Talk:Violin family

Contrabass
The double bass is *not* a member of the violin family. It is a member of the viol family. 208.187.181.35 04:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup. Just plain Bill 19:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I favor keeping the picture of the bass fiddle, to point out that this superficially "similar" instrument is not a member of the violin family, and so clarify the article. Just plain Bill 16:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree -- keep the bass picture. We can add a note on the caption that says something to the effect of "note the sloping shoulders which denote the bass as a viol" or some such. J Lorraine 07:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Caro Zimbricchio: I flipped the bass picture back, since otherwise the tuning machines and strings would be reversed in the picture, possibly misleading the audience. Va bene? Just plain Bill 02:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I think the reversal (as well as the yellow background) helps highlight the fact that the contrabass is an "outsider" to this family. Just plain Bill


 * all right dude. It's impossible to see the different thickness of the strings, soprattutto in the miniatura, so I thought it would be nice to have a page aesthetically correct. My only concern was about the onore of the author of the photo, so I agree with your edit Bill --Zimbricchio 16:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of it's origins, the bass is considered a member of the violin family today. &mdash; ßottesiηi  Tell me what's up 23:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be useful to point to who else considers the bass fiddle a member of the violin family. Got some cites to show? __ Just plain Bill 01:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm about to add some citations. --  ßott  e   siηi  (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just looked at the double bass article, which talks about the string instruments used in the modern symphony orchestra, but does not mention "violin family". I think most bass players, teachers, and musicologists I know would agree that the bass is not a member of the violin family.  If we use the words "modern violin family" and "ancestral violin family", wouldn't that be terminology that originates with wikipedia? Instead, we ought to use the terms that are used in the music profession already.  The whole point of "families" of instruments is that they are related to one another historically, in their origins.  To graft the bass into the violin family and call it the "modern violin family" is questionable to me.  It is part of the modern string orchestra, and part of the string family, but not part of the violin family.  An encyclopedia should distinguish between these things, using the terminology that is used by those who study and work daily with music on an academic and a professional level. J Lorraine 22:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "modern violin family" is not wikipedia original research. I think that most people (as in musicians who play professionally) think of the bass as being in the same grouping and family as the other string instruments, but they also realize that its origins are different (which I agree with, but there are researchers who believe that the bass developed along with the other violin instruments). Like I have previously stated, you will more often then not find the double bass casually defined as a member of the violin family, even though it descends from the viol. --  ßott  e   siηi  (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree -- by which I mean that when you tell me that I will more often than not find the db casually defined as a member of the violin family, I have NOT found this to be true. People I know casually and not-so-casually define it as a member of the strings -- and bassists I know are pointed about the fact that they aren't part of the "violin family". If I had not found this to be the case, I would never have postulated that the phrase "modern violin family" originated in wikipedia.  So, now we need some bit of research or some several citations in which professional musicians and/or musicologists refer to the double bass as part of the "modern violin family". J Lorraine 02:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could just breifly mention that there is disagreement, without making the decision for the readers.BassHistory (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

merge?
Should this page be merged with string instruments, or does it have the potential to be a full-length article? J Lorraine 11:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. For one, the history (e.g. Viola da braccio) needs to be mentioned. --nkayesmith 06:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

viols
what's the difference between the viol family and the violin family? the instruments seem extremely similar, are played the same way, and even have almost the same name. if one showed a random person pictures of viols, he would probably recognize them as being in the violin family. why are these two types of instruments regarded as so different? 67.172.61.222 17:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The outward differences seem minor: proportions and the shape of the upper bouts are different; viols can be fretted; viols are tuned differently; etc. Most of the major differences come not in how the instruments appear on the outside, but in how they are constructed on the inside and in how they sound.  (One piece of evidence listed on the double bass page against the double bass having descended from the viol family is that its insides are very violin-family-like, instead of viol-like.)  To make a comparison: scientific classifications like species, genus, family, order, phylum, kingdom, etc. are important divisions, but the random person probably makes some mistakes if asked to classify a set of photos. You could say that both the viol & the violin families are members of the same "kingdom" (string instruments), the same "phylum" (bowed string instruments), the same "order" (bowed string instruments of western european "descent"), but not the same "family".... then within each family there are subdivisions-- e.g. viols in the "genus" of having frets & those not, or of different sizes, etc.... and then each individual instrument would be its own "species".... J Lorraine 08:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Once consensus is achieved on double bass family membership (viol or violin), it needs to be consistently applied to all of the violin, viola, double bass, and cello pages. Currently it is not the case. I'd do it myself, but I'm going to let someone more qualified do the honors. Ptarth 138.23.70.112 21:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Contrabassi have the double bass to represent string instruments. Is it, or is it not, a member of the violin family?
We need some substantial discussion here, best if it tends to consensus. Carry on... __Just plain Bill 01:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * According to that article, it represents the double bass as the lowest pitched of the "orchestral string family" -- which would be synonmymous with what this article presently calls the "modern violin family". I wouldn't mind seeing the double bass UN-identified as part of the "modern violin family" and instead changing the references in this article to "orchestral string family" as in the contrabass article.  However I won't be surprised if others will disagree with my inclination. J Lorraine 09:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Violone
"Violone" historically was a somewhat generic term. The reference in this article to the violone is misleading. The violone that the cello recieved it's name from is not the contrabass violone from the viol family (decendent to the double bass). The violone here (the bass violin) was not exactly "replaced" by the double bass, it was an 8' instrument.

"A violin is a "little viola", a violone is a "big viola" or a "bass viola", and a violoncello (often abbreviated cello) is a "small violone" (or, literally, a "small big viola"). (The violone is not part of the modern violin family; its place is taken by the modern double bass.)"BassHistory (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Viola da braccio
Why does "viola da braccio" redirect here, yet the term "viola da braccio" appears nowhere in the article? Further, it is not explained if there were any differences between the instrument called "viola da braccio" and the instruments called "violins." Badagnani (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It means the ame thing, tha's why you were redirected.BassHistory (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the Italian term "viola da braccio," in its earliest usage, referred to an instrument that was not exactly the same as what was called "violin"/"violino" in the Baroque period--i.e. a cruder version before the design was finalized in Cremona by Amati and Stradivari. Badagnani (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Monteverdi was in the Baroque, and references to "da braccio" as a family practically begin with him.BassHistory (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I always forget to sign.BassHistory (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. That should be in the article, as the origin of the nomenclature is really key. The confusion between the various "lira," "viola," "violino," etc. will really be clarified if it's explained in a very complete way. Badagnani (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course Monteverdi was in the Baroque but I thought things called "viola da braccio" (whether they were exactly akin to the modern violin or not) existed in the late Renaissance as well. Or did only "lira da braccio" (with the extra drone string(s)) exist in the late Renaissance? Badagnani (talk) 06:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The phrase "viola da braccio" possibly (as far as I know) did pre-date the form known as the modern violin, but in contemporary contexts today it means the family. We're not here to change terminology that we feel is incorrect, right? We're trying to help people understand terms that they run into. "Viola da braccio," means a member of the family. If the reference is pre-1525(?) or so, we can assume it refers to some other fiddle.BassHistory (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. That should be in the article, as the origin of the nomenclature is really key. The confusion between the various "lira," "viola," "violino," etc. will really be clarified if it's explained in a very complete way. Badagnani


 * Yeah, that could be a good addition. The ancient terminology is really confusing, that's why sometimes new terminology, such as "bass violin," or "violin family," needs to be invented, to clear things up. BassHistory (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You say "viola da braccio" possibly (as far as I know) did pre-date the form known as the modern violin"... This is as I'd presumed. That's the thing--there is no Wikipedia article saying this. I would propose a disambiguation page "Viola da braccio," with two subheadings: one being the Violin family article and the other saying "any number of instruments given this name during the Renaissance," before the standardization of the violin family in Cremona in the late 16th century. Badagnani (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The rebec and other fiddles existed earlier and were also tuned in 5ths. I'm not sure why the violin is not considered older than is is, it seemed like a gradual evolution. The name just means "small fiddle," so it's not much of a help.BassHistory (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You say "viola da braccio" possibly (as far as I know) did pre-date the form known as the modern violin"... This is as I'd presumed. That's the thing--there is no Wikipedia article saying this. I would propose a disambiguation page "Viola da braccio," with two subheadings: one being the Violin family article and the other saying "any number of instruments given this name during the Renaissance," before the standardization of the violin family in Cremona in the late 16th century. Badagnani


 * That sounds like an admin question. If your reading and come across the term "viola da braccio" it usually means any member of the family, unless its in another slightly obsolete (but not incorrect) context. I'm not sure if it needs its own page though.BassHistory (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm speaking only of instruments called "viola da braccio," not rebecs, vielles, fidels, liras, or anything else. There's an important distinction between the literal meaning of "viola da braccio" (all bowed lutes played on the arm) and the actual instruments designated by the term. Badagnani (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify- The literal meaning of "viola da braccio" is "fiddle played a braccio (ie. under the chin, against the arm, upwards, etc.)." I'm not sure that a rebec or lira of the 1500s wouldn't have been refered to as a "viola da braccio," and I think I may have seen them refered to in that way in ancient texts.BassHistory (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Identity of the double bass
The subject of the internal construction of the double bass is relevant, so I wouldn't necessarily blank all of that context, as in this edit. These issues are, however, discussed at Double bass. Badagnani (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It was good content, but I felt that it didn't work for the intro. To me it seems like a discussion best fit for later in the article, or perhaps instead in the double bass article. The intro should explain the general idea concisely. I think the info on etymology should be left for further down as well.BassHistory (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm putting it later in the article. Last time I looked, it was in the dbl bass article in a more detailed description (as it should be), but it should be referred to here as well. J Lorraine (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Viola da braccio should redirect here not to article lira da braccio
Viola da braccio should redirect here. It is simply an early name for the violin family. Why is it redirecting to the article Lira da braccio? This is wrong. Contact Basemetal   here  07:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ancestors of the violin and the viola
The lead of this article cites a source that gives the lira da braccio and the Byzantine lira as ancestral ("in part", whatever that means) to the viola da braccio family. Chronology precludes that information from being right. The lira da braccio is entirely unlikely as an ancestor as it was developped concurrently with the violin and the viola in two entirely different social settings, although it might have influenced the development of these instruments (regarding shape for example, but so did the viol family). As to the Byzantine lira it may be (with the rebab) ancestral to the pear-shaped instruments tuned in 5ths that were used in Western Europe to accompany dances or the singing or recitation of popular poetry since at least the 11th century, such as the rebec or the instruments generally known as "vielle" (at least in French), but it is only through those instruments that it could be said to be ancestral to the violin. Chronologically there is a gap between the Byzantine lira and the violin which precludes its being able to be considered a direct ancestor. I'd welcome sources on this question. The source given dates back to 1901 which is getting a bit outdated. I understand that the relationships between these various instruments is a tricky question. Contact Basemetal   here  14:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Double Bass
The Double Bass is NOT a member of the Violin family. This is a common misconception. It belongs to the family of the Viol, where it is known also as the Contra-bass Viol. It is tuned in 4ths, whereas the violin, viola, cello are tuned in 5ths. The shape of the body is not that of a violin and its thickness relative to size is less, as are other viols. 2A00:6020:5004:300:741D:AA78:F32C:8992 (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Public Musicology
— Assignment last updated by Anacasb (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)