Talk:Ancient Celtic music/Draft

Approval Area

This version of the article was first approved On June 15, 2007 with music editor Russell Potter. --Matt Innis (Talk) 11:34, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Article almost finished

Things still to do:

• include web links to translated or original sources in the footnotes
• still waiting for possible license permission to use images of the carnyx and other instruments

—Arne Eickenberg 14:41, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

Whenever someone gets a moment, the by permission links in the image boxes should be made as internal links in the form [[Image_talk:Carnyx_AncientCelticCarnyces.jpg/Permission]]. Fabulous work here, by the way. :-) Stephen Ewen 02:57, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Approval?

I wonder if this is getting close to approval, in your opinion. If so, please consult with Nancy Sculerati about finding someone to do the honors. From my entirely non-expert perspective, this is excellent work.

Also, can you please weigh in on the question who the relevant experts on this topic are? Classicists, musicologists, archaeologists--or all three? --Larry Sanger 11:58, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

Hi Larry, thanks for your compliments. (^_^) Parts of the last paragraph on the "Romans as biased ethnographers" have to be revised. I'm currently looking through an article on the topic. As soon as the small note at the beginning of this paragraph is deleted, the article can be seen as ready for approval. A friend of mine (a music archaeologist) will look through the article when she has the time (probably in June). Another one, also an ethnologist afaik, has already read through the article, and I haven't heard anything yet. So either the article is good or it's complete cr*p. (^_~) In terms of internal CZ-experts: a) Classicists should double-check the sources and add links to online-texts, as it's being done in the Julius Caesar-article; b) musicologists and/or archaeologists (hopefully a music archaeologist) should go through the rest. So I guess there are still some things to do. —Arne Eickenberg 12:36, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

Well, as a contemporary US music critic, as well as someone with a lifelong amateur interest in Celtic music, culture, and history, I think I can help guide this through Approval -- we do have some classicists here, who could be of help, so I'm going to go ahead and nominate it! Russell Potter 20:29, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

As far as I'm concerned, the article is now "finished", can be gone through, proof-read and approved. If I do edit anything more, it will surely only be minor stuff. —Arne Eickenberg 10:26, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, it looks good to me! I will let the Constabulary know. Great work here! Russell Potter 10:45, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

I've just finished my last edit. (I had found more infos on other Celtic instruments.) Off for a coffee now… you can hand it over to the constables now. ;-) —Arne Eickenberg 11:41, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

hard time reading this line

This article is about the music and instruments of the ancient Celts until late Antiquity. For the modern folkloristic genre and its history see Celtic music.

I physically cannot read this line on my 15" Macbook Pro with Firefox on default settings. I have to get about a foot away from the screen to read it. Anyone else have that problem? Tom Kelly 22:25, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

I increased the font size but I still do not like the result. Now it looks awkward compared to the rest of the article. Does anyone have a better idea? Tom Kelly 22:28, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Tom, I think fontsize 2 looks fine! Have a fresh look at it in the morning, and see what you think! Slainte, Russell Potter 22:40, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't know the absolute size of the font you are looking at- but have you had your vision checked lately? You may be a tad far sighted. The font is only one size down and it looks fine to me, too. Same Mac-but safari, also default. Check your vision and see. Nancy Sculerati 01:27, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

For me it is small, but I can read it. It is italics. Maybe your browser doesn't have the font installed so it substitutes something that the rest of us don't see. Unfortunately I have no idea what to do about that. Maybe if we took out the italics? --Matt Innis (Talk) 07:43, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Illustrations

I think the text of this article is ready for Approval -- but I was wondering if we might possibly have one or two additional illustrations. In particular, the Crwth; it's described as "a six-stringed wooden lyre with hollow ledger arms and wooden vortices in the ledger rod", but I wasn't at al sure what "ledger arms" or "vortices" were until I came upon this illustration:

It's from the Project Gutenberg edition of A Popular History of the Art of Music, by W. S. B. Mathews, which has a few other images perhaps of use. Russell Potter 09:06, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

I will look into the article at gutenberg. The crwth on this image is however the mediaeval one, so it's not suitable for the ancient instrument, which may have looked a lot differently. But it could be used in the article Crwth, which will deal with the post-ancient instrument still in use today. As for the approval of the article: I still have to change a few things: a) the last paragraph, b) more on the archaeological side, e.g. the carnyces found in France. Also, maybe a linking of the footnotes to online-sources as in the article on Julius Caesar would be good. —Æ

HI Arne, thanks for getting back to me on this. But please don't remove the Approval template -- that's only for the nominating Editor or a constable to do. I'm going to re-insert it, but point it to a later date -- would four or five days be enough? -- so that you can do the things you'd like to put the final polish on it. Remember, the article can always continue to grow and improve on its /Draft page after approval! About the Crwth, that's fine, I just thought that it or any of the other types instruments of which there is a surviving depiction should be illustrated if possible. If, however, there are no accurate images, then that's fine; you can just do the other things you feel necessary! Cheers, Russell Potter 09:48, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Hehe, well, thanks for the hint. I didn't know that. The approval template read "unless this notice is removed", so I figured I could go for it. (^_~) June 15 is fine with me. —Æ

LOL, sounds like a reasonable interpretation to me. But seriously, Arne, what is lacking here in your view? Anything I can do to perhaps help? Stephen Ewen 12:20, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

It's not really much: I only have to 1) go through some French archaeology websites on the carnyx excavations and add relevant information to the article, 2) read through the article at Gutenberg and see if there's more, maybe even an additional image or two, and 3) revise the article's last paragraph. At a later date the footnoted historical sources could be linked to online-sources (cp. the Julius-Caesar-article). —Arne Eickenberg 12:49, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Carnyx length

Hi Arne,

Just a minor, quick question; the current edit now reads:

"It was an ſ-shaped valveless horn made of beaten bronze and consisted of a tube approximately 1 to at least 1 1/2 meters in length."

Seem if it is at least 1 1/2 meters in length, then you can't say "1 to", and approximately also falls out. Would this be accurate:

It was an ſ-shaped valveless horn made of beaten bronze and consisted of a tube of at least 1 1/2 meters in length ?

Russell Potter 08:38, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

The French article on the Tintignac excavations states that the carnyces were sometimes "man-high" (meaning probably up to 180 centimeters). This is why I inserted "at least". What we still need is the lower end, which was probably about 1 meter. I'll think of something for the text. —Arne Eickenberg 08:54, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

APPROVED Version 1.0

Congratulations on the First Music Approval! Well done. Keep them coming :-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 11:47, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

Multi-category flags missing in v1.0

We'd still have to add the "Classics-Approved" and "Archaeology-Approved" tags to v1.0. —Arne Eickenberg 12:02, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

To-do-list

• Found some typos and will edit the article further. Then it can be approved as version 1.1
• Some time later the classical sources can be linked to online-texts.

 Arne Eickenberg  talk 15:07, 6 August 2007 (CDT)