Talk:Ten-string guitar/Archive 1

Initial text
NPOV discussion
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlonsoAlfons (talk • contribs) 08:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality (as usual)
Viktor van Niekerk wrote on the Ten-string guitar page: "Today, mostly due to misinformation, ten-stringed guitars are sometimes used with different string configurations and tunings that, with respect to the true modern 10-string guitar, do not possess the same resonant properties" ref

This suggests to me that you believe one of the following statements:
 * that these people (using other tunings) were trying to copy Yepes (his tuning), but out of misinformation got the tuning wrong.
 * Or you seem to believe that once they know all about Yepes' tuning, they will adopt his tuning in favor of whatever else they used.

I think this is not true, since these people will have very particular reasons for using the tunings that they use. (Just as Yepes' had a particular reason for his tuning.) (If someone plays Ohana with a different tuning, then you can sound the alarm bells; but you cannot force your "views of the value" of a well-resonanced tuning, onto others who may have have other aims and follow different ideas... their own! And I respect for their own ideas, just as I have respect for Yepes' ideas!)

Thus what I really asked you to cite was why people using different tunings, were using different tunings as a direct result of a misinformation about Yepes' tuning.Archeoix (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I could bring a comprehensive reference list of mis-informative publications into this, but I think it would be unnecessarily bad for all those involved in the misinformation's creation and continuation. Basically, yes, I am saying people have been interested to adopt Yepes's instrument, but out of misinformation, on the one hand, got the tuning wrong, or out of dearth of information, on the other hand, never really knew how to use the instrument appropriately, so they changed it into something totally different from Yepes's invention. Some very few of these are legitimate, like Dominic Frasca's prepared/modified 10-string guitar is as legitimate (as a new instrument for a highly personal repertoire) as John Cage's prepared piano, but in most cases the changes to the instrument are simply a case of re-inventing the wheel as an oval. For example, there is no explanation for the (quite extensive use) of a system that tunes the last three strings Bb1, Ab1, Gb1 (i.e. an octave too low) other than those numerous articles that have both not referenced the pitches/octaves of the tuning and described it incorrectly as "descending in whole steps". The website tenstringguitar.com, made both mistakes (and now still has the latter error) because its author apparently sees no difference between a major second and a minor 7th by calling the latter a "whole step". The liner notes for the new Yepes portrait double-CD from Deutsche Grammophon again commit the same error to print. Numerous publications in the 70s and 80s give the wrong tuning for the instrument, including giving the note names without referencing the pitches. No wonder people found it impractical. The strings were absurdly low/thick, or given in the wrong order, and the neither the acoustics nor the technical usage of it was ever explained. Also, aside from Aranjuez's special 7th string, no other string manufacturer produces the correct 7th string that can actually remain stable and produce a good tone quality for the range within which the 7th was intended to be tuned: that is, normally C2, but also up to D2, or down to B1 or A1. (This is a pivotal technical aspect of this instrument.) Unfortunately, in 1980, in Soundboard 7(4), pp. 151-154, Janet Marlow introduces the term "baroque" tuning (which is really the tuning of the 19th century Scherzer-type 10-stringed guitar), instead of explaining that Yepes used his own standard setup to perform baroque lute music, fretting all low basses on string 7, which is 'mistuned' lower for baroque music. [There is no such thing as "baroque tuning"! and it is not what Narciso Yepes used to play baroque lute music.] In this and Marlow's other publications that claim to be approach guides for the 10-string guitar, she never actually explains Yepes's performance practice, the significance of the low seventh string and how it is used in baroque music or what is really meant by "resonance". Reason? She did not study any of these concepts because she broke ties with the maestro after the only time he heard her play a 10-string in 1981 (as can be read in public record in the Boston Classical Guitar Society's Newsletter, Vol. 5 no. 1, Sep./Oct. 1997, p. 9: http://bostonguitar.info/images/Vol5No1_1997Sept-Oct.pdf ).

Let us not forget that numerous people make false claims (which are in print) that they have "resonance", but evidently do not know the scientific definition of the term "resonance". In Janet Marlow's "Approach Guide on playing the 10-string guitar", in the chapter on "Controlling Resonance", we are tacitly misinformed that "resonance" is the vibration of the open bass strings that have been plucked by the thumb, and controlling the "resonance" is dampening them again. Not particularly informative and quite misleading as to what is really meant by resonance. In Guitar Player (March 1982: 20), Marlow claims that 'her' tuning (which is really a system that Oscar Castro-Neves [not a 10-string guitarist himself] came up with) "rounds out" the "resonance" on the guitar in the same way Yepes's does. Not true. This is scientifically untenable. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Viktor

You should not tie your decision of whether or not to continue about it, to my decision/answer (as if you're waiting for me to give the "go-ahead" for ...... hard (perhaps even unneutral) criticisms of other people. ?)

You yourself are fully responsible for what you write. It's all about the article. It should be factual and give readers information that is neutral and unbiased, but correct. (Not only that: the article should seek to represent an overview of the various people's views/involvement, rather than being judgmental, and trying to favor certain ideas.)

1) Your sentence was: "Today, mostly due to misinformation, ten-stringed guitars are sometimes used with different string configurations and tunings"

My main problem is with the word "mostly". Gismonti, Schmidt, de Castro, Frasca, ... use valid tunings. (Even Marlow for whom your hatred just seems to flow out, has the right to tune her instrument as she as chosen to do, because it is her own conscious decision. She uses her own tunings, and as far as I know she's not running around calling it Yepes' original tuning, so no misinformation here. And I don't really know if you can apply your views to Marlow. So she might have a different view of "rounding out" "resonance". There is no golden reverence. You cannot compare apple and oranges.). I doubt that artists who record things, are going to allow the tunings they used to be called invalid or misinformed (That's just your own opinion).

(Of course I know of that one Argentinian guitarist (Nes.Ben.) who claims that Yepes' tuning is something else - but that's just one person!) OK.

It is rather difficult to mix with
 * art (as in making music, including particular performance-tunings - Gismonti, Schmidt's Bach)
 * "particular aims of sonority" (Yepes' tuning as an attempt to balance the guitars sonority)

'''I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The first priority in the art of music is TONE QUALITY. Sound quality and technical matters are inextricably linked. Art from Latin ars; but in its original Greek sense art (techne) is also the root for our words "technique", "technical", "technology". It is not, as you say "difficult to mix", but impossible to separate art from technique, music as art from tone quality, etc. And I have no doubt at all that Yepes conceived of the 10-string guitar not only with "particular aims of sonority" but with a profound artistic, technical and musicological understanding.'''Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway: Either this article can go in the direction of
 * criticizing the various tunings (including the very real criticisms that people have with Yepes' tuning),
 * or the article can be taken in a direction of factually explaining things (that various VALID tunings exist: this might turn out to be a brief friendly mentioning...), without running them against each other and claiming one to be "true", whilst bashing others ("misinformation" or hiding the fact that others exist.)

(By the way: Putting the sentence about the misinformation at the very top is just ridiculous!)

2) change "true modern ten-string guitar" to "original modern ten-string guitar"

This reads like some advertisement. The "true modern ten-string guitar" (as if all others are fake). Not a balanced statement! Using "true" as a weasel word.

While I agree with you that the "original modern ten-string guitar" had an original tuning (which was its raison d’être, as you always say), there is nothing there that says that the "modern 10-string guitar" needs to be tuned like that. Indeed Gismonti and Frasca play modern 10-string guitars that are tuned differently; and Schmidt even plays his Bach recording with a different tuning.

Note: "modern 10 string guitar" does not mean "modern 10 string guitar with Yepes-tuning" Note2: this article is called "Ten-string guitar" and not "Only about select 10-string guitars"

It is obvious (by the way) that Yepes' tuning will be the main emphasis in terms of the tunings for the modern 10 string guitar anyway... (No need to artificially improve things...)

3) You wrote "Attempts to import a lutenist's performance practice, such as those witnessed in transcriptions of Bach and Weiss for the so-called 'Marlow Method', introduce stylistically impermissable augmented octaves and other compound intervals and leaps where there should be movement in 2nds."

Are you talking about the lines while they are played, or about the tuning alone?? This needs to be layed out in a more understandable way.

In particular, it seems as you're moving away from the tunig and into how works are performed. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that a line (while playing) jumps around all over the place. Interesting. Is this due to the tuning alone, or due to the transcription, or... (in other words: How are "stylistically impermissable" intervals "INTRODUCED"?) (I cannot tell if this is neutral or appropriate right now... because the way it reads, it's just plain confusing.)

Archeoix (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(By the way: I rather proud of all the "Sock-puppetry Confirmed" things that you felt the need to add everywhere. You might want to unblank your talk page, as well! I might even do it for you, if you ask me kindly.)

Neutrality of this article is disputed - NPOV
You may dispute the neutrality of this article, but these are the facts - historical, scientific and musical facts based on first-hand accounts of the persons involved in the events, empirical research on acoustics, and autograph manuscripts. These may not have appeared in scholarly print, yet, but neither have the opinions of the "references" User:Joe dario wishes to include, which are no more than the opinions of (often amateur) musicians who have no first-hand experience of the historical events in question, who cannot refute scientific facts, and who do not have access to the necessary autograph manuscripts to make an informed opinion.

Dispute all you like. These are the facts. You can express your opinions separately and know that they will have to stand up to academic scrutiny. But you cannot overwrite the facts. This is tantamount to vandalism. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In Response to User:Joe dario's and User:Joe dario's friend's Quibbles about Neutrality

I don't recognise any issues of neutrality here as my article concerns only the instrument invented by Yepes/Ramirez - a guitar with linearised chromatic resonance, which is contingent upon its tuning. As such, your introduction of irrelevant and misleading information, rather, constitutes a biased perspective, one you wish to disseminate amongst unsuspecting readers. I refute your association of the instrument in question with guitars that just arbitrarily happen to have the same number of strings. These guitars are intrinsically different concepts, different instruments. The similarity in the number of strings is arbitrary. The similarity in appearance is arbitrary. You can build a harpsichord that looks exactly like a concert grand piano, that has exactly the same number of keys, but harpsichords and pianos remain distictly different concepts. The same holds in the difference between guitars with chromatic resonance and pseudo-lute guitars ("laudarras") or harp-guitars that happen to have ten strings but augment the guitar's imbalance of resonance rather than rectifying it. [Somewhere below you can find, I've posted, the quote by Yepes where he unequivocally distances his invention from instruments like the viola d'amore that augment certain tones' resonance while giving no sympathetic support to others - which is exactly what certain other 10-stringed guitars do that add more B, A, or D-strings. BAD-strings!)]

My objective is to present the historical, scientific and musical facts that have been (and continue to be) obscured by misinformation. My objective is to present reliable information to musicians, guitarists and composers, for them to judge for themselves the musical and scientific logic of Yepes/Ramirez' invention, its advantages and applications. This has very little do do with an arbitrary addition of just any number of strings tuned any which way. You may have your own biased reasons for not wanting the public to be properly informed. (Your career and reputation may even depend on it.) It is your right to express your opinions and disseminate your points of view. What you are concerned with are different instruments altogether and you should, by all means, provide information about them in the appropriate context. However, since this is an encyclopaedia, only information that is truly of historical significance is appropriate. This means discussions of the Romantic 10-string guitar and the Modern 10-string guitar of Yepes/Ramirez are valid. Other, personal opinions of individual's who have not contributed anything of historical significance to the world of the guitar are not appropriate in the context of an encyclopaedia and should best be left for their personal web pages, discussion groups, or myspace.

To summarise, I refute any issue of neutrality. I refute your arbitrary equation of two conceptually and sonorously disparate instruments that exist for different reasons, that require different techniques, that have different and incompatible original repertoires, that have totally opposite resonant properties. I fully endorse and encourage you to create your own article/s to discuss your points of view, where appropriate. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC) 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:10String guitar has unfortunately removed the following edits: ... So the NPOV tag is placed here because any edits that present a broader view on the 10 string guitar are reverted by User:10String guitar (with shouts of vandalism). This does not mean that "10String guitar"'s edits are wrong - the information is correct. However "10String guitar" is keeping the information about the ten-string guitar too strictly limited to the way it was used by Narciso Yepes (In a way I can sympathize with "10String guitar", because for many years Yepes' has been somewhat sidelined - as has the understanding of the 10-string guitar). So I hope that this article will provide not only this information about Yepes this, Yepes that... but a broader view including: strings used, alternate tunings, etc. To summarize: the neutrality tag was placed on the page because: The edits that tried to rectify the situation (were deleted by "10String guitar", but) can still be seen here:
 * The very authoritarian feeling of "10String guitar"'s edits, where you can either follow Yepes or "go to hell" [User:Joe dario's opinion. Anyone can play whatever instrument they like. I only object to covering up the facts with opinions. Even so, you are entitled to your opinions, but express them in an appropriate way, in an appropriate context. This does not mean overwriting the article in question with opinions.]
 * In the article's current form: Yepes (and his ideas) is exclusively tied to the ten-string guitar in the article - No other views are included. [False. You don't see the "Note on Other Types of 10-stringed Guitars? Feel free to expand on it rather than deleting and altering articles that are correct, on topics you know very little about.]
 * The article does not highlight the distinction between the "ten-string guitar" as instrument and the different tunings that can be used. (This is important, even if Yepes was the first player [and preferred a specific tuning]; since time does not stand still and innovations continue) [User:Joe dario fails to realise that the tuning of the Modern 10-string guitar defines it as an instrument! It is its very reason for being and without it, this is an entirely different instrument. Also, I refute the claim that regressions to more primitive (already extant) tunings are "innovations".]
 * Many of the attempts to making the article more accessible have been removed by "10String guitar" e.g. that the 10-string guitar is a variant of the classical guitar, the strings used, some opinions by players (David Norton,...), references, etc. [In other words, according to User:Joe dario, only "classical" musicians can use the instrument? A piano is a piano, whether it is used for classical music or popular music. Classical musicians have no exclusive rights to acoustic guitars with nylon strings. Also, "classical" is a misnomer. What is "classical" about it? Is it Graeco-Roman? Or perhaps a neo-classical guitar. Or does one just play music from the "classical" (really, neo-classical) period on such an instrument? I could go on. Suffice it to say, you add nothing of significance, but you would completely rewrite an already thorough and correct article, turning it into the same nonsense people can already read online on misleading "tenstringguitar" websites. In addition, an encyclopaedia article is not the place for the opinions of historically unimportant players. Present the facts about historically significant instruments (1. the Romantic 10-stringed guitar, 2. the Modern or Yepes 10-string guitar) and leave it at that.

- Joe dario 10:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Italicised entries by Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC) 05:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of Yepes related info has now been moved here: Modern/Yepes Ten-String Guitar - Talk page has some info -> Archeoix (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a constructive edit, Archeoix. Add subsections expressing your ideas, if you wish. But do not vandalise the page as it is by rewriting information that does not suit your personal opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.2.196 (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Duplication
Since this article includes a duplication of what can be found here: Modern/Yepes Ten-String Guitar it should be shortened and a link to the duplicate's main article (the one above). Archeoix (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The duplication tag has been removed Archeoix (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

One sided article
Some thoughts Archeoix (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This article seems very one-sided and pushy as far as Yepes etc. are concerned.

The Modern Ten-String guitar has many different tunings. '''This is the present confusion brought on by dearth of information, or otherwise the ubiquitous availability of disinformation, or people playing Romantic 10-string guitars that look like modern 10-string guitars. But the fact is, the modern 10-string guitar was invented by Narciso Yepes and it has ONE STANDARD tuning. As an instrument, it is defined by the resonant properties of a SINGULAR TUNING (that is to say, tonal envelopes that are consistent for all notes of the chromatic scale), based in knowledge of physics. The number of strings is 10 (no more, no less), NOT because of historical instruments whose strings arbitrarily and coincidentally happen to add up to the same figure, but because Yepes consciously chose to add only those strings that by their singular tuning would add the EIGHT missing/weak resonances: C for C and G, A# for A# and F, G# for G# and D#, and F# for F# and C#. Yes, that's EIGHT resonances, not "four" as tenstringguitar.com would like to misinform readers. (Don't you think that if the idea was to supply open strings for every bass note, Yepes would have had the common sense to invent a more suitable instrument with 9 diatonic basses (from A2 to G1) on which all lute music and Bach could Really be done with a lutenist's performance practice? [And Janet Marlow's supposed 7 notes of the scale don't count because they are NOT a scale. Since when does a scale move by augmented octaves and other leaps rather than 2nds?) No. Yepes added only the strings that would give the wanting resonances and none that add redundant resonances (those the guitar already has). Necessarily this means a different technical approach from the lute. Actually it is just the performance practice of every other competent 6-string guitarist: to stop/finger the basses. Thus, the second defining characteristic of the modern 10-string guitar PROPER is that having the lowest string as 7 reduces the number of strings required to play lute music, by stopping/fingering the low basses on 7. You don't want to do that? Then WHY play a 10-stringed instrument??? If it's not for playing Romantic 10-string repertoire, or for the interpretative refinements offered by Yepes's instrument, or for its repertoire (Ohana, Maderna, Balada etc.), then why play on 10 strings? If it's about having open basses all the time, if it's about playing lute music, why play an instrument that is not suitable to the performance practice you want to impose on it? Why butcher the music by introducing transpositions and melodic intervals of the bass line that no self-respecting baroque composer would have written? Why limit yourself to ten strings??'''Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Modern Ten-String guitar is not a historic instrument.

Proof: *e' - b - g - d - A - E - C - A♯ - G♯ - F♯ - the tuning most preferred by Yepes *e' - b - g - d - A - E - B - F♯ - C♯ - G♯ and various other tunings - see http://www.tenstringguitar.com/tuningsforthe10string.html '''Be honest. You mean (for the last 4 strings) B2 - F#2 - C#2 - G#1. A totally redundant B, which is playable on 5 fret II, 6 fret VII, and adds no resonance that is wanting, and is useless in terms of making the low basses available as stops that are not available as open strings, hence the augmented octaves we find in its transcriptions where there should be minor 2nds. And the 10th string that is lower than any note you will find in any lute music (except Bach).'''

And still other tunings are used: *e' - b - g - d - A - E - D - C - Bˌ - Aˌ see *e' - b - g - d - A - E - D - Aˌ - C - F see *http://www.cathedralguitar.com/MoreThanSix2.html *Stephan Schmidt's tunings used esp. for Bach - see, (partially mentioned in the article) '''And tell me, what tuning does Stephan Schmidt use to play the concerto and 12 other pieces by Ohana, or other original 10-string guitar music, Maderna etc.? Yepes's, of course! Let's not be 'selectively honest'.'''

*Egberto Gismonti, Dominic Frasca also play the Modern 10-string with their own tunings (this fact is included in the article!) '''Yes, but the difference is, I don't see Dominic publishing method books and making web sites with Yepes's pictures on it trying to convince the world to adopt his [Dominic's, as opposed to Yepes's] way of playing the guitar by some twisty-turny recourse to the Master [Yepes]. In a sense, Dominic doesn't play '10-string guitar'; he doesn't play '6-string guitar'. Dominic Frasca plays MUSIC. I have his recordings and respect his work very much. No one will confuse his 10-string playing with 'the standard', just as no one would confuse his 6-string playing with anything traditional. It is an outsider aesthetic, not a desire to colonize.'''Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

* '''This is an encyclopaedia. It is appropriate for a reference book (or web site) to include information that is factual and/or of historical significance. You open any encyclopaedia or dictionary of music and tell me which 10-string guitarists, say, the Oxford Dictionary of Music, deems (at this moment) historically significant enough for inclusion in a reference book. This is the Romantic 10-string guitars and their composers, and Yepes's 10-string guitar. There is already enough shameless self-promotion of certain individuals' ideas in their own web sites that unethically hold a monopoly on the term "tenstringguitar".'''
 * In fact Yepes' preferred tuning seems to be rather rarely used today (or at least not more than any other tunings), and I think this article is trying to cover up that fact!

There is also a book on the Modern Ten-String guitar and it would be great to include it in the bibliography:

Playing the Ten-String Guitar: An Approach Guide for Guitarists (Paperback) by Janet Marlow, ISBN 1599752611 DearJonas (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As an educational tool, this product leaves much to be desired. For those more familiar with the ten-string guitar as invented by Narciso Yepes, its acoustics and its rationale, this method book/DVD is evidently misinformed.

I would like to draw attention to just some of the problems:

1. In the front matter the author states falsely that "Narciso Yepes [...] heard that there were FOUR tones with less sustain due to missing sympathetic resonance on the six-string guitar" [my emphasis]. In truth, there are EIGHT notes (from the twelve that make the chromatic octave) that do not have string resonance (i.e. a sympathetic response from an adjacent string). That is not only on six-string guitars but also ten-string guitars that do not have the specific tuning and string setup invented by Yepes. These cannot lay claim to having string resonance for all the twelve tones in all positions on the treble strings. This is an indisputable fact of acoustics, a science which as such cannot be fudged. Besides, Yepes clearly indicates EIGHT missing resonances in various articles and interviews as well as in his Speech of Ingression into the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando delivered on 30 April 1989: "The strings that I have added incorporate all the natural resonance that the instrument lacked in EIGHT of the twelve notes of the equal tempered scale."

2. The author does not define the term "resonance", which seems to be used more in the lay sense as signifying the vibration of strings rather than in its proper acoustic sense (which is actually vitally important to a correct understanding of the workings of the ten-string guitar). This is evident from the chapter on "Controlling Resonance" in which controlling "resonance" is equated with "stopping bass notes from sustaining". In other words, "resonance" is equated with a vibrating bass string that has been actively plucked. In fact, this is not resonance, but simply a vibrating string. Resonance is the tendency of a system (like a string) to vibrate sympathetically at a particular frequency (the fundamental or its overtones frequencies) in response to energy induced at that frequency (that is, on ANOTHER string).

3. No adequate explanation of how this resonance actually functions is offered anywhere in this book. In fact, the singular correct tuning that adds all eight missing resonances is relegated to an aside comment in parenthesis. In addition, it is incorrectly claimed that the author's "own" method of tuning "satisfies the needed sustain" (Preface). As a fact of acoustics, the author's tuning system does not provide sympathetic string resonance for all the notes of a chromatic scale, nor does it equalize the sustain, resonance, timbre, or volume among the twelve notes of the octave (which is the entire primary purpose behind the invention of the modern 10-string guitar). The tuning system used in this method, for example, supplies no resonance for the notes of F-natural and B-flat (usually supplied by the 8th string that should correctly be tuned to Bb2), neither does it offer any resonance for C's.

4. In the Preface, the author claims that "In my own process over twenty five years I have developed the tuning" that forms the basis for this method. In fact, this method of tuning had already been fully developed by 1982, not "over twenty five years". Records of this are in the March 1982 edition of Guitar Player magazine. Furthermore, this concept is therein attributed to Oscar Castro-Neves (March 1982: 20), not to Janet Marlow's "own process".

5. The transcriptions of baroque music (by Bach and Weiss) offered here are fraught with stylistic problems too numerous to list but for a few. For example, the ornaments (which are an integral part of baroque music that cannot be left out) have been inexplicably omitted (eg. trills in bars 8 and 15 of the Weiss Courante). Furthermore, stylistically inappropriate melodic intervals have been introduced in the bass line. For example, in bars 1-3 of the Courante, instead of the smooth bass line moving by steps from A2 to G#2 [minor 2nd] to F#2 [major 2nd]) - as intended by Weiss in good baroque style - we find erratic leaps of an augmented octave [A2 to G#1] and a minor 7th [G#1 to F#2]. Where this descending line should be structurally mirrored in bars 36-38, we find again an erratic undermining of the formal and stylistic elements of the composition, simply to keep the bass notes on open strings. (As such it seems rather insincere that the author lists "the correct use of octaves and bass lines intended by the composer" as a justification for using the 10-string guitar when this is clearly not the case in her own use of the instrument.) Also, very little consideration seems to be shown for open basses ringing together where they should not, for example, the first three bass notes of the Courante all continue to ring together forming two dissonances (augmented octave and minor 7th) where the composer intends a clean line in the bass. That is, the bass line should be a melody, not a "harmony", as Marlow terms the resultant dissonance of this simplistic and far from masterful approach to playing the ten-string guitar.

6. Contrary to what this method claims, transcriptions of baroque music are not the best place to start one's ten-string guitar repertoire. As the abovementioned problems with this DVD illustrate, the results speak for themselves when individuals fail to be acquainted first with the actual acoustic workings of the ten-string guitar's resonance and second with the technique of playing the low basses at their correct pitches as stops on the 7th string (which should correctly, and with good reason, be the lowest in pitch). Baroque music, which is very difficult to play well with a sense for its ornamentation and style, is certainly no place for anyone to begin to approach the ten-string guitar.

Finally, this method has very little to do with the ten-string guitar as invented by Narciso Yepes or with the latter's approach to playing the instrument. There is simply no justification for the claim (made by Stephen B. Rekas of Mel Bay Publications, quoted on the back matter) that this is "carrying the legacy of Narciso Yepes [...] into the 21st century." Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Article name
I've unilaterally done a bit of a cleanup, looking at a merge (but I couldn't find anything to merge), renaming this article to match the convention used at twelve string guitar, and adding some links to and from baroque guitar which is a far more significant instrument than either of the modern tens IMO. But the naming of the page about twelvestrings is not really decided either. A bit of discussion but no conclusion.

I don't really care what it's named, I don't think there's any consistency across authorities or any clear leader, but I do think we should be consistent. See Talk:twelve string guitar.

Lots more cleanup needed to this article IMO, there's lots of unsourced opinion here, some of it notable, some of it possibly not. Andrewa (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The article name has now been changed back, without discussion here obviously, but there is some in the edit summaries. The most important I think is:


 * In the ENGLISH language one hyphenates terms containing numbers. Ten-string and 10-string are the correct. Fix the term that has been misspelt (i.e. 12 string guitar) and not this.

It's not actually a matter of spelling, and at Wikipedia, we follow naming conventions which adopts a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach to English. These are also reflected in the Manual of Style.

But on closer inspection, these do seem to support hyphenation. It's not all that clear, but see particularly Manual of Style. Hmmm. Andrewa (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Twelve string guitar, which proposes that other articles conform to the naming convention now adopted by this one. Note particularly that if this move is rejected, it could be seen as a precedent for moving this article again. Andrewa (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Baroque guitar
Article currently reads ''Baroque guitars typically had five courses, of which either four or five were double-strung making a total of nine or ten strings. Since the term 'course' signifies a pair of strings that effectively function as one string, baroque guitars should not be confused with ten-string guitars. (The same holds for so-called 12-string acoustic guitars which are simply guitars with six courses in place of six strings.)''

This frankly is pedantry; Twelve-string guitars (of which both acoustic and electric exist, see my user page) have twelve strings and are universally called this, and most people looking for an article on what they call a ten-string guitar will be looking for the baroque guitar, which is an extremely significant instrument historically and even has some current usage, particularly in playing some of the famous and highly significant music from this era.

The subjects of this article are, by way of contrast, musical curiousities. We can't write their histories yet of course, and they may one day turn out to be extremely significant instruments, and they certainly have their advocates. But unless and until their day comes, we need to deal with the current reality that the baroque guitar is as yet and by far the most significant type of guitar with ten strings.

My attempt to modify the lead to say there were three types of ten-string guitar including the baroque has been reverted, and the (perhaps POV?) claim that the baroque ought not to be called a ten-string guitar added to the article, perhaps in response.

I don't want an edit war. What matters most is just that people who come here looking for information on the baroque guitar can easily find it. So I've added a hatnote which avoids stating that the baroque is a ten-string guitar. Is that a better solution for everybody? Andrewa (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now rewritten the above text to try to remove the POV tone while retaining what was accurate and relevant in the content, which was most of it.

See Talk:Twelve string guitar for my latest thoughts on article name and content and how they relate. Andrewa (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt very much most people will be looking for a baroque guitar when they are looking for "ten-string guitar", quite the contrary. Frankly, the term "twelve-string guitar" is incorrect; dare I say, simply ignorant. The term "course" has historical precedence and is the correct technical term for a pair of strings that function as one. People (even if they are the masses)could do a little more to educate themselves in such things rather than trying to re-write history. The same holds for baroque guitars which are five-course guitars, not ten-string guitars. Let us not forget that these too were historical curiosities that are now extinct from living music except amongst museum practitioners on their quixotic quest to regain a past sound for thoroughly modern ears. I think your hatnote to baroque guitars is out of place here, but I will let it stand. I wonder if you would like it if I put a hatnote to 10-string guitar in the baroque guitar article? Hm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.133.166 (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt very much most people will be looking for a baroque guitar when they are looking for "ten-string guitar", quite the contrary. See Talk:Twelve string guitar.

Frankly, the term "twelve-string guitar" is incorrect; dare I say, simply ignorant. It seems you are advocating a change in the standard terminology. This seems pretty futile and pointless to me, frankly, but more important, Wikipedia is not the place for it. And meanwhile, policy is to use whatever terminology is most commonly recognised. You can of course try to change this policy, but I'd advise you that this is unlikely to succeed.

The term "course" has historical precedence and is the correct technical term for a pair of strings that function as one. Agree, sort of. It can be more then two.

People (even if they are the masses)could do a little more to educate themselves in such things rather than trying to re-write history. Ummm, historically, the twelve-string is called the twelve-string, and it has twelve strings in six courses, and I own three of them (guitars that is), and nobody I know gets particularly confused about what is a string and what is a course. So, what's the problem?

Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is written by the masses for the masses, and particularly in order to help us to educate ourselves.

The same holds for baroque guitars which are five-course guitars, not ten-string guitars. True, in a pedantic sort of way, but I still maintain that some barogue guitars are ten string guitars.

Let us not forget that these too were historical curiosities that are now extinct from living music except amongst museum practitioners on their quixotic quest to regain a past sound for thoroughly modern ears. Disagree. That is, you make some very good points, but this rhetoric isn't the sort of input that is suitable for an encyclopedia, and some of it is even a bit out of touch with reality IMO. But I enjoyed reading it.

''I think your hatnote to baroque guitars is out of place here, but I will let it stand. I wonder if you would like it if I put a hatnote to 10-string guitar in the baroque guitar article? Hm?'' All Wikipedia articles are owned by the whole community (in fact, all pages are). Adding a hatnote just to make a point is unlikely to help your case. Please don't. On the other hand, if it improves Wikipedia, please do. Andrewa (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed text
(A course is a pair or more of strings that effectively function as one string.) While many baroque guitars have ten strings, they are not correctly called ten-string guitars''. Note that this terminology clashes with that of the so-called twelve-string guitar, which has six courses each of two strings.''

The unsourced and POV claim that five course guitars are not correctly called ten string guitars (despite their having ten strings, d'oh) tips this over the line to being POV. And do we really need to be told what a course is, when we already have a wikilink for those who wish more information? Of course not; This has become a little essay to promote particular types of ten-stringed guitars. Andrewa (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Baroque Guitars are NOT "ten-string guitars"
Andrew, frankly, you are mistaken. It is incorrect to refer to a baroque guitar as a "ten-string guitar". No one refers to the baroque lute as "the 24-string lute", but correctly as the 13-course lute. This is a well-established musicological/organological convention. "12-string guitar" is the only exception to this, and that is only because the term has been disseminated by the popular "cult(ure)" in the usual brainwashed ignorance of the masses. If two strings function as one string, they are a COURSE, not two separate strings. In contrast, a ten-stringed guitar has ten separate strings each of which can be separately fretted. This is not the case on the baroque guitar, which effectively only has five courses. Moreover, the term "ten-string" guitar has come to signify a particular instrument, which is NOT a baroque guitar. You are evidently not a musicologist/organologist/semiologist/semantician so I don't see what you think you will achieve by being bothersome about this issue, which relates to organology and semantics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.133.166 (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Vincenzo Macaluso
[Thanks for bringing this one to my attention. Yet another source of misinformation (strikingly similar to the text that appears on Marlow's site). Notice that the text (bottom left) on Macaluso's LP (link above) claims the ten-string's basses are tuned whole tones apart, even though the interval between strings 7 (C2) and string 8 (B2b) is a minor 7th UP, NOT a "whole tone" down! Macaluso's description places the last three strings an octave lower than they should be. And while Macaluso still uses the resonance claim to justify his use of the 10-string, in terms of the physics/acoustics, the resonances will be bass-heavy and weak in the trebles (where they should be strong) with this unscientific tuning he suggests. Plus, the last two strings are so rediculously low that they are of no practical use even for playing most baroque lute music faithfully. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)]
 * http://digital-library.csun.edu/cdm4/results.php?CISOOP1=exact&CISOFIELD1=CISOSEARCHALL&CISOROOT=/IGRAdiscography&CISOBOX1=Macaluso%2C+Vincenzo
 * http://digital-library.csun.edu/IGRAdiscography/images/JT-B17D02b.gif


 * http://www.xmission.com/~numa/Macaluso1981.pdf

Janet Marlow

 * http://digital-library.csun.edu/IGRAdiscography/images/JT-B16D15b.gif
 * http://digital-library.csun.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/IGRAdiscography&CISOPTR=1220&CISOBOX=1&REC=1

It seems like there's more than one way to tune an instrument. And it seems like people are entitled to their opinions.

I'm filled with disbelief, every time I look at this wikipedia page. An attack on "false fact" is justifiable, if done in an appropriately respectful way. But attacks on any person's freedoms of choice (including on how to tune a guitar; experimentations; etc) is not merry, is it!?

The article still uses the term "true modern 10-string guitar" 1, in referring to a ten-string guitar with a particular tuning. How neutral is that? Downunder thesea (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No one is attacking anyone's personal freedoms here. (As if that were even possible.) You have TOTAL freedom to do whatever you like. This is not an issue of that wikipedia key phrase "neutrality". Wikipedia also maintains that this is an encyclopaedia and as such is not the place to advertise the opinions and activities of living individuals that have not been proven historically significant. This is not always enforced, but I am enforcing it in this article because what this topic has long lacked is reliable information and what it has long had more than enough of is misinformation and uninformed opinion.

While we're advertising Janet Marlow, yet again, why don't you include a link to her DVD "approach guide"? (And make sure to read the first Customer review, which has NOTHING to do with "neutrality" issues and "attacks on any person's freedoms of choice", but some concrete problems: Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.amazon.com/Playing-Ten-String-Guitar-Approach-Guitarists/dp/1599752611/

Response to the Above
"Guitars with ten strings" are not just Yepes. But the instrument Yepes invented IS a guitar with the singular acoustic properties that only that instrument has as a result of its singular tuning. In fact, it was invented with an understanding of acoustics in order to have those properties. Furthermore, the laws of physics determine the number of strings in relation to the tuning. Tuned correctly, the instrument has those acoustic properties with 10 strings, but tuned incorrectly, the number of strings MUST be MORE THAN TEN in order to approach similar (but never the same) acoustic characteristics.

Macaluso, in the interview you quote, ADMITS he was ignorant of the fact that the instrument he used had been invented by Yepes. No doubt he was also ignorant as to the correct tuning of the instrument or the techniques of playing it. No surprise that he ultimately rejected it!

Marlow, likewise never studied the 10-string guitar with Yepes (with whom she broke ties after the first time he ever heard her play on one), and (if the totally false "information" of her site www.tenstringguitar.com is anything to go by) she also seems to have no understanding of the acoustics behind Yepes's invention. I mean of course such misinformation as her untenable claims that "Narciso Yepes [...] heard that there were FOUR tones with less sustain" (her method book), or that "there are FOUR missing sympathetic resonances on the six string guitar" (the site), or that her method of stringing and tuning "round[s] out the resonance of the instrument [...] as does his [Yepes's]" (quoted in a 1982 article). All of these claims are, of course, UNTENABLE according to the laws of physics that govern our existence, or worse, lies because Marlow is evidently well aware that Yepes always explained that the 6-string guitar lacks the same response in EIGHT tones of the chromatic scale on the treble strings and that these EIGHT resonances are added by the strings C {C and G}, Bb {Bb and F}, Ab {Ab and Eb}, Gb {Gb and Db}. Marlow even CITES in her 1980 article a 1978 interview with Yepes in which Yepes clearly says EIGHT. So why does Janet say FOUR? Eh? Ignorance or deliberate mischief? Pick your pick, because it has to be one or the other. I can say it because it's the TRUTH and it's in her own words in the public domain. So bad luck, Janet, you've been caught red-handed.

What "fills" one with "disbelief" is not that I maintain the facts on this entry, but that people who clearly either don't know what they're talking about OR deliberately intend to mislead readers still persist in publishing completely false information, and that they use the name, fame and image of Yepes to bolster their own reputations in the process. That is, despite doing nothing to understand or to promote understanding of the instrument that Yepes invented, its acoustics and its performance practice. What "fills" one with even more "disbelief" is that Marlow sycophants come here and expect that those of us who actually understand the concepts of a) Yepes's invention and b) encyclopaedias, that we will just give in and say, sure, take this over as advertisement space, as if sites and publications like www.tenstringguitar.com do not already spread the misinformation wide and thick enough.

Furthermore, at the risk of again sounding like a broken record: This is an encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedias are not billboards or magazines that rent out advertisement space for (mis)infomercials. When/IF some individuals' experimental stringing/tuning systems prove themselves historically significant, then that will be the day they belong in an encyclopaedia. Until then, there are two types of ten-stringED guitars that belong here that ARE historically significant: 1) 10-stringed harp-guitars of the 19th century, 2) the instrument invented by Yepes (which is NOT merely a guitar with X number of strings, but a guitar with certain acoustic and interpretative characteristics that are CONTINGENT UPON THE TUNING of the added resonators).

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(still) A marginal instrument with marginal repertoire
Compared with the standard six-string guitar, ten-string guitars (like 11-string alto guitars) are relatively rare. Both the romantic and the modern type have relatively little repertoire, compared to that of the six-string guitar.

Note: this does not mean that the ten-string guitar is not interesting. And it does not mean that it will remain a marginal instrument (though I suspect it will!). PS: I don't find alto guitarist making so much noise about their instrument. Humble guys, I suppose... 9frontier9 (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to the above
Yepes's guitar does not have as much original repertoire as the 6-string guitar???? First of all, Yepes's guitar is still first and foremost a classical guitar and all 6-string repertoire is also its repertoire! [The piano's repertoire is still the piano's repertoire even when you add an extra key or pedal to it, which happens all the time.](If you don't get that much, then there's a serious gap in your understanding of why Yepes invented his instrument.) Secondly, it's only been around since 1964, and it already received the 30-minute suite "Si le jour parait" by Ohana before Yepes even premiered the instrument! Compare that to the length of time that the (6-string) guitar was around before an actually significant COMPOSER (i.e. someone like Villa-Lobos, or Ohana for that matter) wrote for it, not just petit-maitre guitarist-"composers".

Furthermore, compared with the alto guitar, 10-stringed guitars have a substantial original repertoire. You don't, however, see me sneaking over to the alto guitar page and anonymously pasting it full of bitter, vindictive, petty comments like the one you added to the ten-string guitar page! That is because I have NO ISSUES with alto guitarists! (Sollscher is one of my preferred guitarists!) The polemics I've written have been aimed only at the misinformation of one or two individuals who have unethically used the image, name and fame of Yepes to bolster their own reputation despite the fact that they have been going around misinforming people about Yepes's instrument and his approach to playing it for the past 30 years. This has called for a firm, no-nonsense response. What is needed is the correct information that has for decades been repressed, NOT more misinformation. There has been plenty of that for a long time and the results speak for themselves: the noble and logical instrument Yepes invented has been distorted into a joke. There is reason as to why 6-string guitarists are not interested in it (and it is not always because they are prejudiced): the information disseminated about it has been faulty and the 10-string players since Yepes have been sub-standard compared to the leading 6-string guitarists (or Sollscher, or Galbraith, for that matter). I don't mean, of course, good musicians like Dominic Frasca or Stephan Schmidt, but we NEVER see them (the good 10-stringed guitarists) trying to hawk their methods here. No, the ones that insist on being recognised as "masters" are the ones spreading the misinformation. They and their sycophants.

And finally, if alto guitarists don't make "so much noise about their instrument", it has nothing to do with being humble or arrogant. It is because they have "AN instrument": THE alto-guitar. In contrast, you CANNOT speak of 10-stringed harp-guitars (i.e. with the D-C-B-A-tuning), Narciso Yepes's instrument, or "Marlow Method" within the same sentence as the same instrument. The ONLY similarity is an arbitrary numerical one, nothing more. There is no such thing as "THE ten-string guitar" (with the definite article). There are ten-stringED guitarS, but they are all very different instruments with dissimilar (even contradictory) acoustic properties, dissimilar playing techniques and (to a large extent) incompatible original repertoires. The problem is when people like Janet Marlow ride the coat-tails of Yepes, claiming that their 10-strigned guitars have the same properties as Yepes's, despite the FACT that this claim is untenable as per the laws that govern our existence on this planet, in this universe. Also, contrary to alto-guitars, there is a lot more theory that goes with the Yepes 10-string guitar. This knowledge has been repressed, and it continues to be repressed. That is why "a lot of noise" is called-for. The alto-guitar doesn't require "a lot of noise" about it because it has no comparable theory and no comparable performance practice that goes with it. Guitar and lute performance practices can be used on the alto-guitar; but Yepes's guitar calls for extended techniques, for new knowledge that is NOT widely known and that cannot be inferred from standard guitar or lute technique. Treating Yepes's instrument like a lute or a harp-guitar leads to butchered music with basses at the wrong octaves [with the wrong melodic intervals between them] and/or unwanted dissonances. Furthermore, anyone who wants to call themselves a "master" of the Yepes-type ten-string guitar, at LEAST has to have an understanding of why Yepes specifically put 4 extra strings on his guitar and not 1, or 5, or 7. (But the self-proclaimed "masters" clearly haven't got a clue. What was that, Janet? The four strings add the four resonances? What a joke!) The reason for adding 4 strings has to do with acoustics, with physics, and is inseparable from the correct tuning. But the alto-guitar does not have these issues - it was "invented" (if you can call it an invention) so the guitar could have extra open basses and could be tuned like a lute. Having extra open basses is also a reason why Yepes invented his instrument, but a secondary reason.

If you DON'T care that the instrument has 10 strings tuned a singular way for very logical, practical and acoustic reasons, then WHY ARE YOU PLAYING A TEN-STRING GUITAR? Why not a 7-string guitar? Why not an alto-guitar? Why not a 13-string guitar? It would make a lot more sense - and you would do the music a lot more justice - if you were to play an alto-guitar or 13-stringed guitar rather than playing a 10-string guitar with no understanding of the acoustics of the instrument or of the unique techniques that are required by this instrument. The fact is, Yepes established that foundation; he invented the instrument with an understanding of the acoustics, and he invented a whole repertoire of techniques that are required to play it at a masterful level. That knowledge is there for anyone who is willing to take it on and built on top of it. That foundation is there; it can be built upon; and there are people who do really know and understand it and are more than willing to share it. WHY start from NOTHING, from no foundation, and arrogantly assume that you can build a better foundation than the one a Master already established? THIS is arrogance, and it leads nowhere except defragmentation into smaller and smaller islands, each of which is intent on fostering its own mediocrity rather than recognise any master. It is NOT necessary to make the same mistake that certain individuals have made in arrogantly rejecting their teachers, arrogantly rejecting the knowledge of those who came before us. For WHAT? To what MUSICAL end? So you can hold it up as "freedom of choice", as "lessez-faire"? You also have the freedom of choice to drive your car on oval-shaped wheels, if you want. Feel free.

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Huge answer... I agree with some of the points. I definitely disagree with others. But I won't pursue the issue further. Just note this: I can take a ten-string guitar, and tune it in any way I want. And it's not ignorance! (At least not if I know about the history, and the resonance stuff.) It's still my choice. My freedom of choice. I'll grant others their right. ('cause there's no greater ignorance, than writing things in stone.) 9frontier9 (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

9frientier9, If you disagree and have a point to make; make it. By all means.

As for the above, we hardly need you, me or anyone else pointing out in an encyclopaedia that anyone has the Freedom to do whatever s/he wants, including taking a ten-string guitar and stringing it any which way. (We have TOTAL freedom, but not all roads lead somewhere you want to end up.) So shall we also go over to the 6-string guitar page and say that we can string the 6-string with 6 high E-strings because you have the freedom of choice to do so? (Because there happens to exists a single piece by an Israeli composer requiring this "tuning"!) Shall we go to the 'cello and violin pages and say their strings could (theoretically, because we have freedom of choice) be tuned in minor 3rds, or major 2nds, or minor 7ths, or micro-intervals? Do you honestly not see the absurdity of what you are trying to achieve?

There is a standard, and if you want to deviate from it, that's your business. But some of us are concerned with preserving and transmitting knowledge so others can build upon it and make actual progress, rather than misinforming people and promoting an empty "freedom" that leads only to dissolution. You want to build on the foundations established by Yepes, then the only place to go from there is UP. But if you want to be like those who reject their master, start digging your foundations and prepare for the death of artistic growth.

I'm just curious, if you know, please tell us, what is the logic to having that particular number of strings? There is a concrete musical end in it if it's for playing 19th century music on period instruments; there's also a concrete musical end in it (both acoustic and technical/practical) if the strings are set up and tuned correctly as Yepes invented his instrument. But WHAT is the concrete musical end of having ten strings set up and tuned another way? To have resonance? If only I had a penny for every nitwit who has said "my tuning also has the resonance". Well, if that's what you believe, then you inhabit your own alternate reality where the rules of physics work differently, or we are not talking about the same phenomenon. It is an indisputable, hard fact that only the tuning C, Bb, Ab, Gb gives the EIGHT tones (C, G, Bb, F, Ab, Eb, Gb, Db) the same response as E, A, B, and D on the 6-string guitar. If you tune differently, you MUST have MORE THAN TEN strings to lay claim to the characteristic properties of the modern ten-string guitar as invented by Yepes. (Marlow and co. please note: you can stop using the chromatic resonance claim as justification for playing a 10-stringed guitar, because without the standard tuning you're not entitled to it.) What else? You have TEN strings for playing lute music? I'm sorry, but unless you have a 13-stringed guitar you cannot play 13-course baroque lute music on the guitar. That is, not unless you at least have your lowest strings where you can reach them at any moment to fret the notes you don't have as open strings, AND not unless you have a G2b- or F2-string AND an A2b- or G2-string (that's G2 and not G1 as per the absurdly low 10th string of Marlow's setup). This is somewhat simplified, but the point is that you cannot get away with playing baroque lute music in an informed way if you are limited to 10 strings and don't follow the practical solutions that Yepes devised, such as having 7 as the lowest string (not 10).

So why do some people arrogantly reject all foundations, assume they know better, and limit themselves to TEN strings when those ten strings set up and tuned incorrectly DO NOT give chromatic, linearized resonance, and cannot be used to play baroque lute music faithfully? (That is, because the practical solutions for playing music meant for 11- or 13-course instruments have been rejected in favour of absurd and musically ignorant solutions such as putting bass notes all on open strings that randomly happen to be at lower/higher octaves, or simply fretting an individual note at a higher octave when a bass is not available, butchering the structure of the composition and the style/aesthetics of early music.) These folks are really better off selling their 10-strings and acquiring alto- or 13-string guitars tuned as lutes with the correct number of open basses tuned in steps (definitely not fourths! Marlow's DVD with her performance of Weiss proves that you absolutely cannot play baroque lute music correctly with that particular tuning). How can one take a LINE, a PHRASE of A2, G2-sharp, F2-sharp (a descending melodic line in steps) and turn it into A2, G1-sharp, F2-sharp, in other words into an augmented octave!!! down followed by a minor 7th up? These are not movements that one finds in good early music, not if it can be helped, and it is not what Weiss wrote either. He also did not intend for all three bass notes to ring simultaneously: It's a MELODY, a LINE, not a cacophany, not a cluster of dissonance. Yet you find exactly what I describe above in the very first three bars of Marlow's Weiss Courante. Why? Because of FREEDOM of choice. Freedom to to think that there is nothing to learn from a master. Freedom to string the instrument stupidly and to play it without sufficient thought.

If that's the case, WHY ten strings? Why not an alto- or 13-string guitar on which you can simply play open bass strings and get on with it???

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you have amply proven 9frontier9's point. Firstly, it's nonsense to speak of the Yepes guitar having all 6-string repertoire as its repertoire. Oh, it's certainly possible to play classical guitar music on these guitars, just as it's possible to play snare drum solos on a drum kit and piano music on a pipe organ. But they are different instruments, and the full capability of any instrument is only realised when playing music composed or adapted specifically for it.


 * Ah, but the claim seems to be that any classical guitar music sounds better on the Yepes guitar. This seems to be the very strong opinion of some of its fans. But it's a controversial claim.


 * And while the article on Yepes says says that this guitar was invented in collaboration with the renowned guitar maker José Ramírez (which is I guess the wrong José Ramírez, but that's another issue... I can't believe we have no article on José Ramírez III), the vast majority of the instruments manufactured by the Ramirez company, and manufactured and played by classical guitar manufacturers and players worldwide, continue to be 6-string guitars.


 * So the superiority of the Yepes guitar seems to be a minority view, perhaps even a fringe view. It's right for Wikipedia to report this minority view, as some very notable musicians have expressed it, most importantly Yepes himself. But Wikipedia is not the place to promote it.


 * I strongly suggest you accept some help to bring this opiniated and generally sub-standard article up to scratch. Its current condition does not help your cause. Andrewa (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

'''Andrew, since you live in Australia (as do I) why don't you contact me and make an appointment to meet up and I will happily spend my time informing you about an issue you clearly have no knowledge/understanding of. I will not justify your frankly IGNORANT comments with further detailed response. Go read and inform yourself. If 9frontier9 or you have a "point" (as you call it), MAKE IT. By all means, MAKE IT. Saying something you evidently do not comprehend is "nonsense" does not make it so. No one here says anything about inherent "superiority" of an instrument. (Why are you so threatened by the fact that I finally give people information about an instrument that has always been covered up, lied about, or misrepresented?) Your own challenged and petrified psyche reads this claim of "superiority" where it does not exist. As for the acoustic properties of the Yepes guitar, these are hard, scientific facts (we are talking about physics here), but reading your profile I get the impression you are the type of person who fears science, so there is no convincing you of facts when they are staring you right in the face. As for whether an interpreter can actually USE these acoustic properties to affect a "superior" performance, that depends entirely on the calibre of the artist! But your denial of physical phenomena that have been empirically and mathematically proven true, shows only YOUR "fringe view" to be "nonsense"! As for the article, I will improve it when I have the time, but I certainly do not need "help" from individuals who have NO KNOWLEDGE of the subject!'''Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. You accuse this article of being "opinionated". To allow people like yourself who are NOT authorities on this topic to express their OPINION on it, now THAT would be an "opinionated" article. What is contained in the article is based on scientific facts, historical facts, primary sources, and is thoroughly researched. You, Andrew Alder, simply have an issue with me because I will not concede that baroque guitars are not correctly referred to a "10-string guitars", and I an CORRECT in this. You can ask anyone who actually has a PhD in musicology or organology (drop on over to the Con and ask) and you will be informed that plucked string instruments with courses are differentiated from one another and correctly referred to by the number of courses. No one talks of 24-string lute, but correctly as 13-course lute. This is a thoroughly established musicological/organological convention and YOU, sir, are the one with the fringe opinion on the matter. You may perceive my tone as a personal attack, but I likewise take your edits as harrassment/vandalism. They are clearly not constructive/informed and the fact that I have incessantly to correct uninformed fringe opinions that are inserted into this and other related articles causes me stress and wastes my time. But I will NOT back down on these matters because I know I am in the right and know what I'm talking about. I am not the type of person who would be this "opinionated" about anything (and I mean ANYTHING) unless I had thoroughly researched it and was absolutely certain of my case. Good day. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And here I go and break my word and waste my time responding to your ill-informed opinion, after all. I shouldn't. But you claim "the full capability of any instrument is only realised when playing music composed or adapted specifically for it". ADAPTED SPECIFICALLY FOR IT...well there you go, you undermine your own argument (if indeed you have one). Even if the Yepes guitar is a different instrument (as you claim absurdly), no longer a guitar, even though in every respect it is still a classical guitar save for having the additional strings 7-10, you yourself still admit music ADAPTED for it. Frankly, there is no "adaptation" required. We are dealing with an instrument with EXPANDED possibilities, not deminished possibilities or even different possibilities. Your analogies are FALSE. When we add an extra octave to a piano or an extra pedal that enables it (at the performer's discretion) to affect expanded interpretative possibilities, this does NOT exclude repertoire written for the piano before that addition. The addition has come about not for nothing, but out of real artistic and musical requirements. Still it is the performer's choice whether to employ the extensions or not, and if they are not required by a particular composition, they are NOT employed. So, sir, do tell us what "point" of 9frontier9 I have "proven". I insist. If you actually have a half-baked argument to make, then lets see you express some actual musical KNOWLEDGE and deliver a half convincing ARGUMENT. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I shouldn't even reply to this, but I'll have a go at some of it. I don't think you have answered my argument at all. Whether we call this 10-string guitar a different instrument or not is just words, words, words... Of course it's still a guitar, I hope we can agree on that. And of course you can play 6-string guitar music on it, just as I can sit at my drum kit and play on the snare drum only and often do, it's part of my standard warmup. But you'd be stretching to call it a drum solo if I only played the snare drum - although I've heard good fours played on snare only and John Morrison regularly does an excellent solo on the hi-hat stand only, but that's an exception. Similarly, I doubt that music written for 6-string guitar really does the 10-string justice. I can't see any reason to think it would.


 * Strongly suggest, again, that you read WP:ATTACK, and also WP:CIVILITY. Andrewa (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, Andrew, I take your edits as little more than a personal vendetta against me. You are wasting my time and causing me stress. But I will NOT back down on these issues. And I will say that I am NOT an opinionated person. I hardly care to express an opinion on anything. But this issue is my life and I am passionate about it and I would NOT express an "opinion" about it unless I knew beyond any doubt that I was expressing facts that I have thoroughly researched and that have been proven beyond a doubt. I'm sorry, I do not have time to attend Wikipedia gatherings (this is not my life and I have little interest in wikipedia). What concerns me is knowledge about my area of interest, knowledge that has for decades been under constant attack and threats from individuals who have no researched the topic sufficiently. Yes, I am protective of this knowledge, of preserving it and passing it on. Yes, I will not back down when it is under threat of being destroyed by attacks and opinions. But I have no desire to be involved in what you term "personal attacks". But when I get repeated attacks/vandalism, yes, I dispense with the pleasantries. I would prefer NOT to make this personal, or not to continue down this path, but your incessant attacks (for that is how I perceive them) leave me no alternative. I am NOT trying to convince anyone that the Yepes guitar is inherently superior to the 6-string guitar. I also don't care that you call 6-course guitars 12-string guitars. But I care about preserving knowledge about an instrument I am passionate about, knowledge that has been repressed, attacked, and distorted for decades. Andrew, do you even know the instrument I am defending? Have you ever even heard a high-calibre player of this instrument perform live? HAve you had the opportunity to try a high-end instrument of this type with its correct tuning? Have you made any effort at all to study the articles and interviews I have on my site? Have you made any effort to investigate the validity of the acoustic claims I make (for they are proven facts you can even read about in most good books on acoustics)? Is this REALLY necessary? I don't CARE what you call a 12-string guitar. I don't CARE about including a reference to baroque guitars in case people looking for one accidentaly finds the other (though I highly doubt anyone aside from yourself refers to baroque guitars as 10-string guitars). I care about people understanding the physics behind WHY Yepes wanted additional strings as resonators on his classical guitar. I care about people understanding that Yepes's invention is contingent upon the tuning of the resonators he added. I care about preserving and passing on also the more concrete MUSICAL knowledge and techniques associated with palying the instrument, transcribing for it, etc. I DON"T CARE about these petty arguments about 12-string guitars and baroque guitars. But your attacks are forcing me to perceive you as a threat to the knowledge I seek to preserve. Is this really necessary, Andrew? Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (PS. I cannot be bothered with wikipedia red-tape and beurocracy, so I have sometimes not logged in. I have life beyond wikipedia, a concept I do NOT believe is constructive because it allows non-experts to misinform its readers. I don't have time for this. But I will not back down on issues I know without a doubt that I am an authority on, having dedicated many years of my life to it, having researched it thoroughly, having total conviction that the knowledge I fight for has a very real basis in the science of acoustics and historical facts. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. Andrew, you still fail to see that the 10-string guitar (with the standard tuning) does 6-string guitar music justice and 6-string guitar music does it justice. You fail to see that the primary reason behind the invention of this guitar is INTERPRETATIVE refinement, which is applicable to any guitar music. You do not have to limit yourself to original 10-string repertoire, or to transcriptions of lute music: ALL of the above AND 6-string and 7-string repertoire does justice to the instrument as the instrument does justice to the music. That is, IF the instrument is used correctly to serve the music. But if factors other than the musical integrity come first, then of course there is nothing inherently superior about the instrument. If the instrument is used stupidly and unmusically, if it is used as a technical crutch, or used as a mere oddity or trick to attract attention (and I would include excessive, unmusical use of all the strings here), then the instrument becomes a farce. As for snare-drums, I DO NOT see any relevance in your analogy to the topic. I recommend you read the articles and resources on my site so you have a more complete picture of the concept of the modern or Yepes-type 10-string guitar. Furthermore, do go over to youtube, view Evelyn Glennie's video on "How to listen to music with your entire body". A true artist like Glennie is perfectly capable of a solo even on a snare-drum, without "stretching it".Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree Evelyn Glennie is an awesome musician (and probably the only really top percussionist to yet explore nickel-silver cymbals, which were a passion of mine at one stage and are still an interest), and that she could do a good solo on a snare drum... just as JM can and does on a hi-hat stand (and sometimes on the furniture and audience members and whatever else is handy). But that's not the point. These are exceptions. They're not really doing the drumkit justice, and if they were all that EG or JM could do with a drum kit, then you wouldn't call them competent to play it. Andrewa (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)