This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theGong article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
![]() | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to multipleWikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that one or moreaudio files of amusical instrument orcomponent beuploaded toWikimedia Commons and included in this article toimprove its quality by demonstratingthe way it sounds or alters sound. Please seeWikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request. |
The numbers add up to 99.98. What's the 0.02? Was one of the numbers misscanned? -phma
I am a Taiwanese and have never heard of the "Chinese" name of "gong-gong or tam-tam" that1911 Britannica claims. It sounds like some obscure theatrical jargon or baby talk (Motherese). Have any Chinese heard of it? If not, I think "luo" and lo4 (Cantonese) will suffice, becausethat is how I have always heard it. --Menchi 23:00 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Fixed. --Menchi 23:32 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The article seems to be mainly about one particular type of gong, the chau gong or "bull's-eye" gong. Large chau gongs used in orchestras are called tam-tams. But there are also other traditional types such as wind gongs, tiger-voice gongs, bowl gongs, nipple gongs, and opera gongs, and modern types such as Paiste's World gongs and Planet gongs. So it's not nearly so simple as the article makes out! I'll write about these when I have time unless someone else wants to. Tryhttp://www.larkinam.com/MenComNet/Business/Retail/Larknet/Gongs for some information.Andrewa 01:24 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Done. Needs a refactor now, but the information is there.Andrewa 10:28 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I have removed the cleanup tag, it seems inaccurate and pointless to me. The Wikipedian who posted it has given no reason, didn't list it on thecleanup page, and has asked for no comments to be posted on theiruser page, so it's not obvious how they expect us to find out what they don't like about the article. They have someeccentric views on other aspects of Wikipedia as well, and have mademany contributions despite periodically saying they are leaving permanently. Anyway, my conclusion was that the tag was merely detracting from a good article for no reason. Comments welcome, preferably onmy talk page.Andrewa 14:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This has been in the intro "forever".
It seems to have started out as an explanation of the word derivation, but that's lost now ("slit gong" used to appear next to "slit drum"). I'm removing it (Be Bold....). --Alvestrand22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the following tag:
Frankly, that's a load ofutter rubbish. The current article is notlargely based on the 1911 article at all. It was once, long, long ago, and there's still a small section of unmerged material. But if you bother to check, you'll find that most of the current article is my work. Perhaps we should remove the remaining 1911 section entirely?
If you have disputes with the article, please describe them here. Putting misleading and inaccurate tags on articles and leaving no clue on the talk page as to why you've done this doesn't exactly improve the encyclopedia!Andrewa09:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)--~~~~Insert non-formatted text here--~~~~--~~~~[reply]
The gongs described in this article are for wimps. A proper gong is ten feet in diameter, made of bronze, and struck with a battering ram. --Carnildo22:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the "Gongs - general" section at the bottom? Shouldn't it be at the top/merged into the introduction?Laogooli13:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why, then, is the tam-tam article a redirect to gong?zero stuko 11:30 22 Sept 2006 (GMT)
"The 38" Earth Gong vibrates at a frequency of 136.10 Hz/C# and affects the Heart Chakra" - What is this? Why is there new age metaphysics in an article about gongs?Vanilor23:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Vanilor[reply]
What is a Long Gong or a Lon Gong? This is a science experiment that supposedly uses a cup of some sort that is suspended by a piece string and a wire hanger is connected to that. You put the cup to your ear and some strikes the hanger and sound is filter in. Is this a true gong or something else?—Precedingunsigned comment added by76.237.182.65 (talk)03:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am from Japan. I have never seen or heard of gongs used to start Sumo wrestling matches. As far as I am aware, a referee (holding a fan) starts them. To mark the start of tournaments, drums may be played but no gongs.
In the popular French TV game show Fort Boyard, a man dressed as a Sumo wrestler used to strike a large hanging gong, so perhaps that is where the idea has come from.95.148.126.37 (talk)06:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tam tams are not gongs, nor are they members of the "bell family". Their construction, sound, use, and the physics of their vibration is completely different.
Bells have a quiet central node, and the area of greatest vibration is around the rim.There is a relationship betweenpitched gongs -- e.g.,center bossed gongs and bells, in that they may be placed or suspended to maximize vibration around the rim, but the center boss may also be struck, producing it's own tone, and this is distinctive from the bells.
Tam tams, on the other hand, are quiet around therim -- from which they are suspended -- and their maximum vibration is from the center outwards -- essentially the opposite configuration from a bell.
Tam tams are consideredunpitched orindefinitely pitched instruments; gongs have a definite pitch. Gongs are designed to maximize a particular fundamental, whereas tam tams are designed to produce a rich splash of non-specific high harmonics. Gongs have a short sound envelope with a rapid decay; tam tams have a very long envelope with a great deal of sustain. Gongs are excited by striking the rim or shoulder; tam tams are excited by striking near the center.
The "orchestral usage" section confuses the two terms repeatedly.Gongs are rare in western orchestral usage;tam tams are common. One will find a tam tam in almost any orchestra from high school level on up; one will rarely find agong in any but the largest western orchestras.
You will find a lot of gongs in an Indonesiangamelan, though, but no tam tams.
The material on tam tams here should be removed to a separate article.— Precedingunsigned comment added by70.89.176.249 (talk)02:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The bronze age didn't reach asia until 600 BC. And this weird interchange with bell and gong is confusing. I've been on many ships, none of them were required to carry a gong. --121.210.33.50 (talk)17:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. I'm always a bit skeptical about anything to do with China on Wikipedia given they have entire call centres devoted to 'China did it first.' stuff online. And the dates of things rarely match up. Like claims that they had iron in 12000 BC is a common one because of a meteorite that an academic had his arm twisted to claim was 'slag' and 'proof' they had iron. It's difficult given that China did invent so many things, that it is so easy to just let it slide and not question it. I thought I'd just ask given it didn't seem to make sense. Like all the claims of where they're used and the odd crossover between gong and bell. Nicely spotted though btw! --121.210.33.50 (talk)09:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at thenomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk)19:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am finding some non-formal references to a Roman gong excavated in England, which item dates from about 100 AD/CE, although I haven't yet turned up an image of it. It also seems hard to believe that any metal-working culture wouldn't have noticed the sound qualities of dropping or striking metal objects, but the tone of the article is very culture-centric. Can there please be some effort to expand the scope of the article, perhaps?