Wki Theremin Page For Second Gen / Modern Thereminists

One of the many problems with the people's encyclopedia - WIKIPEDIA - is that is has become an international forum for self-promotion and aggrandizement.

Hobbyists, dilettantes and enthusiasts of all sorts are trying to weave themselves into history - while others who are competing with them, or who feel that they ought to be the arbiters of what is acceptable and what is not, are trying to delete or rewrite references they don't approve of.

We have already had examples of this kind of silliness in the theremin community.

Just a few years ago, if you did a search for "theremin" on Google, you would be directed to a tiny handful of websites. Now there are well over one million references, and thousands of videos posted to public access websites (well over 5000 on YouTube alone).

Fortunately it is not us, but history itself, that ultimately decides who is to be enshrined in its sacred halls.

[i]"One of the many problems with the people's encyclopedia - WIKIPEDIA - is that is has become an international forum for self-promotion and aggrandizement." - Coalport [/i]

I could not agree more - I also feel that even with the best intentioned editing, and even if the Wiki rules are scrupulously applied, ANY naming of "notable" living Thereminists is likely to lead to ill feeling and injustice.. We have already seen this happen... And the Theremin community is too small and has too few truly "notable" people for the sort of CR*P which has plagued the Wiki page recently to go unnoticed.

Is it possible to limit the potential for "self-promotion and aggrandizement" by only ever naming players (and here I mean Thereminists, inventor/s, producers) who are no longer "active" (deceased or retired) and whom history has unambiguously 'declared' great?

OR - IF living / active persons are included, I feel that the rules regarding them having been independently referenced in a publication should be a lot tighter.. I have contacts who could easily get articles about/from me published in several magazines, and therebye technically qualify for inclusion in Wiki, even though I would have absolutely no right to be there .. Getting published in "New Scientist" or "Scientific American" or "Nature" is an entirely different thing to getting published in "Hobby Electronics" or "EPE" or "Nuts + Volts" !
-- So I feel the criterion should be tightened up to exclude "trivial" journals.[i] (ok - I admit that defining "trivial" could be a problem.. but I think 'principle' of what I am saying here is obvious - even if its application is a lot more difficult)[/i]

My feeling is that there are some undesputed "greats" - And most (if not all) of these people are dead. There are a handfull of living people who [b]I[/b] would be happy to see named - but there are many more who [b]MAY[/b] be as worthy of inclusion [i](and some who I would choose may not be worthy of inclusion)[/i] - and while these people are in competition with each other, and while there is any dispute about their "greatness", and until history has wiped away any doubt or uncertainty, I feel that [b]NONE[/b] of these people should be included.

It would be nice if possible "notables" all had the humility demonstrated recently by a certain (in my opinion, great) Thereminist / Organist / Multi-instrumentalist, in declining a nomination to the Wiki page.. I think history may well place him on Wiki when he is no longer able to object! ;-)

Finally - Is there any REAL glory in being on Wiki? - In my opinion, the answer is no.. While living persons can get themselves glorified and promoted, when mentally deranged "cartoonists" can peddle their toxic warez on this "encyclopedia", and while historic precedent is not required, Wiki is, and will remain, mostly BULLS**T.

Several months ago, there was a Wikipedia article that praised the Canadian government for something that the author of the article thought was laudable. Members of the opposition, delving into exactly who the author of the article was, found that the entry had been written and posted by the government itself!!

The article was promptly deleted and all official responsibility denied by Ottawa. Any appearance of misconduct was attributed to an overly zealous, rogue civil servant.

Last year, the Wikipedia "theremin" entry was graced with a large color photo of German thereminist Carolina Eyck. I felt at the time that this was highly inappropriate and said so on the Levnet. Perhaps I should point out that had the picture been of me, I would have found it equally objectionable.

The current article shows color jpegs of both Carolina Eyck and Lydia Kavina. I find it curious that neither Leon Theremin himself nor the greatest theremin virtuoso who ever lived, Clara Rockmore, are anywhere to be seen!

Samuel Hoffman, the only thereminist ever to have a theremin "million seller" recording, and who is without doubt the most "heard" thereminist who ever lived, is given a single, brief (and highly dismissive) mention in a paragraph about the use of the theremin in fright films: "...the thereminist most commonly enlisted to perform anything from haunting melodies to eerie sound effects was Dr. Samuel Hoffman.....". So much for Dr. Hoffman.

Louis and Bebe Barron are given as much coverage in the article for not ever having used a theremin at all!

We are informed that, "The Homestar Runner universe character Homsar plays a theremin in the 2008 point-and-click adventure game Strong Bad's Cool Game for Attractive People - Episode 3: Baddest of the Bands.....", but nowhere in the article is there even a mention of Lucie Bigelow Rosen who toured tirelessly in the early years, who commissioned a number of important works for the theremin, and who backed Leon Theremin financially, making it possible for him to continue his work in America. She has a chapter in Glinsky's book, but not so much as a nod in this ridiculous Wikipedia article.

Am I the only one here to find this absurd?

I should point out that the article itself is very nicely written and spellchecked but, in my opinion, it is skewed, unbalanced and misguided. I do not doubt the sincerity of its author(s), whoever he, she or they may be, but I do find them highly partisan.

It is my impression that in an effort not to offend (or God forbid OMIT) any living thereminist, the thereminists of yesteryear, to whom the thereminists of today owe everything, have been short changed.

Dead thereminists make no objections to the way they are treated in such articles. Living ones, on the other hand, have objected loudly to the Wikipedia theremin article. I noticed that the late Bob Sexton, whose Etherwave theremin instruction book is available from Moog Music, is nowhere to be found.

I think that to suggest all this is a tempest in a teapot is an exaggeration. Other than those who are actually mentioned in the article, I doubt that there is anyone in the world who cares one bit about what is written, or what is omitted, in this laughable exercise in political correctness.

Coalport, and Fred M,

This is exactly the kind of input I'm looking for.

Coalport, I agree with your question as to why none of the other original thereminists, and Saxton were mentioned. They really should be there.

This is giving me much to consider.

Thanks for your input.

[i]"One of the many problems with the people's encyclopedia - WIKIPEDIA - is that is has become an international forum for self-promotion and aggrandizement." - Coalport [/i]

I also agree with this sentiment. It seems to me there are two classes of thereminists - those who have become well-known based on their skill, and those who have become well-known through self-promotion. The latter typically is less skilled than the former.

My eldest daughter Alissa, 13 years old, is actually in a "discussion phase". But every time I hear from her "But wikipedia says..." I always cut the discussion with the phrase "Wikipedia is written by amateurs for amateurs".

[i]"I also agree with this sentiment. It seems to me there are two classes of thereminists - those who have become well-known based on their skill, and those who have become well-known through self-promotion. The latter typically is less skilled than the former."[/i]

Well, this is the same issue with any class of musician. Both Pavarotti and Madonna are well-known "singers".

What I proposed to Thomas in e-mail is that the Wiki "Theremin" article have most references to players moved to a separate article "Thereminsts". This allows the article to focus on the [i]instrument[/i], which is ostensibly what the article is about. This is very common in Wikipedia, to avoid 'article creep", where the entries start to creep beyond the actual subject.

Probably, the only players mentioned should be Lev Theremin himself, and possibly Rockmore, as she was the first widely-known player, and was very involved in the original development of the instrument. Other than that, there would be only a link to "Sub-Article: Thereminsts".

In the sub-article, it could be broken into "early" and "modern". All the regulations that apply to biographical entries on living persons would apply.

Unfortunately, this means that the "self-promoting" thereminists are more likely to be the ones included, because Wiki bases the validity of entries on [i] verifiability[/i], not "fact" or even "truth".

Persons mentioned in the article could only be those who have been covered in other published media. This is how (supposedly) Wikipedia avoids shameless self-promotion. The idea being that Wiki articles only [i]report[/i] what information is already available in reputable media publications.

So if a particular thereminist has a recording released by a major record label, or has been the subject of a article in a large circulation newspaper or magazine, or is mentioned in a book from a major publishing house, that thereminist is qualified for a Wiki entry. His or her ability or talent as a musician is entirely irrelevant, as are the opinions of other thereminsts.

So, the article section on "Modern Thereminists" can only include persons who have a recording contract or have been covered in major media publications. World Wide Web references don't count, and neither do self-published books or self-produced recordings.

I think it's doable, though it may not be considered fair by some. If people come along and try to add new persons to the listing of "modern thereminists", any that don't have external, reputable references will be quickly (and rightly) deleted.

Presumably the proposed sub-article would be allied to the "Category page" [i]Theremin players[/i].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theremin_players

(An automatically generated page (If I understand wikipedia correctly) of some people who are notable by wikipedia standards and play the theremin - not necessarily people who are notable because they play the theremin.)




(I encourage my children to use wikipedia, and to be aware of its limitations.)

Joe Max wrote:

Probably, the only players mentioned should be Lev Theremin himself, and possibly Rockmore, as she was the first widely-known player, and was very involved in the original development of the instrument. Other than that, there would be only a link to "Sub-Article: Thereminsts".

*********************

With all due respect to Joe Max, I think this illustrates the wider problem with Wikipedia; namely that the people who are making the decisions about what to post to the site, however passionate they may be, are perhaps not always the best informed individuals for the subjects.

Clara Rockmore was not involved in any way in the original development of the theremin, and did not even begin to play the instrument until after the RCA was already in circulation. IMNSHO, any article on the history of the theremin that fails to mention Samuel Hoffman is seriously lacking.

On a slightly different subject, with all the talk this month in the media of the 40th anniversary of the 1969 moon landing, no one has mentioned that astronaut Neil Armstrong took his personal tape copy (from his own private collection) of Samuel Hoffman's MUSIC OUT OF THE MOON with him on the Apollo mission and played the recording in space.

......just a bit of theremin trivia.

It is sad that Clara and others are only given a passing mention. Is it not true that some posters have attempted to "set the record straight" with respect to our historical heritage, only to have these references deleted? Is there an agenda at play here?

In any event, writing about onesself is always suspect.

Personally, folks such as Uncle Howie, Peter, et al, deserve more than a blurb. I know that Uncle is a very modest man, but his contributions and encouragement to all of us should not go unnoticed.

Philip Neidlinger