Talk:Bass violin

Violin octet

It's really bad that this article doesn't even mention the bass member of the Violin octet, which is the normal usage for the term "bass violin." Badagnani (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't include that originally because I wasn't sure if that name was correct. I saw "contrabass" and "small bass" and "baritone" instruments of the violin octet, but none called simply "bass violin." FYI, the baritone of the new family looks like it is quite similar to the instrument described in this entry.BassHistory (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I see! Whatever qualifications need to be made should be made. Before I read your article, I followed the conventional wisdom that the only true "bass violin" was the bass member of the violin octet. Badagnani (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My view is this: any unpropotional size relation between members of the tradition violin family relates to the violin octet article. To include it here would be a subjective assertion on the part of the editor in order to convince readers of the importance of the violin octet. Furthermore, as I already stated, the proportions of the bass violin acually were somewhat similar to the "cello" of the violin octet. I was somewhat better suited to basslines than the cello. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BassHistory (talk • contribs) 05:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you are correct about this. The images you've claimed as "bass violins" are considerably deeper than would be a proportionally larger version of the (soprano) violin. I strongly disagree that this crucial aspect of the design and construction of this instrument be willfully kept out of the article. Badagnani (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add a section of the article about the structure of the basso da braccio, feel free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BassHistory (talk • contribs) 06:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Image

Please add an image of what you believe to be a "bass violin." Badagnani (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any, but if you find any please feel free to do so. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by BassHistory (talk • contribs)

If you're writing about this instrument, you must know of images of it. Badagnani (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

All the xtant instruments have been chopped down in size to turn them into cellos. BassHistory (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's a "bass violin," it would be impractical to play and the sides wouldn't be as deep as a cello. That's true of the bass violin in the violin octet. That is why your article is so confusing, because conventional wisdom is that a true "bass violin" was not made until the creation of the bass violin of the violin octet. Badagnani (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Check Grove.BassHistory (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to deal with copywrite issues on here. I see you've been on here for a while. if you want to add one I can tell you where they are.BassHistory (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Images that I know of include:

Woodcuts in Praetorius's Syntagma Musicum
Various paintings by Gaudenzio Ferrari depict bass violins
Pictures of the King Violoncello by Andrea Amati (originally a bass violin)
BassHistory (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll add a link to http://cello.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=GraphicDetailPage&GraphicID=45 this image]. Why does the image show five strings, but the article doesn't mention five strings? Badagnani (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it really just wasn't that standardized yet. The important thing is waht did Praetorius call it? Yes, I think that image would be good for this article. It was pre-cello, and not a viol (I would say).BassHistory (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!BassHistory (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone should get the painting by Dirk Hals Das Solo. It's of a a bass violin.BassHistory (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here it is (painted in 1631). Put it where you want. Looks like a cello to me. Badagnani (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it looks like a cello. Only a little bigger.BassHistory (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it have four or five strings? I think a couple of the "strings" are shadows. Badagnani (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was a five-string, which was popular for a while. Are we really allowed to just grab stuff and put it up?BassHistory (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's a photo of a painting taken in the last 75 or so years, apparently the photographer would still own the copyright. Badagnani (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The article still does not mention that "bass violins" could have five strings, though the Praetorius woodcut clearly shows one. In fact, contrary to the woodcut, the text of the article says it did not have five strings. Badagnani (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That a good point. I'll change that.BassHistory (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If the "standard specimen" was depicted with five strings, I'd dispute your claim that "it almost never had five strings." Your claim is that in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, 5-string "bass violins" were as unusual as were 5-string cellos at the time Bach wrote the cello suites? That really doesn't explain why Praetorius would depict such a non-standard instrument in his reference work. Badagnani (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Again, read Grove. And read the Bonta articles. I can't explain everything to you. Again, your disputing me, but what I'm saying here is generally accepted.BassHistory (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am asking questions that others will also ask. We all know that individual articles in Grove are often incomplete, and sometimes wrong. Saying something like "I don't have time to explain this to you" is patronizing and does a disservice to our thousands of readers all over the world who will also ask this same question, which is quite valid. Badagnani (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't patronizing you. I just don't have time for every little question you have, that's not my job here. This is an encyclopedia article, there's only so much that can be expected. It can't be all-encompassing. Five-string models were less standard, there's no reason to go further into it. "I am asking questions that others will also ask." And that's what the references are for. So people can actually go to the library and read more about it if they want to.

First, these aren't "little" questions and second, you wrote this article, using an English name that was not used at the time, and not fully explaining things that need to be set out, such as that the proportions are not those of the (soprano) violin. These things need to be addressed to make the article complete and "finished," as we are based on continual improvement, and thus you cannot claim it's bothersome to address significant points such as these. Badagnani (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If five-string models were less standard, yet surely did exist, then that should be stated in the article. Among the available iconographic examples, what is the proportion of five-string to four- and three-string instruments? Badagnani (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. Find out, and tell me your sources.BassHistory (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Amati didn't have a problem with his proportions, and neither do most modern cellists with their cellos. That point is just not significat in understanding this instrument. It is a good point; for the violin octet article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BassHistory (talk • contribs) 05:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The entirely illogical refusal to acknowledge that the iconography shows quite different proportions between the violin and the "bass violin" does a great disservice to our readers at best, and at worst this willful exclusion seems to show POV on the part of the editor who began this article. The proportions are actually quite different, with the instrument being deeper and less wide in proportion than a violin. This needs to be addressed in this article. No, cellists don't have a "problem" with this, and I don't even know why you would mention a "problem." It is not a problem, it is a fact. Using the English title "bass violin" (which apparently was never used in English at the time, as you apparently indicate) implies that this is an instrument with essentially the same proportions, only larger. The viols did have essentially the same proportions yet this instrument does not. Not to acknowledge this truism is simply unacceptable. Are you claiming that no reputable source mentions this difference in proportions? If anything, we need to explain why the instrument makers modified these proportions, which presumably were arrived at via trial and error, and a number of "transitional" instruments with various proportions that didn't work as well (better sound? more practical to get one's arms around the instrument? some other reason(s)?) Badagnani (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions: I'm quite sure those are all contrabass viols with violin family features, not bass violins.BassHistory (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

When you say "all," do you mean "both"? I'd agree with you on this. We want to find the original painting of the Lely, so if you know which museum it's in, we're going to try to send a Wikipedian who lives nearby to inspect it to see about frets and number of strings. Badagnani (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Simpson image is obviously intended to show something that its author would have classified as what the book is about, an instrument for the specifically English tradition of "division viol" playing. The Lely picture may well show something similar, although I would guess Simpson's "division viol" would have been smaller and the Lely instrument is significantly more da braccio-like. But if you prefer to have these removed, feel free. Perhaps we should concentrate the main parts of this article to the Italian developments, and only treat the existence of such hybrid forms in a subsection. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If what is being called "bass violin" (i.e. 16th-century/early 17th century proto-violoncello) looks pretty much like an early version of a Baroque cello, I suppose those are the instruments we should show. Badagnani (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone should get the painting by Dirk Hals [Das Solo]. It's of a a bass violin. I'm sure of it. Although, it is often mistakenly called The Cello Player. Also, this one is perfect. Here's one. And again. The website cello.org calls him a "Baroque bass violinist," so I don't think there's much doubt.BassHistory (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as the hybrid instruments I mentioned, they would be in paintings by Gaudenzio Ferrari, or in other Northern Italian paintings between c1410 and c1460.BassHistory (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the number of strings in the Hals? Some of them seem to be shadows. Badagnani (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This website presents the Ferrari bass as a gamba. Though the shape is violin/cello-like, the presence of frets in the blowup of the image leads me to agree with this. Badagnani (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hals: I've heard it called a five-string before, but I can't tell.

Ferrari: I've never said that the instruments depicted were "definately violins," or even "not viols." I've encountered several scholarly references to his paintings, in the context of early violin family instruments. Also, many of the same luthiers in northern Italy made both viols and violins, so crossover is natural. It's a "where and when" thing.

www.thecipher.com: Great art, but he doesn't know where half of it comes from! He also mekes some generalizations that I'm not sure of, such as: "All one really has to show is that there are more than three strings on this instrument..." and, "If my dating is correct, four or more strings automatically makes this a viol." and, "There’s no shape that violins did first in any event. They brought nothing new, inovative, or original, in the shape and contours department..."BassHistory (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be VERY skeptical of a guitar tablature website, although it it worth looking at the art presented.BassHistory (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In the [Simon De Passe] etching he gives here, the fretless five-string instrument may be a bass violin, from what I can see. Hard to tell.BassHistory (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No endpin does not mean viol or violin.BassHistory (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Reportoire

Someone should add a section about what music was written for the "bass violin."BassHistory (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would look into Monteverdi and Corelli.BassHistory (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do, give me some time. I have an old paper I once wrote for university sitting somewhere on my shelf that has some of the relevant data. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.xs4all.nl/~lambsmit/files/Download/bachsvioloneandvioloncellocorr291005.pdf Added this article, looked interesting.BassHistory (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Communication

Can we please communicate the normal way, by asking and answering questions on this talk page, rather than by inserting comments in the article? Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But in some cases, editing comments are called for. Badagnani (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

But you use them all the time, and it's frustrating.BassHistory (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Praetorius image

The web source of the image referenced above ([1]) quotes Praetorius as calling it Bas-Geig de bracio (where Geig, obviously, is the German word for violin, or possibly for bowed instruments in general). de bracio identifies the family, as opposed to da gamba (viols). Of course, it has nothing to do with whether any particular member of a family was actually played "on the arm" or "on the legs" - the bass instruments of either family obviouly were held between the legs.

The website unfortunately doesn't give the page, but I have no doubt the image is authentic; I've seen the Praetorius book and it does have these types of illustrations.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the page number can be googled, it's probably in one of the articles too.BassHistory (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You removed the editing comment without actually doing the legwork and getting the page number. That is very bad. Badagnani (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Relax. The admin guy said he preffered that we didn't do that, and I agree. It's cluttered.

What is a bass violin?

- At first they were like 3-string violas played a gamba(c1525-?) Later they were like large cellos (c1550-c1700?). You have to make the distiction. There are instruments in the vioa da braccio family, like the cello, that are played a gamba. It's common knowledge. Read the articles posted. Some had endpins, some didn't.BassHistory (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I know the terminology is confusing.BassHistory (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not just you, Badagnani, people have been scratching there heads over the differences since the 1480s.BassHistory (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Praetorius woodcut (cello-like shape, no frets, endpin) makes it appear like an instrument in the "violin family." However, it really should be made clear in the article that the proportions of the bass violin are, of necessity, not those of a violin. (Although the bass violin in the violin octet apparently is made to exactly the proportions of a regular violin.) The confusion is that the bass violin really isn't a "true violin" as it's proportions are different, but was and is considered an instrument in this family, to be played in a set, providing the bass line for the smaller ones. Badagnani (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this article should not be to sell people on the violin octet. "However, it really should be made clear in the article that the proportions of the bass violin are, of necessity, not those of a violin." That sounds like info for the violin octet article, not here. "The confusion is that the bass violin really isn't a "true violin" as it's proportions are different..." It is not defined by its proportions. Its defined by its function. The bass violin discussed here was, by definition, in the violin family. This is not disputed. Again, check Grove please.BassHistory (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly dispute your implication that I am trying to "sell" anything and maintain strongly that the article needs to explain that the proportions of the "bass violin" (this term apparently never used in English during the Baroque period), correct?) are dissimilar to those of those of the violin. This is not the case with other "matched set" families of instruments. Badagnani (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Name

Was the name "bass violin" used in English in the late 16th and early 17th centuries? Was the exact Italian name "violino basso" used? If not, then our English title is not quite accurate, and this needs to be stated in the lead of the article. I realize that we don't call the Piano article "Gravicembalo pian' e forte," or even "Pianoforte," but if the term "bass violin" was never used (or its exact Italian equivalent), that needs to be specified right at the top. Badagnani (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Basso viola da braccio" was often the name. The English title is accurate, it was the bass (not contrabass) of the violin (ie. viola da braccio) family.BassHistory (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What was the name used in England for this instrument? We are the English-language Wikipedia. Further, as we have no Viola da braccio article (it redirects to Violin family), I am unconvinced that what was called the viola da braccio was exactly the same as the Amati/Stradivari violin; I understood that the Amati/Stradivari violin was based on the older/cruder viola da braccio. We should avoid "invented"/inaccurate terms like "bass violin" if they were not actually used in England during that period and, if it was still based on the viola da braccio and not something called a violin, the article title perhaps should be "bass viola da braccio." Badagnani (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Terminology of the time was overlapping, ambiguous and confusing. That's why today its called the bass violin. Are you seriously trying to argue with Bonta, et al?Viola da Braccio family=violin family. Why ask me if you don't trust me? Again, all your questions can easily be answered by reading Grove, Grout, or any standard academic resource. They are to many for me to answer individually. Sorry.BassHistory (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, you now have a special status which no other Wikipedia editor has, just "going it alone" and ignoring queries on "Discussion" pages. That's very unusual, rather disturbing, and reflects poorly on you as an editor. I've already pointed out two or three deficiencies with the article which were quite valid and need to be addressed and I am doing so in good faith. I hope you will do the same, as we do owe it to our users to have the best, most complete article possible. The article should leave no room for any of these fundamental questions; they should all be answered so that readers leave without saying "that's strange they didn't mention X..." Badagnani (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you believe "Terminology of the time was overlapping, ambiguous and confusing. That's why today its called the bass violin", yet you believe all instruments that fit the bill are "bass violins," this needs to be spelled out in the article. Badagnani (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You may have a point. Why don't you research that point? I'd like to see what you find. I'm actually not sure what it was called in English, but outside of Italy the translation was sometimes poor. Anyway, I think the English used more viols back then, so it may not be easy to find.BassHistory (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Disturbing," "very bad..." You exaggerate. Please calm down. Am I really ignoring you?BassHistory (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, YOU find out what it was called in England. I've worked quite a bit on this so far.BassHistory (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a note about the historical names: Contemporary names in England would be interesting, but not decisive for our naming practices. We are the English Wikipedia, but not the 17th-century-English Wikipedia. Relevant for us is what English-speaking scholarship uses today, and yes, it does use "bass violin" as a generic name for older bass members of the da braccio family. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

English name, more sources

Some more random sources:

• 1740 English encyclopedia confirming contemporary usage of "bass violin"
• some quotes about contemporary terminology
• Online paper about the history of "violone", "bass violin" and related instruments; with a critical review of the papers by Bonta

So much for now, Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The 1740 source is simply amazing. What a find! That entire definition should be added to the article, showing the term's actual use in English. I'm curious how you found this. One question: why doesn't it just call it a "violoncello" or "cello," which certainly existed and was called by that name by 1740? Badagnani (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's nice, isn't it? :-) Actually it was a random find in google, through the reference in the second one. I guess it just shows that violoncello was still felt to be a foreign Italian term at the time? Anyway, yes, whoever finds the time could certainly integrate a few quotes from it in the article. I'm impressed how well all these bass- or viol- or cello-enthusiasts are organised on the web, they seem to have various societies who have put a huge lot of interesting historical material online. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bravo! Does "stops" mean frets here, or positions? I would be quite interested to know if 18th century English "bass violins" had frets.BassHistory (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Six strings? OK, I'll change the intro again.BassHistory (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The text says "four strings" and "eight stops," not "six strings." Badagnani (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Read VIOLONCELLO.BassHistory (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There were certainly some early cellos (i.e.: "real", small violon-cellos) with more than four strings, that much is certain. Bach's instrument for the D major Cello Suite is not entirely isolated. But six must have been rather an exception. When they talk of frets, they may actually be thinking of some of those hybrid instruments. They must have been common in England, where fretted viols were far more common than real da braccios for a while. As far as I know, Italian instruments tended to stick more to the "real" da braccio prototype. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds about right.BassHistory (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[Weigel Violon Image]

Future Perfect, will you help me translate the caption at the bottom? Again, it's called a violon, which wont help with determining family. It's from Musicalisches Theatrum (Nurnberg, c.1715). A review in The Musical Times calls the instrument a bass violin, like that of Preatorius.BassHistory (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I just love German baroque verse. How did they think that stuff up? Here goes:

Let Padua yonder pride itself of its viol ["Gambe"],
I still do better service with my violone ["Violon"].
I have earned eternal praise with this art,
and am justly called a true son of the Muses.
As my strings sound even on Helicon,
Apollo himself will crown these cheerful brows.

I'm not sure why Padua was especially associated with viols. Was it a center of viol-making, like Cremona for the violins or something? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's great! The verse is evidence that it was indeed a bass violin, as opposed to a "gambe." I'm not absolutely sure about Padua, but neighboring Venice was an important center for the development of the viol in the sixteenth century (Woodfield 123-35).BassHistory (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There were instrument makers in Padua, going way back. The caption says "violone," not "bass violin." "Violone" can mean two or more things. Badagnani (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No frets. Violin family features (curled C-bouts, F-holes...). Anyway, from the descriptions we get of the bass violin, this is what it looked like. They looked like cellos, only larger, but smaller than a modern double bass. And the name "violon" does not prove anything either way.BassHistory (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that "-on" ("-one") means "large." Badagnani (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And? Anyway, a review in ['The Musical Times'] calls the instrument here "Praetorius's old 5-stringed Bas- Geig de bracio..."BassHistory (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This [article] in Music and Letters" calls it a "large, five-stringed cello..."BassHistory (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

More confirmation--that's good. It's like a detective story being solved. Whatever you find this way, don't forget to put it into the article. Badagnani (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you could add the print, that would be great.BassHistory (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Violin family" features?

Hello Mr. BassHistory, I'm the guy behind TheCipher.com -- which btw has nothing to do with "guitar tab". I submit that one can't begin to understand early violin family history without being intimately familiar with the early history of viols as well, and then the 16th century "Italianate" feature-set generally. If you were familiar with early viols you'd understand that there really is no such thing as "violin family" features as you (and many other moderns) concieve of them, from F-holes to flared C-bouts, carved tops, scroll finials, thin ribs, square shoulders, end pins, sound posts, played on the arm, you name it, none of those things (and more) were exclusive to the violin or da braccio family, nor did any of those things commence or appear first with the early violin or da braccio family. A good amount of initiation homework awaits you, me thinks. Although I tried very hard to make that an easier task for you and others, I gather you find my site's presentation wanting, so I wish you luck finding a better resource in this lifetime. http://www.thecipher.com/viola_da_gamba_cipher.html Thanks. Roger Cyclocifra (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.thecipher.com: "The Cipher System caters to people who can’t read music." Do we really need to enable more guitarists to avoid learning to read?

In a word yes, we do need to create tools to help facilitate that 98 per cent of humanity, the masses, who do not and never will read music. And be careful, your true colors are showing, and they are not the stuff of a natural-born dedicated educator and teacher. For your information, Guido of Arezzo, 11th cent Benedictine monk, the guy who developed the Ut Re Mi, did so specifically to facilitate teaching music to people who could _not_ read music. He had the right stuff, and I'm in good company with regards to that particular mindset and aspiration.

And I have found many better resources than yours. They are all listed in the "References" section of this article, me thinks. May I suggest that you better serve the music community by adding a bibliography to your website.BassHistory (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You have just demonstrated that you do not know who nor what constitutes "the music community". Therefore, no, you may not suggest, you are not qualified, to comment about matters of "service" to me (a veteran producer). As I correctly intuited earler, your initiation is far from complete, let alone successfully passed. Cyclocifra (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not continue to edit my comments, I do not want to be misrepresented. First of all, I do not consider myself to be a serious music researcher, I am merely attempting to make some of the most current and solid information that I have found available to others. It appears, however, that you consider yourself to be somewhat of an authority in the area of early stringed insrtuments. I have compared your work to others and find it to be unreliable for serious students of music, or even laypeople wishing to gain a general understanding of these instruments, for several reasons: you provide no bibliography to point to the preliminary resources used, you dismiss the serious researchers who came before you without using direct quotes or even mentioning them by name, you do not deal seriously with any other sources than those of the iconographic record, you do not know the origins of many of your sources, and you express a strong bias against the institutions of music research and even early music performance. As far as I am aware, some of the wild relationships you imagine and grasping conclusions you come to (which you present as indisputable facts) may eventually turn out to be true, as more scholarly research is done on the subject. However, due to your neglecting the spirit and practices of serious modern research methods, your page (as I last viewed it a few days ago) is but an impressive online collection containing early depictions of stringed instruments and a few good links, with little value beyond that. I would recommend that anyone viewing the page without previous general knowledge in the subject take everything you say with a HUGE grain of salt.

However, I do not doubt your good intentions. In order to direct your work in a way that benifits others who are trying to answer the same questions as yourself I suggest this text, entitled Introduction to Research in Music. To help with bibliograhpy and annotation, definitely visit The Chicago Manual of Style Online.BassHistory (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't edit a single character of your comments, I merely inserted colons where appropriate so things would indent and thread properly. Being admittedly not a serious researcher, nor teacher, nor even student of any merit, how would you know what is and what is not "solid" research and conclusions? I at least have paid some major dues. Your contempt for lay-persons precedes you, so please make no pretence at championing their needs. You claim and report that my web site is about "guitar tab". How then can we take your powers of observation, comparison, and critique (of anything) seriously? The positive feedback contact and conversations I've had with many "serious" luthiers around the globe, informed researchers in their own right, as a result of my page(s), confirms and validates my work as far as I'm concerned. They, among many others, still find my pages and work useful and "reliable". My refusal to simply regurgitate much of what passes as "scholarly" and" informed" and to go take a look for myself and draw some of my own conclusions is again simply one of the distinguishing characteristics of a "producer", a contributor. Iconography _is_ primary-resource material numero-uno my friend. Show me the pictures, the proof. You can talk, claim, deny, disclaim, conjecture, assume, and suspect all you like, but without the pictures you're often just guessing. And even _having_ good pictures still doesn't necessarily mean you'll get a good interpretation of them. To whit, the (for some unknown reason) "respected" pap that a certain Gaudenzio Ferrari dome fresco c.1535 represents the best and earliest iconographic proof of a complete "family" of violins! Information which I'm certain that you Mr. BassHistory will be more than content to continue perpetuating. Truth be dambed, Groves told me so. Cyclocifra (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's at all useful, I believe that both of you are contributing immensely valuable information to Wikipedia. It isn't possible that you are both right (or wrong) 100% of the time. By discussing and evaluating the evidence here and at related pages, we can produce some really excellent articles. But to do that we'll have to start from an attitude that is based on mutual respect and putting knowledge and veracity before personal opinions or preconceived notions. Badagnani (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the Ferrari painting, let's begin doing so, rather than issuing proclamations about what these instruments are or aren't, without actual in-depth discussion of the issues at hand. Badagnani (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ferrari Painting

Agreed Badagnani, and I'm glad you find my contributions usefull. I agree with many things that you and Mr. Cyclocifra have said, although I don't think that my critisizm of his work merits his sweeping generalizations about me. I would like to have a discussion about the Ferrari painting. In addition to the conditions you propose for the discussion, I have two of my own. First, that we use standard sources (Grove, Harvard Dictionary, Grout, JSTOR, etc.), at least as a jumping off point. Second, that we don't get needlessly side-tracked by semantical arguements (e.g. "violin features" vs. "Italian features", etc.). For reasons of clarity and a more meaningful understanding, vocabulary and simple definitions should be agreed to (comprimised to if necessary), and then its simply time to move on and get to less superficial concerns.BassHistory (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, all we'll need to do is avoid falling into the stereotypical "everything is a violin" and "everything is a viol" camps--not a logical position when some instruments clearly borrowed elements from the other family's design. The new textual evidence showing the use of terms such as "bas-Geig de braccio" (in German) or "bass violin" (in English) are compelling, and, as you say, I don't believe those are mentioned on the extensive viol iconography site. So it does seem clear that "bass violins" did exist at the same time as the heyday of the viol. We can all add to one another's information and expertise. Badagnani (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"We can all add to one another's information and expertise." Absolutely. I would like to point out that this article is somewhat progressive in that it credits the vihuela de arco with characteristics that later appeared in the violin family. Certainly we should not believe the standard wisdom about a topic unconditionally without examining the evidence (although if we constantly question everything, that becomes impractical). The history of the violin family during the sixteenth century has not yet been revealed entirely, although it's safe to say that these instruments existed. That being said, the large bassi da braccio described by Jambe de Fer and Praetorius seem to have been much less common than the bass viols.BassHistory (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So that we're all on the same page and up to speed, I'm going to start with a very fundamental clarification regarding the history of string instruments plucked or bowed, fretted or not, in both Italy and Spain from the mid 1400's onwards. There arose a new construction technique, a construction method based on discrete sawed _slabs_ and pieces of wood to serve as sides (or ribs), backs, tops, and necks. Many of those parts themselves might be comprised of multiple slab parts, glued and joined or jointed together to create the final form. This is distinct from the earlier medieval uni-body or carved-out from a single solid block of wood construction method, where for example the sides, back, and neck might all be carved from one single large block of wood, and then a separate slab or carved top might be the only other separate piece needed to compete the basic form. The newer "slab" construction has come to be called generically the "vihuela" construction method. The Italian word "viola", is synonymous with the Iberian term "vihuela". So we could just as well call this generically the "viola" construction method. The very earliest vihuela/viola as here defined, i.e. those from the mid 1400s, plucked or bowed, fretted or not, all has deep C shaped cuts to their waists. The ribs or sides of all such instruments would thus have been made up of at least 6 separate slab parts bent-curved and glued together. There were at least four different types of instrument which almost simultaneously emerged and all took on this new construction manner: the fretted and lute tuned plucked viola, the fretted and lute tuned bowed viola da gamba, the early and soprano sized three stringed fretless 5ths tuned violin ancestor, and the bowed lira da braccio (with it's one or two off-board drone strings). Most of these "new" instruments were essentially "ports" of existing earlier instruments: the plucked lute, the bowed rebec, and the Medieval and early Renaissance bowed lira-type fiddle. All four of the newer incarnations, the ones which all jumped into vihuela/viola-type bodies, shared a common pool of body design and construction elements and features, whether functional or decorative in nature. This shared pool of features and visual cues might rightly be called "Italianate" in style and origin today (yet have nothing specifically, particularly, or exclusively to do with the lone violin-ancestor existing among the four instrument types distinguished but still grouped together here in this discussion). Cyclocifra (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to respond to all of this, but unfortunately I dont have time. First, to clear up some ambiguous terminology, it's an over simplification to state that "The Italian word 'viola', is synonymous with the Iberian term 'vihuela'." For example, the modern [viola] has the same name in Spanish, as does the [vihuela]. I am not aware of any instances of the viol of Italy being refered to as vihuelas (although if anyone has an example I'm all ears). Furthermare, c1500 the vihuela de mano in Spain and the viola spagnola[sic?] in Italy quickly took quite different evolutionary paths. The vihuela de arco, with its flat bridge, soon disappeared because it did not suit players' needs (i.e. the move from modal music to polyphony, which didn't catch on in Iberia until a little after the rest of Europe). Furthermore, contemporary scholars do not use these words ("viola" and "vihuela") synonomously as far as I am aware (eg. Woodfield, Playanavsky, Morton, etc.).

As far as the construction techniques (the departure fron the uni-body, as you called it) are concerned, I was under the impression that the slab technique (like that still used in modern violins) emerged after the instruments were brought to Italy. If you believe that the general construction techniques of the violin had there beginnigs in Spain and were brought to Italy with the first viols, I would be interested to know what evidence there is to support that idea. The first place I would look for this information would be chapters three, four and five in Ian Woodfield's The Early History of the Viol.

My knowledge of instrument construction is very limited, so as far as I know, your statement that "The ribs or sides of all such instruments [with "deep C shaped cuts to their waists"] would thus have been made up of at least 6 separate slab parts bent-curved and glued together" may be correct. Another source besides the iconography could be modern makers of early instruments. Are you saying that in order to build instruments with the general shape depicted in the mid-fifteenth century representations of vihuelas that a non-uni-body technique would have been necessary (one that resembles modern violin construction?)? If modern builders of early instruments can substatiate these claims, then their testimony would be important to the organology of all modern European bowed string instruments.BassHistory (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to respond to all of this, but unfortunately I dont have time. First, to clear up some ambiguous terminology, it's an over simplification to state that "The Italian word 'viola', is synonymous with the Iberian term 'vihuela'."

No, it's not an oversimplification.

For example, the modern [viola] has the same name in Spanish, as does the [vihuela]. I am not aware of any instances of the viol of Italy being refered to as vihuelas (although if anyone has an example I'm all ears).

Yes, you are unaware of many things.

Furthermare, c1500 the vihuela de mano in Spain and the viola spagnola[sic?] in Italy quickly took quite different evolutionary paths. The vihuela de arco, with its flat bridge, soon disappeared because it did not suit players' needs (i.e. the move from modal music to polyphony, which didn't catch on in Iberia until a little after the rest of Europe). Furthermore, contemporary scholars do not use these words ("viola" and "vihuela") synonomously as far as I am aware (eg. Woodfield, Playanavsky, Morton, etc.).

Of course they do, use the terms interchangably. And again of course you are unawares.

As far as the construction techniques (the departure fron the uni-body, as you called it) are concerned, I was under the impression that the slab technique (like that still used in modern violins) emerged after the instruments were brought to Italy. If you believe that the general construction techniques of the violin had there beginnigs in Spain and were brought to Italy with the first viols, I would be interested to know what evidence there is to support that idea. The first place I would look for this information would be chapters three, four and five in Ian Woodfield's The Early History of the Viol.

Yes it would be a good place to look, and yes the evidence _is_ shown in Woodfield's book (See the Kingdom of Aragon, Iberia). My freind, this is all very common knowledge, well established and accepted stuff. Iberia and Italy were joined at the hip in those days, by politics, trade, and religion.

My knowledge of instrument construction is very limited,

I'll say. And that's exactly why I knew we had to lay some initial foundation for you specifically, BassHistory.

so as far as I know, your statement that "The ribs or sides of all such instruments [with "deep C shaped cuts to their waists"] would thus have been made up of at least 6 separate slab parts bent-curved and glued together" may be correct. Another source besides the iconography could be modern makers of early instruments. Are you saying that in order to build instruments with the general shape depicted in the mid-fifteenth century representations of vihuelas that a non-uni-body technique would have been necessary (one that resembles modern violin construction?)? If modern builders of early instruments can substatiate these claims, then their testimony would be important to the organology of all modern European bowed string instruments.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Slab constructin, not uni-body, is implicit and was necessary to produce the new instruments, i.e. new technology gave rise to new instruments. And again, this is all very old hat to anyone even remotely familiar this these topics, the instrumtents, and their history. Yes it _was_ a very important insight into organology, but again it's all very old news by now, and is not some new "revelation" taking place here in 2007, accept perhaps to and for novices (and there's nothing wrong that novices exist, per say, but . . . ). Cyclocifra (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we please keep the mode of the discussion on a "facts-only" basis? The tenor is drifting back toward the "I-know-more-than-you" mode, which is unfortunately so prevalent in academia. I don't want to have to ask a third time (or a fourth time, or a fifth time...). It really is the best way to operate. Badagnani (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyclocifra. Firstly, I will ask you again. Please stop editing what I write. If you want to quote me, please leave what I wrote where I wrote it, and copy and paste what you need to in your response. I would like to add that all human beings are "unaware of many things." I'm not sure why you find it necessary to point out the obviouis fact that I am as well. I have several direct questions for you. Please provide an example for each. If you can't do so, than your answer is not usefull to me, or anyone else, excepting possibly yourself, that is if you find it usefull in some way to assert your claims in this way.

I agree that the viol is decended from the vihuela de arco. I agree that "viol," "viola," and "vihuela" come from the same root. I agree that, at one time (c1490-c1505?), "viola" and "vihuela" were possibly interchangeble in various part of Europe. However, in modern usage, these words are not synonymous or interchangeble, possibly making an exeption for discussion of the the period from c1460-c1510.

For example, on page 157 of Woodfield's Early History, we find the following useage of the two terms "viol" and "vihuela":

...the verticle a gamba playing position was almost invariably used by players of the viol's bowed ancestors, the Moorish rabab and the vihuela de arco itself.

In a perfect illustration of how I would describe the current practice of the terminology, Woodfield clearly uses the word "viol" differently than the word "vihuela." The vihuela was one of the "ancestors," not the viol itself by this time (the "mid-16th century"). Furthermore, it is clear from a brief examination of the index of this text, that Woodfields application of the word "vihuela" is limited mostly to his discussion of the viols earliest history, up to its earliest years in Italy.

Are you proposing that, for example, when modern scholars (meaning individuals published in academic journals, Ph.D's, college professors, etc.) are discussing the English viol consort of the seventeenth century they use the words "viol" and "vihuela" interchangably? I have never encoutered this convention. Please either submit two similar examples, or cede the point, and lets please move on to more important thought.BassHistory (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. BassHistory. It appears that working with you will be near impossible. I never said that the terms viol and vihuela are interchangeable. Please read that again. I did say, however, that the terms vihuela and viola are being used nearly interchangably now (by those in some circles, notably those players, luthiers, and researchers who frequent the vihuela list for example) and that the terms were essentially interchangable way back when (viola da mano = vihuela de mano, Google them both please if you need something or someone to cite). And, I will add (if I didn't mention it earlier), that the terms viol and viola are today being used interchangeably in some circles. If you grow up today living in Italy you will probably call you viol your "viola". Paolo Pandolfo, contemporary Italian viola da gamba master does (refer to his instrument as his "viola", and righty so). Cyclocifra (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please get this discussion back on track, discussing what you actually want to improve in this article? Cyclocifra, your knowledge of instrument history is appreciated and all, but besides a big display of "I know more than you" I haven't actually seen anything constructive and to the point from you on this talk page so far. Please stop the innuendo and the abrasiveness and get to work improving the article. I second Badagnani's request above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am quite interested in Northern Italian iconography of the sixteenth century. It seems that if this art were to be carefully related to the treatises and compositional practices of the same period, that more could potentially be discovered in the area. Not that there hasn't been research done on the topic, but I would wonder if there were actually sixteenth century instruments tuned in fifths like violins, with three or four strings, but with tied frets. I believe I read somewhere that some Renaissance fiddles, tuned in fifths, had frets. Perhaps it could be asserted that the earliest extant Amati instruments, dated soon after this painting, produced in a neighboring region, may have originally had frets. I did read somewhere recently that at least a few of the major early violin builders are known to have built viols as well.BassHistory (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This "gray area" may be the most interesting thing about this research--it complicates things but can also help to elucidate the divergence of the two "lines," once it's sorted out. I have to admit that, before I saw the Praetorius and other German engravings, plus the English music dictionary, which spoke of *both* viols and "bass viola da braccio" (i.e. a huge bass version of the small violin, though with a deeper body and different proportions), I wasn't convinced there was such a thing so early (i.e. before 1600). This evidence shows that, even at the time, instrument makers were experimenting with families of both instruments, and made clear differences between the two in their nomenclature. Badagnani (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

From Martin Agricola's treatice "Musica Intrumentalis Deudsch" (Wittenberg, 1529) http://www.greatbassviol.com/treat/agricola6.jpg Scroll to the right to see the facing page text translation. Agricola was German not Italian, but nevertheless he strongly advised his students of in this case the 3 string 5ths tuned geigen to learn to play their instrument using frets first, and then to remove them later as skill developed if they desired. Cyclocifra (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Which instrument is it you're speaking of? Bas-geige? Badagnani (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

He seems not to differentiate and just applies the advice broadly to the type or class of geigen. Plate 8 (as there numbered) shows three sizes including bass http://www.greatbassviol.com/treat/agricola8.jpg This so called "bass" however may simply be "relative" and really not all that large in the end. Something along these lines for example could well be the bass of the smallest sized fiddles http://www.thecipher.com/rebec-bass_anon_Italian_16th.jpg Cyclocifra (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the translated text from the plate: The Tenth Chapter
"There follows the third type of fiddles, which (I advise) you should also not avoid. They are smaller than the previous ones. Only three strings are counted on them, and they are generally found without frets. Nevertheless I say to you at this time that it is difficult to grasp them without frets. Therefore you should not cast them away, but practise first with frets; in this way you will become quite experienced. If, later, you can not abide the frets, you may cur them off with a knife and fiddle away to your heart's content." Cyclocifra (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)