hangforum.com - The Archive

edit: after re-reading, I appologize for straying a little off subject.

Wow, how incredible this thread has become. I will respond without jokes for once. I can say several things that I think are relevant to the conversation.

With Ix's diagram, we are growing closer and closer in the direction of the discussion into admitting the the Hang and Halo and Bell are infact all in the same category (special thanks to Obi Jon for beating me to this point by a few minutes). If they are not in the same category, then please, tell us what separates a Hang from the Halo and Bell. Is it 7 notes? Hemholz, more resonance, in general the sound of the IH? Is the 1st Generation Hang also in a different category of the Halo? If so, HOW? The word HANG needs to be defined before we can attempt to define the category, as the Hang is ITSELF the category (credit Obi Jon once again!). Is the Hang a compilation of its growth and evolution? Or is it simply the end result, and now the IH is in fact the Hang, and not the 1st generation. Is it correct to say that 1st generation Hang and Halo and Bell are all in the same category?? If so, why. If not, why? What characteristics of the Hang set it apart from the others? Is it the intention behind the creators only? These are very important questions that I think are at the core of the discussion and will help to develop what exact we are trying to name as the category for these instruments.

I get the feeling that the only reason that the term HandPan was used by Kyle was because he was trying to be respectful to PanArt and not call his instrument a Hang. If intention behind the creation of the instrument is what categorizes the Hang, then we have a ways to go on a tangent in this discussion. PANArt created a "sound sculpture". This is different than a scale. I can relate to this philosophy and intention when I play, because I play mostly 2nd generation Hanghang, and I can feel the intention put into the notes when I am able to switch modes by turning the Hang and can still create a mood that seems to flow. In a 1st generation Hang, turning the Hang does not create modal music nearly as easily as a second generation Hang. It has barriers. This intention I understand. But does this intention define the Hang?

As to the dispute between Funky and Synthi, I can only say that, Funky you made an assumption that "he" was playing a "hang" with sticks. When in reality, it was his wife playing a caisa. Second, sure, he may understand the instrument differently and not think about it in the same way as panart IF he infact plays a Hang with sticks. But I hate to tell you that this is a very fixed position that tells the world that the Hang is not allowed to be played with sticks to be appreciated. Sure, it may not be the best representation of the instrument, but you are close minded in saying that the Hang should not be played with sticks. One of the most powerful and moving pieces of Hang music that I have ever heard to this day was played with sticks. It melted my heart like very few pieces of music ever. The melody is stuck in my mind for over 2 years, and it has inspired me greatly, and I have not heard the piece of music in 2 years, as I have no recording of it.

Also, you do imply a judgement with the comment about the sticks, and this implies that you have a greater understanding about the Hang than someone else because you play with your hands and they may play with sticks. Well, I have played with sticks before. I do not prefer it, but I value the different approaches to playing all instruments. I do not believe that there is ANY right way to play an instrument. In traditional music, there is ALWAYS a RIGHT way to play the instrument, and it is taught only to be played in this way. The rules themselves lead down a narrow, rigid path. The traditional path can take you extremely deep, but the barriers of being fixed in that path can prohibit other beneficial influences from taking root as well. It takes many years to realize that when a belief system is behind the teaching of a traditional instrument, that you may not be getting the whole story. In India, only the sons of master musicians get the highest levels of teaching, and the rest are taught to stay stuck in a lesser system and it delays their growth for many years because they are not given the "secrets" to unlock the rudiments of deeper intuitive discoveries of prior masters. Playing with sticks is an exploration. If we deny it a valid reality, then the atmosphere of the art itself will not be pushed to its fullest potential. Even if in the end we do not like the sound of the Hang played with sticks, to judge this exploration is to deny someone their process of evolution.

In the 21st century we have fusion. There are people who break the rules all the time who are innovators and who change our understanding of music. Study the life of Nana Vasconcelos, for one. He is the best berimbau player in the world who does not play the instrument traditionally. Berimbau and capoeira and very fixed cultural, musical systems. They do not like it when the berimbau is played in any other way than in the traditional way. It is offensive to the them. But look at Nana play the Berimbau. Just go to Youtube. He is a master, and he broke away from tradition through an intuitive approach to the instrument, rather than a cultural, boundary-based approach. Just as Glen Velez did, and many others. So in sum for this part of my ramblings, please do not judge how people play the Hang. If you do not like people playing with sticks, that is one thing, and that can be expressed. But it is an assumption to imply that someone who plays with sticks does not see the instrument in the same way that you do Frank. Perhaps they see a wider spectrum of the possibilities which includes playing with sticks and also the hands.

SO, the Hang *can* be played through any method possible and it should be accepted, in my opinion, played in any way because there are no rules. Because that way people make up new techniques by chance, and they find new sounds. PLUS, THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF THE HANG ITSELF. (sorry for the caps, not trying to yell, just make a point). The Hang has ZERO traditional dogma or "rules" behind it, in its very essence. When Felix puts his consciousness in the way, he creates a Hang. But he also creates rules and perhaps is trying to establish somewhat of a "tradition". And this breaks from the the actual essence of the Hang itself, in my opinion. The Hang is truly the most universal instrument to ever come to earth. It has hints of tradition behind it, but it has been broken from those traditions and has created a new path for instruments, a new path for the capacity of music itself, and IMO a new path for consciousness itself. All of this happened entirely for a reason at this moment in time...

It has been said by Felix and Sabina themselves that the Hang is from another planet, another world, and it remind us of what we have forgotten. If this is true, and I believe that it is absolutely true, then it defies all cultural and traditional barriers, and is truly an instrument of the 21st century and a sign of the times that we are in. So why is it that we have rules and judgements about how it should be played and what it should be called and how it should be categorized? Because even the creators themselves do not see the level of consciousness that is embodied in the Hang. They channeled it and created it, but even they do not fully understand it, nor can they live and walk its purest essence. This is normal for all Art, I believe. The creator of the art is not in possession of the final and complete understanding of that Art. It is a communal effort comprised of the creators and their intention, and the "viewers" or players, and their interpretation. This is like Yin and Yang, polar opposites that see things totally differently, but that make a whole or a Gestalt (hehe, my one german word) when they unite. Together we remember what we have forgotten, as no one person holds every piece to the puzzle. When we finally reach that understanding, we will have an easier time having this discussion because we will realize that PanArt does not know everything about the Hang, and although their point of view is highly valuable, it is not definitive. To say otherwise is short-sighted from my point of view...

sorry for the ramblings...

obi jon - you have used the force wisely - i think this post makes more sense each time i read it.

and funky - i see what synthi is saying. i know you personally and i know that you are not 'attacking' people - yet your choice of english words is quite unfriendly at times.. it is easy to see how people can take offence at the things you sometimes type. sometimes clarification of an intention is not always needed.... just a small acknowledgement of - ''sorry for upsetting you 'friend' i did not mean too'' might serve you better? just an observation.

x

Group hug ?

Hi,

I read all your postings and there are a lot of interesting thoughts.

At the moment I have the feeling I must first say something about my posting where Synthi feel , that I made a judgement against his person.

I quote my posting where he felt that it was a personally judgement. And I qoute it also, because some people think I want to dictate "how" to play a Hang.

Quote Funky: "Hi,

@synthi. By the way. If I look on your avatar, i see that you play the Hang or Bell with a kind of sticks. You are free to use your Hang in a way you want. But maybe it is not so easy to see a difference between Hang and PAN with this technic."


I said: "you are free to use your Hang in a way you want".

I dont say anything is bad or wrong. I dont make a statement about the right or wrong way of playing the Hang. Or did I ?

And I dont see any judgement in this posting. I think that Michael Colley made a good point. It is possible and likely, that I find sometimes not the best words, because of my limited english. If I ask my translator I have the most time a lot of options and maybe I use from time to time not the best.
But my hope is, that people understand in the context what I want to say.
A few people know me from the Hangout. I am far away from "judging" people. That is the problem with forum.
If you read a text you interpret what you read with your own feelings in the background.

Why I made the statement with the avatar playing with sticks? I only want to say, that a Hang played with sticks give you more a sound and feeling of Pan. That is all.
And if you use this technic on a Hang, you maybe search more for the Panfeeling?!

What is wrong with this? It is not bad to search the Panfeeling. I think the Hang is not a good instrument for this style. But this is only my opinion. Of course also the opinion from Panart. Anybody who speak with Felix and Sabina in the foretime know that.
But if anybody want to play the Hang with sticks, he is free to do this. I never said anything different. If anybody want to play a Hang with boxing gloves he can do it.

I only thought that people who play the Hang with sticks are searching for the Pan in the Hang. And this is not a personally judgement against Synthi.

I hope this is more clear. I cant excuse me for what I wrote. Maybe I have to excuse for my english and that I dont find better words from time to time.

I hope that you beliefe me that I dont want to make an affront against you personally @synthi.

Frank

Hi,

this is not possible, because "Hang" is a registered term. If Panart dont want that other instruments are also "Hang" than nobody can use this term for an music instrument. This has nothing to do with opinions. It is only not possible by law.
So, if anybody want to name an instrument for example "Halo Hang" he must go to Panart and ask.

Greetings
Frank

Frank I think you miss the point that I also made, but in different words as Obi Jon. Of course we can not call the Halo a "Halo Hang", because yes, it is a registered word for panart. But the point is that Ix and you have to come up with some valid reasons why the Hang is in a different category as the Halo and Bell. Because up until this point in the conversation we have been debating whether the Hang is a Handpan. I am willing to accept that the Hang is not a HandPan. But why is the Hang in a separate category as the Halo and Bell?? Please tell us. It is like saying that a Gibson guitar is in a different category as a Fender guitar. There are different levels of refinement in the world of guitars, and the best guitars in the world surely sound better than the lower quality ones. There is no argument about that. But they are all still guitars.

So what sets the Hang apart from the Halo and Bell? Is it the intention behind PanArt in choosing which notes to place on the Hang and where? This I think is the main point of this subcategorization. At this point in time we have no solid basis for putting the Hang in another category other than a few opinions. We would like to hear more from you about why...

Hi,

at the moment we have the situation where a lot of people think that "Handpan" is a good category for the Halo and Bell and Hang.

Ixkeys diagram make clear, that all the instruments stand together under the group "tuned sheet steel instruments and harmonically tuned sheet steel instruments".
You can make more different categorys where the instruments stand under the same category. For example : "konvex hand played harmonically tuned sheet steel instruments" and so on.
All the instruments stand under this category also.

The problem is for me the "Pan". I think it is true, that Kyle was the first who used the name Handpan for his instrument. He is the origanator of this category and put the Halo in.
So he! seperate the Halo in this subcategory from the Hang.

I understand, that language is not made by an inventor. But, only because of a lot of people call the Hang a Hangdrum it is not suddenly a Hangdrum.

The question from Ixkeys is interesting in this context. What means "pan" in "Handpan"?
He made a funny and demonstrative hypothetical dialog for demonstration.
The "pan" in "Handpan" is not meaningless. Pan has a close connection to steelpan. People who know the steelpan speak a lot of time only from "Pan" if they mean the steelpan.

And here is my problem. Not that I want to seperate Hang, Halo , Bell...
I want to make clear, that the Hang is on another way as on the "Steelpanway".
Pan is an instrument, but also a kind of living. Panbands are big collectives. They make big battle on festivals.
Can you imagine a "Hangbattle" ? 50 Hanghang on a stage playing together in an ecstasy style? Hang carnival?
This are parts of the "Pan". Only a few to demonstrate, what a Hang seperate from a Pan.

Pan: konkav Hang: konvex
Pan: playing with sticks Hang: playing with hand (mostly)
Pan: loudly, ekstatically Hang: quietly, calming
Pan: battle on stage Hang: ??? cant imagine Hangbattle
Pan: collective instrument Hang: individual instrument

and so on. It would be nice, if anybody who see more similarities as differences can make clear what are the similarities on the ready instrument.

Yes, you can play a Hang with sticks if you want. Than you here the Hang crying. If you like this sound you can play in this way. No problem. But Felix and Sabina dont build the Hang for this style. They optimize the Hang from day to day in a Hand playing instrument.
You cant play a Pan with the Hand for a long time with a Steelpan sound quality. You cant bring enough energy in the metall with your soft fingers.

If I see a lot of Hangplayers playing together the Hang I cant imagine a Hangbattle.

The problem is not if instruments stand in same or different categorys. But if the Halo is a Handpan, than it is in another subcategory as the Hang. But together in the category of "tuned sheet steel instruments".

Greetings
Frank

I still can not get around the fact that all of these instruments (pan, hang, halo, bell, caisa) are made from sheet steel that has tuned tone fields hammered into it. That is a big overriding similarity that must be considered when creating taxonomy.

Pan is the oldest of the 5. Is there another sheet steel instrument with hammered tone fields that predates pan?

As I tried to demonstrate with IXKeys, I will try to demonstrate with you:

Pan: Steel AND Hang:Steel
Pan: Solid structure for multiple notes (as opposed to tongues) AND Hang: Solid structure for multiple notes (as opposed to tongues)
Pan: Tone fields AND Hang: Tone fields
Pan: Curved surface for tone fields to rest in AND Hang: Curved surface for tone fields to rest in
Pan: Harmonics built in with fundamentals AND Hang: Harmonics built in with fundamentals
Pan: Can be played with sticks or hands AND Hang: Can be played with sticks or hands.
Pan: Tuned to Equal Temperament AND Hang: tuned to Equal Temperament
Pan: Tuned based on A=440 AND Hang: Tuned based on A=440
Pan: Invented in a small nation AND Hang: Invented in a small nation

One can choose to try to focus on the differences (this guitar has Gibson stamped on it, this guitar has Fender stamped on it) or focus on the similarity both are Guitars.

My point is not that the Hang is a Pan, but that choosing to focus only on the differences discards much of what is going on. Again, I will ask you Funky, specifically, if there has never been a time while you play out on the street when someone has asked you if that 'thing you play' is a type of Steel Drum/Steelpan?

Now, this 'flash of insight' that Obi-Jon has brought up is something I've been hoping to avoid (personally) as I have personal preferences to try to keep Hang associated with Bern and Felix and Sabina. As I said previously there is a very real and strong risk of "genericide" for Hang, where it becomes associated with the form instead of the makers as with Xerox and Kleenex. But it may be unavoidable based on the heated push to discard the generic term Handpan.

As much as I like this idea, I know that it will rub many the wrong way. Because now you are taking the specific term of Hang as it applies to the Hang, and placing it upon instruments that others vehemently say are not Hang.

My suggestion earlier was to place Hang by itself, and place all other similar inspired instruments into their own category. After playing the Halo, and the Hang, I can assure you they are different instruments. Both have similar characteristics, but different none-the-less.

So this leads us to just naming this particular sub-set of Hang, or "Not-Hang" as it were. We already know that one creator has coined the phrase "Handpan" in reference to HIS instruments. The community adopted this term as a comfortable fit to describe the Halo, and even other related instruments.

And as it may seem, the creators of the Hang, ever directly silent, apparently do have an open ear to discuss this with some visitors to the Hang House. And it seems this term is unsavory to them to describe their Hang.

Someone mentioned earlier that perhaps Felix started the separation from the word "Pan" when he was rejected by what he thought were his colleagues in Trinidad/Tobago. At this point, we know that this rejection did perhaps psychologically affect Felix. his contribution to the art, was seen as an abhorrent extension of the art, by the very people he sought confidence in.

For me, this point may be closer to the core issue than most of what has transpired hear. At this point, there is no text nor fact to support this view, but only a vague understanding as to how this can affect a person's views from that point on. THIS is where I (and I stress "I") believe the real schism of the pan from the Hang began. Take this as you may.

So with this "assumption", my logic takes Felix's reasoning as to why the Hang is not a pan, beyond any definition of what pan, steelpan or handpan is. Pan represents an insult to Felix perhaps. Pan represents rejection. So now the man must make the Hang it's own entity.... far away from the lineage that spurned it.

Perhaps this may be to ethereal or presumptuous for some. But if we are to include all variables into the meaningful discussion, then I think this point needs to be included as well.

As I am going on a limb with my assumptions, I'll add that I'm assuming if Felix were confronted with this, he would also deny it. But to me, If I were the creator, and I was literally laughed at by the entire community I was emboldened to make a contribution to, that experience would influence my own thoughts for a very long time.

Hi,

some of your similarities are to general and saying not much. Others are not exact.
I wrote some ideas behind your examples. So you can see what I mean. I marking my text , so you can see, what is from me.



So, you have a few similarity. But they are very general in the most cases. And this bring the instruments together in the group of: "tuned sheet steel instruments"
This is not the question.

If people hear me playing and dont see the Hang not only one search for a Steelpan. People told me often, that they thought a Harp player make this music. Or a few players together. Only a handfull find the connection to steelpan if they see the instrument. But the only reason is, that they see that this is also an instrument from metall sheet tuned with a hammer. It is not the sound and not the shape. Not the way I play. Only that, what brings the instrument in the same category: "tuned sheet steel instruments"

Greetings
Frank

As a point of clarity I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

A Gong is almost always not steel
Gamelan are never steel.

My general point above (again) is not that a Hang is a Pan, but that you can choose to focus on differences or similarities.

Exactly.

Hi,

yes, you are right. This was a mistake. I mean some instruments in the gamelan ensemble.

Frank

No instruments of the Gamelan ensemble are steel.

There are several interesting points in the last postings leading the discussion on a productive path. Let me answer to GotHang firstly.
You gave examples of properties equal at Hang and Pan. Let me comment each item of your list:

Pan: Steel AND Hang:Steel
This puts both instruments in the category "Sheet steel instruments".

Pan: Solid structure for multiple notes (as opposed to tongues) AND Hang: Solid structure for multiple notes (as opposed to tongues)
This puts both instruments in the category "Tuned sheet steel instruments" In my definition this category doesn't include the steel tongue instruments. They belong to another category that could be named "Steel tongue instruments".

Pan: Tone fields AND Hang: Tone fields
This puts both instruments in the category "Tuned sheet steel instruments". If you like can create a sub-category "Tuned sheet steel instruments with (several) tone fields".

Pan: Curved surface for tone fields to rest in AND Hang: Curved surface for tone fields to rest in
This is an important precondition for "Harmonically tuned sheet steel instruments" and puts both instruments in this category.

Pan: Harmonics built in with fundamentals AND Hang: Harmonics built in with fundamentals
This puts both instruments in the category "Harmonically tuned sheet steel instruments

Pan: Can be played with sticks or hands AND Hang: Can be played with sticks or hands.
This is irrelevant. You can also play a cello wih sticks but therefor you would never build a category including Hang, Halo, Bell, Caisa and cello.

Pan: Tuned to Equal Temperament AND Hang: tuned to Equal Temperament
I don't know wat Equal Temperament is, so I cannot comment it.

Pan: Tuned based on A=440 AND Hang: Tuned based on A=440
This puts both in the category "Harmonically tuned sheet steel instruments" If you like you can create the sub-categories "Harmonically tuned sheet steel instrument based on A=440" and "Harmonically tuned sheet steel instruments not based on A=440". But because there is no instrument in the second sub-category (not based on A=440) I think such a categorization doesn't make much sense.

Pan: Invented in a small nation AND Hang: Invented in a small nation
This is not really important in this discussion because there exist very different instruments invented in a small nation. The second question ist whether this item is important for the instrument. For the Pan I think it is important, but for the Hang? This would be another discussion and we shouldn't follow it here. But it is eye-catching that the Hang is more a "non-nation-instrument". The players spread over the whole world. The scientists PANArt worked with came from America as well as Switzerland. The idea of harmonical tuned sheet stell instruments came from Trinidad and Tobago over Great Britain to Switzerland and then PANArt. PANArt studied instruments from all over the world. The Idea of the Hang was born when Steelpan (Trinidad) and Gatham (India) came together...

My conclusion: You can integrate all your examples of similarities in the figure I made to demonstrate the categorization of Hang and Steelpan. This figure shows two instruments with important similiarities in upper categories but strong differences underneath these upper categories.



And the answer cannot be: This is a handpan. The answer must be: Yes, you are right, there are some important similarities to the steelpan and the Hang makers were formerly steelpan tuners. But this instrument has important differences to the steelpan as you can hear and see. Therefor we don't call it a steelpan.



But the solution cannot be to name Hang, Halo and Bell handpans.
There is something really important in Obi Johns argument. I will comment to this in another post.

Ix

This is an interesting argument. And I agree. But there is a problem: PANArt decided that Hang shouldn't be a generic term but stick to their own creation. So it becomes a registered trade mark and cannot be used as a generic term.

So what is the solution? I think in the current situation it is adequate to abstain from a category name and speak of "the Hang and the new Hang inspired instruments". Each of this instruments has its own name. It's too early to decide whether one category of instruments will grow up or if we will have to differentiate. By now there are three instruments that are meant by its makers as a Hang alternative (Caisa, Halo, Bell). It will be to discuss whether they achieve this benchmark or not.

Ix

Another thought: I understand the problem Kyle had when he wanted to write on his website: "If you are looking for ... send an email to...". He knew the discussion about Blackbells and didn't want to make the same mistake with "Yes, the Hang is comming to you!" or something like this. Therefor he wrote: "If you are looking for Hang or Handpan...". The should express: "If you are looking for Hang or another similar instrument..."

Perhaps it had be a better solution if he had decided to formulate longer text like this: If you are searching for a Hang it could be of interest for you to look at my Hang inspired instrument I'm developing in the moment...

By now everyone who is looking for a "handpan" is looking for a Hang, because this is the only instrument he knows. Therefor the correct reaction is: You know the Hang. Here is another instrument. I tried to generate all the properties of the Hang you are looking for in my new instrument and you are invited to test it.

Or one says: You are looking for a hand played instrument of tuned sheet steel with a special property: Here I build an instrument that has this property (perhaps a special scale). Then perhaps we will find that there will be different hand played instruments of tuned sheet steel.

Ix

Your conclusion does not follow from the standpoint of the point I'm making, which is (again) that one can focus on differences or similarities, that is the individual choice. To indicate that a Hang has nothing to do with a Pan is disingenuous. To indicate that there are no similarities is disingenuous. To try to indicate the cannot be similarly categorized is disingenuous. Once we get to the level of they are different, then one can insert one's opinion, but to indicate that there is no validity in comparing them is also disingenuous. Again, (for the I don't know how many-eth time, this is Your Conclusion. Wonderful

That is your answer, based on your focus. It may not be everyone's answer (which is why this thread has gotten to 9 pages).

=)

Perhaps it is a flaw of translation, but the word 'cannot' does not apply in your statements above. It may be that you do not agree that it is a good solution, but it can indeed be a solution.

I started to write yesterday, but things were getting heated by then, so I decided to wait.

One thing I would add to this discussion is that a relatively small number of people have commented in this thread. Perhaps many of us are some of the most passionate in this community, but we are still a small number, and we are talking about language that will be used by thousands eventually, so we will have to wait and see.

I think maybe we can just agree to disagree. I don't see a need to convince anyone to agree with me. If new ideas arise, I am open to considering them. I hear many of the same arguments repeated (which I personally don't find convincing). For example, I think people have already explained the sense of using "pan" in the name, and have been clear why that makes sense to them (the concerns expressed have been considered), and that the use of the term “pan” does not imply the hang incorporates EVERYTHING from the term and culture. (And the point of my earlier post regarding culture is that the boundaries of what is or is not a part of a culture are hazy at best, which makes it a questionable term to even use, particularly in this discussion,since by nature it is VERY difficult to define “a culture.” Some people may not agree with the use of the term pan, and I respect that, but I don't think there is a need to convince them, nor do I think I need to be convinced, either. Perhaps later I will be, but I find many of the arguments presented thus far to be unconvincing.

“New hang inspired instruments” is just too much of a mouthful for me to use with much frequency.

Time will tell which word(s) or phrase(s) that people will use to refer to these instruments. I would certainly listen to Felix and his ideas, but I am disappointed that so far, he has said what the hang is not: a drum, a handpan, and is indeed something that cannot be "classified or pigeonholed." This vacuum has contributed to the need to have a term, and is largely why handpan has started to take hold.

IX, your diagram is revealing. It shows that you group things in a certain way, but I think others would come up with a different diagram. For me, from the steelpan would come the hang (perhaps with a long arrow to show it is several steps removed, and possibly with some other arrows to indicate influences from other instruments such as the gatham, bell, gong, gamelan, cymbal, and drum, among others). From the hang to the halo and bell I would draw shorter arrows, to show there is a direct influence from the hang to the halo and bell (particularly in basic structure and basic sound qualities).

It has always seemed strange to me that Pantheon and BellArt have been criticized for “copying” the hang, yet some would not allow them into the same category! Putting them together does not mean “identical” or even “equal.” It means, to me, similar enough in structure and sound to merit being placed together. The hang will ALWAYS be the original, and will likely by regarded the “best” by many for some time, for various reasons. I suppose a caisa would also be a type of handpan, though its different structural characteristics and sound would leave it closer to the steelpan.

At this point, I think most reasonable people, given both a hang and halo and a little time to examine them and play them, would agree that they are the same kind of instrument. Again, not equal or identical, but similar enough that it would make sense to group them together. I can also see that some people might look at them much more carefully, and determine that there were significant differences between them. There is some value in making this distinction, but for many people, the differences may be lost.

The first time I heard the hang was on National Public Radio. Randy Granger described its sound as “like water over bells,” and I sometimes use this phrase to describe it, even though it gives nowhere near a full idea of the sound, which really can’t be described in words. I add this because I think it’s worth considering there is a kind of bell sound in the hang (and I do not say this to promote Bellart or Blackbells!)

I agree that hang is a specific term by a specific company, and should NOT be adopted as a generic term. That would add to the confusion, and really isn’t fair (although I think most of the time when that happens, it is seen as positive by whoever’s name is used).

For me, the inclusion of harmonically tuned tone fields in a curved surface made of steel make the steelpan the closest hang ancestor, and that justifies (to me) using the term pan it its category name. At this point, I am comfortable using the term handpan (which includes my hang) until I see a clearly better and/or more widely used term.