Talk:Hang (instrument)

Here is the /Archive of older discussions. --Ixkeys (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Idiophone

GotHang: "Changed reference back to 'Idiophone' again as it is more descriptive and in line with the maker's current view of the creation as not an instrument"

69.109.126.80: "Hang is not an idiophone, please avoid using this and other convenient categorizations as the instrument evolves."

I understand you both. And the topic "idiophone" is a challenging topic. Is the Hang an idiophone? What is the history of assigning the Hang to the idiophone category. I've just searched in the publications of PANArt and found that this question isn't mentioned in any publication. Who was the one who is responsible for this categorisation?

The first time the Hang was categorized as an idiophone I could find out was in the German Wikipedia when user Catrin assigned the very early Hang article to the category "Idiophon" in August 2005. I joined the article as a main editor in April 2006 and didn't change this categorization to this day. The categorization in the English Wikipedia was done much later on August 1st 2008 by GotHang. Other publications calling the Hang an idiophone obviously reference the English or German Wikipedia.

Why did I accept the categorization of the Hang as an idiophone? The main reason was the categorization of the Steelpan as an idiophone. You can find it at http://www.hotpans.se/pan/tuning/app_e.php : "A percussion instrument in the idiophone class..." Also the gong is categorized as an idiophone. And the main definition of an idiophon ("An idiophone is any musical instrument which creates sound primarily by way of the instrument vibrating itself, without the use of strings or membranes.") seem to be applicable too.

But since the time I became a main editor of the German Wikipedia article I often thought about whether this categorization is adequate, but never came to a result. Perhaps the Hang doesn't fit in any category? Or belongs to a new category (being neither a idiophone nor a membranophone, chordophone, aerophone, alectrophone)? Or an idiomembranchordoaerophone? This topic is on the list of topics I'd like to discuss with the Hang makers the next time I'll meet them.

For today I suggest to change the discussed formulation to: "A Hang ... is a musical instrument in the idiophone class created by PANArt in Switzerland."

But the "idiophone problem" has to be resolved because by now the only source for this categorization is the personal opinion of the Wikipedia authors Ixkeys and GotHang. And this is not enough according to Wikipedia's guidelines. -- Ixkeys (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The user 69.109.126.80 has not engaged in conversation about the repeated changes they have made so I did not take their opinion seriously. The class Idiophone is a defined one and is categorized by the method which sound is produced. It cannot be logically argued that the Hang is not an idiophone so I'm not sure what the argument is against it. I was attempting to show respect for the current path PANArt appears to be taking by not classifying the Hang as a musical instrument as the changes PANArt has made over the years have been away from making music and toward creating a 'sound sculpture' for 'personal journeys'.

I'm open to the current verbiage as it is technically correct.--GotHang (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Likely the categorization as a idiophone is correct. The problem is, that only Wikipedia authors decided to make this classification. The reason for this decision I told in my entry above. But it is important to see that "idiophone" describes only one attribute of the Hang. And therefor I think it isn't adequate to use idiophone as a substitute for "musical instrument" with the Hang.

I meet your aim to reflect PANArt's "current path" in the article. But we have to understand that Felix Rohner's and Sabina Schärer's remarks about the Hang as "not a musical instrument" are never acts of classification. Contrawise they use the term musical isntrument by themselfs. For example: "The Birth of a New Acoustic Musical Instrument" http://www.hangblog.org/panart/Booklet_englisch_GzD1.pdf (page 6, also look at the use of "instrument" on page 20 and 22)

Here are some other quotes: "It is by no means a musical instrument with an instruction manual! "http://www.hangblog.org/2009/06/01/the-integral-hang-2009/ - "...not another musical instrument in a standard context." http://www.hangblog.org/2009/11/21/letter-from-the-hangbauhaus-november-2009/ - and in an unpublished text it is said, that the Hang is "not a musical instrument in the European sense". These quotes show that it is not the aim of the makers to categorize their creation as "not a musical instrument" but to say something about what a sort of musical instrument the Hang is that contradicts the usual approach to musical instruments in our culture.

Therefor I think it is adequate for a lexicon article to use the main category "musical instrument" for the Hang. It is a task that isn't resolved by now to give an NPOV description of the Hang maker's view on the Hang. I hope that we will have a PANArt source in the future, that can be used as an adequate reference and that is more than the short remarks I quoted above. --Ixkeys (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on the intention to discard idiophone reference, as it is a classification of musical instruments, correctly identifying the Hang, and different enough of a reference to snap the reader out of the standard 'European style musical instrument' minset that a typical reader might bring to the article. If you're more interested in countering my edit and being right, I'm happy to let you modify the statement as you wish.--GotHang (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think idiophone is the right term to use on this occasion, for it is a word used to describe something. We're not here to undermine the english language but use it correctly. If the definition is correct then it can stand. If someone else chooses to call a sausage, then that is their imperative. Suggest IXKeys come down from his exalted position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.168.19 (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

@GotHang: You see a contradiction where no contradiction is. I never discarded the idiophone category. I wrote that I am one of the few persons who are responsible that the Hang is in the Wikipedia category idiophone. My two points were: The problem that only a few Wikipedia editors say that the Hang is an idiophone without any source. And: The idiophone classification is not the reason why the Hang is not an instrument "in the European sense". That the Hang can be classified as idiophone has nothing to do with this topic. This was my reason not to substitute the term "musical instrument" for the term "idiophone".

@IP87.113.168.19: My position is not exalted but careful. We write an article here that was read in 2009 by 210000 readers. We should be careful what we write and consider thoroughly.

I'm not sure whether the Hang (and the Steelpan too) is correctly classified as an idiophone, but I am currently not able to solve this problem. Therefor I decided to leave the category as long as there will be a solution in the future. The topic has to be discussed. Look at the Hornbostel-Sachs-System. You will not find a sub-category where you can put the Hang or the steelpan in. One reason for this is, that in 1914 when the System was published the steelpan didn't exist. Instruments like Steelpan or Hang are too new for the system. Therefor it is important to research what is written about the classification of the steelpan in order to understand whether it is possible to integrate steelpan and Hang in the Hornbostel-Sachs System or whether the system has to be modified or expanded. When I will understand more about this topic than currently I will expose it here and perhaps I will find some reliable references for a substantiated decision. --Ixkeys (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The two arguments I see you making are: 1) Only a few Wikipedia editors have classified the Hang as an Idiophone. 2) Hornbostel-Sachs is too 'old' a system to classify a new instrument. Neither of these arguments hold up for me. In regards to the first, it doesn't matter if one or a hundred editors use a classifier if it applies, and I can't see a single reason not to use the classifier for the Hang which leads to the second argument. If I invent a new instrument today it doesn't put me into a position to say that my instrument is unclassifiable. The purpose of the Hornbostel-Sachs system was to categorize instruments by how they generate sound. It doesn't matter when the instrument is created, what is important is how the instrument generates sound. The Hang "creates sound primarily by way of the instrument vibrating itself". Please let me know how the Hang generates sound if not by self vibration. Once you've convinced me of this argument then I'd be happy to consider not classifying the Hang as an Idiophone.--GotHang (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

1) It is a problem that only wikipedia editors executed the classification. Look at: Wikipedia:No_original_research.

2) Steelpan and Hang differentiate from other idiophones. While it is correct that the material of the instrument itself is oscillating, the tone fields have similarities to membranes (and differences as well). They also have similarities (and differences as well) to strings because they have controlled oscillating modes that produces harmonical overtones. In the case of the Hang oscillating air (the Helmholtz resonance) is an important part of the sound (would you classify a blowed bottle as an idiophone?). Another question is that I currently think that another subcategory has to be invented to be able to put steelpan and Hang in the Hornbostel-Sachs System. These are my thoughts concerning the correctness of the idiophone classifications. But as I wrote: I'm not the expert in musical instrument classification and can currently not solve this problem. But it is a topic that has to be discussed because of 1). This is not a private Website or an internet forum. This is Wikipedia and we have to consider Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, Wikipedia:No_original_research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Ixkeys (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to use 'no original research' to suppress wiki editing in general. Broadening the scope of the guideline to prevent informational editing is not the purpose of the guideline. As stated above, if one editor puts in a correct reference or 100 editors put in a correct reference it does not matter if the reference is correct. This is starting to get repetitive and redundant so I'll simplify the question again:

How is the Hang not an Idiophone?

You indicate the tone fields are 'similar to' membranes and 'not similar to' membranes. I'll make the very un-bold statement that they are not membranes. The classification of a membranophone is any musical instrument which produces sound primarily by way of a vibrating stretched membrane. The Hang does not have a 'stretched membrane' and therefore is not a membranophone. The tone fields hold complex stresses in a way that a membrane can not and so cannot be a membranophone. Oscillating air is the essence of sound, so I'm not sure how the Hang becomes a non-idiophone based on air oscillation. If one used a bellows or breath or wind to generate sound with a Hang then it would classify as an Aerophone. One does not, so it is not. Overtones and oscillation takes place, but those take place most all pitched instruments, so it's a weak relationship and doesn't put the Hang into the Chordophone category any more than air oscillation puts it into the Aerophone.--GotHang (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I stated that I'm not the expert who has fully understand the Hornbostel-Sachs system. I don't have a clue why the Trinidad standardisation bureau decided to classify the steelpan as a idiophone. I don't know how this topic is discussed by tuners or musicologists. Do you are this expert? Are you the one who creates a new sub-category for the Hornbostel-Sachs System? Did you ever read a scientific article on the Hornbostel-Sachs System? I don't. You have good arguments for your opinion that the Hang is an idiophone, but it is a basic guideline of wikipedia that not you or I as editors decide. Imagine we both (yes I tend more to your arguments than to my questions, but I'm not sure) are wrong and the Hang is not an idiophone. Then we tell 210000 persons per year a false information. This is the reason for wikipedia:no_original_research. Therefor this topic is open. But it doesn't make sense to discuss our opinions without further research. --Ixkeys (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem insistent that there is controversy or debate, but do not supply any reasoning behind it other than the statement that you don't feel comfortable making a statement. I will ask the simple question again:

How is the Hang not an Idiophone?

If you do not have an answer to that question I can't see what the concern is, or the reason for this pointless debate.--GotHang (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with GotHang on this matter. The H-S classification may not have been invented after the Hang, but it does hold descriptive definitions to which the Hang can be directly attributed. If you attribute the classification to the H-S system, then the interested researcher can study the subject to assure themselves that the Hang is best classified as an Idiophone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.55.62 (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

How is the Hang not an Idiophone?

instruments like the steel pan are best classified as Idiophones because they are struck with mallets & therefore the primary method by which sound is produced is the instruments vibration. However, the Hang is NOT an Idiophone because it's primary method of acoustics involves a membrane (skin). Furthermore, there is an apparent variance in tone due to stretching. To be technical, these classifications don't have so much to do with the instruments themselves, but how they are played. Hitting the side of the guitar like a drum, in actuality, produces a drum & for that matter anytime someone drums their hands on anything will constitute a membranophone. Another good example is the TELEPHONE which 'plays' over a greater distance than a regular acoustic instrument alone. Lawstubes (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

As you can see above the formulation in the introduction of the article was the result of a longer discussion. Your edit made the introduction worse. The reference [2] is not a reference for the idiophone classification. Your statement about membranophone is based only on personal opinion. You didn't give any reference to this statement. The Hang is not a membranophone. The sound produced by membranophones originates from vibrating stretched membranes. However, the sound from a Hang, as well as from a steelpan or a gong, originates from metal structures created through deformation, compression, stretching and compacting. Provided that the instrument maker works with prestresses of the material - as is the case with the Hang - it is a question of compressive and torsional stresses rather than tensile stresses as in the case of membranophones. Hand playing is not a criterion for membranophones. Your guitar example is wrong. A struck guitar corpus is not a membranophone. It is a struck idiophone. Therefor I reverted your edit to the original formulation. Ixkeys (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

wow, you sure wrote a lot about that. Thanks for reverting! I didn't mean to be a troll. Anyway, PANart actually stated "Treating it as a drum and promoting the name Hang Drum, for instance, has created a ripple effect of misinformation that leads to damaged Hang, physical injury, and mental and emotional turbulence."? Seriously? that's hilarious when you think about it... Should we call it a hang bell instead? Honestly, the membranophone thing is an ironic way of pointing out that 'drum' doesn't refer to the instrument. Drum is primarily a verb meaning 'beat' or 'tap a beat' & I find it stupid that the general consensus is that this thing can't be a drum & that 'drum' is even a technical term for an instruments... & that stupidity is apparently contagious. Just something to think about. Now, I shall continue my quest to better define any vague sentences in order to make English wikipedia pages more easily translatable. Peace. Lawstubes (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A good reason is needed to change musical instrument to percussion instrument. There were good reasons to use musical instrument: Percussion instrument has two meanings: A single criterion for classication (a struck instrument) and a description of the musical function oft the instrument. In the first meaning instruments like piano, hammered dulcimer and Hang are percussion instruments. In the meaning of musical function they are not. Therefor neither piano nor hammered dulcimer are called percussion instrument but musical instrument in the main defining formulation: "The piano is a musical instrument played mainly by means of a keyboard." "The hammered dulcimer is a stringed musical instrument..." This is valid for the Hang too. Therefor "musical instrument" was used here.

And as concluding remark to our membranophone discussion: Not to categorize the Hang as membranophone in the Wikipedia has nothing to do with the personal points of view of the Hang makers at PANArt. There are two reasons relevant for Wikipedia: The Hang doesn't meet the scientific criterion for a membranophone (stretched membrane) and there isn't a reference for this statement (no own research). Ixkeys (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Category Swiss musical instruments

The hang ist not correct categorized in the Category Swiss musical instruments. It has Trinidadian and European roots but no special Swiss roots. It is built in Switzerland but not a part of a national Swiss culture, neither if looked at hang making nor if looked at hang playing. -- Ixkeys (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization of the name

As the word 'hang' is a word in standard English and the word 'Hang' is the name of an instrument it is helpful to separate out Hang as referring to the instrument with a capital. It can be considered a brand name or trademark it seems appropriate to capitalize it as well (e.g. Chevy Impala not Chevy impala). --GotHang (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree ("Hang" is a trademark). But I'm not a native English speaker and not sure in the rules of Capitalization in English. --Ixkeys (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I put a link to the relevant Wikipeida English Capitalization article. --GotHang (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Because Hang is a trademark there is a reason to capitalize it. (I decided to do this in all my own English publications). In the publications by PANArt there is a mixed praxis. In some publications the single word "hang" is not capitalized but "Integral Hang" or "Free Integral Hang" are capitalized. In other publications "Hang" is strictly capitalized. Today I've asked Felix Rohner and Sabina Schärer for their opinion. They prefer capitalization. Therefor I think there isn't any reason not to capitalize Hang in the Wikipedia article: It is correct spelling, better readable and the owners of the trademark prefer it too. Let's do it. --Ixkeys (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Ixkeys (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the Ding dome?

The "blind spot mirror" on top, what is its purpose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.22.182 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The 'mirror like' dome at the top of the 1st Generation Hanghang is not a ball, but a half dome that serves as a 'boss' in the steel. As I understand it there are two main purposes. It acts both as a strengthening/stiffening point and as a piston for the tuned metal around it. -- GotHang (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding Link to 'Deep Drawing'

The introduction of the article says that the hang drum is made from 'deep drawn' steel, but there is no link. An article describing the deep drawing process for metal forming is here. I think the article would benefit from adding a link to the 'deep drawing' article. Musicians interested in making their own hang drum would learn about the fabrication process, and metal formers would learn about practical applications of deep drawing (by using the 'what links here' tool.) ...follow the trail (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the deep drawing link for two reasons: 1. there is no reference offered to verify it, and 2. until this fact can be verified, the appearance of the drum itself suggests that it is actually not deep drawn at all so this may just be nonsense. From the deep drawing article: "The process is considered "deep" drawing when the depth of the drawn part exceeds its diameter." The hang does not fit this description. Please add the link back if it comes with a reference. --Ds13 (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Using deep drawing for the raw form was one of the main developments PANArt created in the middle of the 1990th. There are a number of references. I added one in the article. Other references: Sabina Schärer: Die Rohform. In 10 Jahre PANArt. Page 23-24) or THE TECHNOLOGY OF A NEW RAWFORM. --Ixkeys (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Using the company/inventors' blog or papers as a source for an article on their product seems acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF, so I think it's fine now. Thanks! --Ds13 (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

just because the company say it's deep drawn doesn't make it so. The depth is clearly less than the diameter - I suppose it sounds more 'mystical' than 'pressed steel' which would be much more accurate. Drawing involves considerable thinning of the metal and that requires much greater distortion. Stub Mandrel (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Moving Hang (musical instrument) to Hang (instrument)

There was a main modification of ambiguous titles of musical instrument articles. The majority were disambiguated by using (instrument), the minority by using (musical instrument). So it seems reasonable to change the title of the Hang article accordingly. See also: User talk:Ixkeys --Ixkeys (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hang Dead?

Is the one company making Hangs still around? The company does not have a website and i would call the number provided to find out but one i do not know the language and two i do not know if that will be a valid thing to site a number being down as proof the company is gone. The latest version of the hang sited the wikipedia page is from 2008 and most websites about the hang were last updated in 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.3.139.93 (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No. The PANArt Hangbau AG doesn't have an own website but still exists and builds the Free Integral Hang. The latest communication by PANArt is from 2011 and you can find it here: http://www.hangblog.org/publications-by-panart-in-the-hang-library/ - obviously updated long after 2009 ;-) PANArt's publicly available phone number was canceled years ago (I think in 2006 or perhaps earlier). If you try the number you can find on the internet you will receive the ugly noise of a fax machine. There are so many ignorant copy-and-paste-internet-users who copy that number again and again on the Internet never checking whether the information is correct or not. But this is a nice tool to check the quality of Internet publications about the Hang: If you find the phone number in a publication you can be sure that the publication is based on no or very bad research: Forget it. ;-) --Ixkeys (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

In my opinion the statement "[haŋ], with vowel sound between those of the words hot and hungry" is reduntant since the correct template {{IPA-de}} already links to the page Wikipedia:IPA for German.--Carnby (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I support your deletion of this phrase because the pronunciation of hot and hungry can vary from one English speaking country or region to another. Also not native speakers speaking English with an accent could be confused. --Ixkeys (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not an instrument for the needs of professional musicians

The statement "By developing the Integral Hang, Rohner and Schärer once and for all distanced themselves from the idea of building an instrument for percussionists and professional musicians." was deleted with because it is a "Silly, unencyclopedic statement, which is not supported by primary blog source anyway".

I think this isn't correct. The statement has an important function to explain the intention of the Hang makers.

In the "primary blog source" [1] Felix Rohner and Sabina Schärer pointed out properties of the Integral Hang that doesn't take into consideration the needs of professional musicians playing on stages and recording music. These are the central references in the text:

"Its wealth is revealed through free and intuitive playing with the hands."

"The hang has evolved into a listening device which can stimulate human beings in today’s increasingly loud world. His inner voice becomes audible, his stance in life can grow more confident. It is by no means a musical instrument with an instruction manual! You will find faith in your hands by yourself – through daily concentrated playing."

"The integral hang is somewhat lonely on the world’s big stages – microphones cannot deal with the complex and dynamic radiance of the hang. Digital technology proves to be very fragmentary and the effect of the hang pales – the fatal consequence of an instrument whose strength lies in direct contact."

The following quote in the Wikipedia article is also a referenc for the Hang maker's intention summarized in the deleted statement:

"Our concepts, developments and implementations are far from the musical norms of modern times which require study, practice and performance. Playing with this Hang can lead to a form of freedom, an intimate conversation that can only unfold without pressure and coercion."

Instead of deleting the statement it should be optimized. I will add the following changed version: "By developing the Integral Hang, Rohner and Schärer distanced themselves from the idea of building an instrument for the needs of professional musicians." --193.175.4.213 (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC) (Ixkeys - I currently cannot log in)

That is certainly an improvement, but it's making quite a leap to go from what the source says to what you have added. I would say that it qualifies as WP:OR. I think this paragraph should be rewritten to explain (in brief) what what the source clearly and unambiguously says, rather than making the jump to the makers distancing themselves from professional musicians, as the source does not mention professionals at all. What the source is saying, at least to my eyes, is that the instrument is challenging to record (which is fine for a primary source), and further that the hang is a spiritual device with transcendent properties, which is outside of the scope of the sentence given. It mentions nothing at all about professionals. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point. If we look only at the single reference it may seem as original research. In fact the sentence is a condensation of a lot of published statements by Rohner and Schärer into a single sentence. My task was to put the changing of the Hang maker's intention from building an instrument for hand percussionists providing a combination of rhythm and melody to building a "listening device" and "sound sculpture" for personal use at a point in the Hang history. I thought the Integral Hang was the best point to put it, because the changing of properties of the instrument (a strengthened coupling of Gu and Ding as well as the reduction to only a single scale) were motivated by this change. Also in connection with the Integral Hang Rohner and Schärer began to explain their intentions in this way in public. There are other references like the newsletter May 2010 (in the middle of the text), Hang Guide (p 12) and The Call of iron (section "Nestled on our lap is a Hang", and 1st paragraph of section "We realize"). But these references are later than the Integral Hang. Therefor I looked for the earliest reference where the changed intention are expressed. Perhaps this reference isn't good enough.

What do you think? Is it sufficient to add one or two of the other references to the statement, or should I remove the whole topic "aims and ambitions" from the current place and put it in an own section? --193.175.4.213 (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC) (Ixkeys - I currently cannot log in)

Well.... All of those sources are slightly better, especially the first one, but if one needs to read three or four primary sources to come to a conclusion which is still largely subjective, then we have a problem. If you can find any secondary sources indicating this, I'll be much more satisfied. I have a problem with including material which is open to interpretation and is also coming from only one biased source. Saying that the inventors do not consider the hang to be a music instrument in the conventional sense of the word should only take one or two sentences, not a paragraph with a lengthy, multi-sentence quote. I'm going to attempt some general cleanup of the article to make it easier to read, and to remove some of the promotional wording. I'll leave the quote for now, but I still feel that better sources are needed.Grayfell (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the designers/makers of the hang aim to create an air of mystery and exoticism around the instrument. That's their prerogative, but it's not wikipedia's role to reinforce this - it should call a spade a spade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stub Mandrel (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Switzerland Project? Swiss instrument?

Dimadick added the WikiProject Switzerland and the category Swiss instrument without any explanation to this article. I have deleted both. The project page says: "This project covers the creation, expansion and curation of articles related to Switzerland, its cantons, geography, history, economy, politics, society, people, culture and spirit." I cannot see any reason why this project covers the Hang in any way. The Hang is not a Swiss instrument. There isn't any relationship to to a special Swiss music culture. If you want to add the project or the category again, please explain before in detail, why the Switzerland Project covers this article or why the Hang is a Swiss instrument. --Ixkeys (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been a merge request to merge handpan and Hang (instrument) since March 2020. So far there has been no discussion. So I'm starting one now.--Salix alba (talk): 11:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• So Hang seems to be a trademarked term controlled by a single company, these were the first instruments of this class created. handpans are very similar instruments without the trademark. There seems to be some dispute about the terms. I'm inclined not to merge, but a merged article could work. --Salix alba (talk): 11:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Hang (instrument) should be merged into handpan. Handpan would be a subclass of steelpan. Hang (instrument) is an example of a handpan. It would be like Zerox (trademarked) vs photocopy. Jacqke (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

A messy business; there's also Gubal (instrument) to consider. I suggest that the articles are kept separate, as they do have different scope; there is also active (as of January 2021) litigation, so best left for time to decide. Klbrain (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pronunciation

It's not German, it's specifically Bernese German. The word Hang means hand in Bernese German. Markushausammann (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)