Jump to content

Talk:Rebec

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


Infobox

[edit]

Discussion of the infobox that just showed up is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments. __Just plain Bill (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the proposed merger of rebec and rabel

[edit]

I am against. Despite the similarities the historical contexts are different. The two articles should be kept separated with links from the one to the other. Contact Basemetal here 16:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is merged then, shouldn't all these be merged into an article? I am for a merger if it is comprehensive with all the offshoot instruments.Jacqke (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got rid of the template as there was no support for the merge. Contact Basemetal here 19:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebeco?

[edit]

Is rebeco another spelling?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banjo technique?

[edit]

The final sentence of the opening paragraph of the "rebec" article ends with a dubious assertion. This sentence reads: "Played on the arm or under the chin, the technique and tuning may have influenced the development of the violin and the extended technique of banjo." [emphasis added] This is not supported by the literature and, frankly, makes no sense. The rebec was a Medieval European instrument and the banjo was developed in North America at least a century after the rebec had died out. On top of this, it is unclear what would constitute "extended technique" for the banjo. If I hear no objections, I will delete this reference to banjo technique. --HenryPurcell (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]