A fact from Bass violin appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 November 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
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. |
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 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)
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)
Please add an image of what you believe to be a "bass violin." Badagnani ( talk) 00:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
Thanks. Yes, it looks like a cello. Only a little bigger. BassHistory ( talk) 04:25, 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)
That a good point. I'll change that. BassHistory ( talk) 04:33, 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 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~lambsmit/files/Download/bachsvioloneandvioloncellocorr291005.pdf Added this article, looked interesting. BassHistory ( talk) 18:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Relax. The admin guy said he preffered that we didn't do that, and I agree. It's cluttered.
- 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Some more random sources:
So much for now, Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
The following three images (indicated by there captions) should be added to this aricle: "Below; five strings and C-holes, probably a large viol, probably late 1600’s to early 1700s? Subject-matter Is suppsedly Pope Benedetto III’s visit to San Zaccaria monastary?," "detail of Vincent Sellaer’s viola da braccio , 1538-1544," "detail of bass instrument Ferrari’s large VIOL."
We should have accurate dating information, titles and artist for every image shown. BassHistory 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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'."
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.
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":
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)
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)
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)
Badagnani said: "...I wasn't convinced there was such a thing so early (i.e. before 1600)." I have been considering revising the article very slightly. I don't mean to give the impression that it is certain, as ealy as c1525 that there were instruments like the one in the Praetorius woodcut. Furthermore, although that particular treatise has been constantly used as a source, its specific mention of bass violins of that size is quite rare, even by c1610. I have encountered other textual evidence that early "bassi da braccio" were normally much smaller, and often played a braccio (this information is found in work by Alfred Playanavsky and others). The question is how to best integrate this information into the article. Everything should be cited properly, of course.
Regarding the early familiies, it seems that (at least) in Italy between c1490 and c1550 the main distintions (at least in naming) were made between size ("violini" and "violoni"), and origin (references to all large a gamba fiddles as "spagnoli"), as opposed to tunings, frets, or even playing positions. I'm getting this mainly from Woodfield's text, sorry there's no exact quote. BassHistory ( talk) 16:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, www.greatbassviol.com is an excellent site. I'm glad we can agree on a convenient resource. BassHistory ( talk) 16:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the info from the treatise, and the reminder of the terminology for frets. It would be a great contribution to this page if you could allow us to use some images from your [ site], granted that there will be no copywrite issues. I have a few in mind.
I should state, that never have I tried to imply anywhere on here that it is clear cut (excepting a very few instances) which depictions of these instruments are strictly in one family or the other. Although the early Amati instruments (the origins of which are somewhat arcane, I gather) were aparently constructed very early in this stage, they were certainly not the standard for some time. Interestingly, I had myself arrived at the conclusion, before ever hearing of your site or reading the related string pages on Wikipedia, that standard sources (Grove, for example) do not draw many parallels between viol and violin evolutions, while the relationship has been pointed out elsewhere for some time. That being said, I think we can all agree that a substantial disclaimer should be given with any of the viola da braccio family iconography (at least the pieces which I am aware of so far) created before c1600. Art from the time that would not need a disclaimer, in my opinion, would include rebecs, as well as instruments with all of the (mutually) accepted vihuela de arco features (five or more strings, undecorated C-bouts, no S or F-holes, frets, etc., but not including uni-body or flat bridge) played a gamba, which can safly be called viols or viole da gamba. For that matter, I would propose that any a gamba fiddle from the sixteenth century with five or more strings can (of course) be called a viol (with the quite rare exception of the gross quint bass). Hopefully we can reach a consensus on this matter. BassHistory ( talk) 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The gross quint bass[sic?] was Praetorius's five-string. But now that I think of it, there are the five string cellos as well. I think Future Perfect knew more about those (five string cellos) than me, I was really just vaguely aware of them. I think they appeared much later, but I would definately look that up. I haven't heard of any other early violin with five strings besides the large Praetorius bass (did Jambe de Fer mention it too? I forget now). BassHistory ( talk) 07:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome BassHistory. And you (and others) are also welcome to use any of the images on my site and without having to ask further in future. Given that I'm here though, if you tell me which pictures you have in mind and what they're intended to illustrate or highlight it might avoid some later problems re interpretations etc, or/and I may know of and have other pictures even better suited to your particular needs. Let me know (More later, sorry for the delay) Cyclocifra ( talk) 10:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The following three images (indicated by there captions) should be added to this aricle: "Below; five strings and C-holes, probably a large viol, probably late 1600’s to early 1700s? Subject-matter Is suppsedly Pope Benedetto III’s visit to San Zaccaria monastary?," "detail of Vincent Sellaer’s viola da braccio , 1538-1544," "detail of bass instrument Ferrari’s large VIOL."
We should have accurate dating information, title and artist for every image shown. BassHistory 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
A few things:
- What you see is what you get. All dating and titles I have are already included with the images
- What is it you're trying to illustrate with these images?
- The Pope Benedetto and Vincent Sellaer are both _gray_ as to definate ID, viol or not viol. The Ferrari is contested too.
- Page number (1 through 6) and link to exact image will help
- I concider this to be your project so I hope you know what you're doing before you continue.
http://www.thecipher.com/guit-viol_PopeBenedettoIII_SanZaccaria_deta.jpg
http://www.thecipher.com/braccio_VincentSellaer_ApolloMuses_1538-1544d_Flemish-det.jpg
http://www.thecipher.com/braccio_GFerrari_Saronno_1536_cello-not_deta.jpg
Cyclocifra 01:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I won't have time to add any images for a while. I'm still not clear how that's done, and I can see from the instructions that the process is a bit involved. If anyone can point directly to published research that stongly suggests these images are not what I believe them to be (a gross quint bass being played in the "right shoulder" a braccio position, a tenor violin, and a very early quasi-bass violin, respectively), than please divulge it. Again, I'm not interested in politics here. An encyclopedia article should be an objective summary of accepted relevent knowledge pertaining to the subject being examined. BassHistory 08:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
May I ask why you feel confident enough to rely on your own guesswork when choosing images for this Wikipedia musical instrument page? From my experience, the precise identity of the instruments in all three of the images you've selected might rightly be disputed. Less contestable examples must exist. And no, in this instance, I don't have better alternates to offer you off hand. I'm sorry. Cyclocifra 11:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
In Alfred Playanavsky's book The Baroque Double Bass Violone he describes and gives images of a modified a braccio position for bass violins, similar to a position we have already discussed here, only with the bottom of the bass all the way on the right shoulder. This is what I'm refering ot as the "right shoulder" a braccio position. I have only heard of this position (in which the bow arm is held under the instrument) being used for basses of the violin family. As for the disputability of the instruments, I can point to research that suggests they generally looked like this. If in time other editors replace theese images with better ones, than that's great. I am not worried about misleading the public here, as long as we explain why ID'ing the iconograpy is such a slippery task. BassHistory 20:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bass violin. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.xs4all.nl/~lambsmit/files/Download/bachsvioloneandvioloncellocorr291005.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
A fact from Bass violin appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 21 November 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
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. |
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 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)
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)
Please add an image of what you believe to be a "bass violin." Badagnani ( talk) 00:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
Thanks. Yes, it looks like a cello. Only a little bigger. BassHistory ( talk) 04:25, 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)
That a good point. I'll change that. BassHistory ( talk) 04:33, 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 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~lambsmit/files/Download/bachsvioloneandvioloncellocorr291005.pdf Added this article, looked interesting. BassHistory ( talk) 18:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Relax. The admin guy said he preffered that we didn't do that, and I agree. It's cluttered.
- 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Some more random sources:
So much for now, Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
The following three images (indicated by there captions) should be added to this aricle: "Below; five strings and C-holes, probably a large viol, probably late 1600’s to early 1700s? Subject-matter Is suppsedly Pope Benedetto III’s visit to San Zaccaria monastary?," "detail of Vincent Sellaer’s viola da braccio , 1538-1544," "detail of bass instrument Ferrari’s large VIOL."
We should have accurate dating information, titles and artist for every image shown. BassHistory 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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'."
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.
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":
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)
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)
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)
Badagnani said: "...I wasn't convinced there was such a thing so early (i.e. before 1600)." I have been considering revising the article very slightly. I don't mean to give the impression that it is certain, as ealy as c1525 that there were instruments like the one in the Praetorius woodcut. Furthermore, although that particular treatise has been constantly used as a source, its specific mention of bass violins of that size is quite rare, even by c1610. I have encountered other textual evidence that early "bassi da braccio" were normally much smaller, and often played a braccio (this information is found in work by Alfred Playanavsky and others). The question is how to best integrate this information into the article. Everything should be cited properly, of course.
Regarding the early familiies, it seems that (at least) in Italy between c1490 and c1550 the main distintions (at least in naming) were made between size ("violini" and "violoni"), and origin (references to all large a gamba fiddles as "spagnoli"), as opposed to tunings, frets, or even playing positions. I'm getting this mainly from Woodfield's text, sorry there's no exact quote. BassHistory ( talk) 16:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, www.greatbassviol.com is an excellent site. I'm glad we can agree on a convenient resource. BassHistory ( talk) 16:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the info from the treatise, and the reminder of the terminology for frets. It would be a great contribution to this page if you could allow us to use some images from your [ site], granted that there will be no copywrite issues. I have a few in mind.
I should state, that never have I tried to imply anywhere on here that it is clear cut (excepting a very few instances) which depictions of these instruments are strictly in one family or the other. Although the early Amati instruments (the origins of which are somewhat arcane, I gather) were aparently constructed very early in this stage, they were certainly not the standard for some time. Interestingly, I had myself arrived at the conclusion, before ever hearing of your site or reading the related string pages on Wikipedia, that standard sources (Grove, for example) do not draw many parallels between viol and violin evolutions, while the relationship has been pointed out elsewhere for some time. That being said, I think we can all agree that a substantial disclaimer should be given with any of the viola da braccio family iconography (at least the pieces which I am aware of so far) created before c1600. Art from the time that would not need a disclaimer, in my opinion, would include rebecs, as well as instruments with all of the (mutually) accepted vihuela de arco features (five or more strings, undecorated C-bouts, no S or F-holes, frets, etc., but not including uni-body or flat bridge) played a gamba, which can safly be called viols or viole da gamba. For that matter, I would propose that any a gamba fiddle from the sixteenth century with five or more strings can (of course) be called a viol (with the quite rare exception of the gross quint bass). Hopefully we can reach a consensus on this matter. BassHistory ( talk) 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The gross quint bass[sic?] was Praetorius's five-string. But now that I think of it, there are the five string cellos as well. I think Future Perfect knew more about those (five string cellos) than me, I was really just vaguely aware of them. I think they appeared much later, but I would definately look that up. I haven't heard of any other early violin with five strings besides the large Praetorius bass (did Jambe de Fer mention it too? I forget now). BassHistory ( talk) 07:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome BassHistory. And you (and others) are also welcome to use any of the images on my site and without having to ask further in future. Given that I'm here though, if you tell me which pictures you have in mind and what they're intended to illustrate or highlight it might avoid some later problems re interpretations etc, or/and I may know of and have other pictures even better suited to your particular needs. Let me know (More later, sorry for the delay) Cyclocifra ( talk) 10:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The following three images (indicated by there captions) should be added to this aricle: "Below; five strings and C-holes, probably a large viol, probably late 1600’s to early 1700s? Subject-matter Is suppsedly Pope Benedetto III’s visit to San Zaccaria monastary?," "detail of Vincent Sellaer’s viola da braccio , 1538-1544," "detail of bass instrument Ferrari’s large VIOL."
We should have accurate dating information, title and artist for every image shown. BassHistory 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
A few things:
- What you see is what you get. All dating and titles I have are already included with the images
- What is it you're trying to illustrate with these images?
- The Pope Benedetto and Vincent Sellaer are both _gray_ as to definate ID, viol or not viol. The Ferrari is contested too.
- Page number (1 through 6) and link to exact image will help
- I concider this to be your project so I hope you know what you're doing before you continue.
http://www.thecipher.com/guit-viol_PopeBenedettoIII_SanZaccaria_deta.jpg
http://www.thecipher.com/braccio_VincentSellaer_ApolloMuses_1538-1544d_Flemish-det.jpg
http://www.thecipher.com/braccio_GFerrari_Saronno_1536_cello-not_deta.jpg
Cyclocifra 01:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I won't have time to add any images for a while. I'm still not clear how that's done, and I can see from the instructions that the process is a bit involved. If anyone can point directly to published research that stongly suggests these images are not what I believe them to be (a gross quint bass being played in the "right shoulder" a braccio position, a tenor violin, and a very early quasi-bass violin, respectively), than please divulge it. Again, I'm not interested in politics here. An encyclopedia article should be an objective summary of accepted relevent knowledge pertaining to the subject being examined. BassHistory 08:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
May I ask why you feel confident enough to rely on your own guesswork when choosing images for this Wikipedia musical instrument page? From my experience, the precise identity of the instruments in all three of the images you've selected might rightly be disputed. Less contestable examples must exist. And no, in this instance, I don't have better alternates to offer you off hand. I'm sorry. Cyclocifra 11:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
In Alfred Playanavsky's book The Baroque Double Bass Violone he describes and gives images of a modified a braccio position for bass violins, similar to a position we have already discussed here, only with the bottom of the bass all the way on the right shoulder. This is what I'm refering ot as the "right shoulder" a braccio position. I have only heard of this position (in which the bow arm is held under the instrument) being used for basses of the violin family. As for the disputability of the instruments, I can point to research that suggests they generally looked like this. If in time other editors replace theese images with better ones, than that's great. I am not worried about misleading the public here, as long as we explain why ID'ing the iconograpy is such a slippery task. BassHistory 20:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bass violin. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.xs4all.nl/~lambsmit/files/Download/bachsvioloneandvioloncellocorr291005.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)