Talk:Ten-string classical guitar of Yepes

Repertoire section removed

I've removed the entire Repertoire section as unsourced original research. Techniques to how to play an instruments aren't going to be factual, just opinions, and unsourced opinions are the worst (and no, a link to Amazon with information about a CD isn't a source). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tunings removed

I've also removed the entire Tunings section as unsourced original research. I recognize that this version has some sourcing to myspace pages to tenstringguitar.com, all of which is not reliable. I don't know much about this subject but from an outsider's view, this is either going to be an article about an instrument and its creation or about ways and theories about how it should be tuned. Those are separate points and separate ideas and the latter I think belongs elsewhere. However, it's possible to keep the tunings but someone should be able to provide a source as to the sentence "It has since been adopted by a number of classical guitarists, using both Yepes' tuning and others" with examples. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with that move. This article had become a frightful mess thanks to the ownership issues that we see above. Eusebeus (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd hope that we can restore the tunings section eventually. There seems no question that the information in question is accurate, and that it's verifiable to WP:GA standards, which was my goal a while ago. I'm looking for some better references. Andrewa (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's all everybody wants. Once you start allowing non-sourced material and original research, everyone has their own opinion and their own theories. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Things about the Guitar confirmation

Can anyone confirm that this is a legitimate citation from Things about the Guitar, in particular what page? The book would be a decent source (primary sources are not my favorite) but I'm a little concerned about using an anonymous website's quotation of a section from the book. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I admit I've taken it at face value. Stephen Bright, the owner of this site, is widely respected. Viktor has said he possesses a copy of the book. There's an extract and TOC on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/8487969402/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link but my link isn't fast enough to read it. I'll try to get to a paper library. Andrewa (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned so much about its accuracy but about taking it out of context and frankly just not having an exact page number of other useful citation information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Pages 137 to 140 are about the ten-string guitar per the table of contents. Unfortunately, this is an Amazon Look Inside and not a Search Inside meaning the full publication contents are not available from Amazon. If needed, I can see about getting a copy via inter-library loan. You can use OCLC to see if one of your local libraries has a copy. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarify tag

I've removed the clarify tag from the lead. The sentence in question simply summarises material from later in the article, as a lead should. Andrewa (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rename article, or incorporate into Ten-string guitar

The present title of this article is problematic.

1) No one except the editor who created this page as part of his edits to Ten-string guitar uses this convoluted term "ten-string extended -range classical guitar. The instrument has (or rather, these instruments have) commonly been referred to as the "ten-string guitar" (or ten-stringed guitars) for decades (the Yepes instrument) and centuries (the 19th century harp guitars).

Agree it's a convoluted term, but I think in terms of WP:NC it's the best one to describe the scope of this article as it now is.

2) Extended-range is problematic. Extended from what? From the 6-string guitar? From which period in history? Depending on which period we refer to, the 6-string guitar could be termed "extended-range" in relation to baroque guitars; and the 6-string guitar of the 19th century often had an extended hyper-treble range beyond the 19th fret. This terminology also emphasises the secondary defining characteristic of the modern 10-string guitar invented by Yepes. It emphasises the addition of an extra low 7th bass string, but overlooks the primary defining characteristic of Yepes's guitar, which is its chromatic resonance.

Interesting claim. What then should the extended-range classical guitar article be named, in your opinion?

3) Why "classical"? It has become old-fashioned to speak of the "Spanish guitar" and "classical guitar". The guitar's origins as an instrument of "classical" music has been established. Calling the guitar "classical" is as redundant today as calling a violin or piano classical. It all depends on the type of music played on it. The Yepes 10-string guitar could legitimately be used to paly Jazz music or Pop music.

Hmmmm... but it is a classical guitar, according to your earlier work, and I don't think anyone has questioned this other than yourself. It seems a strange suggestion to me, frankly.

I would support renaming this article to ten-strange extended-range guitar if you would prefer to expand its scope to this, but as it is its scope matches the article name, and I think it's a good topic. And this also seems a strange request, in that you are the one who recently removed mention of other extended-range ten-string guitars from the article, see this diff. I would have thought, even if this article is scoped to classical guitars capable of taking the Yepes tuning, it would still be helpful to have mention of these direct descendents which are also capable of taking the Yepes tuning, in fact they are specifically designed for this tuning among others.

The best thing would be to make a "Yepes 10-string guitar" page, since the complexities of the acoustics informing the invention of this instrument require more explanation and discussion than do other types of 10-stringed guitars. And discuss other types of 10-stringed guitars in the general Ten-string guitar article. Or simply discuss them all there and delete this rather redundant/repetitive page.

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, what you are proposing here is the re-creation of the article which you originally created as ten-string guitar, scoped strictly to the Yepes-tuned classical instrument and to 19th-century ten-string harp guitars, is that right?

They're strange bedfellows!

My suggestion would be instead to add information specific to the Yepes guitar to the Narciso Yepes article. I think this suggestion was made once before, long ago, in response to a similar suggestion, but I can't remember exactly when.

I'm not convinced that there's a lot to explain about the acoustics. Jose Ramirez III was experimenting with sympathetic strings, hoping to fill the gaps in resonance that every guitarist knows are there, and got his customer Yepes interested in the project. Yepes considered the four notes that are particularly resonant on the six-string guitar, recognised that four extra strings would be the minimum to provide the other eight notes of the chromatic scale with similar resonance, designed the optimal tuning to achieve this, and undertook to develop a technique for playing such an instrument. Ramirez built it and it worked. It's not that complicated, is it?

If so, perhaps we should consult an acoustics expert. Andrewa (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Andrew, you are severely mistaken. Please refer to Ramirez's chapter and also to textbooks on acoustics. You know the link to my site where I explain these things and you know the Yepes quotes I have posted on the yahoo group and on my site. The fact of the matter is that Ramirez very clearly says he made a prototype guitar based on the viola d'amore on which he put 6 inner strings tuned exactly the same way as the 6 outer strings. As per well-established facts of physics, these strings add no new resonances to the guitar that are not already there, but only augment the resonances already present. This is the same problem with the resonance of the viola d'amore which Yepes has pointed out:

"Normally, the tuning of the four supplementary bass strings is C, Bb, Ab, Gb. In that way I have overtones for all twelve notes of the scale. Many people have said to me that this is the same principle as that used for the viola d'amore, which was an early eighteenth century instrument with seven strings that were mounted underneath the normal ones and vibrated in sympathy. But there was a problem with that instrument: The tuning - of both the bowed strings above and the sympathetic strings below - was D, A, F, D, A, F, D, and the F was either sharp or natural, depending on whether the key of the piece was D major or D minor. Thus when you played a D you had not only the sound of that one string, but also the sound of all the other Ds on the instrument, so you had a very big D! But, when you played G, for example, you had absolutely nothing in the way of resonance. My idea of the 10-string guitar is exactly the contrary - to provide sympathetic vibration for the notes that do not have this kind of reinforcement on a normal 6-string guitar." (Snitzler 1978)

Snitzler, L. 1978. "Narciso Yepes: The 10-String Guitar: Overcoming the Limitations of Six Strings". Guitar Player 12: pp. 26, 42, 46, 48, 52.

So the instrument Yepes invented with 4 additional strings tuned C2, A2#, G2#, F2# is exactly the contrary of the one Ramirez invented with additional strings tuned E4, B3, G3, D3, A2, E2, which only reinforced already existing resonances without adding the missing ones.

You are also mistaken in saying "four extra strings would be the minimum to provide the other eight notes of the chromatic scale with similar resonance". This must be qualified by the tuning C, A#, G#, F#. If you disagree, you will have to rewrite the laws of physics, get it peer-reviewed and published and then cite it. We cannot accept references to people on discussion groups as if this is scholarly/authoritative, and even if we did, they would still need to be able to justify their claims scientifically. Scientific facts, please. On the other hand, I am perfectly capable of referencing acoustics textbooks to substantiate the fact that only the tuning C, A#, G#, F# adds the eight resonances C, G, A#, F, G#, D#, F#, C#, as unisons with any note played on the treble strings.

You are also mistaken in attributing the invention to Ramirez and making Yepes a mere collaborator. It is Yepes who solved the acoustic and musical problems (as Ramirez himself admits). There are also numerous sources (including Yepes himself) that state Yepes commissioned Ramirez to build a 10-string guitar, that Ramirez initially refused, and that he eventually gave in to build a guitar to Yepes's specifications because Yepes threatened to change to Fleta guitars.

Here are some of the sources for the last claim (I'll be adding more when I track them down in my paper files):

Sensier, Peter. 1975. "Narciso Yepes and the Ten-String Guitar". Guitar III(9): p. 27 (par. 4).

I quote Yepes from Snitzler 1978:

"When I ordered the guitar from Jose Ramirez, the first thing he said was, "To make a 10-string guitar is impossible." Then I said, "Okay. If it is impossible, then I shall order the instrument from another guitar maker." His reply to this was, "Oh, no! Then it is possible." So he made the 10-string guitar. I ordered it for several reasons: the first is that the 6-string guitar is not a "balanced" instrument."

Snitzler, L. 1978. "Narciso Yepes: The 10-String Guitar: Overcoming the Limitations of Six Strings". Guitar Player 12: pp. 26 (column 2).

Clearly there are a lot of misunderstandings and fallacies making their rounds, so you are mistaken in claiming it is a simple matter that does not deserve its own article separate from Narciso Yepes and from a general and potentially misleading discussion of guitars that arbitrarily happen to have 10 strings but not the tuning for chromatic resonance that is the first defining characteristic of the guitar invented by Yepes.

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm... There's lots of relevant material there but the logical connections are missing. You seem to be disputing two claims I have made, one that the acoustics are fairly simple, and the other that the Yepes/Ramirez relationship was collaboration.

Yes, you do make the acoustics sound complicated above, but your explanation and mine do not differ in any testable sense, so they are the same, and IMO mine is better worded. That's the reason it sounds so much simpler!

The quote from Snitzler is very interesting in that it differs somewhat from Ramirez' version, but both are consistent with regarding it as a collaboration between Ramirez and Yepes. Collaboration can mean many things.

By both accounts this was a long, complex personal and creative relationship, of which each account is a mere snippet. Untangling them is interesting, but WP:OR and Wikipedia is not the place for it. Post your thoughts on it to your own website by all means, and I'll look forward to reading it there. Andrewa (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

HHHmmmmmmmmmoooooooooo....... Please expound on the alleged missing logical connections.

Complicated? It does not sound complicated to me in the least. I'm sorry you're finding it difficult. I'll try to explain it very simply this time: You said "four extra strings would be the minimum to provide the other eight notes of the chromatic scale". I said, that is only correct if you qualify the statement by indicating the tuning of those four strings that adds the eight missing resonances. (The eight missing resonances are C, C#, D#, F, F#, G, G#, A#.)

OK. Thanks for clarifying that.

The claim that is only true... is quite simply false. My statement is less specific than yours, but both are accurate. Your statement adds detail, and it's accurate detail, but unnecessary. All the novice needs to know here is that there are eight notes missing, and that four resonant strings will supply them.

How you tune the resonators will determine which pitches they resonate with. They must be tuned so that their octaves and fifths correspond to the 8 missing resonances. Obviously, if you tune them all to D, you're only going to get D and A resonances from them, neither of which is a resonance the guitar lacks. If you tune them D, C, B, A, you're going to get D, A, C, G, B, F#, E resonances from them, of which only C, G and F# are among the eight missing resonances. But if you tune them C, A#, G#, F#, then you get all eight missing resonances (C, G, A#, F, G#, D#, F#, C#).

Again, this appears to be accurate but I don't think it adds anything. To the expert it's obvious, and to the novice confusing. To nobody is it particularly helpful.

I'm sorry this is very hard for you, Andrew. Really. But scholars must maintain accurate information. It would be very easy for readers to misunderstand you and simply assume that by dint of the fact that a guitar has 10 strings it has chromatic resonance. Well, this is just not the reality in terms of the laws of physics that govern our universe. You really don't want readers to be misinformed, do you? So, please, lets keep it scholarly and precise.

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree that It would be very easy....

It's not hard for me, and properly explained, I don't think it needs to be hard for anyone, whether well-read in acoustics or not. Andrewa (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd consider an AFD. For the life of me, I cannot figure out where this is coming from. It looks like a ten-string guitar with a pile of original research on top. However, given my choice to block Viktor, I won't consider anything until he is able to edit here once again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please make it a merge rather than an AfD if you think that's appropriate. But I'd ask that the article be given more time. This particular instrument does have an interesting history and a significant following and repertoire. If this was all incorporated into the ten-string guitar article, it would be very lopsided towards this one type of ten-string guitar. On the other hand, if all ten-string guitars were dealt with in this detail, the ten-string guitar article would be enormous. Andrewa (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

After Victor buffed up the article I was going to suggest moving it to Yepes 10-string guitar or Modern 10-string guitar and editing Ten-string guitar to {{main article}} the Yepes/Modern version. FWIW, I don't think we should be inventing brand new terms which is what "Ten-string extended-range classical guitar" seems to be. I spooled through the diffs on User:Viktor van Niekerk and I saw that he uses the term "Modern 10-string guitar" consistently. I also saw that he never used the term "classical" in reference to this guitar though does use it for the 6-string instrument. I never got the sense that Victor invents new terms meaning that "Modern 10-string guitar" is likely an industry accepted term and the main question is if the Janet Marlow or Baroque tuning are used if it's still a "Modern ten-string guitar" or is a "ten-string guitar".

I'm also tempted to merge it for lack of notability on its own. As Victor notes "the instrument itself remains in the margins of the margins." Google seems to support this with the Yepes / Modern versions returning low hundreds of pages vs. 20,000 to over 30,000 for 10 string guitar and over 3 million pages for the classical guitar. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose merging it back, provided that part of this is a clear decision on the scope of the ten-string guitar article. Viktor's attempts to scope the ten-string guitar article to the two instruments he considers historically significant were actually what first brought us into conflict. It would be a shame to go full circle!

And I think it will just be split again in due course. But I'm happy to go through the process of expanding the section on the Yepes guitar etc in ten-string guitar with carefully sourced material, and then split it again, if that's what is needed. It's much less work to work on a stub here, but either way will do.

There's no doubt in my mind that it would have been better to stubify the ten-string guitar article in the first place, and split it only after dealing with the enormous sourcing issues of the original article, but I don't think that was a practical option considering the situation with Viktor at the time.

Another thing to consider is practicality. You'll notice there is no infobox on ten-string guitar. That's because it doesn't really fit on an overview article such as ten-string guitar. So, do we lose it in the merge?

On the notability issue, compare to Fender Jaguar Bass or many other articles we have on similar models. This particular Fender instrument (and many others) is probably less notable than the Ramirez Guitars Traditional Classic ten-string. See http://www.guitarrasramirez.com/english/guitarrasDeProfesionalEn.html for details. This is the model Jose III designed for Yepes, it's the design Viktor plays, and perhaps after the Bernabe 10-string (which is arguably the same design - Bernabe himself first built 10-string guitars as a journeyman in the Ramirez workshop under Jose III) probably the most respected of all classical ten-string guitars. The point being, it's just one model, albeit a particularly notable model, of the instrument we currently describe as a ten-string extended-range classical guitar. If one model of an instrument is notable, then surely the instrument as a whole is.

In fact, if there were to be enough encyclopedic material to make an article on this one Ramirez model, we could have an article on it alone based on notability. There's not the remotest possibilty of finding enough material IMO, but that's because of our verifiability standards, not notability.

The question of the article name is an interesting one. IMO WP:NC is not as clear on this as it might be. I readily admit to having made up the current name, by following the rules of English grammar to come up with an accurate descriptive phrase which I think any English speaker looking for this article would have no difficulty recognising. So, what's a better name? Perhaps ten-string guitar (classical)? That would include the harp guitar of course, so perhaps ten-string guitar (modern classical) would be better still? I prefer the current name, but I'll go with any consensus based on WP:NC (or on WP:IAR if we decide that WP:NC is wrong in this particular case).

Modern ten-string guitar is certainly used in particular contexts to mean this instrument, but I think we must reject it as ambiguous so far as the general reader is concerned. Andrewa (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll need to read up on and think about the WP:NC as I'm missing background data. FWIW, the table of contents for Things about the Guitar uses "The Ten-string guitar" in the title and does not decorate it with "Yepes", "Modern", "Classical", or "extended-range" though it's possible the body text does so. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ramirez probably just called it a ten-string guitar, as he knew of no other types. But for our purposes, there's still an ambiguity problem. Andrewa (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Yepes' speech

There are now a number of references to Yepes, N. 1989. "Ser Instrumento" {To Be an Instrument}. Speech of Ingression into the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando, delivered on 30 April and similar. Was this speech published in some readily available journal or procedings? If so, then the reference should say which and where and when; If not, then it's not really verifiable. Andrewa (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Andrew, it was published in 1989 by the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando (Royal Academy of Fine Arts of San Fernando), Madrid [1]. And a full colour scan of the proceedings can be downloaded (as you ought to know - I've mentioned this before and also on my site) from the official Narciso Yepes website (under escritos, which means writings).

Please do your own research, if you don't know such things. I am not going to explain every minutium to you ad nauseam.

And you should assume good faith!

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It's just a speech. I don't consider it reliable at all. It's not at all verifiable but I'm open to getting a third opinion at least if you are Andrewa. At the very least, we should coach the language on "According to Yepes, ...." I've blocked Viktor for a week so I don't feel it would be prudent for my view alone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Viktor, I'm sorry you interpret this as doubting your good faith, but I did no such thing. This site is about collaboration, and I'm simply asking you to clarify one of your sources by providing the normal academic apparatus (hmmm, we perhaps need an article on this - citation doesn't really cover it) if you have it, or whatever else you have if not. Thank you for doing so.

And for the Nth time, we have a strict policy of discussing the contributions rather than the contributors. This policy is not just to make our conversation here nicer, its most important function is to focus our discussion on things that will help us to improve the articles. Andrewa (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Having looked into this I think Yepes is a reliable source as to his own thinking and memories as a musician of what he had to do with this given 10-string guitar. However, this is not the same as the underlying acoustics/harmonics. I don't think Marlow or Yepes can be taken as reliable sources on the latter. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, until this edit by Viktor, we had Ramirez's version that he came up with it (I removed most of those details myself here). From what I can tell, it looks like a classic two sides of the story game, which would be interesting. Of course, Viktor responded to this version by ignoring the "Invention" section and filling up the lede with his own sources, until he removed the Ramirez one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Typical it seems, I'm amused that Viktor thought to remove Ramirez's book as a reliable source, to add scholarly sources like earlyromanticguitar.com and the fact that it was company's marketing strategy to call them "modern" tunings. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think there have been some "non-neutral" goals spinning both here and in the sources, none of which are likely to be reliable as to the acoustics and harmonics of these instruments. In fairness to all, reliable sources on musical instruments and their histories are not easy to find (most are flawed). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Try working on Eastern European history, especially in the Macedonia region. Forget spin and just try to get the editors to stop with their nationalist insults to each other first. I expect it to be difficult and if we are forced to loosen standards on some level, that's fine, but outright ignoring WP:V is not helping at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I've had some of those on my watchlist now and then. I don't see a need to loosen standards but rather, keep the narrative (which is to say, the "encyclopedic voice") away from lending much authority to these sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

ISTM that the two sources should both be cited, and that they both support the description of the relationship between Yepes and Ramirez on the creation of this instrument as a collaboration. Trying to sort it out further on the basis of these sources would be WP:OR, we need a better source, a secondary source that does the research for us and presents a credible and citable conclusion. Failing that, we should leave it vague here. Andrewa (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

All the sources I've seen are very weak/flawed. Yepes is a wonderful source on Yepes, but not on resonances as a topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps it's a matter of phrasing in the article. To a guitarist, the resonance of a first position E major chord, and the contrast to F major in this respect, is as obvious as the blueness of the sky, so writing for a general reader is a challenge.

What I mean by phrasing is we should report the positions taken by Yepes and Ramirez (and by van Niekerk and Marlow if and when they become encyclopedic) without tangling ourselves up in the physics/acoustics/physiology.

The acoustics are not nearly as difficult as Viktor makes them out to be, but discussion of them is unencyclopedic anyway IMO. Andrewa (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

1st p Em even more so :) The acoustics are easy enough to run down for a reader. Anyway I think we agree, "please don't lend an authoritative voice on sympathetic resonance" to anything sourced to either of those two, but it's way ok to cite them as reliable sources insomuch as they are/were players of 10 string guitars. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and seventh position E (no third) really sings on the electric 12.

Fascinating article on harmonic series. I notice it's flagged as needing sources too! And I'm a little concerned at some of its explanations... not all authorities would be happy to describe the 7th harmonic 4:7 as a "minor seventh" for example. It's the fact that the just minor seventh approximates 4:7 that explains the relative consonance of the dominant seventh chord, but all just major and minor intervals have only factors of 2, 3 and 5 in their exact frequency ratios. Similarly, the 27th harmonic 16:27 isn't a just "major sixth", Ellis for example (from memory) calls 16:27 a "pythagorian major sixth" (oops... red link) to distinguish it from the (just) major sixth 3:5 which occurs in the (just) major and minor scales. But overall a great article is my first impression.

Perhaps there should be a footnote also saying that historically, musicians have called the octave the "first harmonic", and been out of step with physicists in this regard. Hopefully this practice is vanishing but it still comes up in older sources. (The musicians' other numerical blunder, in calling a seven-step scale an "octave" and a four-step interval a "fifth" etc, is probably with us for good!) Andrewa (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've re-added a removed section that Viktor removed, obviously in favor of his own POV. That aside, feel free to rv me if I've done something wrong.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, the dom7 has always sounded slightly out of tune to me when even tempered (though the musical pith still comes through, at least), but it canny rings when it's "just." Wow. Folks truly don't know what they're missing. Likewise the true M6, singin' (!), I've always heard it as like an M3 on a P4, but I'm weird :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I play fretless bass occasionally and I sing regularly in an a cappella group. It's a whole new dimension. In particular, we often do sing some accompanied songs if they particularly fit the occasion, and if there's a guitar as well I just plug in a modern semi-acoustic fretted ABG, no point working hard. But occasionally we just use my old fretless acoustic Eston plus the voices, and of course I can play a just major tenth or seventeenth below the melody, which can be quite eerie... our piano-bashed ears sort of guess it's the same note as the melody, until it moves...

There are some meantone guitar fretboards available now, see this Yahoo! post for the URL and some of my comments concerning them and also concerning just intonation as applied to electronic instruments. Andrewa (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO this is encyclopedic and NPOV, but then I wrote it! There's a temptation to write very boring prose in order to avoid accusations of WP:OR, but we need balance IMO. Beautiful prose used to be more valued than it is now, which is a shame IMO; Even the project page we once had on the topic seems to have been merged into WP:FA. Andrewa (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Tremendous Improvements possible here!

This article, as far as I've read it, is about the Modern/Yepes Ten-String guitar. As such, the current article title is really, really unfitting. Because the Yepes Ten-String guitar does not only have an extended range, but also resonance properties.

When reading the current title, "Ten-string extended-range classical guitar", no one would know that this article is about the Yepes-type ten-string guitar.

Please can this be fixed. Please can someone help change the title. I suggest the following titles:

• "Modern/Yepes Ten-String guitar"
• "Yepes Ten-String guitar"
• "Ten-String guitar with bass-string resonance for all chromatic notes"

I prefer the first one. Hear ye evidence of old (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)