This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Musical Instruments Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Percussion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Percussion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Percussion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PercussionWikipedia:WikiProject PercussionTemplate:WikiProject PercussionPercussion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that one or more audio files of a musical instrument or component be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and included in this article to improve its quality by demonstrating the way it sounds or alters sound. Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request.

As far as I can see, "Stone marimba" is a synonym for "lithophone", and the newer article (Sept 2012) should not have been created. A redirect from that term (SM)to this (L) would suffice, and the content of that article would be appropriate added to this long-established one. PamD 19:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect or selective merge sounds good. Selective largly cause the stone marimba article was a work of spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to a merge of sourced content, but not to a redirect sans a merge. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain -- this needs a check for proper sources, which I'll do this Thursday at NYPL-Performing Arts when I'm there as Wikipedian in Residence. If I can not find anything more I agree with both Pam and NorthAmerica that it should be merged almost entirely.

In fact,I wonder whether each of the individual instruments listed here will prove to be worth an individual article. I'll see what's available.

But one of those that does have an article & clearly merits one needs to be deleted & rewritten. The article on The Musical Stones, is unfortunately essentially all of that extensive article turns out to be a copyvio from their web site, and I've marked it for deletion as such. If anyone wants to do it, the references listed there were

• Keswick Museum Website
• Musical Stones on MySpace
• The Musical Stones Blog
• Rock Music, M.C. Fagg, Pitt Rivers Museum, ISBN 0-902793-39-X
• The stones being played in the museum at Nadfly.com] DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content of Stone marimba was merged into Lithophone on 4 August 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

There's a fascinating article at Ringing rocks, expanded from this in Nov 2011 to this in March 2012 by a single dedicated editor who has also left a detailed exposition on the talk page and has made no other edits! A WP:SPA of the most useful variety, it appears.

This article on Lithophone perhaps needs to distinguish between rocks played in situ and those shaped and rearranged for playing.

I might wait until Keswick Museum and Art Gallery reopens after its current major refurbishment closure (and will update the museum article accordingly!) before trying to sort out the various sets of Lake District stones held there. Grove Music Online has a 750-word article "Lithophone" and says that "Some of the most remarkable lithophones in existence are to be found in the English Lake District.", so there's scope for more content and/or more articles, I'm sure. PamD 12:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lithophone. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130128033020/http://www.brantwood.org.uk/musical-stones.htm to http://www.brantwood.org.uk/musical-stones.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lithophone. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070426202119/http://www.neufportes.net/inst.htm to http://www.neufportes.net/inst.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider the Vitthala temple, Hampi, Karnataka, India a lithophone. Anyone agrees with me? Smenci (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2025 and 12 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mkvader (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Meerkat77 (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]