Jump to content

Talk:Pandura

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


Cleanup

[edit]

I don't believe that the article should be split up into sections based upon individual references/sources (e.g. "Encyclopedia Britannica", "Dictionaries"). It should be one, coherent article that draws from its various sources throughout. There are also separate sections for "Turkish view", "Iranian/Kurdish view", etc. and I wonder whether these refer to the same instrument, or similar instruments (compare Tanbur, Tambura) — I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject to decide this myself. I also suspect that the sections drawing from various music dictionaries should be checked for copyvios. For now I have cleaned up some formatting issues, added a "See also" section and added categories. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. For what it's worth, most of the text in this article had been pasted into the tanbur article. I have reverted this, and added "See also" links to this article and tambura instead. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also put the merge tag. Since it's the same instrument which apparently spread from India westwards all the way to Balkans, I suggest reorganization so that

  1. There's a main article named (whatever), explaining general issues. Maybe Tambura or Tanpur, respecting the Indian origin (if it's of Indian origin), or whatever is English common usage (but I can't find one at the moment).

The tanbur family didn't originate in India, and didn't even show up there until relatively late in its history, during the period of the Turkic and Iranic invasions. The original Sumerian pantur, the Egyptian long-necked lute of hieroglyphic record, the Greek pandoura, the Roman pandura, the numerous European offshoots of the pandura, the Iranian tanbur later adopted by Arabs, Turks, Africans, and Indians, each ought, properly, to receive its own article. Yes, they are all descended from the Sumerian pantur, and that ought to be mentioned somewhere in each article, but to merge such a diverse set of lutes, with varied histories and very diverse modern outcomes into one article on no other basis than their common ancestry and/or the etymology of their names makes little sense. David Russell Watson

  1. The article should have several sub-sections per country/culture, with links to country-specific names and articles, where called for. Apparently, the traditions, types, name variations and the music played with the instrument differ across cultures, and each deserves its own. Compare Tambura#Croatia and Serbia -> Tamburitza.

I'm willing to do some work on it, but we should decide what should be the "main" name. Duja 08:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw your edit summary, I thought "we don't need to merge these, in fact they should probably be split up further." But now that I've read your comments, I see we were thinking along the same lines: one general article, with links to the articles for each individual instrument. So, I say you have a good plan. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added some inside information on the Indian bits (tanpura/tambura) a few days ago and hope this helps. [email protected]

I oppose the idea of a merger. Right now the article is very bare-bones, (and I plan to contribute greatly to the information on the Bulgarian tambura) and I can thus understand why the idea of consolidation seems appealing. Perhaps merging the articles would be an acceptable intermediary step, but as more information is added, these separate intruments should have separate articles, linked by a disambiguation page. This poses the problem of finding a location for the information concerning the relationship between the instruments, but I believe that topic deserves its own article as well. -- Liesel Hess
Actually, I think we are all proposing a similar idea. My idea for the general article was to describe the instrument in general, and as you described, point out the relationships between these instruments. The article wouldn't have much more than that (but a bit more info than the usual, stand-alone disambiguation page); rather, it would direct readers to separate articles about the individiual instruments. (e.g. "See main article: Bulgarian tambura"). The bulk of the text would go in the individual articles. I'm not sure how much help I would be with all this, as I don't know much about the various instruments (that's what led me here in the first place). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I believe that these articles should be split for numerous reasons. First of all, an Indian tanpura looks totally different from a turkish tambura. Tamburas look rather like bouzoukis, and tanpuras look similar to a sitar. Secondly, the roles in music for a tambura and a tanpura are very different. Tamburas are used for melody and solo playing, but tanpuras are exclusively drone instruments, where the open strings are plucked repeatedley in time to create a sonic resonance field. Tamburas have developed around central and eastern europe, however tanpuras are exclusive to india. They did not develop from a similar line of instruments. I have seen both of these instruments being played, and the only thing very similar is the name. Thank you.

[edit]

Well, we don't have to worry about cleaning up the "Macedonia" section (see previous "Cleanup" discussion). It was copied from here and so I've removed it from the article. The same editor who included this text also added numerous possibly unfree images to the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Turkish section was copied from here and I've removed the text. While it's a government website, it has a copyright notice, and I'm not sure whether works of the Gov't of Turkey are in the public domain. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Body of Tambur" section was copied from here and I've removed the text. For that matter, the website in question credits someone else for the text. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that these articles should be split for numerous reasons. First of all, an Indian tanpura looks totally different from a turkish tambura. Tamburas look rather like bouzoukis, and tanpuras look similar to a sitar. Secondly, the roles in music for a tambura and a tanpura are very different. Tamburas are used for melody and solo playing, but tanpuras are exclusively drone instruments, where the open strings are plucked repeatedley in time to create a sonic resonance field. Tamburas have developed around central and eastern europe, however tanpuras are exclusive to india. They did not develop from a similar line of instruments. I have seen both of these instruments being played, and the only thing very similar is the name. Thank you. Oh wait, I'm sorry, I meant to put this in the article above

Pandoura is ancient greek, not Persian.

[edit]

This whole article is wrong. The Tanbour, Tanbur, Tambur is Persian/Kurdish (middle east) and the "Pandoura" is ancient Greek. I have played the Tanbur for 20 years and do not believe there is any person alive who plays the ancient Greek Pandoura (at least for the past 2000 years). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnyajohn (talk • contribs) 20:25, September 19, 2006

Can you please provide some references for this claim, per the policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability? --Elonka 19:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good source of information about it would be: J.W. McKinnon "Pandoura" in New Grove Dictionary of Musical Instruments Vol 3 pg 10 ed S. Sadie (Macmillan Press, London 1984).

I do not think these articles should be merged, as these are two separate instruments from two contries with two very different structures of music.

Pandura (Pantur) is not greek. It is sumerian. Look it up. Greeks even claim that the bouzouki and the saz originated in greece while there is plenty of evidence that turks/mongols played and still play these instruments in central asia/mongolia before they even entered anatolia. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarity

[edit]

As an encyclopaedia it would seem appropriate to distinguish between things which, though bear the same name, are essentially different things serving different purposes. In the case of the Tanpura, I see absolutely no reason why the Indian version (which is arguably the most famous of all versions) is not only cited at the bottom of the page, but is also not given its own page to fully explore not only the physical parameters of the instrument itself, but perhaps more importantly, its role in the composition, and in the education of up-and-coming artists who, play it on stage to gain stage experience and assist the master. There is a lot of potentially valuable cultural and sociological data which is missing here and need inputting by an expert in the field.218.219.228.234 07:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

section on Tanpura (tambura) Indian Classical Music

[edit]

Again I undertook some extensions and intended clarifications. Tell me if I'm cramming to much info in it. cordially, (Martinuddin 16:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]


Idem dito Martinuddin (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I searched for TANPURA and got the TAMBURA page, and the bulgarian instrument, first. it would be better if a search for tanpura took one to that page. there is some confusion as the bulgarian spelling is the same (tambura) but the instruments are very different. i appreciate all the hard work that goes into wiki, so I'm not complaining, only trying to be helpful.

Bifftar (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Music lesson Staatliche Antikensammlungen 2421.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Music lesson Staatliche Antikensammlungen 2421.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Sumerian

[edit]

[1], Mauricio Molina's book Frame Drums in the Medieval Iberian Peninsula says "While it is also possible that the term pandero derived from the latin adjective pandus (curved, bent), the most current theory based on phonetic development from Latin to Spanish sustains that the word pandero comes instead from pandura pandorius. It also has been explained that the term pandura itself derived from the Sumarian pandur or pardur (little bow), which suggests that the pandura was an instrument that evolved from some kind of musical bow. However, these words are never used in the Sumerian literature in connection with musical instruments. See H G Farmer. "An Early Greek Pandore," in The Science of Music in Islam. ed Eckhard Neubauer (Frankfurt Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science at Johann Wolfgang Goethe University. 1997), 2/301. Organologists have commonly identified the pandura as a kind of Greco-Roman lute. Their conjecture is based on the description by Pollux of Naucratis (second century A. D) of the instrument as a trichordon (instrument of three strings) The pandura is rarely found in Greco-Roman literature or musical iconography. It was comprised of a long, thick fingerboard and a small resonating body. Representations in late Roman sarcophagi indicate that the instrument had three strings or more and was plucked with either fingers or a plectrum, It is also important to take into consideration that both Marcianus Capella and Isidore of Seville identify the pandorius with a wind instrument made out of cane. Isidore, quoting Virgil (Eel. 2.321, further ascribes the instrument's invention to the god Pan. and" Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does "these words are never used in the Sumerian literature in connection with musical instruments" mean? 173.89.236.187 (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harp or Pandura ?

[edit]

File:Sumerian pandura.png is clearly from [2] although it's interesting that it is called there a harp. Your rename is clearly original research. I note that 3 of the files you uploaded there have been deleted, one of them as recently as the end of November. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I only wrote the bit starting "Noting that", which Samizambak transferred here from their talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Real Sumerian harp

[edit]
No one is denying these exist, but your first link is to someone's personal website which we would not use as a source. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bandura

[edit]

There is no denying that the word “kobza” comes from Asia. Numerous Turkic languages have the words kobyz, kopuz, kobuz, kobas, qobuz, qobyz, and many others. The etymology of the word “bandura” is equally transparent. It probably came into Ukrainian from Polish because Western and Southern Europe know many instruments with a similar name; one need only mention the English bandore (more about it later), the Spanish bandurria or the Italian pandura or pandora. These can be traced to the Greek πανδ ω´ρα, which in turn can be connected to the Old Persian tanbūr – the very word used by Ibn Fadlān. This word, in turn, is related to Sumerian pantur/pantur which means little bow.Samizambak (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transferring a discussion here from elsewhere:

The Sumerian word for lute is probably gudi. [3]. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And [4]. Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Sumerian word for Sumerian long-necked-lute e is probably pantur or pandur.[5]Samizambak (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's ironic and a reason why we don't use Google searches. Your very first link, Molina, is the quote I posted above which says after that snippet that the the Sumerian pandur or pantur (little bow) does not mean a lute. Your 2nd is a music teacher, your 3rd says "Still, no such words have come down to us in Sumerian which actually indicate an instrument of music." The next 2 are music journals, clearly failing WP:RS, then an Indian musicologist, and the rest are the stuff Google throws in for reasons I still don't understand as my experience is they usually don't mention the subject of the search. And I didn't look at the publishers. A search with 'Gudi'[6] turns up 2 academics specialising in the geographical and language area, and Dumbrill whose book is self-published (key to find that out) so can't be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk
Although we could say that some musicologists make the link between the Sumerian word and a lute, we would have to make it clear that the experts on Sumeria and its language use the word gudi, and also if we are using musicologists use the Mauricio Molina stuff I added above. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mandora

[edit]

Bandurria

[edit]

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandurria_(instrumento_musical)Samizambak (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pandura

[edit]

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25222335?uid=3739192&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21103217785137 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samizambak (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which says "it has been surmised" but then dismisses the surmise by saying "no such words have come down to us in Sumcrian which actually indicate an instrument of music." Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harp,Gudi,Pandura ?

[edit]

What is the name of this musical instrument? Samizambak (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post to my talk page and here. We can only say what its modern equivalent is called unless there is an inscription on the sculpture naming it or a clear textual description elsewhere naming it. As there doesn't seem to be, we will probably never know what the musician called it. As the source you provided above says, there aren't any known Sumerian words describing musical instruments. Which is why we can't say pandura is the Sumerian word for a musical instrument. Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To investigate the similarities with today's instruments are known. As seen in shape tanbur instrument shows great similarities with.Samizambak (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bouzouki in the Museum of Greek Folk Musical Instruments in Athens
left to right: Turkish tambur, Greek Baglamas, tambouras
File:Mehmooni2.jpg
Iranian women playing the Ney, Tanbur and Santur, painting in Hasht Behesht palace, Isfahan

To be the ancestors of this instrument clearly seen.Samizambak (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to cite a source to that effect. Otherwise, it's original research. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And they are not qualified to say what the Sumerian word is. How many times do I have to tell you? I note that you still haven't gone to WP:RSN to ask. You need specialists in Sumerian, not a "Jack of all Sound and Interaction, amateur whale watcher, dilettante rhythmanalyst. Copenhagen, Denmark."[7] or a professor of acoustics with an academic background in electrical engineering. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guembri (Sintir)

[edit]

SintirSamizambak (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis W. Galpin

[edit]

Francis W. Galpin's work, you can get information about the Sumerian Pandur.Samizambak (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1959909.Francis_W_GalpinSamizambak (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC) http://www.galpinsociety.org/Samizambak (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indo-GreekBanquet.JPG

[edit]

I am concerned that the instrument in the image

is being labeled a pandura. While the pandura certainly predates this artwork and (this being from an area conquered by Alexander the Great) could be ancestral, many of the images of panduras we have show a long necked instrument of about a yard length. The instrument in this picture has almost no neck (in the same way that the oud has almost no neck). Should this be labeled pandura? I have been careful when using the image in the history of lutes not to name it.Jacqke (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

photos of pandura not on wikipedia

[edit]

I have wanted to submit these images to wikipedia for this article but don't own them and am unable to go to the museums where they are stored. I am submitting a link to this set of images for researchers of this article. The determination to call these panduras is entirely my own. Set of pandura images. Jacqke (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pandura&oldid=1201646759"