Talk:Lute

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lute. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823160843/http://www.lute-academy.be/CMSimple/en/?Publications:Newsletter:2001 to http://www.lute-academy.be/CMSimple/en/?Publications:Newsletter:2001

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Smith
I am writing about the following which I have changed: Smith and others argue that the long-necked variety should not be called lute at all, since it existed for at least a millenium before the appearance of the short-necked instrument that eventually evolved into what is now known as the lute, nor was it ever called a lute before the 20th century.

That line originally came from an anonymous writer, who gave no more information. .

I believe that the reference this came from was <>, as it is the only source I have seen that makes sense. I don't have access to the book however to verify.

I have rewritten the sentence into something that should be easy to verify as true or false for someone with access to the book: Douglas Alton Smith argues the long-necked variety should not be called lute at all because it existed for at least a millennium before the appearance of the short-necked instrument that eventually evolved into what is now known the lute. Jacqke (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Douglas Alton Smith quote
I am moving this from the article to here because it's controversial and I want to see it in the ref before allowing it to remain in the article. Douglas Alton Smith argues the long-necked variety should not be called lute at all because it existed for at least a millennium before the appearance of the short-necked instrument that eventually evolved into what is now known the lute. Jacqke (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Misspelling of 'tablature'
'Tablature' isn't spelled 'tabulature', so I corrected it yesterday, but now someone has changed it back.

Why is that? Why would you want your article to contain spelling errors?

If anybody's in doubt how it's spelled, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4CE:8A59:1ED:233:CA9E:B081 (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, with individual editors often pulling in different directions. I have no idea why it was changed back, and for the moment it's fixed. Thanks for helping! Just plain Bill (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Bill! :)

Lute88 has restored the misspelling of 'tablature' again. What's wrong with this person, why does he or she insist on that misspelling remaining in the article??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:c4ce:b7c9:4487:52a0:bbab:4d2c (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Commentary on the apocalypse
. Hello, in this edit, I notice that you added a reference for the following paragraph: In about the year 1500 many Iberian lutenists adopted vihuela de mano, a viol-shaped instrument tuned like the lute, but both instruments continued in coexistence. This instrument also found its way to parts of Italy that were under Spanish domination (especially Sicily and the papal states under the Borgia pope Alexander VI who brought many Catalan musicians to Italy), where it was known as the viola da mano.

The ref, (link to the ref), is one of the manuscripts for the Commentary on the Apocalypse. Now, some versions of the Commentary do show pictures of what are probably early violas/vihuelas, but they aren't talked about in the text. Could you explain how the circa 950 a.d. Commentary works as a reference for the above paragraph about the instrument in 1500? Inquiring minds are curious., Best wishes, Jacqke (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I came across the missing reference via citationhunt.toolforge.org and did a little bit of digging. This is not my area of expertise, hence the confusion over centuries, but I thought I could help.

I chose that reference after finding it in the Vihuela Wikipedia article: "The vihuela, as it was known in Spanish, was called the viola de mà in Catalan, viola da mano in Italian and viola de mão in Portuguese" and so took the reference as one that supports the vihuela de mano also being called the viola de mano. TinglyRadiance (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your quick response. It looks like the source for the artwork got applied elsewhere in the Vihuela article. It needed removed from that sentence. Thank you for letting me know. I'm going to put the source needed tag back in the lute article for now. If you do find a source linking the instruments, it would be a great addition. Thank you again, Jacqke (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)