hangforum.com - The Archive

I don't understand your reply. I never said that the Hang has nothing to do with the Pan or that there aren't similarities.

I offered a categorization system that structures the similiarities and the differences. And this system shows that if we look for a name for a group of instruments includung Hang, Halo and Bell, the differences between Hang and Pan are important.

How do you structure the similiarities and differences between Hang and Steelpan to come to an adequate term handpan? By now you only showed an unstructured list of similarities.

What does someone tell his friend after he head heared a Hang and got some important additional information for example by talking with the player? Here is a possible report:

"I was in the ... and heared a sound I couldn't relate to an instrument. At first I thought it was a harp, but it was not really a harp sound. Then I saw the instrument and the player. An UFO like sheet steel entity resting on the players lap. The sounds seem to come out of very slight touches of the fingers. It is a sheet steel instrument like the steelpan and there are tone fields tuned in the metal surface like the steelpan, but what I never have seen at steelpans are domes in the center of each tone field. Also the sound was much softer and calmer than of a steelpan. The player was immersed in his play and the sound of the instrument which is called "Hang", the Bernese word for hand. I realized that stillness was neccessary to listen to the Hang (that the player also called a "sound sculpture"). When the door opens and some loudly speaking folks came in the magic of the sound wasn't to hear any longer and I was happy when they went out and the stillness came back in the room. The sound was rather touching me but in a completely other way the steelband did that I heared last summer in ... That sound was ecstatically and moved me to dance. The Hang sound let me concentrate to the sound and its movement. It was an experience of sound and stillness. It's really amazing that steel can produce such different experiences. The player told me that the inventors of the Hang called it a "listening device", what is quite an interesting point of view: A listening advice not a playing device."



In German "Aber die Lösung kann nicht sein, dass... (But the solution cannot be)" means to emphasize that I don't agree that it is a good or adequate solution.

Ix

Regarding playing with "sticks" (I will use the term mallets, because I think it's more specific):

I agree that one wonderful thing about the hang is the freedom to play in many different styles, with no one to definitively say that one or another is "right" or "wrong."

With that being said, using a mallet concentrates the force at a single point, and increases it through the use of a lever. The hang (and halo) were not designed to be played in this way, and using mallets can damage the hang and change the tuning. Perhaps this is what was meant by the comment that using mallets is wrong.

I have tried playing my hang (very gently!) with mallets, but have ultimately decided that the different sound (which I like, but don't necessarily prefer) isn't worth the extra risk in damaging the instrument.

About a year ago, I had asked Kyle if there were a certain kind of mallet (some are softer than others) he thought would be acceptable to use on the hang, and he very clearly said, "Sorry, no mallets."

I just wanted to add that point to the discussion so no one would inadvertently damage their precious hang!

They are very important To You and define the layout You created. They may not be important to others to the same degree, or define a layout such as you have created.

I created an unstructured list in response to Funky and his unstructured list, then you decided to jump in.

I'll address your specific visual categorization directly. I agree that solid sheet steel instrument is a category that holds the Pan, Hang, Caisa, Halo, and Bellarts Belldrum. From there you veer into your personal distinctions that you feel deserve specific categorization based on how you see things. Sticks is not a categorization of the instrument. The other 'differences' like Loudly vs. Immersively, Collective vs. Individual, are individual choices of the player. These are all distinctions that you are personally organizing to justify the categorization you make. They do not de-facto indicate the 'correct' instrument categorization.

Aber das kann sein.

=)

Well, I thought I didn't think I had anything more to say, but I found something new.

Skimming through the most recent posts, a new thought occurred to me: one reason there is such a strong division of opinion on terminology may be rooted in culture -- specifically, cultural assumptions about how language is made and used.

I noticed that the people most passionate about not using "handpan" without a discussion and "investigation" before hand, Funky and Ix, are both German speakers.

I do not have this first-hand experience, nor know the specifics of how this "works" -- but I believe it is correct to say that in German speaking countries, especially Germany (but also Austria and Switzerland?) there are governmental bodies (or quasi-governmental cultural institutions) that have responsibility for making decisions about language -- and that these bodies have an implicit "authority" to decide what "true" German is.

In other words, the German language is decided by organized institutions, who have broad influence and responsibility for its evolution.

I learned this only because I was traveling in Germany in '96 when a new dictionary/language guide appeared in every bookstore -- I remember the bright yellow Dudens cover . It detailed major changes in German lexicography, which just been agreed upon by such institutions, for example eliminating the Eszett from official German spelling (ignorant Americans such as myself might call it "that Greek beta" or "B" in Strasse...).

That change in '96 was accomplished by an international treaty of sorts between the principal German-speaking nations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_spe ... rm_of_1996

I am wondering if it a factor in this discussion that in a language-culture like German, in which changes are managed rather than (only) organic, there are some assumptions and beliefs -- about how a language changes, how it should change, how decisions about language are made, and who has "authority" to make them -- that I and other American English speaker do not have?

In American English we have no such bodies, no cultural or political institutions, that can or do make such decisions. Language is understood to be a commons, with no central body or process for making decisions. There is no single authority, even on word spelling; dictionaries compete for "mind share" and some are conventionally assumed to be more authoritative, but that is always a matter of opinion, and no one dictionary is universally acknowledged to be "true" or the "final authority."

Moreover, it is completely "off the radar screen" culturally for Americans to imagine a group, formal or informal, convening to debate and discuss changes in the language, or new terms; and then having any "authority" to do so.

I am wondering, for example, if to a German speaker, used to a more "organized" way of doing things, it might seem inappropriate and presumptive, for an arbitrary individual, such as Kyle Cox, to invent and begin using a term in a public arena...

...though this seems perfectly natural and "normal" to an American English speaker.

This is just a theory that occurred to me... I could be completely mistaken.

But I'm curious now -- Funky, Ix, does this sound like one reason we have been as some say, "talking in circles"? Perhaps we each are in slightly *different* circles!

aaron

These are funny tales about a poor American (out of the land of friidem of wreiting hau ewree uan leiks too freit watt eva hii wunts tuu wreit wenneffer hiiii funts doo fraaaaiiiiit) coming not only to old europe but to Germany the land of speech control where governmental authorities control how citiizen may speak and write (excuse me: speeg end freit)

This is of course completely wrong. Germany is still a democratic country and the freedom of science or art isn't canceled as far as I know.

What you noticed in 1996 was the over years strongly discussed reform of German orthography. These rules are obligatory for schools and administrations. Not for single citizens. Some newspapers decided not to accept the reform for a time.

And there are two important facts to know:

1) Our beloved eszet didn't vanish, as you can see here:
ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß ß
There was only a new strict rule to differentiate between short and long vowels: Die Maße (long vowel) (the dimensions) but die Masse (short vowel) (the mass) was the orthography yet before the reform, but orthography was a bit chaotic with ß or ss. Now it is Pass (passport) (formerly Paß) or Schluss (end or conclusion) (formerly Schluß) because of the short vowels in these words. But the ß in Straße remained because the a in Straße is a long vowel.

2) The reform of orthography doesn't (of course - how can someone really be in doubt about ) affect any questions of concept formation as we discuss them here.

Perhaps is this the big misunderstanding: Funky and I discuss questions of concept formation and you discuss questions of linguistic field researchs?

(or feelt riisortsh as free Americans would write )

Ix

You misunderstand and misrepresent my question.

Please, Ix; you should know I have a much more nuanced and subtle perspective than you imply. And frankly, I am surprised and disappointed at the caricature you seem to make both of me, and of my question.

That question remains unanswered, whether the difference between how German is understood to evolve in German-speaking countries, and how American English is understood to evolve, creates a different set of *unconscious assumptions* about the way language is managed.

This is not a crude point. It is a subtle one -- and it is directly on topic. At least -- it is subtle in American English.

It would be a logical explanation for the very different views you and I (for example) have about the usage of this word, handpan.

Btw another related subtlety that I propose may be at work also, is the difference between what a compound word is in English and in German.

My understanding is that German is very fluid, in the sense that words may be created in a dynamic way as they are needed, by combining other words. The compounds can comprise multiple words. Because they are created "on the fly" these compound words do not appear in a dictionary; one must be already familiar with the component elements -- or at least have intuition about word boundaries -- to look up the component parts. The meaning of the compound is inferred by considering all of its component parts, each of which retains its original identity and meaning.

Compound nouns exist in English in much less dynamic way. They are not introduced by individual speakers dynamically; when they appear, the meaning of the new word subsume the meaning of the component parts in a different way than in German. The words within a compound may lend a sense, or a meaning, but no longer exist within the compound in their original way.

You can guess where I am going. I am suggesting that there is a difference between the English word "handpan" and the German word "Handpan"... one that seems to directly lead to some of the statements made by each side.

Language is a very subtle thing -- but differences between languages, and the way that influences our thought, are often even more subtle.

aaron

I had to caricature your post because you stated that government authorities control language in Germany. To caricature was a polite form to correct this.

You wrote:
"Moreover, it is completely "off the radar screen" culturally for Americans to imagine a group, formal or informal, convening to debate and discuss changes in the language, or new terms; and then having any "authority" to do so."

Did your really think this is different in Germany in the case of terms? Excuse me, but caricature was the only reaction to handle with this assumption.

I see another difference and I'm quite sure that this difference is seen in America as well as in Germany: The difference between common speech and technical language (I'm not sure whether it is the correct term but I hope you understand), and what we discuss here (in my understanding) ist technical language. What you wrote is significant for common speech. But terms of technical language should be discussed carefully and with persons who know what they speak of. So for technical language terms - I'm quite sure - also in America exist "groups" that "debate and discuss changes in the language or new terms".

Perhaps this is another misunderstanding? That some are not aware that we discuss technical terms?

Your second thought (that has nothing to do with that control argumente) is more interesting.

Before I think more about this one question:
Would it make a difference if the term would be "hand pan" instead of "handpan" in American English? By now I read "handpan" as a "germanized" spelling of "hand pan" introduced from Funky as topic title. In american English the title had to be "hand pan".

The two earliest usages of the term uses the spelling "hand pan":

The pantheon website:
http://web.archive.org/web/200712171828 ... ticle&ID=3 (currently the spelling HandPan is used)

And the sub-forum in the Hang-Music Forum:
http://web.archive.org/web/200712110233 ... com/forum/ (currently also the spelling "HangPan" is used)

So we can see an "evolution" of the term from "hand pan" (a pan specified with the word hand) over "HandPan" (an artifical, not usual spelling that highligths Hand as well as Pan) to "handpan" mostly used in this topic.

Ix

Ix, the problem is -- appropriately enough -- on of subtleties of language.

To be 100% clear up front, that is *not* what I stated, nor what I was implying.

For a native speaker, that would (I hope) be quite clear from how I phrased my entire post -- e.g., the use of quotes around the word authority.

It seems I overestimated the extent to which my nuanced meaning would be clear (e.g. to non-native speakers). These things *are* comparatively subtle, even for native speakers, and it appears I need to be more careful.

As that is the case, I assume responsibility for this misunderstanding -- and I apologize for not choosing my phrasing with more care.

In the case of the statement you quote, I put "authority" in quotes exactly because that would communicate precisely that I do NOT think there is some "authority."(!)

I assume that you inferred I was naively (and offensively) applying stereotypes about German culture -- e.g., that German speakers (or German citizens anyway) have an alleged overdeveloped desire for order and to yield to government control or direction.

Since it was not clear enough in my original posting, that that is NOT correct.

That is neither my belief, not was it my insinuation -- indeed, that is exactly why I phrased the part you quote as I did.

(To explain further:

I have used quotations marks "" throughout this discussion, as I do in all my writing, to indicate when I do not agree with a specific, narrow, meaning of a word.

I use quotation marks when a word is under debate, or because it is suspect, or might be under scrutiny, or because while on the surface it is convenient, it is (or may not be) entirely correct...

I use quotation marks when I suspect that a word is not correct in a way that it is important, to make it clear I do not agree with this usage.

Quotation marks carry this valence (perform this function of indicating a problematic word choice) because they suggest that I am quoting some else's more naive use of a word, and by quoting, instead of simply using, the word, I distance myself from that use.)


All of this said,

There still *is* a real difference between any arbitrary pair of cultures (countries, languages, etc.) in how language is considered.

And there *is* a real difference between German -- in which, historically, quasi-governmental or governmental agencies have a real role in shaping official German (even if only in schools) -- and [American] English -- in which there are no similar *central* or federal institutions at all.

Incidentally I did already know that the reforms of '96 (for example) were not simply a dictate that citizens were obligated to adopt, particularly in the case of the Ezsett... I *do* have friends, both American and German, living in Germany... .

So I do not think it is ridiculous to suggest that the instinct to open a disciplined investigation, etc., into the question before us (what to call Hang-like instruments) -- might be stronger, if you live in a culture in which decisions about the development of language *are* made in this institutional way.

However,

I also think your comments about whether or not we are discussing a lay term, or a technical one, may be a better answer as to why there is such a difference of opinion here. I will have to read what you say about that again and consider..

Btw, regarding the space in "hand pan" (or handpan), I had not regarded it as significant (though I prefer handpan, no space, as seems common) -- there are still debates in English publications about whether to use Email, email, or e-mail, for example.

aaron

Hi,

interesting thoughts. I hope, that also in america the children at shool have a common orthography. But this is not so importand for this topic.

Interesting is the question about "common speech and technical language". I also think that we speak more about a technical language if we want to find out what "Handpan" means and if this is the name and general term of this instruments.

It is a difference between "Hand Pan" and "Handpan" and yes, in german language the parts of a word have a meaning (in the most cases).
If you say Handpan you speak about Pan and Hand. In this case you mean a Pan played with Hands.

Please have in mind, that the Hang is an european instrument. It was made in Switzerland. In this country we have not only one language. But the city Bern is part of the german speaking Swiss.
Again. For me it is not understandable, that Kyle want to copy the Hang (that is what he want) and after that he use a "term" for this instrument what has an impact of the Hang and how people speak about the Hang in the future.
I think, that Ixkeys dont like it if we have discussions about ethics and moral in this context. (Yes, we have different views. A few members maybe dont belief this. )
But, it is Kyle who speak about respect for the Hangmakers on his website.

http://halo.pantheonsteel.com/AboutTheHalo.aspx

Quote: "For the past 20 months we have been working to contribute to this art from while respecting the originators by not making a copy of the original..."

Here Kyle say he has respect and dont make a copy. I think he want to make the Halo so similar as he can, but the result is different and so he make this statement.
But where is the "respect" for the Hangmakers if he speak from the Hang as a Pan?
This is much more important. That the Halo is not an exact copy is easy to hear, but it is so similar in shape that the name "Handpan" has the result that people think in the future the Hang is also "Handpan".
In countrys with german language (where the Hang is born) Handpan says to the people that they have a Pan played with hands.
This is not what I have on my lap if I play a Hang.

In this thread a lot of people say "Handpan" means nothing and it is only a new word. Maybe this is realy a result of different language as Aaron said?

I hope this is for a few members something to think about.

Greetings
Frank

Just to make things a little more confusing
I came across the term Pantam
Never heard of it before
Is it me or have you guys heard of it

yes pantam is frequently used instead of hang in the middle east - like israel

To answer to aaron's thoughts about understandability of his posts for people like me: A rule of thumb can be: As longer your post is as more exactly or easier you must formulate to be understood, because as longer a post is as faster I read it. If there is a short post I look more words up I'm not sure. If the post is long I read more words over I'm not sure.



I think this is really an important point.



To be sure I understood you correct: Is it common that there isn't any difference in the understanding of a word if it is written with or without space, or is it only your personal understanding?

This is a question of a non native English speaker. I want to know whether (relating to your argument that in a compound word the original meaning of the single parts can be very weak) it makes a difference if I write "hand pan" or "handpan", "Hang Forum" or "Hangforum", "Hang Blog" or "Hangblog" etc. Is it only a spelling rule or does it touch the meaning in the common reception?

Ix

This is what I found out about Pantam:
http://www.hangblog.org/2007/10/19/hanglexikon/#pantam
Your post just remember me that this keyword is still on my to do list (wow, there is a very important difference in understanding between to-do list and to do list I just found out: A to-do list is a list that contains ballyhoo while a to do list tells me what have to do ) for translating in English.

Ix

Another thought about the understanding of words in different countries or languages:

In my understanding we discuss an international term. So "Pan" is not an english term. It is an international technical term for the steelpan. There should be no difference whether a Swiss or American speaker or someone from Trinidad use it (when it is used as a technical term).

Ix

I'm amazed that no one has addressed this. Either everyone finds this inconsequential, or they are afraid to address it. As this is the third time this subject has been broached with no comment. Or perhaps some feel that I am trolling or bringing up a subject they feel is far from the subject.

With all of these musings on language and use of language, and direction of language.... I know it may be hard to include the emotional or psychological factors that often curve human interpretation. Of course if we were Vulcans ( ; ) ) we would not even consider these factors.

But I put it to this community that the word "pan" began it's separation from the Hang when the pan community rejected the Hang. If the Trinidadians did embrace this new artform, do you think there would be other Hang like instruments now being created by the islanders themselves? And how would this have affected the current market and state of affairs of the Hang and the community that is involved with it.

So you see, a turning point in the evolution of the Hang. A veritable plethora of "what if's? ". And also to consider, IF the TRinidadians DID embrace the Hang..... would the term Handpan, and it's acceptance or use be condoned by them?

I didn't answer to your post because I read it over in that night with so many postings that I went to bed five o clock in the early morning.

You touch a wide field by opening reasoning about psychological effects on the using of terms. Which psychological effects drive each person evolved in this discussion to stand where he stands?

You are right when you assume that rejection of trinidad must have had an important impression on Felix feelings. But I think it is not important for our discussen whether Felix was driven by emotions after the rejection to develop the Hang in another direction than the pan or whether he had already begun to do this in that point of time. Fact is that PANArt developed the Hang from the early first generation to the IH in another direction than the pan. And this other direction you can hear an feel if you play the Hang (not only the IH but also the 2nd generation or the Low Hang) - even those of us who are completely clueless about Felix's (surely existing) psychology.

Ix

Hi,

@Danny. I dont answer on your thoughts, because I dont know a lot of about the feelings of Felix and Sabina about this topic. I also dont know the complete context. And I think without that it is not possible for me to say anything about that.
But i also think that this is not important for this discussion. I think a lot of about this story is "know from hearsay".
For me this is a very personally discussion on Felix feelings.
It is different thing if I say: "Felix told me that..." or a discussion about the feeling he had on this topic.
Nobody knows, how he felt. Nobody knows how much on this story is fact...
The only one who can say something about this is Felix. But he is not involved on this discussion. And so I think to speak about his feelings on this topic dont bring this discussion in any other direction.

Greetings
Frank

I agree 100%, which is why I think nobody 'took the bait' on your question, Danny.

To postulate how things might be different based on the feelings of a third party isn't a friendly discussion, it feels more like unskillful speech (gossip).

I totally understand where you and Frank and Ix are coming from. And though there is no "proper" or written account, I perhaps took the general thought that Felix was indeed rejected by the Trinidadian community and viewed it as fact. Though I cannot accurately confirm this, I believe that no one can discount the fact either.

After this, I stray into speculation, perhaps heard through "the grapevine", that this rejection was not taken lightly. Again, I know this is not hard fact, but it cannot be fully discounted either.

The reason I went down this path is because if the Hang is truly viewed as an extension of the artist's soul, then along those same lines, the creation of the art, and the soul it embodies will be affected by pivotal event as this may have been.

I postulate that a psychological separation of "Pan" may have been rooted in such an event. As Felix has stated that "The Hang is DEFINITELY not a pan." Yes, perhaps for every technical reason as has been presented here. But, can any one person here say that an artist (an ARTIST, mind you) is truly not susceptible to shame, rejection or humiliation?

And for me, a certain validity in perspective comes from wondering, if the Trinidadians did embrace the Hang, would we even be having this discussion. At that speculative point, would it be "ok" to refer to these instruments as Handpan, IF the Trinidadians did recognize the Hang as it were initially presented. What IF some panmakers there decided to start creating their own version of the Hang? Would that alter the technical definition of the Handpan as it is now (apparently) seen by the islanders?

Right now we are relying on the basic premise that since the term handpan is soundly rejected by the islanders, and it is also as such with Panart, that the term, handpan, is improper. And we can further extrapolate to that effect with other facts.

So..... forgive me (again) for seeming to troll or 'bait' people as has been stated. But to me, this IS a key turning point in the evolution and perception of the Hang. Speculation may be attributed (somewhat) to my perception of how the man may have felt after being rejected and laughed at. But there is fact in the statement "the Trinidad and Tobagans DID indeed reject the Hang and laugh at it's creator." And it is that initial rejection "I" feel is a very pivotal moment in the evolution of the Hang. AND how the artist decided how he wanted his creation to be viewed by the public.

Feel free to not comment. And also understand, that I was not the first to bring this subject up in this thread. So maybe i was the gullible one to initially 'take the bait'.

To be sure I understood you correct: Is it common that there isn't any difference in the understanding of a word if it is written with or without space, or is it only your personal understanding?

This is a question of a non native English speaker. I want to know whether (relating to your argument that in a compound word the original meaning of the single parts can be very weak) it makes a difference if I write "hand pan" or "handpan", "Hang Forum" or "Hangforum", "Hang Blog" or "Hangblog" etc. Is it only a spelling rule or does it touch the meaning in the common reception[/quote]

To answer your question:

Every difference touches the meaning, of course...

It is definitely true that there is a subtle, but real, difference between "handpan" and "hand pan" in English.

The space makes makes the words keep their original meaning more strongly.

It is typical that a new compound (like "hand pan") is used first with a space, but then as the new word gains currency and people understand what it means, the space disappears.

When the space disappears, the original meanings become less important, because the new compound now "means" the thing referenced.

After the space disappears, you have the situation I described for compound words in English -- when the "original" meaning of each part contributes to meaning, but does not define it anymore. As the English idiom says, "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts." 1 + 1 = 3. (or, "handpan" > "hand" + "pan"... ).

When I said I was not paying much attention to the space, I did not mean that it does not matter -- only, that it did not seem to be what we were discussing.

My own preference is for "handpan" one word, because when the word has no space, it implies that this is a *new* thing, not just a "pan-played-by-the-hands," which is of course -- true.

More interesting:

If we agree that "handpan" is a common term, and is not a technical term, does that make it acceptable?

Me, I have been writing about or interested in the common usage...

aaron