserting the information, or will it be excluded by 1 single person who finds it off topic?Svindland (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I´m puzzled about how decisions are made on creating wikipedia articles." See WP:CON and WP:BRD. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand you right; until concensus is made you are free to delete whatever you please? And I suppose I am free to reenter whatever I please until concencus is made? But as I don´t find wikipedia as important to disrupt my everyday life, I guess I´ll leave it as it is... But I do advise you to go the other way around and open a discussion before you master your deletion powers, and try to figure out what people reading these articles think before you disregard someones sincere intent of a contribution.Svindland (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at WP:BRD? It's not rationale for edit warring. External links add very little value to an article, so lengthy discussions about individual links rarely happen other than when someone is trying to spam them. Some find humor in the predictable patterns to such discussions. --Ronz (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, guess I´m ignorant; I don´t have the slightest clue to what BRD is? Took me long enough to figure out what coi was. Again you refer to articles and guidelines without actually substantiating why these guidelines apply here. So how should a "subject specialist" enter a link to his resource (as is encouraged in the coi guideline you refer to) without being ridiculed by humor pages that does not apply to this person (if we asume that I am a maligneous spammer)? 79.154.230.200 (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BRD is now linked twice. WP:COI has been linked and described on your account's talk page. Sorry for the confusion.
"Again you refer to articles and guidelines without actually substantiating why these guidelines apply here." Simply refer to what you'd like substantiated, and I'll do my best. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my English is not very clear. When you e.g. reply with "see WP:CON and WP:BRD" I interpret that as if you consider that I have broken these guidelines, or that I should read them to better understand your point of view. Then I go ahead and read them and find what I consider to be the contrary. If you say "read this" it would be nice to know why you think I should read it, and in this case why that guideline leaves you with the final word (as the links remain deleted from the article until concensus is made on the contrary).Svindland (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion. I don't think you've broken WP:CON, nor WP:BRD. I suggested you read them because they directly address your concerns, "I´m puzzled about..." WP:CON is the overall policy on how decisions are made. WP:BRD is a specific, simple approach that many editors use, that explains when changes without discussion can be useful and acceptable. WP:BRD addresses the specific example you gave, "It seems like a deletion can be made without a discussion..." --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ronz for the clarification, and I asume our little dispute should at the most have been taken place at our respective talk pages. Feel free to delete any of our discussion comments that doesn´t attend the content of this article. It´s too easy to fall into the trap of edit warring:)Svindland (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I´ve made a deletion myself of external link to "the guitar family tree" as this link was allready present in the reference section (number 2). I Suppose it didn´t need duplicity. --Svindland (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the externatl link to "Guitar Acoustics" could be moved as a reference/ footnote to Physical characteristics where it points out that the "sound of the plucked string is amplified by the soundboard of the guitar which acts as a resonator". As I´m a newbie to editing in wikipedia I´ll not intend to do so myself. --Svindland (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Classical guitar vs Classic guitar[edit]

When I was studying classic guitar and classical guitar music in the conservatory in the 1960's and 1970's, the instrument was the "classic guitar" and the classical repertoire for the instrument was "classical guitar". "Classical guitar" as the name for the instrument is a solipsism that hardly matters in conversation, but should we correct it for Wikipedia? I will not "fuss" about this and am simply volunteering to help with the massive editing task that would entail from the community deciding the correction is desirable. __ JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know that Thomas F Heck called it classic guitar in his thesis and (later) book on Mauro Giuliani. But today it really is more well known as classical guitar. Perhaps one can solve this very simply, by just adding classic guitar in brackets... I would not change the article title to classic guitar. MySorAccount (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Classical guitar is not a "solipsism", nor is it a solecism, which is what I think Jaxdelaguerre means; it's merely an alternative name. Yes, the article should acknowledge both names for the instrument. (Aaron Shearer's famous method book calls it a classic guitar too.) Anyway, I just added classic guitar to the list of alternative names in parentheses in the first sentence of the article. TheScotch (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classical guitar sheetmusic (scores)[edit]

In case someone misses the section on classical guitar sheetmusic, which has been part of the wiki-page for more than two years (since 6 January 2008, and in it's current format for more than half a year since 9 October 2009), here it is:

in the public domain

includes Sor, Giuliani, autographs by J.K. Mertz, etc.
  • classicalguitar.homeip.net/Sheetmusic.htm David's Classical Guitar Archive
(Index - Online access to pdf, via "Connect to resource or more info")

I don't agree with the removal of the material (1) MySorAccount (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I delinked the linkspam above added in the middle of kb.dk links. --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with "MySorAccount" that external links like these are a valuable resource. As it´s pointed out in discussions the term "classical guitar" is often referred to as classical music played on a nylon stringed acoustic guitar and I therefore find these links to be highly relevant to the article. I suspect that much of the popularity of Wikipedia lay exactly on it´s external links where people scroll down to the bottom of the article to find reliable sources. At least that´s what I do (Hardly never read a wikipedia article, but go directly to external links to find sources on the subject matter). By picking on details of the wikipedia guidelines I´m afraid we end up weakening the articles. I´m sure we could erase the whole article if we look closely enough through these guidelines. I also disagree with the removal of my link to my own website (which could be a violation to the guidelines... as I could have an interest of promoting myself) www.classicalguitarist.info which in my honest humble opinion is a great resource for anyone playing a classical guitar. Reports of visitors to this site show that most people enter it through bookmarks (repeated visits) and external sites as opposed to searching the web. Wikipedia in this aspect is a great ressource for finding appreciated websites on subjects that searches might ommit. As most people know a search engine favorizes pages that are explicitly optimized for the search engines and not necessarily what the viewer would find the most interesting. For me the weakness of this article is not external links (exept there being maybe too few) , but the duplication of information that is found on the wikipedia article on "guitar". Maybe I´m wrong, and I would truly appreciate if more people would give an opinion on this matter.Svindland(talk) 02:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified my comment as I considered it to be too personal and gave a bad light on other websites that I actually appreciate. Svindland (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be anything particularly pernicious about http://www.classicalguitarist.info/ and these sorts of sites appear as links on many Wikipedia musical instrument pages ... Without taking sides, I would like to ask what's the principle being upheld here, Ronz, please? __ JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
E.g., I just read How to identify spam and spammers and the particular link under discussion does not seem to correspond to any of those guidelines. __ JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have the spamming against a coi under control, the remaining policies/guidelines are WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz, I read those guidelines and the site we are discussing seems to conform to those guidelines. I have no horse in this race myself. I don't really care. I just "feel the user's pain" in this instance that a notable collation website that seems to fulfill the WP:EL guideline "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations" is being edited out aggressively. Do you have any thoughts that would correct my possibly mistaken impression on this? __JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTLINK is most relevant to the scores, images, and list in general.
I'm not clear how the addition of one link, arguably useful to the information seeker, crosses that line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:58, 13 May 2010 (talk • contribs) JacquesDelaguerre
I'm referring to the links to scores and images that have been removed, and the External links section in general. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ELNO #1 & 13 for classicalguitarist.info. It's a portal to information only indirectly related to the subject of the article. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One very useful thing which the site in question http://www.classicalguitarist.info/ does seem to provide is links to many professional player's sites and videos, and announcements of concerts by skilled players. As a musician, were I uninitiated in classic guitar, I would find a link to such a site and the content there most helpful, I believe, in further understanding the topic of discussion, classic guitar and its practice.
So while I see your point that the music articles do tend to get cluttered with extraordinary numbers of trivial, self-serving links, I can also see the user's discomfit that the inclusion of this (arguably) useful site should be singled out as link spam. __ JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This link was singled out because it was spammed against a coi. Note the External links section has been tagged as needing cleanup for over a year now. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to guidelines may often be a misleading way of bringing weight behind ones arguments; You claim that it was spammed against a coi (prefer to not use the abreviation and call it conflict of interest). I´ve read this guideline, and my interpretation is that I as a "subject specialist" (with a diploma degree as a classical guitar performer) am actually encouraged to link to my resource: "...Museum curators, librarians, archivists, art historians, heritage interpreters, conservators, documentation managers, subject specialists, and managers of a special collection (or similar profession) are encouraged to use their knowledge to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information with Wikipedia in the form of links to their resources." To assume that a link to my website is an attempt at promoting myself can be argued; One has to enter the contact page to find any information about me as a person or guitarist, and since I now work as a roustabout on an oil platform it would be ridicoulous to promote myself as a professional guitarist. I haven´t performed a concert since 2006...Svindland (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, everyone has answered my questions. The following points have been made:

  • The original linking was deemed fairly a conflict of interest link by Wikipedia standards.
    • But the user is not anonymous, did not hide the relationship, apologized and engaged civilly when challenged in Talk.
  • The site may indeed meet guidelines allowing linking
    • attractive and well-maintained site of a specialist (Svindland assumed to have the degree he claims)
    • useful information beyond scope of Wikipedia such as links to players and concert schedules

Policy on both sides can and has been fairly quoted.

The case to remove seems to me to be highly technical.

The case to allow the link is the belief that http://www.classicalguitarist.info a good site with useful information for autodidacts browsing Classical Guitar, information that we don't care to include here at Wikipedia (such as competition schedules and prize results) and that linking conforms to Wikipedia guidelines.

It seems to me, with all respect to the parties of this disagreement, that the latter case, to allow, is the stronger case. My reading of the guidelines referred to by the deleter does seem to confirm that the link

  • would be in agreement with the guidelines
  • would neither be superfluous nor constitute spam
  • and that to remove the link is a overzealous application of the guidelines and a disservice to readers.

Ronz , if the link is reinstated is this going to result in a new delete? I'm willing to edit the reinstate to avoid WP:COI if doing so does not start an edit war. If you are adamant, I will bow out of this discussion. __ JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has addressed my concerns, "WP:ELNO #1 & 13 for classicalguitarist.info. It's a portal to information only indirectly related to the subject of the article." --Ronz (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well,
1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
Unique resources:
  • Links to classical guitar player pages, videos and didaction
  • Classical guitar concert and festival announcements and news
  • Information about and results of classical guitar competitions
  • Links to forums, magazines and other resource.
13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article
The site is clearly related to the subject of the article in that its focus to the exclusion of all other topics is the practice and practioners of classical guitar.
I think now your concerns have been addressed, whether sufficiently addressed is for you to say! :) __ JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am strongly against including the link classicalguitarist.info

Reasons:

  • I visited the site only 3 or 4 weeks ago and the guitar festival and competition announcements were all helplessly outdated: All the information was still from 2009. Thus Arne Svindland does not really keep the page up-to-date.
  • The page is maintained only by Arne; which means that he has ultimate control over what content gets published. I like the wiki-concept of "peer-review" and don't see that on Arne's page. Again: alone he cannot ever succeed in keeping it up-to-date.
  • The layout of the page is chaotic; and bursting with links on all sides.
  • Additionally, I find the numerous adverts on the page disturbing (perhaps Arne is getting a bit of pocket-money, since sheetmusicplus.com is featured multiple times: example - see books on the right)

Thus: while I might visit the page to find a link for some guitarfestival or competitions (something that I can also do that elsewhere: BakitoneGFA, Worldguitarist, delcamp, etc.), I don't find that a sufficiently strong reason to include the link here. His website classicalguitarist.info is already linked at the bottom of International_classical_guitar_competitions which is fitting (and enough!).

But on a different topic, I'm all for including links to sheetmusic; if these links are from serious sources, such as libraries, which is the case for the links shown at the top. MySorAccount (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hello MySorAccount. Point taken, and it´s actually great to get such a sincere feedback! You´re right;

  • The portal was outdated during a long period, and I probably need more than myself and email-contributions to keep it updated. I am looking at the possibility of including "peer-review". But the sort of information presented has shown little success in Wikipedia´s own classical guitar portal: The "most updated" news is from october 2007.
  • Yes, I should probably get some help with the layout. But "bursting with links" I guess is the whole point of a portal, as long as they´re updated. As you seem to have followed my site (you knew it was outdated a month ago) I would appreciate any suggestions (use my talk page if you like)!
  • Pocket money:) yes, I´ve received the total amount of approximately $50,- during the 5 years of it´s lifetime. I´ll get rid of them! Maybe I can stop spending $13 a month on my domain if we can get the wikipedia portal up and going?!?

On a different topic, the article Classical guitar repertoire has a section of free music scores in external links. At least we can expand that list to include the links shown at top, and I hope you agree to the many edits I´ve done on this article(?). --Svindland (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Svindland! Thanks for taking the criticism (well that's an exaggeration) - lets call it feedback - so graciously. About the article and your wiki-contributions: Great!!! Thanks for the time you've invested. I think you cleaned up things and have got some good ideas.
I've got a few ideas on how to improve the article further - ideas that might be more worthy under my real name, and in published form - on the other hand I (and some others) enjoy reaching out to fellow musicians and being able to have a (small) influence, in a positive way - something that is possible with an open encyclopedia. Only thing is: to find the time... MySorAccount (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thanks for the great link to bakitone.com (which I did not now of!). This is an obvious link to enter in International_classical_guitar_competitions, but even you (who enjoy reaching out to fellow musicians in the "wiki-spirit") haven´t bothered to do so. Why? It would just take a few seconds. I think that all of those sites that you mentioned are good external links (even though the competition page of Delcamp has not been updated since 2004). My portal though is not just about competitions, so according to wikipedia guidelines it doesn´t seem to have been at the appropriate place (a general article should have links to general resources, and a specific article should have links to spesific resources) since it´s inclusion in 2006. In the end we start asking ourselves the question of why we bother. The site after all is full of donation-buttons, so someone is probably getting their pocket-money;)--Svindland (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you yourself say that bakitone.com is so suitable for International_classical_guitar_competitions, while mentioning that your site is not really appropriate because of it's general nature; then your welcome to remove your site and add bakitone.com in its place. (Ask yourself, whether the previous sentence contains more positive information-content and good-will, than your paragraph above. Or, to say it in a different manner: be bold, not resentful. Or, to say what I really mean: keep in your link and add bakitone.com !!! Perhaps I didn't add the link, for fear of Ronz and his tendencies to delete stuff, or because I consider your page to contain a lot of good links (even if it misses www.guitarcz.com ); but really: I don't know why I didn't add it.) MySorAccount (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for another great link, and I´ve included Bakitone under external links in International_classical_guitar_competitions. I did not say my site was not appropriate, but that it was not in it´s appropriate place. My point is that you probably didn´t add it because you didn´t have any self-interest in adding it(?). Of course I have a self interest in getting links to my own site! Why? Because it makes me feel that I get something in return for my effort, and because I find it relevant to the article, and because I´ve received a lot of positive responce from the classical guitar community despite it´s sloppy layout. I´ll leave the deletion of my link on International_classical_guitar_competitions up to Ronz (he seems to be better at just that:). (refactored) --Svindland (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I´ve added the sheet music links to external links in classical guitar repertoire. At least there they are highly relevant.--79.154.230.200 (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy with Guitar[edit]

(edit conflict) I agree with Svindland. We should be focused on improving the article body where there's currently a great deal of redundancy with Guitar. --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the introduction to be very accurate and well formulated.

Background information[edit]

I find the section Background information both misleading and inappropriate for an encyclpedia article.

  • Background information is not a headline that properly explains what the section is about. I suggest it could be changed to "Classical guitarists" with a reference to "main article:" or "see also:" List of classical guitarists. This would be a fine way of enabling browsing between two articles that are closely related.
  • The latter part with the Hebb interview does in my opinion not belong in an encyclopedia article. However the distuinguished this pesonality might be (and however we might agree) it´s a highly subjective viewpoint and down right offending to the many fine new guitarists and classical performers evolving on the music scene today.
  • But the short list of performers ranging from Sanz to Williams is a fine introduction and summary to the related article list of classical guitarists or the Category:Classical guitarists. --Svindland (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits made to the article[edit]

After spending quite a while on studying the article and it´s discussion I´ve decided to do some editing in order to further clarify the context and improve it´s readability. I have a deep respect of all the work that has been put behind the writing and therefore think it´s at its place to inform of the changes made and reasons for making them. If anyone consider the changes inapropriate this will also make an "undo" a great deal easier. This list will expand as I go along, and I encourage other editors to add their contributions in order to improve on the article.

Edits that have taken place;
  • Playable/Reachable notes of the guitar has been shortened and re-written. I thought of removing it completely as I found the statements like "Important for the notes playable on the guitar, are the left-hand's position, since it determines the reachable frets..." to be like saying "in order to play a high note on the right side of the piano keyboard you need to place your hand there". It had simply too many words making a rather obvious aspect quite difficult to comprehend. The statement that "open strings can always be played" was also evidently wrong as fretting any other note on a string makes it impossible to play the "open string".--Svindland (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have merged a great deal of the section on Tuning that I found to be of redundancy to main article Guitar tunings.--Svindland (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC) I also think that "by far" in the statement "the most common tuning by far is the standard tuning" is a bit misleading as a dropped D- tuning is very normal in the classical repertory. We could almost call it a standard to pieces in the key of D and D minor. Some mentioning should also be made to the common practice of lowering the 3rd string to f# in playing renessaince music.--Svindland (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have split down the section on frets that had a link to a non-existing section and added a main link to the article fret
  • I have split down the section neck which included irrelevant information on truss rod and judgement on an instruments quality based on it´s neck. I added main article neck and changed it´s previusly dead link for the link to article strings
  • I have converted an external link to guitar acoustics to footnote reference, and removed the tag of cleanup needed to external links. Footnote references might need a cleanup, but no tagging seems necessary --Svindland (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removal of section "Changing a string's active vibrating length (frets)". It had no citation and the text is explained in article frets.
  • Merged the final text of introduction to article with section "performance" and removed text on right and left hand as the next paragraph includes the explanation.
  • removed the title "renaissance" as the other history-titles only bear the name of its instrument. Added main article gittern, link to citole, and changed a part of the text.

Figured out that this clean-up will take so much time that I will continue without further mentioning in this list:) Descriptions are found in "view history" anyway.--Svindland (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A major edit I just made might deserve a discussion. I have made a new article Early classical guitar recordings from the section previously found under history. I am not sure if the "wiki-administration" will find this important enough to bare it´s own article, so in case it gets taken away again (if the link turns red), we should consider undoing this edit. I found it to be too specific to fall under the history section of classical guitar, thus taking up major space of an article that is tagged for beeing too long.

2-3mm thick or 1-2mm thick[edit]

In the section Body it says regarding the top of the guitar: "This thin (often 2 or 3 mm thick) piece of wood...", and a few lines below in section Binding, purfing and kerfling it says: "The top, back and sides of a classical guitar body are very thin (1–2 mm)". We should make up our mind:) A citation is also needed to confirm the accuracy, as is the case with many bold statements in this article??? --Svindland (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded external links[edit]

Recent edits have introduced a number of external links within the article. That practice is strongly discouraged (see WP:MOS#External links). Information can be added to the article from a reliable source and a reference added to identify the source (there is no need to worry about how to format such references; someone will clean it up). If an external link is warranted (see WP:EL), it may be added to the External links section. The external links within the article need to be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. There is however a particular reason for the links which have been included. Under particular style-period headings, image examples of guitars have been provided as links. I plan to extensively comment on the guitar types linked, and this is not possible in the External Links section. (The style-section is still in development - see the under construction tag). Thus I want to add a lot of information on each guitar and provide an image example. I have asked all copyright holders about the right to use these images in media-wiki. While some have given their permission, others have not... - I made the decision (at this point in time) not to upload images, for which permission was given; as I do not want to create a bias for a particular type of guitar; by displaying an image, while not having images for another style of guitar. To summarize: Moving these links to the External Links section, will be out-of-context, since they have been added to the relevant section (historical period) in the text; and extensive commentary will be added. Thus it's not so much about the external link, but more about simply providing an image example. As a kind of compromise, one could perhaps add the image-links as citation reference. However, I believe that jumping up and down in the text, just to click on another example link, will be more bothersome to the reader, than including a handy image link. In conclusion: while I try to respect wikipedia's policies, I am aware that it is a collaborative effort and that it is encouraged to being bold, if this helps improve the article; and ultimately the reader's experience. In this respect, I kindly ask that you consider these points and see were it takes us. (Deletion can always still be done, if a consensus is reached, after completion of the section; which is being worked on.) John Rocher (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I favor simply following policies and guidelines - Upload what we can, remove the external links to images. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that no matter what my explanation is (see above), you're waiting for me to remove the external link; and if I don't do it myself, then you will? Does this mean that if I put effort into writing about particular guitars, that I wish to link in (so as to provide reader's the opportunity to actually see the guitars), you'll simply delete the links, leaving just the text? Thanks. John Rocher (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always open to good reasons to ignore all rules, but this is a case where I'd be surprised if any were offered. External links to images open us to too many problems, requiring too much maintenance. See WP:HOTLINK. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Please note that your reference to WP:HOTLINK is out of context and not applicable here. Hotlinking is where a webpage from a particular domain (say wikipedia.org); loads (image) content from another URL (say flickr.com). Hotlinking is not possible on wikipedia. It is disabled - and for good reason. (Providing a link, is not hotlinking; since if a link if provided, no content is automatically loaded unless the link is actually followed.) John Rocher (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HOTLINK outlines some of the same problems. It's also a part of WP:IMAGES, which covers images in depth. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Neither WP:HOTLINK, nor WP:IMAGES is relevant for links to images, or links to websites featuring images. John Rocher (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going ahead with the cleanup. Follow WP:DR if you object. WP:ELN would be a good venue. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admire the effort that John Rocher has put in expanding the article, but I think it makes the article too long, is too biased, and disrupts the construction; now one needs to scroll down half the article just to get to "background information". I don´t see how opinions about early music performance is relevant in a general article about classical guitar. I suggest instead that a new article "classical guitar performance" may be added???--79.154.230.200 (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, the information needs to be organized better with the rest of the article. How about organizing all history within the History section, performance and style under Performance?
Also, the lede section is getting rather long and detailed. It should better summarize the article per WP:LEDE. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with 79.154.230.200, who is User:Svindland, that the particular section (written by me) was not only biased according to WP:NPOV (and an absolute minority view, thus a violation of WP:WEIGHT), but actually also a violation of WP:NOR. I have removed it accordingly. John Rocher (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

I'm not sure why this article has a Bibliography section. Are these references, or further reading? --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Two recent edits may need some explanation and further work:

Re 1: I am happy to leave the link to an external image as a reference for now, but editors should be aware that the tag indicates that some evidence that the source meets the reliable sources guideline should be discussed. Is the author described as an authority somewhere?

Re 2: One trivial point is that per WP:MOSHEAD the section should be "Modern period" (lowercase 'p'). The real problem is that the section has no sources, so it probably should be removed as original research. Rather than remove it now, I think we should see if the wording can be improved, and reliable sources added. However any editors new to Wikipedia need to understand that we simply do not add text that we know is true because there is no procedure to determine who is a good editor and an authority on the subject; instead, we rely on verifiability. Finally, an embedded external link has been added as an "example of this style". That will be removed because it cannot be converted into a reference since youtube is not a reliable source. Articles are not written in that manner. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations?[edit]

Excuse me? I've grown up around guitars, and I would agree with the basic information in this article, but it's got a lot of claims and very few citations. I'm not strictly speaking an editor, or I would try to add that box that appears at the top of the article suggesting that the article needs cleanup. You guys are contributing a lot of potentially valuable guitar trivia and statistics, but we need at least a few more citations evenly distributed throughout. -imatroll184.158.41.98 (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the guitar: Missing numbers[edit]

What happened to 10, 11, and 13? Okay, 13 is unlucky I suppose, but still...TheScotch (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Living Performers [sic]????????[edit]

One the one hand, one wonders what purpose this section serves, and by extension, why there is not a Famous Nonliving Performers section.

But the real problem, on the other hand, is the choices presented. I will concur that John Williams and Pepe Romero are "famous living performers." But, Xuefei Yang and Kaori Muraji are rather bizarre as members of this list. I can easily name 50 more famous "living performers." And, surely, if you include a classical guitarist from Japan it would have to be Kazuhito Yamashita. So, why are not Julian Bream, Christopher Parkening, Eliot Fisk, David Russell, Oscar Ghiglia, Jorge Caballero, Marcin Dylla, et al not included?

This kind of imbecilic ineptitude makes one wonder at the veracity of the rest of the article, which, overall and in a word, sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarvinLuse (talk • contribs) 03:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Classical guitar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Classical guitar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Greetings: I have been involved in "external links" cleanup for some time as an external links patroler. I tagged the article and saw there has been a long discussion concerning "External links". There are policies and guidelines (as well as broad community backed essays) that cover external links to include:
  • Wikipedia:External links#Links to be considered: "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page.", with #2 providing exceptions for a possible increase on a case-by-case basis.
A rationale to circumvent policy is always WP:IGNORE, explained more in Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, and for this encyclopedia means "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.".
Things to be considered:
  • This encyclopedia has thrived with a concept of consensus. This allows consistency of articles by conforming to a set of community supported policies, guidelines, and even essays. A consensus of editors on articles, or even projects, cannot over-ride broad community-wide consensus.
Stating all this, which sometimes has proven not to matter, anything short of reducing the links "must" have a broad community consensus, including WP:IGNORE, that can be subjective. Inquiries can be opened at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), or this can be solved by dispute resolution; See: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests.
A drive, regardless of reasoning, to change policy by article additions does not take the place of broad community acceptance (policy change or exemptions) as silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies, nor does consensus by silence, as: "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident..."]].
I would "like" some constructive dialog to resolve this issue, in lieu of WP:BRD, as I read some of the past discussions. I have not gone any farther in the history or diff's to see if the "External links" were added to after the fact. Regardless, there are too many links and this does need attention. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and citations needed[edit]

I see a lot of text without citations. The prose is excruciatingly dull, with the subject disappearing into the esoteric and minutiae. I see no purpose for the small section Living performers when there is a link to a list of current classical guitarists.
Vmavanti (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Portal:Classical guitar for deletion[edit]

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

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

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Classical_guitar&oldid=1200952598"