Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeDidgeridoo was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
May 30, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed

Quality of this article[edit]

This article seems to have deteriorated over time, there are comments that have been inserted that are totally whacky they are verging on the pure fantasy such as the didgeridoo being used as a weapon and for smoking drugs. Simply not true. There needs to be concerted effort to edit this article to bring it up to scratch. The article seems to have been neglected for some time. --Rainbow warrior (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I added pictures of didgeridoo on the french wikipedia, use it freely :

Aoineko 13:39 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

Why is the photo showing an example of non-traditional instrument? If there is only one photo, I think it is more appropriate to show a traditional, Aboriginal instrument. The other alternative would be a show a range of instruments from the traditional to the modern and include examples of innovations like the didjeribone, didjbox, alternative materials, etc. If there is just one photo, it would be much better to show a traditional instrument as the example.--Pdhadley 02:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current photo needs to be revisited. The current photo depicts instruments that do not in any way resemble instruments being produced today by Aboriginal people in Arnhem Land and adjacent regions of the Northern Territory, the region of the instrument's likely origin, so the use of the "traditional" label to mark these as somehow distinct from the purported "souvenir" bamboo didjeridu is somewhat dubious. I'd also like to echo Pdhadley's call for either a range of instruments or an instrument reflecting a long-standing craftsmanship tradition. I'd suggest that there either needs to be a photo including some alternative materials and recent innovations alongside more typical eucalyptus didjeridus, or there should be a photo of a single instrument made by a specific and well-reputed Aboriginal craftsman and a comment with attribution to that effect.--Pacdidj (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not fussed on which photos of the Didjeridoo is up there as long as it is an Australian Didjeridoo! One from it's origins are better. But no point in having some hippie protesting about wall street while playing a fake indonesian bamboo instrument which is ripping off our culture. Isn't he complaining about wall street ripping the world off while our culture is being ripped off. I would prefer to have these instruments banned from being imported and are ultimately so very bad for your health. However, until that time, please try a picture of a real Didjeridoo! These fake Didjeridoos are killing our culture through pride and economics! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The photo on this main page depicting a "traditonally crafted and decorated" didgeridoo is actually a mass-produced instrument for tourist trade and is not a traditionally decorated instruments. It may not even be made by Aborignals, and it is certainly not traditionally decorated. Such a photo is not appropriate. Please change the photo. I can supply photos if you need them.

Hmarin (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's how to upload a photo so it can be used on all language versions of Wikipedia and all Wikimedia projects. It's probably easiest if you upload one that you've taken yourself. Graham87 14:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure if I did it right, but I uploaded a photo:

Hmarin (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, you didn't do it right ... the photo needs a license tag (I recommend {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} and should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons rather than here so it can be used on other language versions of Wikipedia. If you like, I can upload it for you instead, but in that case, I'd need to get permission by email; you can email me at for more details. I think imbedding sound samples and/or videos in this article would be a good idea as well ... I can help set that up as well if you like. Graham87 06:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For some reason I can log into Wikipedia but Commons doesn't recognize my username/password. So I sent you the photo. Thanks. Hmarin (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Wikipedia's page on unified login, you need to go to Special:MergeAccount so that your username will be recognised on Wikimedia Commons. If that doesn't work, try creating the account on Commons with the same username and password as your account here, then going to that MergeAccount page here at the English Wikipedia. I thought the process was automatic, but obviously not! By the way, did you get my follow-up email? Graham87 03:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've uploaded the image and put it at the top of the article. I hope I did it right ... as it says on my user page, I'm totally blind, so I don't really know what I'm doing with image placement. Tweak the caption as you wish ... but I'm not sure how much space there is there! The caption for "E" might need fixing; "very fine", as you wrote on the image description page, isn't really appropriate per the neutral point of view policy – perhaps briefly describe its similarities/differences to traditionally crafted instruments? Graham87 14:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks great, thank you. I cannot edit the photo's caption, so feel free to make the caption more neutral, as you mentioned above.Hmarin (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why can't you edit the photo's caption? I mean the actual caption on the Wikipedia article, not the file description on Commons (which is completely fine): you should be able to edit the text on the seventh line here if you want to. Graham87 01:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With all the chopping and changing of didge performer photos we have ended up with two photos and one video of non-aboriginal buskers in other countries, and none of an Aboriginal player in Australia. This does not really make a lot of sense. We need to stop replacing the photos with pictures of ourselves or our mates busking in Barcelona or Manhattan and focus on the subject matter. I would love to see a picture of the young master uploaded but do not have one of my own to use. Djapa Owen (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is the correct spelling didgeridoo or didjeridoo? I'm seeing both spellings here. Can someone clean up the page with the correct spelling? Cheers

I would suggest that the top pic of the didg. have a caption mentioning that this example is much more ornate than many others. Most that I have seen have a very simple exterior design, if any. Matt gies 02:54, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done - but does it need more explanation? Evercat 03:01, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, is Digeridoo a valid spelling? I see it redirects here - therefore the Aphex Twin track with that (deliberate?) mis-spelling could I suppose be mentioned here, but is it really worth mentioning a single song on the article? Evercat 03:05, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The preferred academic spelling is to go with the phonetic spelling, didjeridu, since it is a onomatopoeic term. --Pdhadley 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links vs. adverts[edit] removed some of the external links because there were too many commercial adverts. First off, It's as Irish as - er - didgeridoo is a link to an article about the etymology of didgeridoo at Flinders University, not an advert. A couple of the others, although they may be commercial sites have useful and relevant content, e.g. mp3 and flash files.

I don't know if the others are problematic (I haven't looked at them, but they're not bothering me by being there), but maybe a more detailed comment here would be in order before deleting them. —Moilleadóir 08:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We really need to be more discerning what external links are allowed. Too many commercial sites and hobby sites with little or no useful information are infiltrating the links section. To be included, a site should be a reference site with authoratative information. Compare with the feature article on Emu which only has 2 external links. More non-web references are required for this article. --Rainbow warrior 22:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've joined the fight against the digeridoostore spammer also - keep up your spirits - we'll get him in the end. he's now got a named account so we can perhaps have a better chance of getting him blocked? Whitehatnetizen 00:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User Template[edit]

A didg template for the Babel box is now available, the details are on the Wikipedia:Instruments page. - Rooivalk 01:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The increasing additions of purported Irish Gaelic language origins for the name didgeridoo seems excessive, and highly implausible. Badagnani 16:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an Irish speaker it seems highly unlikely to me too, but worth a reference. I made an edit three years ago to try and make it clear that this was only a theory and not generally accepted. What I don’t think we need is the completely unsourced (imagined?) story about the British officer and 'Gaelic' aide, which I plan to remove shortly. It’s interesting to see how these folk etymologies get talked up though. ☸ Moilleadóir (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Too many "famous" musicians[edit]

There seem to be far too many musicians listed, most of whom are a long way down the notoriety stakes and wouldn't get a look in for any other instrument. Should we establish some criteria for inclusion such as independent, reputable press? Linking to the owner's own commercial web sites doesn't help. Garglebutt / (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah.@Rainbow warrior, yeah. 2600:6C58:4D3F:518B:2D83:985F:B4EC:4D0B (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree that applying some criteria would help. I share the feeling that half of the names are perhaps self proclaimed famous. Some ideas for criteria: - independent press/reviews (as suggested by Garglebutt) - voting principle? however, who can vote? when does someone have enough votes? - website with also objective background info (either about the player or the band) that proves the fact of being "famous" - having toured in more than one country? with gigs, workshops? - special cases?

Please add and comment :-)

Should voting be an option, here's my first reaction:

Jay Atwood Perhaps
William Barton Perhaps
David Blanasi DEFINITELY!
Andy Billings no?
Wallis Buchanan Perhaps
John Butler perhaps?
Bruce Copley no?
Ash Dargan YES
Stuart Dempster Perhaps?
Darryl Dikarrna Don't know
Ernie Dingo No?
Grahm Doe No?
Douglas Ewart No?
Tom Fronza No
Ganga Giri Yes!
Andy Graham Yes
Rob Grant No?
Rupert Grint No
Djalu Gurruwiwi DEFINITELY!
Rolf Harris Yes
David Hudson Yes!
Marko Johnson Yes
Scott Johnson No?
Stephen Kent Yes!
Jeremy Lembo Perhaps??
Christian Lindberg No?
Wandjuk Marika Yes?
Charlie McMahon DEFINITELY
Adam Plack Yes!
Xavier Rudd Yes!
Manfred Scheffknecht No?
Will Seachnasaigh No?
Stephen Wehmeyer No
Graham Wiggins Yes
David Williams Yes

Gapanbulu Yunupingu Perhaps
Makuma Yunupingu Perhaps
Yomunu Yunupingu Perhaps

Tom Evans Don't know
Rob Fraser No?
Natalie Small No?
Charlie Small No?
Talle E. Wacker No?

Didgeweb 16:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Any list that is longer than about 10 is pointless. The list should only include the most notable players and probably also include a brief description of why they are more notable than the millions of other didg players in the world. Ashmoo 01:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would suggest getting rid of the notable players section altogether. Take a look at Guitar which is an instrument notorious for big egos and self-proclaimed masters... there is no notable players section there. From an Australian point of view, of those on the list, only David Blanasi, Djalu Gurruwiwi, and Alan Dargin would qualify as standout musicians who would have longevity as far as being remembered in the future is concerned. Let's start trimming the list or get rid of it altogether.--Rainbow warrior 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One way that other instruments do it is simply having a "didgeridoo players" in the individual Wiki articles. But not all of the didj players have their own Wiki articles. Badagnani 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Badagnani, maybe that could be one criteria...? If a didj player struggles with having their own Wiki article, then maybe that signals that they are insignificant. Also, significance should not be confused with commercial success. David Hudson for example is hugely successful commercially because of mass-marketing of his CDs in every tourist and gift shop in Australia, but musically he is not much different to scores of semi-professional and amateur didj players. For the article on Didgeridoo to be useful, if we are to include the names of famous didgeridoo players it should be because they have established benchmarks of some sort or are distinguishing in some way. Who are the Babe Ruths, Muhammad Alis and Donald Bradmans of the didgeridoo world? We want Hall of Fame didgeridoo players, not run-of-the-mill musicians who have toured a lot or sold a lot of CDs. Blanasi qualifies because he was regarded by his contemporaries as the best for his genre, and was also significant for helping to popularise the instrument on a global scale decades ago... it could be said that he started it all. Djalu Gurruwiwi qualifies because almost every self-respecting didj player in the world knows the name. Dargin qualifies because he was arguably the first to develop a style of play that was fast, exciting and rhythmic and which gave other players the inspiration to develop similar styles beyond the 'kangaroo hop' gimick.--Rainbow warrior 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feels to me that we're converging to a small number of "notable"? :-) . David Blanasi, Djalu Gurruwiwi, perhaps Alan Dargin, and IMHO surely Charlie McMahon (check his wiki page). Didgeweb 05:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That isn't a comprehensive list. Many different people use the instrument in their own ways, and this is, I feel, a too-selective list. If the instrument does become like the guitar (i.e. thousands of notable players), we can simply use the "Didgeridoo players" cat within the articles for each musician, and/or split off a separate article "List of notable didgeridoo players." I'd prefer doing both. Badagnani 05:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Didgeweb, hi Badagnani - we must ask ourselves the merits of including any names first of all. How does it contribute to our knowledge of the didgeridoo? My fear is that a list will just grow and grow as every player especially those who make a living from performance or recording will want to be added. And it will be a tough job deciding just who is notable or famous. To me Charlie McMahon is notable but not Hall of Fame stuff. The article on Charlie is comprehensive, however just because a guy has a lot of information about himself in the public domain, especially material that is self-promoting, does not necessarily mean he or she is notable or famous. Charlie is an innovator and his use of technology to aid his playing and his music is something that is different, and this alone I think provides some substance to his notability. A lot of the biographical info in Charlie's article is irrelevant to his didgeridoo playing... 4 paragraphs on the movie Jedda?! Badagnani, I understand your point and agree with your sentiments. However, we still need standards or criteria for helping us understand how a didj player is notable or famous. My feeling is that it can be a very personal thing, and deciding on criteria can be difficult under these conditions. For example, how do we decide if a didgeridoo player who uses the instrument for healing purposes is indeed notable? Is it how many 'patients' he or she has healed? On the guitar analogy, I would not agree that there are thousands of notable players. The notable players that come to my mind are only a handful... the best of the best. If you pick up a reference book on guitars or guitar playing, you would not find thousands of names but only a select few, those who were exceptional or stood out for some reason or other. Imagine we were to write a definitive book on the didgeridoo or didgeridoo playing... which of the 'notable' names would you include, and more importantly, WHY? Dozens of names to me would be overkill.--Rainbow warrior 07:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you wish to use him as an example, McMahon is, IMO, the senior/most important non-Aboriginal player, of course an innovator as well. The biography grew larger and larger because editors had an interest and dug up info (much of which was extremely obscure and McMahon himself could hardly remember). So, contrary to your implication, the information wasn't all easy to come by. It is now more comprehensive than the artist's own website, something I see nothing wrong with. Other players have their own stories and their own notability for what they have done with the instrument. Badagnani 08:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please set off comments from one another by the use of indents rather than making them all the same indent, thanks. Badagnani 08:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know Charlie personally so it is difficult to take a 'long-distance' look if u know what I mean. To me, he is just a regular guy. What Charlie has is that he was one of the first to make a living out of the didgeridoo, so on that count is he indeed a senior player. If I was to pick up a hypothetical definitive book on the didgeridoo, I guess I would expect to see Charlie's name in there somewhere but I would be embarassed if he was to be given more space than say David Blanasi or Djalu Gurruwiwi.--Rainbow warrior 08:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have met David, Djalu, and Charlie (and many more), and I agree that I could not / would not give any one of them more or less credit. IMHO all three of them have / had their own impact in how the didge became known and how it's played. I see Charlie mainly as the main western player and lots of now also known players have been greatly influenced by him. Next to that he looked at the didge as also a melodic instrument, making sure it is tuned to other instruments. And he's not afraid of using new technology :-) . But then again, this is my view on the "notable" players ;-) Didgeweb 09:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who is going to be bold then to edit out the non-notable players? Wikipedia urges contributors to be bold when writing and editing. Someone's gotta do it. Btw, Wandjuk Marika also counts in my books as a famous didgeridoo player. He was apparently the first didgeridoo player to be recorded in a studio. And he also played for that Green Ants Dreaming movie, as well as having been a prominent Australian on a number of counts. We should start an article on him I reckon.--Rainbow warrior 10:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Badagnani suggested that if a person has put out CDs and has studied with someone well known like Djalu Gurruwiwi, that could qualify for notable status. How do people feel about that? It is a pretty relaxed set of criteria because if we took this on board, there would literally be thousands who have released CDs and many many hundreds who have studied with Djalu Gurruwiwi. If you listen to John Groves' playing, you will discern that there is nothing notable about it... pretty much run-of-the-mill stuff. That is just my opinion, what you others think? Shall we include Groves and if so should we similarly include everyone else who has released CDs and/or studied with Djalu? --Rainbow warrior 03:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just having a CD out and having studied with Djalu would qualify me as "notable" too (perhaps I am? ;-) ). Just as -I guess- at least 4 or 5 other Dutch didge players. IMHO there needs to be just that special thing that makes you indeed notable, and this is not just being a good player or having had lessons from a notable player. It's IMHO about standing out in a certain way, being recognized by quite a few good players in more than one country as well. Didgeweb 05:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Didgeweb, I agree with you on your point about being standing out in a certain way, but I would question whether recognition by a few good players in different countries is appropriate for indigenous players in Australia? See my comments below. There are some incredible players in remote communities in the Top End for example which the Western world has not heard of. Perhaps we could assemble a panel of experts in order determine who is and isn't notable? Experts could be accomplished didgeridoo performers and recording artists or musicologists who have an understanding on indigenous music. --Rainbow warrior 09:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then on the philosophical tour: is an incredibly good indigenous player, who is not really known to many people a notable player? What makes someone notable? E.g. Rod Stewart is IMHO not a singer with a great voice, yet he is quite a notable singer.... ;-) Didgeweb 12:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point Didgeweb. Why did we end up with a notable players section anyway? Instead of famous players, or amazing players. What is the point of it all, and how does it contribute to our knowledge of didgeridoo? I'm still asking myself that question and can't find an answer. If we look at articles on Wikipedia that have been singled for their excellence, they bring home to me the point that articles should be serious, well-researched, and authoritative pieces of writing. When I read the didgeridoo article, it kind of appears weak and bogged down by trivia and trivial things. Like the notable players section. The facts section. They seem like titbits of information that do not add to a coherent whole, when looking at the article as a complete piece of writing. It diminishes the didgeridoo and treats it as it has been in the colonial past: when the didgeridoo was nothing more than a novelty and a gimmick to European settlers in Australia. If people don't mind, I'd like to try to extend the didgeridoo article to give it more depth and more seriousness.--Rainbow warrior 13:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mind, however I do wonder if your "trial" should go directly on-line, or if we can discuss section by section e.g. in the discussion page? Especially when you plan on making big changes.

On the notable section: I can fully live with a "famous" section, where in my view I would like Djalu, David Blanasi, Charlie McMahon and perhaps Rolf Harris (apparently having brought the didge to attention in the UK and further?). And that's about it AFAIK. When starting re-writing, perhaps also check what is written in "the didgeridoo from Arnhemland to the Internet" (have to find it, I should have it somewhere). Didgeweb 17:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "notable" section gets IMHO way too big and doesn't serve any purpose anymore. If nothing happens and no one objects, I'll trim it to 5 players max. I am considering moving people to a new wikipedia page called "people who think they can play didgeridoo really cool" (or something similar) :-)

Here's my proposed list:

  • David Blanasi (To bring the traditional playing to the Western World, "The bomb")
  • Djalu Gurruwiwi (For his superb yidakis and for sharing the traditional playing, e.g. at Garrma)
  • Rolf Harris (For bringing the didge into attention in the Western World)
  • Charlie McMahon (For making the didge a truly musical instrument)

Didgeweb 04:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's very much too selective a list. But I'm not averse to moving the entire list to a separate page (without such a jokey name). Badagnani 05:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suppose we call it "Top 5 notable players", who should be on that list? More than 5 IMHO doesn't make sense for a didgeridoo wikipedia page. The jokey name was inspired by the latest addition of a self-proclaimed witch-doctor, who thinks he's a really cool player, because he played with a few good players. Duh! If that's a criterium, the list will blow up in days. (Sorry for being blunt and direct here). But I'm in to any sensible name, as long as the page also remains sensible. Just expanding the list IMHO reduces the value of this didgeridoo page. Cheers Didgeweb 05:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, five is way too few. Compared to saxophone players, or trombonists, or whatever, of which there are probably hundreds (we do have lists of such players), there are many fewer good didge players, maybe dozens at most. If the objection is getting very strong, we can move the list to a separate article. Rather than having a list of players in this article, we can have a paragraph or two that actually describe some of the top players and why they're the top of their field. There are also notable players who are not Australian and who came to the instrument from the trombone, such as Stuart Dempster. Badagnani 06:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A "paragraph or two that actually describes some of the top players and why they're the top of their field" sounds a lot better to me than the current list, where every would-be good player wants to be on. And I do not object to a separate "well-known didge players" page (or whatever we call it). It would clean up the actual didgeridoo page a lot. I believe Wiki has a means to have such a didge players page generated automatically when adding a tag on the different wiki pages of the individual players worthy to have a wiki page (but I'm not that well known into the full Wiki stuff). Didgeweb 06:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With all due respect, but the Notable Player section is becoming more or more dominant than the actual information about the didge. This way I cannot take this section truly serious anymore. There are people on this list that IMHO are really not notable at all, or notable must be degraded to something that to me becomes equal to "having recorded something", or "being able to play didgeridoo better than your average neighbour". If the "notable" section is required, I would strongly suggest to limit the list to max 5 players, or otherwise make it a separate page. Didgeweb 07:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I support removing the list to a separate page (let's do it if we agree), keeping several notable players in this article, but in a paragraph summarizing their achievements (the famous Aboriginal players, the first white Australians to learn, Rolf Harris and Yothu Yindi, etc.) rather than a list. We'll continue to monitor the list page, removing people who are not notable for anything, as we've been doing quite well. Badagnani 08:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree :-) , as long as the achievement list is indeed restricted to say 5 (more or less) at most and doesn't become a second long list.
Here's my first proposal:
  • David Blanasi (To bring the traditional playing to the Western World, "The bomb")
  • Djalu Gurruwiwi (For his superb yidakis and for sharing the traditional playing, e.g. at Garrma)
  • Rolf Harris (For bringing the didge into attention in the Western World)
  • Charlie McMahon (For making the didge a truly musical instrument)
  • Yothu Yindi (For being the first Australian Aboriginal band to use the instrument in rock)

Didgeweb 10:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • You have good taste--the only one I'd add to this would be Graham Wiggins, for his use of didge in a techno/dance setting, exploration of the didge's acoustics from his physics background, and construction of the first keyed didge. There are various other Aboriginal players who are quite good, like Alan Dargin (he's played didge with symphony orchestra?) and a number of trombone players who double on didge, like Stuart Dempster, having been attracted via the similarity of the two instruments; I think this phenomenon can/should also be described in a sentence. Badagnani 10:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks :-) B.t.w. apart from Rolf I've met them all ;-)
Adding Graham -Dr. Didge- Wiggins is definitely an option. But in my view mainly for the physics exploration (so he could also be in the text part of the didge page). In the Techno/Dance setting there are more. Further not only Alan played with an orchestra, so did e.g. David Hudson (Nessun Dorma, though not a "notorious" combination IMHO) and several others. The link with other brass instruments sounds like a good one for the text version, i.e. circular breating on sax and trumpet, with one or two names mentioned. Didgeweb 10:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wikipedia does not accept links to sites that are primarily commercial in nature. Furthermore, the purpose of links, as described in WP:EL is to enhance the content of the article. The links that I have removed, and am about to remove again, are not acceptable per this policy. Please do not replace them. I would strongly suggest re-evaluating the list of "notable" players. One might well argue that if they have never received an independent review which can be properly sourced, they are inherently non-notable. I will probably get back to this in the future to review and remove non-notable entries if no one else does it in the meantime. Doc Tropics 07:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, nobody appointed you as the judge of notability. As with everything we do at Wikipedia, this is a decision left to the community. In that case, that means the active editors here. We do need to respect one another, and I do take offense at your tone (and failure to respond to the valid points I have raised in my edit summaries). Badagnani 07:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have to agree with Badagnani. It feels to me that Doc acts as if he is self-appointed manager of links. Also his arguments do contradict (e.g. "Please do not replace them. I would strongly suggest re-evaluating the list"). Why suggest re-evaluating when he will "remove non-notable entries if no one else does it in the meantime". This feels to me close to vandalism and dictatorialism.
B.t.w. I do agree that evaluating the list is highly recommendable, but I disagree that this is done without any proper discussion (as Badagnani and I already indicated). Didgeweb 12:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did suggest "hiding" the links with "hide" tags if this were considered to be absolutely necessary. As with other widely played instruments, we can always split off a players list, as well as create more individual player bio articles -- no worries mate! Nice working with you. Badagnani 13:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How About A Fresh Start?

I apologize if my tone was offensive, or the content vandalistic and dictatorial. It was quite late at night, and my statement was admittedly very abrupt. Part of my attitude also stemmed from my surprise at the reverts though. While consensus is indeed a fundamental aspect of this project, consensus can never override policy, unless it is a broad-based consensus to change the actual policy in question. My "dictatorial" stance was based on a review of WP:EL, and specifically of links to be avoided, numbers 3, 4, and 5. While a couple of the links might merit discussion, most of what I removed was in clear violation of this policy. Please also note that I did leave several (I think 3 or 4) links which were quite acceptable.
I didn't respond to the suggestion of "hiding" the links because I'm not actually familiar with the technique, and unaware of policy and practice regarding it. Also, I'm definitely not an expert in wiki-markup; can you point me to an article where this has been used so that I can "see it in action"?
I may botch my first attempt at this (please be patient), but I'll try to list the individual links in groups based on their content, so that we can discuss them. Doc Tropics 21:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, hiding text (for the purpose of adding "invisible" comments or requests for clarification is simply done by adding "<!--" before and "-->" (without quotes) after text. Some of the players without Wikilinks are probably notable players, as some of the websites are fairly extensive. But of course it's a continuum of notability, as with anything. We can evaluate them individually if that's of interest, or move the entire list of players to a separate article if it gets too long (I believe it is getting long). Badagnani 21:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the sake of simplicity and clarity shall we try to address these somewhat intertwined issues seperately? I agree both topics merit discussion, and it might be reasonable to establish a "threshhold" for notability in this context.
To start though, here are the links that are "most problematic" in terms of compliance with EL:
I feel quite strongly that these sites are not appropriate for wikipedia, and I'm sure that we can find better ways to establish notability. I am not suggesting that any names be removed from the list here (that's another discussion), but I do think these links should be removed. I will not actually do so while there is active discussion about it; I'm here to talk : ) Doc Tropics 21:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would agree with most of these links, however Ash Dargan is a Notable Didge player :-) Has been touring the world and has loads of CD's in different styles. My feeling is that this link may have value. Didgeweb 07:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where did these come from? Were they all links provided in the list of didgeridoo players, for players with no WP pages of their own? If the link describes a player and his/her work, the reason for the links was solely to verify that name as an actual name of a didgeridoo player as opposed to a fake name, many of which have been regularly added here over the past months. It's just impossible for those of us who maintain this page if we have no way to do this and have to do a Web search on every player in the list every time a new name is added. Badagnani 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said, I'll discuss before changing things, and I have a suggestion regarding the didgesphere link. It's on my "bad" list because it's a commerical site, but it's being used here to support William Barton. However, I was able to find this article which seems to be a much better assertion of notability, and it's non-commercial; very EL friendly. Would it be acceptable to replace Didgesphere with the article link? I think that would satisfy everyone : ) Doc Tropics 07:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had hoped someone would say "Sure, go ahead", but that hasn't happened yet. On the other hand, no one responded with "Hell no!" either. I'm going to interpret a non-response as tacit approval, and make the change. Rather than simply deleting the problematic link, I'll be replacing it with a more informative link. It seems like a net gain, but anyone who disagrees is free to revert it and say so here. Doc Tropics 21:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ash Dargan - I found this glowing review from a non-commercial music site that seems to qualify as a reliable source. I'd like to replace the current link with this one. Comments? Doc Tropics 21:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would prefer Ash's own site. That would for me be the place to look for more info about the artist and where to see him play and get an overview of CDs. Your proposal is IMHO just one of many reviews, that may disappear whenever the event is too much history. Sure, Ash's site is somewhat commercial, but so will every artist's site be if you're a purist :-) Didgeweb 21:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the question is whether we link the player's own site on a page like Didgeridoo or only as the top link in a page about the player himself. Perhaps we just need to make a Wikipedia page for this guy, if he merits it. Badagnani 22:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Badagnani, I think that's an excellent suggestion. Any player with an article doesn't need an EL to establish notability, the article bluelink is inherent evidence of notability. I also think that David Blanasi and William Barton (musician) might merit articles. At the other end of the spectrum, I just reviewed 220 ghits for Grahm Doe (yes, I literally checked every one) and 100% of them were related to either his store or his self-published material; not a single independent mention of him anywhere. I have to question how notable he really is, and whether he should be on the list.
Just for clarity, are you suggesting that players not notable enough for articles (whether the article exists yet or not) would be non-notable in terms of the list? Should the list be limited to those who have (or will have) articles), or is that too high a standard? Doc Tropics 22:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice article on Blanasi; I've added a few things. Your standard might be fair. Badagnani 04:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but you didn't just "add a few things", that was a great cleanup! I was confused about what tense to use for him because it's a "missing, presumed dead" situation. Everything you did was an improvement. I'd be willing to try a few more like that, one at a time. Thanks again for the assist, it made a big difference : ) Doc Tropics 04:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Notability can vary from topic to topic, and it's unlikely that didge players will get the same kind of coverage that a rock group does, nor would it be reasonable to apply the same standards. However, I might suggest that a minimum standard for notability would be:

  • At least one independent review from a verifiable source, not including the subject's own site.

While I'm only passing familiar with didge "culture" it seems to be that this might be a reasonable standard. Any thoughts or suggestions on this? Doc Tropics 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does seem to make sense as a minimum standard. But what does "review" mean? A review of a CD or performance? These don't always appear online (especially for Aboriginal players from remote regions) but in local newspapers and other periodicals. Badagnani 22:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I was specifically thinking "review of a CD or performance", but anything that establishes a "similar degree of notability" should probably be acceptable. There is definitely no requirement that material be online; non-tabloid newspapers (even local papers, in this context) are almost always acceptable sources, provided the info appears in an article, not an Opinion piece (Op-Ed pages, etc.). If we can agree and establish a standard for the page, I think it would resolve many of the related issues pretty easily. I'm generally involved in several projects at any given time, but I'm more than willing to wade through the list and help search for the refs. Also willing to keep the page watchlisted and help maintain it. Doc Tropics 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess some kind of review is indeed a minimum. However, I'm not sure if it will always work with notable indigenous players. For "western" players I guess one needs to be carefull which reviews to use. On the one hand the risk of reviews written by the player himself, on the other hand there are notable players that are not so known in the English language area and have only non-English reviews. Didgeweb 07:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm, good point about indigenous players and non-english reviews. Normally, english-language refs are strongly prefered, but in this context, I don't think anyone could complain about using what is available. I've been preoccupied all day, but I do mean to look for some cites myself. Doc Tropics 07:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By 'English language' do we mean 'written'? As I'd imagine that most written accounts of indigenous didg players would be written in English. And how will we determine sufficient notability if not by what is written about the player, while still abiding by wikipedias Verifiability policy? I'm not being retorhical here, I'm honestly asking. Ashmoo 04:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point! Notability is a subjective thing and the 'verifiability' requirement of WP not easily met. What I am concerned about most is that indigenous players who are highly respected and considered to be notable in their respective communities, or across many communities in the case of the most prominent players, would hardly get a look in on WP as they are unknown to the English-speaking internet-using world. Not everything can be found or checked up on using google. It has limited function for Indigenous Australia! On the other hand, a guy in the US or Europe who can play a little - or even a lot - and who has put out recordings but is only a mediocre player might be thought of as a notable.--Rainbow warrior 03:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are some players in Europe, Japan, etc. which might be mentioned in non-English sources. But my original comment dealt with players who might not have an online presence. Probably most players who have numerous recordings, however, are mentioned somewhere on the Internet. Badagnani 04:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other uses[edit]

Maybe we need a new section in the article Man arrested over didgeridoo attack [1] --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 04:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope you are joking. Ashmoo 05:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Often people are not to sure about my comments, but yes it's tongue in cheek. BTW, does anyone know anything about, I want to get a starter didgeridoo and teach yourself CD. I can be emailed or answer posted on my talk page. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 06:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I liked this suggestion, as I saw about ten references to "attacks by didge" when searching through journals! But maybe this should go under its own "attacks with musical instruments" page.Chickpecking (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Following up on a remark that the age of the didge was not supported by a reference I added a reference to Journey in Time, George Chaloupka, p. 189. Badagnani suggested to put references at the end of the document. Is this a good suggestion? So next to the external links add a section "references"? Didgeweb 15:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or call it "Bibliography" if that's preferable. I think if the book is relevant and informative, its full publication details should be listed. Also, we can see if there are any good books or articles that treat the didgeridoo, and list them too there. Badagnani 15:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bibliography feels tricky to me. It may be yet another place where people want to place their merchandise (cf. Notable players). But it is an option. The mentioned book is afaik a relevent and informative book on Aboriginal Art. The didge is mentioned only on 2 or 3 pages, but in reference with dated evidence. Didgeweb 16:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps References and Selected Bibliography might be the way to go? It helps to look at other wiki articles that are very well done --Rainbow warrior 02:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image suggestions[edit]

I started this new thread so we can discuss possible additional and/or replacement images of the instrument being used. I'd like to keep this to images that actually exist already, and we can use (there's no point talking about what we wish we could have). I found this page which has this image. It's not fantastic resolution, but it does focus more on the instrument, and there's a clear view of the end (mike side) of the instrument. And it's public domain.--Rob (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you say what you would like to have, perhaps someone has it readily available or knows where to find it  :-) . And it may make discussion about the image more explicit. In other words, do we / you want to have examples of a didge just being used, or a didge being used in contemporary music, or a didge being used where it is not expected? Or something else? Cheers! Didgeweb (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should choose photos carefully to go along with the text. IMO the military didge photo is in a strange context. For now, the "non-traditional" didge photo seems okay. Badagnani (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I think the current main picture at the top of the article is very good, it gives little indication of relative size. The image lower down showing a player is rather small. Could a new or additional image be added which shows an instrument being played? After all, as with any instrument, musical or not, it can only really be appreciated fully when plsyed, I guess. Just an idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image you refer to, Image:Five Star Affair 1.jpg isn't small. The thumbnail size may be small, but that can be increased, if wanted. Perhaps you mean, you want an image focusing exclusive on the player+instrument, without much else? If you want another image, I suggest looking through FlickR here, and uploading something you like to Commons. There seems to be plenty of images licenced freely, that we can use. --Rob (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, will do. Yes, I was thinking of a pictue of just one person playing, but showing the instrument in full. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wind instrument[edit]

I know very little about the instrument it's self, but is the clame that it is the oldest wind instrument credible. The text that goes with it says that it can be confirmed to have existed around 500 BCE. However, I am pretty sure the Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese, and many other cultures had flutes and whistles well before that. (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hard evidence for the instrument's existence doesn't go back very far, other than rock paintings, I believe. Yes, there are wind instruments (primarily flutes made from the bones of birds, as well as bears) believed to date back to the Upper Paleolithic and earlier, back to c. 40,000 - 60,000 years ago. Badagnani (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you do a search you will find that a considerable number of RS say "it is claimed to be the oldest" but it is true that flutes are older. Some scientific sources say the first didgeridoos were made from bamboo and that it is possible bamboo was always used as a form of didgeridoo so this could be where the claim comes from. As long as the article says it is only a claim it is accurate. Wayne (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

unsubstantiated claims[edit]

'"and some currently unsubstantiated claims peg times over one hour.[citation needed]"'

Removed the above, unsubstantiated claims are not encyclopedic without a reference to the claim, and no reference has appeared in a year and a half. User:Pedant (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked into this myself. The longest sustained note is only a few minutes but if the note includes the cyclical breathing then the claim is correct. Technically a note can't include such a technique but some people do not make the distinction. I put it in the too hard basket rather than delete it. Perhaps if anyone wants the claim included they can reword it to explain exactly what is meant. Wayne (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why can't a note technically include the use of a technique such as circular breathing? This has the risk of becoming a long discussion on definitions, and I will not pursue a long discussion ;-) The thing is, it is not too difficult to make a continuous sound for -say- half an hour (done it before) or longer. So just wondering why a long, monotonous sound shouldn't be considered a note. Is the way the sound is created also important? ;-) Cheers! Didgeweb (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking around it seems there are two types of records for the longest sustained note. The longest with a single breath is 39.2 seconds. The longest with circular breathing is 2 hours 45 minutes on a saxophone by Rahsaan Roland Kirk but as it was during a live performance in the 1970's it did not make Guinness. What is in Guinness is 45 minutes by Kenny G also on a saxophone. Wayne (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Didgeridoo In Digimon[edit]

(Moved from the main page. I'd suggest a new wiki page for this topic if this is really relevant. Didgeweb (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC) )Reply[reply]

Didgeridoo (also known as didgy) is a small digimon creature that usually varies around two to three feet in height. It is native to the Tamers region. It also is recognizable by its bright pink and green coloration and razor sharp talons. It is a very violent digimon and is believed to have killed 300,000,000,000,000 people and other digimon.

"Publisher offends Aborigines by encouraging girls to play didgeridoo"[edit]

I'm not knowledgeable about this subject so will leave it to others to decide whether this is significant enough to include, but here's a Daily Telegraph (UK) article about the Daring Book for Girls causing a row by including (in draft form, anyway) a section on didgeridoo playing. Mark Rose, quoted, seems adamant that females must not play the instrument, but that doesn't seem to fit with this piece (already mentioned in Wikipedia's article) which is a lot less clear-cut. (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your diligent caution has been matched by my undue haste, and at almost exactly the same time. Equally unknowldgeable, I'll let others decide if my addition should stay. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure there have been many books, published and unpublished in various countries that have done the same, why is this any more notable than any others? It surely is no case for inclusion in an encyclopedia, if it was, it would be motivation enough to release my own book on the subject and get exposure and attention in encyclopedias like WP. Nick carson (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

non australian didgeridoo[edit]

The didgeridoo seems a relatively simple instrument to create. Are there any records of its invention by cultures independent of Indigenous Australia?--ZayZayEM (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure there have been other cultures around the world who have used termite-hollowed tree trunks or branches to create woodwind instruments, but the key thing is that the didgeridoo became highly prevalent and widely used to the extent that it spread around northern Australia at least and it became used during their most important cultural and ceremonial activities. This hasn't occurred anywhere else in the world, but that's not to say there may not have been particularly ingenuitive individuals in other cultures who developed similar instruments independently of their greater culture. Nick carson (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nicole Kidman and the didgeridoo[edit]

Someone added barely changed text from this story about Nicole Kidman. I've reverted the possible copyvio, but want to know whether it's worth mentioning in this article before readding a rewritten version. -- Skarl 10:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure there's plenty of people who have upset Indigenous Australians by playing a didgeridoo in a non-indigenous manner. I myself have seen 3 non-indigenous females offend Indigenous Australians by playing the instrument. The fact remains that it is not taboo for females to play the didgeridoo in non-ceremonial occasions. I have also met Indigenous Australians who are unaware of this fact themselves. If some movie star, Australian or otherwise, wants to play a didgeridoo then that's their business, not ours, including the subsequent occurrences. Nick carson (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article clean up[edit]

I've gone through and done a general copyedit of the entire article, reorganised sections, images, etc, added the musical instrument infobox and I may upload some construction photos and other images later. Can we please ensure that we source information and make actual contributions before we tag things with fact dates, whos and wheres, this is the only way we can improve articles on WP, by making actual contributions. Nick carson (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is an Ubarr Ceremony?[edit]

Referenced in the article. No other references to "Ubarr in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Woodwind instrument?[edit]

I don't think the Didgeridoo should be classified as a woodwind instrument. As far as I can tell it is a brass instrument, since you make the sound by oscillating your lips. Ahltorp (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appearance of the didgeridoo in a popular game[edit]

Not sure where to put this suggestion but a popular game entitled "Sonic Riders: Zero Gravity" Features a didj as one of the main instruments on the course "Gigan Rocks" Here's a link to it. Some pretty nice playing too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Secctions that only contain appearances in popular culture and other trivia are generally discouraged in Wikipedia, and I'm not about to create a new section just for that one computer game. A popular culture section written in prose form, not as a list of miscellany, might be interesting. Graham87 05:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World's oldest instrument[edit]

The claim of "world oldest wind instrument" is not even close. Bone flutes in excess of 30,000 years old have been found, and the use and construction of bone flutes is still very common in many countries throughout the world.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. I've removed the claim. Thanks for pointing it out. Graham87 00:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Title change to Didgeridoo (traditional), and creation of separate article for Modern didgeridoo designs[edit]

I've taken out the section on Modern didgeridoo innovations, replacing it with a shortened section called "Didgeridoo in popular culture", and merged the previous innovations section into a 2nd article, Modern didgeridoo designs, on the basis that the modern didgeridoos are not technically authentic traditional didgeridoos. I'm also titling the main didgeridoo article "Didgeridoo (traditional)". This puts this article more inline with what musicologists recognize as the authentic traditional didgeridoo i.e. a traditional instrument made by indigenous Australians from hollow Eucalyptus logs eaten out by termites. The modern designs are also recognized by musicologists as being quite distinct from traditional didgeridoos, especially the multitonal qualities of sliding didgeridoos, with characteristics more inline with Western instruments. Wiki needs to reflect this in the articles, as the Cornu is as distinct from a French horn. Comments welcome. John Moss (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know much about either traditional didgeridoos or their modern variations. However parentheses are only used in page titles for disambiguation, not to signify what a page contains. The primary topic for the term "didgeridoo" is most definitely the traditional instrument made by indigenous Australians, and Wikipedia only uses disambiguators when absolutely necessary. Therefore I've boldly moved the page back. Graham87 14:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. I see your point Graham...and I don't mind your boldness, as I was equally bold! It's true, musicology references primarily refer to authentic traditional didgeridoos, and so inherently it should not be necessary to use parentheses if the subject is primarily about traditional didgeridoos. So following that logic it also makes sense to separate the Modern didgeridoo designs into a separate article. John Moss (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Souvenir didgeridoos[edit]

I find this section problematic in that it makes several strong claims without citation. I have quoted the text and bolded the claims which I feel need substantiation or alteration with suggested changes in parentheses.

Perhaps(may be a weasel word) the majority of didgeridoos manufactured today are purely for souvenir purposes(non traditional). It is far more common to find didgeridoos made of non-native timbers, decorated incorrectly by non-indigenous artists displaying merely colourful designs or emulated dot patterns and no traditional dreamtime stories or generational designs. These souvenir didgeridoos also often vary widely in size and shape(don't traditional didgeridoos very in size and shape? they are made from found trees, and randomly hollowed by termites after all), many being thinner and straighter. As a result of the inadequate wood types(The physics of wind instruments are not impacted heavily by the material of the vessel), shapes and lengths, souvenir didgeridoos can rarely be used as musical instruments.(Music is a very subjective phenomenon. The claim that a majority of didgeridoos cannot be used to make music seems absurd)

Decoration of souvenir didgeridoos is often seen by(weasel words) indigenous communities as offensive, inappropriate, inadequate, inaccurate and in many cases, misleading(these could easily be boiled down into offensive. citation needed.). The copying of traditional artwork is also used to sell these didgeridoos to unsuspecting tourists. Mstraney (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstraney (talkcontribs) 15:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. There is no basis for any of that section. --Rob (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picture with perspective[edit]

The picture at the top of the page lacks any objects of known size to compare the size of the instruments with. To me, they look like they are the size of a flute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list of terms for didjeridu is inaccurate[edit]

'synonyms' (not the right term - these are rather words for didjeridu in various languages, e.g., 'pesce' is the word for 'fish' in Italian, not a synonym for fish) are inaccurate, at least in some cases. 'artawirr' is the Iwaidja word for didjeridu, not the Jawoyn word. And the words which are given as Iwaidja translations are not recognized as Iwaidja. Also 'djibolu' (Mornington Island) is not recognized. What is the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucebirch (talkcontribs) 01:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know, but feel free to remove obviously wrong synonyms. Can you elaborate on what you mean by the terms being "not recognized"? Graham87 15:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Bruce, Having looked into this more deeply, it seems that they were sourced from this page from the Art and Culture Centre in Alice Springs. I'm inclined to trust you far more than that rather informal and touristy page, since you have done extensive field work in the Iwaidja community, so I've made your suggested changes. I hardly know anything about didgeridoos or indigenous languages; I only watch this article to guard against vandalism. Graham87 15:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I am aware the Jawoyn term is Gunbarrk, quite similar to the Gagudju term. Djapa Owen 13:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talkcontribs)
Thanks, I've added that term to the article. Graham87 14:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cultural Index[edit]

I have removed the Cultural Index section as it looked like it was basicaly an advert for a single site rating system that has not had any independent coverage. As such it does not belong. WP:NOT and WP:WEIGHT. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Cultural Index is a new method to attempt to educate consumers about the true background of the instrument, i.e., whether is is really an Aboriginal didgeridoo or mass-produced instrument made by non-Aboriginals.

Hmarin (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has there been any independent coverage of this index in third-party reliable sources, or is it hot off the press, as it were? Is iDIDJ a well-regarded organisation by didgeridoo experts? I assume that it has expert contributors, though the site seems to be in an embryonic state. Graham87 14:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The didgeridoo is not very popular when compared to other things in this world and so there aren't any "organizations" per se. The didgeridoo is being manufactured across the world with little regard to the Aboriginals, let alone the traditional custodians of the instrument. There is even a smaller circle of people who wish to keep the traditional custodians of the instrument in the forefront of all discussions of the instrument. I would say that iDIDJ is the leading proponent of Aboriginal rights in terms of the didjeridu, and it even sponsors philanthropy. Because of the general low-level of interest in the didgeridoo, iDIDJ is not spending a lot of time on the website. Instead, there are regular updates on the iDIDJ YouTube channel. The iDIDJ Cultural Index is not widely accepted because most people don't really care about the traditional custodians of the instrument. Need proof? Read the Talk pages of the people who maintain the Wiki didgeridoo pages! If you talk with Djalu (as I have), they regard the didgeridoo as their cultural property. We should respect that. They are accepting of the fact that the didgeridoo has spread all over the world, but only if that fact helps people understand and learn about Aboriginals in Australia. This didgeridoo page needs to re-focus its attention on the traditional custodians of the instrument. The iDIDJ Cultural Index is not widely accepted because people care about money, not about maintaining cultural integrity. If you care about the didgeridoo, and have respect for its cultural heritage, then we all should be respetful of the Aboriginal's cultural property.

Hmarin (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've restored a mention of the cultural index. I think it's important to note the point of view of traditional custodians of the instrument, either directly or through organisations representing them. As iDIDJ is the leader in this field, I think the cultural index is worth adding to this page. As I've said before, I know very little about didgeridoos and only have this article on my watchlist to keep it free from vandalism. So feel free to edit this page, but remember to cite reliable sources for your edits; Also notice the indentation of each post on this talk page. Graham87 03:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mucho gracias Hmarin (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about adding a new section called Authenticity and placing the Cultural Index in that section? it is important for consumers to understand what they are buying.Hmarin (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds like a very good idea! Graham87 15:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I've removed it again. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on what has been published in reliable sources. Groups representing those with an direct interest are not reliable sources. Wikipedia is not here to promote Aboriginal rights. This didgeridoo page needs to focus its attention on what has been written about the instrument. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not going to put it back again without further discussion, but Self-published sources are reliable when talking about their own activities, as they are in this case. I see it as most analagous (but not entirely) to using tracts by followers of a religion to describe what its adherents believe ... which is of course encouraged on Wikipedia. I do think however that an authenticity section would be a better way of framing this debate. Graham87 15:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A section on traditional custodians/cultural integrity would be nice but not called "authentic" unless that's what sources use. Other Didgeridoo fit in with the definition of authentic. Pboably best fits in Cultural significance. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the paganism of the Australian tribes?[edit]

I know many Yolnju and Binninj who would object to the reference to "the paganism of the Australian tribes" in the popular culture section. Many Australian Aboriginal people do not consider that their culture has a tribal structure. While paganism may be applicable by some standards, I beleive that the association with european pagan beliefs may cause some confusion and perhaps offence and the term "spirituality" would apply just as well would it not? Djapa Owen 13:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talkcontribs)

Fair point. I've replaced "paganism" with "spirituality" and "Australian tribes" with "Aboriginal people". Graham87 14:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swiss Alphorn[edit]

Nobody has mentioned the similarity of the didgeridoo to the Swiss alphorn, which is classified as a labrophone. A labrophone is any instrument in which sound is produced by the vibration of the lips in a mouthpiece of some sort. Any piece of tubing has certain harmonic natural frequencies. A piece of garden hose, for example, can be played like a simple trumpet or bugle. An alphorn is a conical-bore instrument that produces a sound similar to the euphonium. Modern brass instruments are highly-refined labrophones that produce distinctly-different sounds depending on the nature of the instrument's bore. Trumpets and cornets are distinctly different because one has a cylindrical bore and the other a conical bore. Judging from the photographs, no two didgeridoos are alike. They're made from whatever the maker can find in the woods and probably wouldn't tune up with modern instruments or with each other for that matter. One might have a conical bore and another a cylidrical bore, especially if made from bamboo. (Does bamboo grow in Australia?) A critical ear might be able to discern a difference between two didgeridoos but since so much depends on the player the characteristics of the instrument might not matter that much. I heard one player (David Blanasi?) who plays mean jazz on a didgeridoo - really rocks. As for technique, circular breathing is used occasionally by modern brass players to extend a phrase or just to show off. In recent years some solo euphonium players have taken to singing into their instruments to enhance a phrase or - again - just to show off. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a similarity between the alphorn and didge, at least visually, and I have heard it discussed before. I am not sure if it is worth including in the article though.
As for tuning didges, each example has its own voice and is distinct, but they can and are tuned to classical tunings. A good maker can provide a C# etc. and many professional performers will have a number of didges to suit different songs or different venues. Bamboo does grow in parts of australia, see Bambusa arnhemica, but bamboo didges are imported from asia as rubbish to sell to ignorant tourists. They are nothing like real didges in feel or sound and they are painted with acrylic paint in China or somewhere. Their sound is about as complex as a vacuum cleaner hose.
The characteristics of each didge have significant impacts on the way the didge sounds. For example an ironwood didge is harder and heavier than almost any other didge for a given size and will tend to have a clear sharp sound. The amount of termite tunnel convolutions inside the tube for example has a significant effect producing more resonation and a smoother, perhaps fuzzier sound and a good maker will bore the convolutions out just enough to produce the sound they want.
Compare these clips of Mikey Guyanya Gurruwiwi ("the young master") playing different didges: Mikey Guyanya Gurruwiwi playing baru (crocodile) yidaki Mikey Guyanya Gurruwiwi Side-profile and close-up look

Djapa Owen (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Health benefits?[edit]

Well, apparently for Alan Dargin, a famous didgeridoo player it wasn't so "healthy". Wikipedia has an article about him that says this:

"Dargin was diagnosed with burst veins in his throat and was warned by doctors that continued playing of the didgeridoo to generate a "fast, complex and loud sound" in "his forceful style" could endanger his life.[2][5] In mid-February 2008 he admitted to Saint Vincent's Hospital, Darlinghurst, and died of a cerebral haemorrhage on 24 February 2008.[6][7]

In light of the fact that playing the didgeridoo did in fact kill him, you better revise your alleged "health benefits" section to include a warning that didgeridoo playing can actually be dangerous to your health. LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Didgeridoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Earliest reference in print[edit]

The article currently says: "The earliest occurrences of the word in print include a 1919 issue of Smith's Weekly where it was referred to as an "infernal didjerry" which "produced but one sound – (phonic) didjerry, didjerry, didjerry and so on ad infinitum", the 1919 Australian National Dictionary, The Bulletin in 1924 and the writings of Herbert Basedow in 1926."

There are demonstrably much earlier occurences, at least to 1908.

Here is a reference in a 1908 edition of the Hamilton Spectator (a newspaper in the western district of Victoria) which is probably republished from somewhere else: "RETRIBUTION". Hamilton Spectator. No. 7567. Victoria, Australia. 24 October 1908. p. 8. Retrieved 27 January 2017 – via National Library of Australia.

And here's an occurance in the Northern Territory Times and Gazette in 1914: "CORRESPONDENCE". Northern Territory Times And Gazette. Vol. XXXVIII, , no. 2145. Northern Territory, Australia. 17 December 1914. p. 14. Retrieved 27 January 2017 – via National Library of Australia.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

Is that original research? The article's current statement isn't referenced at all either. Boneymau (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be acceptable IMO, but it'd be better to track down the original publication of the piece from 1908. While researching this issue, I checked the Macquarie Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary (available by getting an NLA library card), and the Australian National Dictionary (freely available, but their website is hard to link to). The Macquarie Dictionary doesn't give a date of first usage, but says the word could be Aboriginal in origin, while the Oxford English Dictionary gives 1924 and the Australian National Dictionary gives 1919. The Australian National Dictionary Centre finds an earlier version of one of the 1919 sources and takes it back to 1918. I've used that site as a source for now. Perhaps it'd be worth getting in touch with them to let them know about earlier uses? Graham87 08:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very interesting. Digging a bit deeper, the S.E. Pearson who wrote the 1908 article appears to be Sidney Evan Pearson, who according to this obit was originally from the Western District. That makes it more likely the article in the Hamilton Spectator is original and not republished from elsewhere. Pearson is recounting his experiences in the Northern Territory. He refers to the Mootburra tribe, which is probably the Mutpura from the north-central part of the territory. All seems to line up. Looks reasonable to alter the article to say the earliest occurences in print go to at least 1908.Boneymau (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds reasonable to me. I've added them. Graham87 04:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pitch range indication needs more information.[edit]

The musical staff near the top of the page indicates the "written range" for the didgeridoo as being from F# below the treble staff to C two leger lines above it, then, parenthetically, the C an octave above that. However, this is meaningless without further information.

The description "written range" seems to imply that the didgeridoo is a transposing instrument, which is to say that its pitch is traditionally written a fixed interval higher or lower than its sounding pitch. This is news to me, as I have never heard that it is written as a transposing instrument; but if the notes written there be taken as sounding pitch, I think they are far too high, as I have frequently heard didgeridoos that go more than an octave below the lowest end of the range given here (if read as sounding pitch) - so that seems to support that the range is notated as if for a transposing instrument. However, in that case, it is not indicated which transposition is used. I am guessing that this written range would transpose to more than an octave lower, as I have heard didgeridoos that go at least as low as Eb one leger line below the bass staff. On the other hand, I cannot even imagine any didgeridoo that can play in the upper range of the flute or piccolo.

I would be interested to know more about this, and to know whether the idea that the didgeridoo is a transposing instrument is widespread.

I came to this page to find out the actual, sounding range of the didgeridoo, and I come away from it no more enlightened than I was before I came.

Secondly, if two upper limits to the range are to be given, an explanation must be given as to why there are two upper limits, and whether there are situations where one or the other applies. It is just ambiguous, though, to give two upper limits without explanation. It would seem that there can be only one highest possible note on an instrument, so if the situation is more complicated and there may be more than one highest possible note, this needs detailed explanation.

Thanks. M.J.E. (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]