Talk:Ten-string guitar

Wikispam
Please see Talk:Ten-string extended-range classical guitar for discussion relevant to this edit. Andrewa (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Another false accusation made by Andrewa
Those who live in glass houses should not cast stones. Yet again Andrewa falsely accuses me of that which he himself is guilty of.

To the allegations: FALSE, the link tenstringguitar.INFO is neither intended to promote a website nor is it a link to a blog. This site promotes scholarly information about the 10-string guitar as envisioned by Narciso Yepes, information that is not readily available elsewhere on the internet. As such, the link is totally valid. So Andrewa's claims against me and the site are simply dishonest. (Not unexpected.) Along the same vein, Andrewa's claim that a link he posted in this edit does not fail any criteria of "links to be avoided" is also false. According to criterion no. 2 "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" must be avoided on wikipedia. Yet Andrewa supports this site's page knowing fully that it contains proven misinformation.

Compare the claims made there by Janet Marlow with the verifiable statements made by Yepes. Andrewa's claims that these are saying the same thing are clearly either mistaken or dishonest. That is, Marlow claims "there are FOUR missing sympathetic resonances on the six string guitar ... C, Bb, Ab, and Gb" which have less sustain "than the others". While Yepes states that "On the six-string guitar only four notes of the scale have natural resonances or overtones, E, A, B, an D" and that the other EIGHT sympathetic resonances are missing.

Marlow: Four missing resonances: C, Bb, Ab, Gb (thus, eight present resonances: Db, D, Eb, E, F, G, A, B).

Yepes: Eight missing resonances: C, G, Bb, F, Ab, Eb, Gb, Db (thus, four present resonances: D, E, A, B).

How can Andrewa honestly claim this is saying the same thing? How can Andrewa defend linking to a page that misinforms readers about Yepes's logic behind his invention of the modern 10-string guitar (in breach of WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2), while accusing those of us who link to more scholarly information of being on a soap-box and or being in breach of WP:LINKSTOAVOID? Is this honest scholarship? Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed link WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2
I've removed link to as linking to this page is presently in breach of WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2, as the page presently contains some factually incorrect statements, including:


 * Stating the tuning of the decacorde incorrectly (in Helmholtz notation) with strings 10-9 given as C' and D' (an octave too low) rather than C and D.


 * Making a false analogy between the viola d'amore and Narciso Yepes's 10-string guitar. Yepes has verifiably denied this connection:

"Normally, the tuning of the four supplementary bass strings is C, Bb, Ab, Gb. In that way I have overtones for all twelve notes of the scale. Many people have said to me that this is the same principle as that used for the viola d'amore, which was an early eighteenth century instrument with seven strings that were mounted underneath the normal ones and vibrated in sympathy. But there was a problem with that instrument: The tuning - of both the bowed strings above and the sympathetic strings below - was D, A, F, D, A, F, D, and the F was either sharp or natural, depending on whether the key of the piece was D major or D minor. Thus when you played a D you had not only the sound of that one string, but also the sound of all the other Ds on the instrument, so you had a very big D! But, when you played G, for example, you had absolutely nothing in the way of resonance. My idea of the 10-string guitar is exactly the contrary - to provide sympathetic vibration for the notes that do not have this kind of reinforcement on a normal 6-string guitar."

SOURCE: Snitzler, L. 1978. "Narciso Yepes: The 10-String Guitar: Overcoming the Limitations of Six Strings". Guitar Player 12: pp. 26, 42, 46, 48, 52.


 * A claim that Yepes used these strings only as resonators.

Otherwise, I would be happy to link this page, when/if its author decides to correct these points. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Progress
On the whole, the refactor by Viktor looks good to me. I have a couple of criticisms:


 * There's no lead section.


 * The logical structure breaks down in the first three sections, which are basically uncoursed ten-string guitars, coursed ten-string guitars, and steel-string and electric ten-string guitars.

Steel-string guitars themselves may be coursed or uncoursed, and the electric Gadotti Guitars 10 String Nylon King Electric has far more in common with the uncoursed acoustic guitars than with many of the electric ten-strings listed. So I'd suggest that steel-string and electric guitars should be placed in the first two sections, as the steel-stringed viola caipira already is. Andrewa (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have done some reorganisation to address these issues. Lead is still a bit stubby. Andrewa (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as an "uncoursed" guitar. In organological terms, "course" refers to a string, or array of strings which are intended to be played as a single unit.  A course can have from one to any number of strings.


 * An "uncoursed" guitar would be a guitar with no strings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yepes
The "Yepes" guitar was certainly originally developed by Yepes, but there is now a significant body of musicians using ten-string extended-range guitars, including instruments from Ramirez and Bernabe identical to those used by Yepes, with different tunings. Probably, these should not be called "Yepes" guitars at all. The article does not reflect this at present.

While I appreciate that this is due to being particular about sources, it's something that needs to be fixed. Being particular about verifiability should not lead to inaccuracy, and the article as it stands could be quite misleading. Andrewa (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

More on resonance
Removed text:

''In a more indirect usage, the bass strings allow various pitches (from the high-pitched top strings) to be supported by resonance from the bass strings. Certain tunings of the bass strings (such as the one most often used by Yepes), attempt to give supportive resonance to all 12 chromatic notes.''

This is confused and confusing. This usage is just the usage already identified in the previous bullet point ''... added resonance from the extra strings. This was Yepes' original intention and the reason for the design'', not a separate one at all. Andrewa (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

pruning the "Bich 10" section and other cheats
What ought to be an interesting and informative article has instead become another WP "me too!!" hobbyhorse, with the Bich section being egregious.

First: no proof offered that the model was EVER officially called the "Bich 10". The Bich initially had the added four strings, justifying the unique body shape, which of itself became popular in the "pointy guitar" heyday; years later, the company simply stopped adding the excess hardware and pocketed the savings,

Second, as the section itself says, it's not really a "ten-string guitar" — please note the article title!! — rather "a guitar that happens to have ten strings" or perhaps "a twelve-string guitar, less two."

(As well, I would exclude Five- and six-coursed guitars and Guitar-like instruments and a four-course instrument with doubled bottom courses and trebled top courses and something with two quintupled courses. And if "a guitar" is defined as a fretted instrument with a neck, then lap-, console-, and pedal-steel instruments aren't guitars, Q.E.D.)

Third, the Bich section goes so far up its little topic that (even if the instrument were a proper fit here) it loses sight of the article's purpose.

In all, the section's trivia should be either shuffled off to its own article, or folded into B.C. Rich, leaving here a brief mention.

FWIW, the "hobbyhorse" editors entirely overlooked the ten-string electric bass. Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong agree. Terminate with extreme prejudice. PaulCHebert (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Rebuilt the Bich section; still not good, but much better. Will remove all references to steel guitar, as explained previously.


 * It just now occurs to me that harp guitar has no sane place in this article. A harp guitar might have twenty or more strings, and some merely happen to have a total of ten (usually a six-string guitar with four open bass strings). If this is allowed to stay, then I can easily make the case that a 6/4 doubleneck electric is just as qualified — which is ludicrous. Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

range
Could someone add the range of the ten string guitars IPAexpert (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)