This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that one or more audio files of a musical instrument or component be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and included in this article to improve its quality by demonstrating the way it sounds or alters sound. Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Electronic organ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The history of electric organs (sections: 1.2 Early electric organs (1897–1930s); 1.3 Tonewheel organs (1930s–1975); 1.4 Electrostatic reed organs (1934–1964))) should/could be made into an individual wiki article - even though it fits to this page since it's part of the history of the electronic organ. SwA ( talk) 10:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Electric organ, replacing the dab page per WP:TWODABS. Although not unanimous, having read the discussion I think there is a consensus that "Electric organ" is the common name for this instruments, and also that the instrument is primary topic for the term, when compared with the biological term. — Amakuru ( talk) 08:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Electronic organ →
Electric organ (music) – This is a procedural nomination following
this discussion, which saw
electric organ moved to
electric organ (biology) and the former converted to a
DAB. Concerns were raised that that discussion that some "electric organs" are not technically "electronic" and thus provided a misnomer.
Primefac (
talk) 19:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Electric organ is a two-way DAB, the other topic being electric organ (biology). Does anyone really question that the musical instrument is the primary topic for electric organ? I'm fascinated.
But there's another issue which should be taken up at talk:electronic musical instrument. That article, like this one, includes the Hammond for example as electronic. That is contrary to the usage with which I'm familiar, and not consistent with usage regarding the electric guitar... but English is not always logically consistent!
Similar points were made at Talk:Electric_organ_(biology)#Requested_move_9_May_2017, and also some rather bizarre claims... a pipe organ with an electric pump is not an "electric organ". (Any more than one with electro-pneumatic action is, but that would come closer.)
We badly need to consult some reliable sources, and will probably need to clean up our terminology quite a lot as a result. Andrewa ( talk) 03:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
That is, there are hybrids that use both pipes and electronics to produce different sounds, and Rodgers organs (now owned by Roland Corporation which makes them one of the largest manufacturers of pipe organs in the world by the count of instruments sold) have produced some brilliant hybrids. This is not about those. It's originally about organs which produce their sound principally by pipes, in the traditional manner, but which are assisted by electricity to provide the wind pressure.
And I've suggested that organs that use electro-pneumatic action (once quite common and there are still lots around) and more recent hybrid actions such as on the Sydney Opera House Grand Organ should be added to the discussion, as they are even more electric.
I'm hoping this can be settled quite quickly one way or another. So as not to clutter this page with interesting external links that fail wp:RS, see User:Andrewa/Pipe vs electric organ and feel free to add to it. Andrewa ( talk) 19:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
To clean up some misunderstandings and help you here is a citation from the Article about electric and electronic instruments from Grove Music Online:
"To the layman the terms ‘electric’ and ‘electronic’ are often not clearly distinguishable; since both electric and electronic devices clearly function by means of electricity, one is apt to use the words interchangeably or with only an imprecise notion of where the distinction between them lies. Technically, electronic devices form a subset of all electric devices, being those, broadly speaking, that incorporate thermionic valves or semiconductors. In common usage, however, ‘electric’ is normally applied not to the whole range of electrically powered devices, but simply to those that are not electronic.
In discussing musical instruments it is useful to make a similar distinction between ‘electric’ and ‘electronic’ instruments: this article does so on the basis of the method of sound generation. The term ‘electric’ is used of two types of instruments: electroacoustic instruments, which produce sounds, albeit often virtually inaudible, by acoustic methods, and incorporate builtin microphones, pickups or transducers by means of which these vibrations are amplified; and electromechanical instruments, in which the mechanism itself produces no sound but creates a regular fluctuation in an electrical circuit which can be converted into an audio signal. The term ‘electronic’ is used of instruments in which the sound is generated by means of electronic oscillators or digital circuitry." [1]
Reading the above text I think it should be clear to everybody that there should be two pages: One for Electric Organ (music) and one for Electronic Organ (Please delete the above citation if it's a copyright violation!)-- SwA ( talk) 12:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Part of our problem is that English is not entirely logical. The difference between electric and electronic is context-dependent.
In general an electronic device is also electric, but not conversely. Most electric toasters are not electronic.
Some have tried (as Groves above) to distinguish on the grounds of whether there are electrical amplification circuits present, but this does not always work. An electric guitar with active electrics has such circuits but is not an electronic guitar. All musical instrument amplifiers are electronic devices, but their use is not restricted to electronic music.
And on the other hand, potentiometers such as are used in almost all electric instruments, whether electronic or not, to control the volume (and often other parameters as well) are sold as electronic components. Andrewa ( talk) 22:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I propose that this sense of electric organ is the primary topic by reason of common usage. Most people would have some awareness of these electric organs, while only a few would realise that this is what the shock-producing tissues found in some animals are called. Searching on "Electric organ" music -Wikipedia gave me more than twice the number of ghits as "Electric organ" animal -Wikipedia.
By significance I would call either a tie or a slight advantage to music again. The electric organ was an enormously significant part of 20th century music, leading to the synthesizer, midi interface and electronic music. Is music as significant as biology? If so we have another win for the musical sense.
Comments welcome. If there is no consensus that there is a primary topic, or if there is no consensus as to what it is, then I'd support assuming that there is no primary topic and in this case that means keeping the two-way DAB at the base name. But I think it's worth having a go at building consensus that the musical instrument is the primary topic. Andrewa ( talk) 12:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree with some of this, but... some of it is a bit strange...
Attempting to slot all things biological into "electric organ" and all things musical into "electronic organ" is flawed. Agree
The technical distinction between electric and electronic is too technical Rubbish. Too technical for what? Yes, it's tricky, but we have clear naming conventions that work well when they are followed, and here is no exception.
and even if accepted, there is still cross-over both ways Agree
at least one kind of musical organ is electric but not electronic Agree
and at least one artificial biological organ is electronic Agree
Looking forward, it only gets worse. Agree. Important to get it right.
New music organs are no long electronic, but "digital" Rubbish. All digital organs (musical and otherwise) so far and foreseeably are electronic (but I could design and build you one using only fluidics and maybe someone already has). Non-digital electronic organs are important historically, so we need to cover them. I think you mean we could cover the musical topic with two articles, one on electric organs and the other specifically on digital organs, and have no article on the topic of electronic organs but just cover the topic in those two. I don't think that helps.
and artificial biological "electronic organs" are increasingly coming Agree
But I really don't see where this is heading. Arguments on PT generally revolve around common use and/or cultural significance. Are you suggesting that in medicine, artificial electric organs and/or artificial electronic organs are relevant to this discussion? What about wp:ball? Andrewa ( talk) 23:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed that electronic instrument currently is a primary redirect to electronic musical instrument and has been since January 2003, despite there being many non-musical electronic instruments, see electronic instrumentation. That again underlines the long-term significance of the topic areas of electric and electronic musical instruments. Andrewa ( talk) 08:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
As suggested above.
Does that help? It seems rather subjective to me. Andrewa ( talk) 14:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Your non-answer to Primefac (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC). -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Assessing consensus is of course for the closer (or relister). But here is why I think discussion should continue, and along which lines. Andrewa ( talk) 19:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
A move is required.
There is no need to disambiguate electronic organ, as non-musical electronic organs are rare and largely speculative. The musical use is the primary topic, in fact trivially so, as there are no other articles that could be titled electronic organ.
The term electric organ includes some musical instruments that are not electronic organs, but does not include all pipe organs that are electrically assisted, any more than the term electric chair includes electrically operated massage chairs.
Any dissent from these? Andrewa ( talk) 23:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
It now also seems agreed that the move should be to the base name electric organ, see #Analysis by another editor below. Andrewa ( talk) 22:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe that the musical use of electric organ is its primary topic. This is disputed.
Are any others relevant?
I also think we badly need more input on this. The rambling and messy discussion above has (predictably) discouraged others from participating. Andrewa ( talk) 01:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I've chosen to approach this from first principles, rather than to comment on the existing debate.
Consensus is of course assessed by the closer, not by an involved party like me. But I think we could and should help them a bit.
Narky Blert's proposal (their 6 above) seems to me to have consensus support in the discussion section they started. However this is not at all reflected in the poll above.
SmokeyJoe, SwA, Primefac, bd2412, I think you should revisit your !votes. Andrewa ( talk) 21:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The latest analysis by Cuchullain makes me wonder whether part of the problem here is that usage is changing.
The tonewheel hammond was in its day certainly called an electric organ, and never an electronic organ. Similarly, the frequency divider organ was in its day always called electronic, it was also electric but the distinction between electric and electronic was universally understood and important both to the fans and to the salespeople of both instruments.
But today's Hammonds (capital to indicate brand) are electronic, and perhaps the distinction between electric and electronic is blurring in common use. (And the Hammond Organ Company would certainly now like it forgotten, in the interests of their current sales objectives!)
There is a grating inconsistency between this usage for keyboard instruments and that with regard to electric guitar, which I would argue is the most significant electric or electronic instrument so far (with the electric/electronic keyboard a close second). But English is not always logical, and it is not our quest here to reform it. Andrewa ( talk) 20:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Electric organ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I desperately need someone who has any information on this organ. 2603:6011:1200:37FA:F083:A72C:37F9:DFCB ( talk) 04:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that one or more audio files of a musical instrument or component be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and included in this article to improve its quality by demonstrating the way it sounds or alters sound. Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Electronic organ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The history of electric organs (sections: 1.2 Early electric organs (1897–1930s); 1.3 Tonewheel organs (1930s–1975); 1.4 Electrostatic reed organs (1934–1964))) should/could be made into an individual wiki article - even though it fits to this page since it's part of the history of the electronic organ. SwA ( talk) 10:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Electric organ, replacing the dab page per WP:TWODABS. Although not unanimous, having read the discussion I think there is a consensus that "Electric organ" is the common name for this instruments, and also that the instrument is primary topic for the term, when compared with the biological term. — Amakuru ( talk) 08:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Electronic organ →
Electric organ (music) – This is a procedural nomination following
this discussion, which saw
electric organ moved to
electric organ (biology) and the former converted to a
DAB. Concerns were raised that that discussion that some "electric organs" are not technically "electronic" and thus provided a misnomer.
Primefac (
talk) 19:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Electric organ is a two-way DAB, the other topic being electric organ (biology). Does anyone really question that the musical instrument is the primary topic for electric organ? I'm fascinated.
But there's another issue which should be taken up at talk:electronic musical instrument. That article, like this one, includes the Hammond for example as electronic. That is contrary to the usage with which I'm familiar, and not consistent with usage regarding the electric guitar... but English is not always logically consistent!
Similar points were made at Talk:Electric_organ_(biology)#Requested_move_9_May_2017, and also some rather bizarre claims... a pipe organ with an electric pump is not an "electric organ". (Any more than one with electro-pneumatic action is, but that would come closer.)
We badly need to consult some reliable sources, and will probably need to clean up our terminology quite a lot as a result. Andrewa ( talk) 03:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
That is, there are hybrids that use both pipes and electronics to produce different sounds, and Rodgers organs (now owned by Roland Corporation which makes them one of the largest manufacturers of pipe organs in the world by the count of instruments sold) have produced some brilliant hybrids. This is not about those. It's originally about organs which produce their sound principally by pipes, in the traditional manner, but which are assisted by electricity to provide the wind pressure.
And I've suggested that organs that use electro-pneumatic action (once quite common and there are still lots around) and more recent hybrid actions such as on the Sydney Opera House Grand Organ should be added to the discussion, as they are even more electric.
I'm hoping this can be settled quite quickly one way or another. So as not to clutter this page with interesting external links that fail wp:RS, see User:Andrewa/Pipe vs electric organ and feel free to add to it. Andrewa ( talk) 19:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
To clean up some misunderstandings and help you here is a citation from the Article about electric and electronic instruments from Grove Music Online:
"To the layman the terms ‘electric’ and ‘electronic’ are often not clearly distinguishable; since both electric and electronic devices clearly function by means of electricity, one is apt to use the words interchangeably or with only an imprecise notion of where the distinction between them lies. Technically, electronic devices form a subset of all electric devices, being those, broadly speaking, that incorporate thermionic valves or semiconductors. In common usage, however, ‘electric’ is normally applied not to the whole range of electrically powered devices, but simply to those that are not electronic.
In discussing musical instruments it is useful to make a similar distinction between ‘electric’ and ‘electronic’ instruments: this article does so on the basis of the method of sound generation. The term ‘electric’ is used of two types of instruments: electroacoustic instruments, which produce sounds, albeit often virtually inaudible, by acoustic methods, and incorporate builtin microphones, pickups or transducers by means of which these vibrations are amplified; and electromechanical instruments, in which the mechanism itself produces no sound but creates a regular fluctuation in an electrical circuit which can be converted into an audio signal. The term ‘electronic’ is used of instruments in which the sound is generated by means of electronic oscillators or digital circuitry." [1]
Reading the above text I think it should be clear to everybody that there should be two pages: One for Electric Organ (music) and one for Electronic Organ (Please delete the above citation if it's a copyright violation!)-- SwA ( talk) 12:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Part of our problem is that English is not entirely logical. The difference between electric and electronic is context-dependent.
In general an electronic device is also electric, but not conversely. Most electric toasters are not electronic.
Some have tried (as Groves above) to distinguish on the grounds of whether there are electrical amplification circuits present, but this does not always work. An electric guitar with active electrics has such circuits but is not an electronic guitar. All musical instrument amplifiers are electronic devices, but their use is not restricted to electronic music.
And on the other hand, potentiometers such as are used in almost all electric instruments, whether electronic or not, to control the volume (and often other parameters as well) are sold as electronic components. Andrewa ( talk) 22:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I propose that this sense of electric organ is the primary topic by reason of common usage. Most people would have some awareness of these electric organs, while only a few would realise that this is what the shock-producing tissues found in some animals are called. Searching on "Electric organ" music -Wikipedia gave me more than twice the number of ghits as "Electric organ" animal -Wikipedia.
By significance I would call either a tie or a slight advantage to music again. The electric organ was an enormously significant part of 20th century music, leading to the synthesizer, midi interface and electronic music. Is music as significant as biology? If so we have another win for the musical sense.
Comments welcome. If there is no consensus that there is a primary topic, or if there is no consensus as to what it is, then I'd support assuming that there is no primary topic and in this case that means keeping the two-way DAB at the base name. But I think it's worth having a go at building consensus that the musical instrument is the primary topic. Andrewa ( talk) 12:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree with some of this, but... some of it is a bit strange...
Attempting to slot all things biological into "electric organ" and all things musical into "electronic organ" is flawed. Agree
The technical distinction between electric and electronic is too technical Rubbish. Too technical for what? Yes, it's tricky, but we have clear naming conventions that work well when they are followed, and here is no exception.
and even if accepted, there is still cross-over both ways Agree
at least one kind of musical organ is electric but not electronic Agree
and at least one artificial biological organ is electronic Agree
Looking forward, it only gets worse. Agree. Important to get it right.
New music organs are no long electronic, but "digital" Rubbish. All digital organs (musical and otherwise) so far and foreseeably are electronic (but I could design and build you one using only fluidics and maybe someone already has). Non-digital electronic organs are important historically, so we need to cover them. I think you mean we could cover the musical topic with two articles, one on electric organs and the other specifically on digital organs, and have no article on the topic of electronic organs but just cover the topic in those two. I don't think that helps.
and artificial biological "electronic organs" are increasingly coming Agree
But I really don't see where this is heading. Arguments on PT generally revolve around common use and/or cultural significance. Are you suggesting that in medicine, artificial electric organs and/or artificial electronic organs are relevant to this discussion? What about wp:ball? Andrewa ( talk) 23:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed that electronic instrument currently is a primary redirect to electronic musical instrument and has been since January 2003, despite there being many non-musical electronic instruments, see electronic instrumentation. That again underlines the long-term significance of the topic areas of electric and electronic musical instruments. Andrewa ( talk) 08:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
As suggested above.
Does that help? It seems rather subjective to me. Andrewa ( talk) 14:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Your non-answer to Primefac (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC). -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Assessing consensus is of course for the closer (or relister). But here is why I think discussion should continue, and along which lines. Andrewa ( talk) 19:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
A move is required.
There is no need to disambiguate electronic organ, as non-musical electronic organs are rare and largely speculative. The musical use is the primary topic, in fact trivially so, as there are no other articles that could be titled electronic organ.
The term electric organ includes some musical instruments that are not electronic organs, but does not include all pipe organs that are electrically assisted, any more than the term electric chair includes electrically operated massage chairs.
Any dissent from these? Andrewa ( talk) 23:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
It now also seems agreed that the move should be to the base name electric organ, see #Analysis by another editor below. Andrewa ( talk) 22:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe that the musical use of electric organ is its primary topic. This is disputed.
Are any others relevant?
I also think we badly need more input on this. The rambling and messy discussion above has (predictably) discouraged others from participating. Andrewa ( talk) 01:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I've chosen to approach this from first principles, rather than to comment on the existing debate.
Consensus is of course assessed by the closer, not by an involved party like me. But I think we could and should help them a bit.
Narky Blert's proposal (their 6 above) seems to me to have consensus support in the discussion section they started. However this is not at all reflected in the poll above.
SmokeyJoe, SwA, Primefac, bd2412, I think you should revisit your !votes. Andrewa ( talk) 21:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The latest analysis by Cuchullain makes me wonder whether part of the problem here is that usage is changing.
The tonewheel hammond was in its day certainly called an electric organ, and never an electronic organ. Similarly, the frequency divider organ was in its day always called electronic, it was also electric but the distinction between electric and electronic was universally understood and important both to the fans and to the salespeople of both instruments.
But today's Hammonds (capital to indicate brand) are electronic, and perhaps the distinction between electric and electronic is blurring in common use. (And the Hammond Organ Company would certainly now like it forgotten, in the interests of their current sales objectives!)
There is a grating inconsistency between this usage for keyboard instruments and that with regard to electric guitar, which I would argue is the most significant electric or electronic instrument so far (with the electric/electronic keyboard a close second). But English is not always logical, and it is not our quest here to reform it. Andrewa ( talk) 20:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Electric organ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I desperately need someone who has any information on this organ. 2603:6011:1200:37FA:F083:A72C:37F9:DFCB ( talk) 04:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)