Talk:Viol

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

Classical music This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles Musical Instruments Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Picking up some loose threads from the now archived Lorenzo Costa image discussion; I'd like to upgrade three of our existing images: Costa, Madame Henriette, and the modern viol (it’s too dark, no detail, the blow-up isn't any better). I'd like to add even more images in addition to any upgrades, but maybe lets go one step at a time.

Replacing Costa, if we want to stay early Italian, I vote for this 1505 Peruzzi image. If the Costa image is in the public domain then this image is too. This picture highlights or demonstrates the connections between early plucked and bowed vihuela and viola. It’s being played “da gamba”, has the early round rosette sound hole, is also very early (1505), is Italian, has waist-cuts, thin ribs, and long neck. Continuity, feature-sets (early and late), start to finish, is unmistakable. It's a very good representative image (and rarely seen as well).

or again, as I pointed out the other day, this woodcut of a very early pattern viol is very representative of the early feature-set, shows family relations with plucked vihuela, and has the added benefit of very clearly showing the frets. Even the fact that a viol was considered worthy enough to be used alone to "represent" _Music_ itself, in all it’s glory, is revealing, an honor, illustrating the high esteem, position, and reverence, viols enjoyed. Cyclocifra 07:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Madame Henriette, how about more of the "two or three birds with one stone" approach. This Gainsborough painting of Carl Friedrich Abel for example. The portrait is of an important viol master and composer, is very late in the story (1765), pictured is a German/Austrian viol with round rosette feature (being a remnant of viol’s early vihuela roots, and even connects back to the Peruzzi image, i.e. demonstrates continuity). It's a seven string viol. The images shows more detail overall too. Copyrights?

For the modern reproduction instrument, I'm not sure. Any suggestions? Cyclocifra 02:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Abel portrait is outstanding. But I only see 6 strings. Badagnani 03:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A great selection of old and new ones here, but we'd need the photographer's permission for a free license for one of them. Badagnani 03:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two pages of photos of the instruments of Henner Harders: [1] and [2] Badagnani 03:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you enlarge Abel a bit there's four pegs on the far side. Orpheon does have great images, but I don't know if they'll release one to the public. Are we wanting a new modern repro instrument image, or just anything old or new of an actual instrument that clearly shows the frets and other details? Some of the one's of Harders on the second page you linked to have potential. Who's going to do the leg work, emailing, pleading, of any prospects? Is there nothing suitable and excellent (including the background of image) already in the public domain? Cyclocifra 03:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Harders I would consider them promotional images. But yeah, I'm sure tons of people have taken photos of their viols. I could even do that but I don't have a digital camera. Here is one of me playing a crappy small 6-string bass made by some guy in Reno. Badagnani 04:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I did the deed(s), see what you think. I deleted two old images (Costa and Madame Henriette), added three new images (Raphael, early viol woodcut, and C.F.Abel by Gainsborough). I also deleted the old text refering to the Costa image. Total image-k now is actually 250k _less_ than it previously was (the old Madame Henriette image was 550k alone). The images I added are all PNG format, so they scale. Cyclocifra 13:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've always rather liked the image of Marin Marais with his viol (Image:Marin-marais.jpg), although he's not holding the viol in the traditional way. Mak (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a great picture. There’s lots to say about the hold/pose he chose. I think it was pretty clever and artistic of him. He’s giving a nod to the lute, the plucked origins, and plucked viols too (in their own right), and for future generations he’s making it clear to all viewers that “this is no cello I have here in my hands!”  ;-). The hold is actually not as untraditional as we’ve been led to believe, not if one puts much stock in iconography that is. I’ve collected about three dozen images of guitar-held viols, the majority of them being 16th century, but in many lands the hold appears to have been commonplace The Veronese Cana image is another classic, and is of that same order as well. As I’ve said before, I think having lots of iconography is a good thing. As far as Wikipedia goes thought, I have to take your lead, you’all, regarding the quantity. We still have what amounts to two dead-weight images on the page (I think) so even if we kept it to six we have some room to play yet.

While we’re at it, this one came to mind today, Christopher Simpson's illustration showing two classic viol shapes side by side. It too might serve double-duty at least. I’m not sure we absolutely need to have a picture of a modern reproduction instrument on the page (and the one Abel is shown holding is about as classic as they come, and rendered very well too). They’re a dime a dozen on Google. Cyclocifra 06:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went ahead and swapped out two more pictures: nixed the Isenhiem Alter and the reproduction viol, added the Simpson plate and the portrait of Marais. Interestingly, the name of Simpson's book is "The Division Violist". We were just talking about violas and violists the other day, i.e. if there was early precedence (even outside Italy). Cyclocifra 11:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also swapped in better copy of the Praetorius viols image. The old one was too muddy and dark (you couldn't even make out the frets). Cyclocifra 12:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And one more image added. Detail from Italian fresco c.1560 by Lattanzio Gambara, featuring a guitar-shaped viol. The period costuming in this picture also helps drive home the sense of history, the age, the periods encompassed by the viol's reign. Cyclocifra 14:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two more images added: Violone painting by Peter Lely 1640, and Jan Verkolje, Dutch painting, 1674, domestic Music Lesson genre. I'm going to stop here before I get into trouble ;-) Cyclocifra 01:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone going to alter the caption of the Strozzi painting to point out that it's a portrait of Barbara Strozzi, a composer with her own wiki article? 99.179.148.81 (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many strings does the Lely have? It looks like four. Is it fretted? There's no possibility it's not an early double bass? Badagnani 05:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's hard to say how many strings, but I think it's safe to say more than four -- five or six is my guess. Here's a black and white version in which it appears to me that there's three strings within the bass 1/2 of the neck's width. Both the end of the fretboard and the width of the tail are so massively wide. I can't see (the) frets.

http://www.greatbassviol.com/images/lely.jpg

Here's two Praetorius violones, 5 and 6 string, fretted

http://www.violadagamba.org/html/Viole/Gravures/Germany/praetoriusviolone.jpg

17th cent English violone

http://web.jet.es/arroitaja/Engl/ENGLviolon_html.html

more later Cyclocifra 07:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does look like at least 5 in the black & white version. Badagnani 07:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. And I have a half dozen others we could use instead if people prefer. Cyclocifra 07:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.earlybass.com/borgin.htm

. . "Praetorius, who cited Italian sources (including Agazzari) in Syntagma musicum, ii (2/1619), illustrated a five-string 'Gross Contra-Bas-Geig' (Table V) and a six-string 'Violon, Gross Viol de-Gamba Basz' (Table VI), both fretted and tuned in 4ths; the length of the latter has been estimated at 114 cm (Bessaraboff; the smaller instrument is estimated at 80 cm). . . " Cyclocifra 08:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For more iconography and sense of scale, let this page load and scroll down

http://www.mdw.ac.at/I105/orpheon/Seiten/Instruments/violone/vo-ger.htm Cyclocifra 08:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are simply excellent, and invaluable for double bassists to understand their instrument's lineage. The one played by Hector Castillo seems to be of lighter/more delicate construction than a modern double bass. Badagnani 08:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I hope they haven't been convinced they're playing "bass violins" or something, or that the violin family is mostly to thank for their existance and heritage. ;-) There's lots of debate still going on re early violin family contra-basses though, just how many, how early, and how wide spread they were. Even cello's, their story, is sketchy, and a good part of it is wishful thinking I believe.

If you mean Pier Francesco Mola, he was Italian (says Google). Cyclocifra 10:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you meant Hector, ya it does look lighter, still a gamba. Cyclocifra 11:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the earliest unmistakeable one I have (I think), anon 16th cent Italian fresco, probably mid-century, again Italianate, square shoulders and F-holes, festooned lower bouts. You can get a string-count (six) between the short span tail to bridge. It's a little blotchy, jpeg artifacts, blown up this large, but just so you can see the string count.

http://www.thecipher.com/bass-viol_16th_anon_concert.jpg

Then again; the Italian Isabella d'Este reported c1500 seeing Spanish musicians playing instruments (viols?) "as big as I". This Italian picture, c.1503-1510, if the relative scales of things is correct, might be showing a violone, see far right viol. The neck joint is massive enough to be supporting lots of stress

http://www.TheCipher.com/violAngelConsort1503lrg_det.jpg

http://www.TheCipher.com/viol_angelconcert_c1503_bass-viol_det.jpg

and here's a huge Catalan plucked bass-vihuela of the same general early period (juxtaposed with the above viol)

http://www.TheCipher.com/VihuelaGrande_DeManoDeArco.jpg

So this last viol could push the clock back a good 50 years earlier than the violone seen in the above anon mid-16th Italian fresco, if it is as large as it seems, and hence is a violone c.1510. Cyclocifra 14:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The monster in Veronese's Cana painting is a head-scratcher, seems like very few pegs. There's at least 4 pegs (two per side), and you can see as many strings (at least) in the bridge area. Martin Agricola did document a whole family of four string lute-tuned fretted fiddles (Geigen), and tuning to 5ths, and fingering in 5ths, on such a monster, seems absurd. Point is, I guess; this fabulous beast is falling between the cracks because no-one feels 100 per-cent confident enough to claim it, as viol, violone, or whatever. No doubt some violin enthusiasts would love to call it a "large cello" or "basso de viola da braccio" or some such non-sense, simply because it has four strings. ;-) Cyclocifra 12:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they were at first bowing flat-bridged vihuelas, that would mean, wouldn't it, that they wouldn't have done much better than Jimmy Page -- being able to bow effectively only either the highest course, or the lowest, or all at the same time? Badagnani 09:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but/and that helps explain why the wider and arched bridge was very quickly adopted. There were any number of fiddly instruments with flat or nearly flat bridges though, various tunings too, and some at least are though to have been bowing (flat) _chords_.

Even a slight arch, of either the primary bridge or a secondary insert, can make a big difference. Look at the bridge in the woodcut on the page, it has a slight arch to it. Classic viol bridges are tall, high off the face (to increase downward pressure and tension, and also to meet the now canted-back neck angle), but the arch-radius itself is not so great. All I can tell you is that almost all of the very early iconography shows flat bridges. Cyclocifra 09:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Here’s a dozen early viol icons showing flat bridges:

Viol #1 Valencia

http://www.TheCipher.com/viol_Spanish_sculpture_c1500_ValenciaCathedral_deta.jpg

Viol #2 Sardinia

http://www.TheCipher.com/braccio_viol_Castelsardo_LaPorziuncola_c1500_Sardenia_clr_deta.jpg

Viol #3 Valencia or Majorca c.1500

http://www.TheCipher.com/vihuela-de-arco_Valencia-Majorca_c1500_de.jpg

Viol #4 Valencia

http://www.TheCipher.com/viol_vihuela-de-arco_Valencia-Madonna_late-15th_med_deta.jpg

Viol #5 – Sardinia

http://www.TheCipher.com/viol_4str10fret-SardiniaItalyc1500xsm_det.jpg

Viol #6 – Valencia

http://www.TheCipher.com/braccio-viol_CoronationVirginStLararusMaster1510_deta.jpg

Viol #7 - Valencia

http://www.TheCipher.com/bowed-guitar4str_late15th_m.jpg

Viol #8 – 1500 Timoteo Viti’s viol, Italy (TWO bridges!: flat-narrow and wide-arched)

http://www.TheCipher.com/viol_TimoteoViti_c1500Madonna-italy_det_lrg.jpg

http://www.TheCipher.com/viol-guitar_Viti_2bridge-c1500det.jpg

Viol #9 - 1505 Peruzzi, Italy

http://www.TheCipher.com/vihuela-de-arco_Peruzzi-Baldassare_c1505_deta.jpg

Viol #10 – 1511 - S. Virdung’s viol, Germany

http://www.TheCipher.com/LuteViolGuitarFamily_SVirdung_1511_det.jpg

http://www.TheCipher.com/Valencia_c.1476_Virdung_1511_juxta-deta.jpg

Viol #11 – (German) Woodcut

http://www.TheCipher.com/viola-vihuela_de_arco_Mvsica_early-mid16th-deta.jpg

Viol #12 OPPS! an arm-viol France, c.1490 (better stop now ;-)

http://www.TheCipher.com/braccio_Duke_Rene_II_Lorraine_France_c1490_superdet.jpg Cyclocifra 14:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody like to suggest in which language 'gambo' is the plural of 'gamba' (Viol#Similar names)? --ColinFine 01:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabethan English, Tobias Hume, c1605. "Viola de Gambo" or "Gambo Violl". When I first saw the terminology, a while back, I thought it was used to indicate plural, but perhaps not. Cyclocifra 07:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just a misspelling of gamba (transforming it from a female to male noun in the process!). Was Hume the only one to call it that? Maybe it's like calling a piano a "piana." Badagnani 07:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also "Robert Jones" (English, c.1600) "Viole de Gambo" http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Robert_Jones I'm looking for more . . Cyclocifra 08:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also "John Dowland" -- "The first booke of songs or ayres of foure parts, with tableture for the lute. So made, that all the parts together, or either of them severally, may be sung to the lute, orpherian, or viol de gambo." Cyclocifra 08:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, William Shakespeare, "Twelfth Night", . . SIR TOBY: Fye that you'll say so! he plays o' the viol-de-gambo, and speaks three or four languages word for word without book, and hath all the good gifts of nature. . . " Cyclocifra 08:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Shakespeare has "gamboys" in Twelfth Night, not "gambo" -- look at any reliable text of the play, not some random online version that has no indication of its source and no textual notes. The form "gamboys" occurs only twice that I am aware of, once in Twelfth Night and once in Beaumont and Fletcher. (The Chances, Act 4, Sc. 2. The Chances is supposed to be by Fletcher alone, if I am not misinformed. And a genuine Shakspearean scholar has informed me that Fletcher may have had a hand in the the text of Twelfth Night. It seems therefore to be a peculiarity of Fletcher's vocabulary rather than a deliberate attempt to characterize Sir Toby Belch as given to malapropism by mixing up his gambos with his hoboys, as I once thought.) Gambaguru (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just revised the entry to read . . .

In Elizabethan English, the word "gambo" (for gamba) appears in many permutations, e.g. "viola de gambo", "gambo violl", "viol de gambo", or viole de gambo", used by such notables as: Tobias Hume, John Dowland, and William Shakespeare in "Twelfth Night".

Thanks for pointing it out, ColinFine. I learned a bit from that quick research. Cyclocifra 09:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Badagnani 09:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty Cyclocifra 09:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De nada --ColinFine 10:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that inseparable duo, there's more than just iconography to verify it. Maybe you'all will find this interesting. A couple of weeks ago I did a quick survey of English song books, c.1600, which specify; Lute and Viol, or Lute with Viol on the frontpieces. The discussion came up with regard to Dowland and how his songs are typically performed today, usually with lute and voice _only_, verses how they were concieved and performed at the time of publication and specified as such by the author(s). I found a web site that has an online collection of facsimiles of the front-peices or title-pages of many English songbooks c.1600. Turns out, the frequency, the unanimity in fact, of the specific wordings "Lute and Viol", or "Lute with Viol", is unmistakable. The authors appearently really did think of the pieces as four-part songs, and that the combination of voices, viols, and plucked strings used to realize the four-part polyphony was up to the performers. In otherwords, the question; "When are lute-songs not lute-songs" might apply here.

So here's those facsimiles of title pages all showing similar specifications: Lute or Orpharion + Viol. Note the specific wordings "Lute and Viol", or "Lute with Viol". (quite a few more instances of "gambo" in there as well)

More (plates, texts, and midi) here . . .

13 English Song Books, 1597-1613, chronological:

• John Dowland, 1597, Booke of Songs, Book One"songs or Ayres of foure parts, with Tableture for the Lute so made, that all the parts together, or either of them severally, may be sung to the Lute, Orpherian, or Viol de Gambo"

• John Dowland, 1600, Booke of Songs, Book Two with Tableture for the Lute or Orpharion, _with_ the Violl de Gamba

• Thomas Morley, 1600, THE FIRST BOOKE OF AYRES or little short songs to sing and play to the lute _with_ the base viole

• Robert Jones, 1600, THE FIRST BOOKE of Songes or Ayres (as Dowland; "all the parts together, or either of them severally, may be sung to the Lute, Orpherian, or Viol de Gambo.

• Thomas Greaves, 1604, SONGES of sundrie kindes ("to be sung to the lute _and_ basse viol")

• Francis Pilkington, 1605, THE FIRST BOOKE OF Songs or Ayres of 4.parts: with tableture for the lute or orpharion _with_ the violl de gamba

• John Bartlet, 1606, A BOOKE OF AYRES (Lute or Orpharion, _and_ Viole de Gambo)

• John Danyel, 1606 , SONGS FOR THE LUTE, VIOL, and Voice:

• Thomas Ford, 1607, London, "Musicke of Sundrie Kindes" Aries for 4 voices to the Lute Orpharion or Basse-Viol

• William Corkine, 1610, AYRES TO SING AND PLAY (to the Lute _and_ Bass Viol)

• John Maynard, 1611, THE XII WONDERS OF THE WORLD -- violl de gambo, lute, and voice

• John Dowland's 1612 "A Pilgrimes Solace" also specifically says; " . . to be sung and plaid with the lute _and_ viols"

• Thomas Campion, 1613, TWO BOOKES OF AYRES, (again; "to be sung to the lute _and_ viols"

Somewhere, in some Wiki article dealing with viols, this might find a home? Cyclocifra 18:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of . . "When are lute-songs not lute-songs"; somewhere on the web there's a phrase that goes something like, "When is a viol tutor not a viol tutor?" ans: when it's a lute tutor. ;-) Cyclocifra 20:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the title-page of Thomas Greaves' Songes of sundrie kindes (1604), there's an interesting description and specification for his second collection of songs; "Songes of fadneffe (sadness), for the Viols and Voyce". I guess we would have to call those viol-song! First time I've ever heard or seen of those. I wonder if there's more . . . Cyclocifra 06:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right that "lute songs" were preferred to have viol holding down the bass line, and thanks for all the images. This has been understood for some time. Lute songs without viol don't have enough low end or presence. The liner notes to ann old LP of Dowland songs I have states this. The Greaves reference is interesting; I only knew of Hume from the Pandolfo recording as having strongly promoted viols for vocal accompaniment over the lute. But he was apparently regarded as eccentric in holding this view in his day. I don't know that music but voice with full viols is one of the most angelic, beautiful sounds in the world and it's a damn shame we don't get to hear this pure, non-vibrato sound more. Badagnani 13:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can by chance find this video in a library somewhere, do try to see it because it has some excellent vocal with viol consort, with Emma Kirkby. Badagnani 13:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting how even "HIPsters" see what they want to see! Most lutenists today don't know from viols and visa versa -- very strange way to be trying to authentically represent the music and environment of the past (with such narrow and isolationist focuses). I wonder if part of that separation today, lutes from viols, might have a lot to do with the way in which, and by whom, viols got "revived". To this day viols are more often than not presented as being just some "other" but antiquated vioin! It was cellists who did much of the reviving, and simply because there was a bow involved! The family relationships got turned on thier heads ;-) Looks like a cello so it must be one. Lutes?, who needs lutes. What do I know or care from lutes (never mind that I'm _playing_ one! but with a bow).

I'll see if I can find that video around, thanks. Vibrato, that's a topic. A little bit here and there is nice once and a while, even on viols, but I do appreciate the near-vibratoless technique of viols in consort. I bought a CD last month of lute and viol recorded in the mid 70's. The violist was a cellist-come-viol-player and his heavy constant vibrato was really off-putting. For some of the later stuff, and I'm thinking of some Telemann in particular, a little vibrato is a good thing and maybe even "period correct". I do hope everyone gets to hear (and play) more viols as time goes by. They are a treasure.

In hisTwo Bookes of Ayres Campion says: "These Ayres were for the most part framed at first for one voyce with the Lute, or Violl, but upon occasion, they have since been filled with more parts, which who so please may use, who like not may leave.". So again "one voyce with the Lute _or_ Violl" , would give you a viol-song with the later pairing -- one singer and one viol -- and the violist could even _pluck_ here and there, if they felt it appropriate ;-)

From what I'm gathering, Hume may have been a little prophetic. Seems that viols (or bass viols at least) did gain even more in popularity, and maybe somewhat at the lute's expence, as the 1600's rolled on. I read a little last night about "continuo-song", an apppearently just subsequent developement, where voice and continuo, provided by either a theorbo or bass viol (or harpsichord), was the more common stock. Theorbo is of course a kind of lute, but there playing a different role and function than it had in the earlier lute-song.

Here's one such example of later continuo-song, title page of: Henry Lawes' The treasury of musick, 1669, containing Ayres and Dialogues to sing to the Theorbo-lute or Basse-viol. London: printed by William Godbid for John Playford. Cyclocifra 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fretwork did a really nice all-viols version of Dowland's Lachrimae, and I think the "lute only" versions of it I've heard pale by comparison. Cyclocifra 16:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard lute songs done with a single bowed viol on the bass, that I can remember, but songs for voice and viol consort were quite popular and are very beautiful. Dowland's later set of Lachrymae were actually written for viol consort, and are quite exquisite. Have you heard Fretwork's recording of "The Silver Swan" with boy soprano and viols? It's lovely. In my opinion, "lute songs" (or ayres) can have a fine amount of bass, especially if you use either a baroque lute, with longer strings and a larger body than typical Renaissance lutes, or an archlute. I personally have known a number of lutenists who also experiment with the viol, and vice-versa. My old viol teacher tells a story about when she was playing the piece for Two to Play upon One Lute (was that also Dowland? I can't look it up right now), and she was fine in rehearsals, but when it came to the performance, the lights on the stage made it look like there were twice as many strings, because of the shadows, so she got completely lost. Mak (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up "The Silver Swan", and I think it must have been Phantasm (consort) on a Gibbons CD of theirs? I'll give it a listen when I can though. Thanks. After thinking about it a bit though, I was reminded that while viols and voice can be lovely, I have an aversion to opera-trained singers (largely, but not across the board entirely), and opera-trained singers doing early music really makes me cringe ;-) I remember too often in the past hearing such singing on one of my viol CD's and being angered that my otherwise lovely viol music was now soiled!  ;-) The boy soprano, and with little vibrato no doubt, I bet I would like though. I'm sure you're right that viol and lute players do experiment a bit when they can with their "other half". When the day comes that they're under one roof again, the Lute & Viol Societies of Earth, I'll be satisfied -- I'm easy. Pluck-n-Bow!  ;-)

P.S. Google says; Dowland's "My Lord Chamberlain, His Galliard" was written for "two to play upon one lute". On the same page came Hume's "Invention for Two to Play upon One Viole". Given their relationship, I bet Hume's was in responce to Dowland's  ;-) Cyclocifra 20:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm pretty positive that the Hume piece was a response to the Dowland piece. According to that same viol teacher, she's never heard the viol piece played successfully, because it requires a sort of clumsy bow-switching to play it. The recording of "The Silver Swan" I was thinking of was recorded by Fretwork, I have it on The English Viol, a compilation album from 1994.^audio I have a couple recordings with lute and voice uploaded here, but they were recorded live, so I don't know how great they are (User:Makemi/Recordings. I think instrumentalists tend to be more amenable to straight-tone singing than singers, or particularly, singing teachers, are! Mak (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That Amazon file is Windows media, which doesn't work in Mac OS9. I'll just buy the CD, sounds nice from what I did hear (in the few Real Audio clips they have), and a Fretwork compilation CD sounds like a good thing to have anyway -- might be good to point people to for an introduction to viol consort music in general. I do like Michael Chance's singing, and he's on there too. (Jeremy Budd is the boy singer's name). I also spent a couple hours trying to get up to speed with .ogg files on this old Mac; players, file associations, etc. I have slow dialup as well, so it'll take a while to download the .ogg files you linked to and play them. Danka Cyclocifra 11:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The video I linked above has Emma Kirkby singing "The Silver Swan" with full viol consort. Not too much vibrato and it's an emotion-filled performance of what must be one of the most beautiful songs ever. She also does Gibbons' "What is Our Life" which is equally poignant. I'll have to look for that Fretwork compilation. I like their playing of new music by Michael Nyman and others, but the CD (Sit Fast) is hard to find. Badagnani 03:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Cyclocifra 11:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You might download WinAmp in order to listen to .ogg files. That took me over a year to figure out. You may have to copy and paste the URL into the player, though. Very touchy files. Badagnani 15:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, the "play in browser" option for the .ogg files isn't working for you, Cyclocifra? It works on my Firefox on OSX. Mak (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you two. I'm using OS9 Macintosh (no OSX) -- my PC is dead at the moment. A high quality older app called "Audion 3" for Mac Classic does ogg files and it's now free (discontinued development) but Quicktime still want's to intercept everything, but no prob, it all works well enough now. I'll keep WinAmp in mind for my PC down the line too. Thanks Cyclocifra 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened across one interesting example-clip of "one singer + one bass viol"; Hume (again) the song Fain Would I Change That Note, Track #1, on the CD The Summe Of All Delights — Songs And Ayres of Shakespeare's England (Jonathan Dunford - bass viol). In this snippet of the track at least, it's just solo voice and lone bass viol. The viol is first plucked (for one passage), then bowed (for the next), then plucked, then bowed, etc — to nice effect. $65 is a bit much though! Cyclocifra 11:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The VIOL is a good insterment that plays butiful sounds. If you have hurd the soung i is incredable! Perfect sound creates a big croud! --64.112.217.93 23:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very helpful in showing people how the viol is played! Indeed it looks more like cellist who has just picked up a viol. Bluewave 12:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Badagnani 17:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Media section of the article. The one showing a bloke playing the viol with (shock horror) vibrato!. Bluewave 22:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, not too good. The Jordi Savall video clip under "Links" and the instructional videos should suffice. Badagnani 02:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as there are no other comments, I deleted it. The costume and setting were nice but I think it gave a very misleading impression of how the viol is played. Bluewave 14:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The viol article currently says: "Viols were (and are) strung with (low tension) gut strings, unlike the steel strings used by members of the modern violin family."

With the rise of the 'period' instrument movement, it isn't too unusual to find violins being (re-) strung with gut, so to use this as a way of differentiating viols from violins seems (at best) incomplete.

I'm not expert enough to draft a better comment but can I suggest that someone does???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelham (talk • contribs) 13:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we want to be really specific...there is the question of what do we mean by "gut" and "steel" strings. From what I know, early viols probably always or almost always used "naked" gut strings. At some point (I don't have any books handy at the moment) the lower strings were wound with metal but retained their gut core. The upper strings were naked gut.

There are modern, "non-period" players who use gut-core strings wound with metal. As you mentioned, it's true that modern period players almost always use gut strings, some of which are naked and some of which are wound, depending on the repertoire. This goes for both viols and violins of all sizes, although some Renaissance setups use no wrapping, just naked gut. Rope-like Renaissance violone strings are quite a sight, as was even the c-string on a Renaissance viola copy that I have tried.

Anyhow, most modern players do not use gut or gut core strings, but some do, and some really like it. But even that will probably be different from the gut strings used by modern players. I don't know for sure, but maybe some use a mixture of gut and wire...such as having the lower three strings gut-core and the top string wire?

It is interesting that the viola d'amore was mentioned as being strung either with wire OR gut strings during the Baroque. Having tried both, I think it works well either way.

the_paccagnellan (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know several dozen viol players (some professional and some amateur) and none of them use wire strings. Strings are either plain gut, "catline gut" (where the gut is sort of plaited into a rope), gut wound with metal, or gut overspun with metal wire. Alison Crum's "Play the Viol" book has a good section on the type of strings to use for different periods of music, but makes no mention of pure wire strings. Bluewave (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, steel strings were used by some (mostly British?) players at least for the first string on some instruments from early in the revival (I think) until about the 1960s or possibly even later. One occasionally still comes across an old Dolmetsch or similar vintage viol that is/was fitted with a fine tuner on the tailpiece for a steel first string. There are occasional references to these strings in 20th century writings about the viol, which is possibly how they got into this article. Also, wire and wire-core strings were used for the German Schulfiedel ("Fiedel in quart-tertz Stimmung") -- a sort of simplified viol for school and amateur use that was made by a few different makers and also available in kits during the mid-20th century. These strings are still available from Pyramid. Finally, Pirastro pardessus first strings are available ONLY as a wire string -- which you need if you are going to crank your Pardessus up to A-440, as gut will barely make it up to A-415 on a typical pardessus string length. Nonetheless, I have never encountered and indeed never even heard of anyone actually using the Pirastro pardessus first. It is utterly unsurprising that these wire strings are not mentioned in Alison Crum's book, as they had already fallen out of favor and out of use a considerable number of years -- decades, really -- before she wrote it. Gambaguru (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with this passage in the article is that it gives the impression that steel strings are the only strings used on modern-setup violin-family instruments, or at least the default choice. This is far from the case. With the exception of the first string, which can be a plain steel string (or aluminum wound on steel, or for viola aluminum wound on gut) the vast majority of modern violinists and viola players use synthetic-core strings (available since the 1970s), some use gut-core, and some use metal-core (usually some sort of braided core, but some folk-music fiddlers prefer a plain metal core string). Cello and bass also frequently use synthetic or gut core strings, but definitely use metal-core strings more often than the smaller instruments do. Also, it's harder to generalize about tensions than the writer of this sentence may have supposed. Gambaguru (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snipped the most inaccurate part, and fact tag applied to what remains of the sentence about tension. Just plain Bill (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I count at least five images of people playing bass viols or larger. I'm having trouble imagining how exactly the smaller viols are played. By the leg? Are they supported entirely by the hand? --MinorContributor (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The treble is usually played with the player seated and the weight of the instrument supported in the player's lap. The neck of the instrument is pretty much vertical. Bluewave (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a video of the pardessus de viole, the smallest of viols. Badagnani (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that description helped a bit (too bad I can't view the video). If you do find a good image, please add it to the article. Perhaps a consort performing? All the viola da gamba consorts' web sites seem to be content with showing only "posing" images. --MinorContributor (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another new version of the viol is the TogaMan GuitarViol, which is essentially a solid-body electric tenor viol. Its tuning is the same as a guitar, whereas the Ruby Gamba is tuned traditionally.

This is just promotional spam for this luthier. This isn't a viol, no matter what he says. It's a guitar you can bow. It belongs (if anywhere since it is a promotion for a commercial product) in the guitar sections.

The viol was a bowed guitar when it was first invented, too. Badagnani (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across this instrument in various museums and collections, and I am unable to find any references as to its origin and history. As I am no expert on stringed instruments at all, is there somebody out there who could add a comment to the viol article?

Cither Viol or Sultana, Thomas Perry invented this instrument about 1760 in no 6 Anglesea Street, Dublin, Ireland. He is believed to be a son of Claude Pierray of Paris France, As a well respected Violin maker he made a big impact on the violin making world, his instruments were well made and sold for huge sums, He named his invention the Cither Viol or Sultana, It is basically a bowed English Guitar or Cittern for which he was also a famous maker, but it had many different set ups from 6 to 10 string instruments, It is great for playing Celtic music on it and can be played both on the knee as in Viola da Gamba or under the chin as the viola, however none of the instruments I have seen or obtained pictures of from museums have any wear on the soundboard from under the chin, There are many in Museums Worldwide, As Thomas Perry was a violin maker he used various arching on his Violins and Violas but on the Cither Viol he used the same high arch with a lip as on violins or sometimes without it and sanded flush with the sides. all had a flame hole unlike his violins which had f holes, The fingerboard and tailpiece was made from 1.6mm Ivory on a maple block, the 10 pins for the strings were also made in ivory turned pieces, the tailpiece had a strong metal tailgut soldered to a silver plate running through the Tailpiece, The soundboards were of excellent Swiss pine 4.5mm thick in the center and the backs, sides and neck were of nice flamed maple, all had a 5 a side set of lightweight machine heads, terminating in a finial with abalone and pearl star but also other patterns, On one of the instruments he used shamrock shaped ebony pegs and that body was violin in outline but the ribs glued to the neck as was common on the Quinton, The strings were arranged in 6 courses and tuned c,g,c,e'g'c" http://www.pauldoyleinstruments.com/availablenow.php?item=437

http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_art.asp?recview=true&id=50260&coll_keywords=sultana&coll_accession=&coll_name=&coll_artist=&coll_place=&coll_medium=&coll_culture=&coll_classification=&coll_credit=&coll_provenance=&coll_location=&coll_has_images=&coll_on_view=&coll_sort=0&coll_sort_order=0&coll_view=0&coll_package=0&coll_start=1

http://www.springersmusic.co.uk/Library/Violin%20collection%20P2.htm

http://72.5.117.145/collections/search_art.asp?recview=true&id=50258&coll_keywords=&coll_accession=&coll_name=&coll_artist=&coll_place=&coll_medium=&coll_culture=&coll_classification=&coll_credit=&coll_provenance=&coll_location=&coll_has_images=&coll_on_view=&coll_sort=1&coll_sort_order=1&coll_view=3&coll_package=10083&coll_start=1 Michael Zapf (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The graphics beneath the 'history' heading should be rearranged. They take up too much space... when I read this article I thought that the subsection was blank, until I scrolled down. Fffgg (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure when this bit got added (at the opening top of the page), but Lira are lira, viols are viols, and cellos are cellos! There was indeed such a (rare) thing as a Lira da Gamba, being a very oversized and bass version of a "lira da braccio" and it was played upright or "da gamba" but that does not make it a viol. David, are you still around? Cyclocifra (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next day, edits and deletions made.

1. "Lira da gamba" references deleted. Lira da gamba is a Lirone. Viols are not "also known as "Lira da Gamba".

2. Under the Topic of "History"; if someone wants to write an extended article on "the history and origin of bowed string instruments in Europe before 1460, and knows what they are talking about, they should feel free to do that. Once that is done (elsewhere and not on the viol page), a link can be provided to that new page from the viol page in an attempt to provide readers with a larger overview and context of general bowed string instrument history in Europe and elsewhere. The bloat I deleted, particularly all the "Byzantine Lira" junk, has nothing whatsoever to do with the history of viola da gamba. The "History" overview of viols Topic does in fact need to be continued and completed from the initial beginning kernel paragraph remaining, but the deleted material was adding nothing (relevant, let alone accurate). Cyclocifra (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following (originally unsigned) comment titled "MORE" was added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs) Cyclocifra (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MORE

I am not a very experienced editor, and so I am not sure what to do with this. The problem of the lira and the viol is not just in this article, but seems to be in many of the articles on the histories of bowed stringed instruments. It should be addressed in all of them, and I do not know how to do that best.

I believe there are two problems underlying understanding the relationships among the violin, the lira, and the viol.

The first problem is that there were two distinct, very different, instruments that were both referred to as the lira.

The first of these instruments was the Byzantean lira, which, despite its name, was not descended from lyre. When the original lyre had fallen out of use, its name was given to a variety of stringed instruments. The lute-shaped rabab was imported and took the old name. This instrument came to be used in Central and Eastern Europe, under the names of rebec, lira, or geige. Originally, it seems to have had two or three strings, but in the final form of the geige, it had four and was tuned exactly as the violin came to be. It was a melodic instrument. It looks rather clumsy for bowing, because of its lute-like shape, and it might not have projected well.

The other instrument was the lira da braccio, which was shaped very like a violin. It was tuned the same as the crwth, which was a true lyre, with two necks, but had an added fingerboard between the necks, and was bowed. (Aside from the tuning, and the fact that one was a lyre and the other called a lira, I know of no evidence of a relationship between the crwth and the lira da braccio, though one might speculate.) The lira da braccio had a lot of strings, including some that seem to have been plucked rather than bowed, and it had a rather flat bridge, flatter than a viol's, to facilitate playing three or more strings at the same time. It might have been less clumsy than the rebec, but it seems it could not have been a great melodic instrument because it was difficult to play only one string at a time.

The viol, of course, came from the vihuela de arco. But my own speculation is that the violin represents an attempt to combine the best features of two different, unrelated, instruments, both of which were called liras.

The second problem, for undertanding the relationships of the viol, lira, and violin, is that because the word "geige" originally referred to the boat-shaped rebec, but was later was applied to the violin, it is sometimes hard to tell which instrument an author is referring to. They are strung and played much the same way, but their bodies are very different, making them really no more similar than a guitar and a guitar-strung lute.

This information comes from Curt Sachs, History of Musical Instruments, Nicholas Bessarabof, Ancient European Instruments, Praetorius, and others, but unfortunately I cannot cite sources because my library has not recovered from a fire, and all my books are in storage.
--ghh 22:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs)

very unclear page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.248.118 (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

very unclear page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.248.118 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a "lyra-viol" is either a small bass viol or a particular style of playing. "Lyra-viol" is a reference to the 10-string lirone. So, "lyra da gamba" makes perfect sense, it is a small bass viol used to play chordal passages in imitation of the lirone ("viol played lyra-ways"). 71.21.153.42 (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you could logically change it, but this article has obviously been renamed from "viola da gamba" - possibly rightly - but the text assumes knowledge of that name. The first line says "not to be confused with viola", when there is no reason for confusion if the title being used is "viol". Frequently the text refers to "gambas" when the name that is abbreviated from has never been mentioned until the section on alternative names. Maybe it just needs a note of explanation in the introduction? Neilmcallister (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I regard "viol" as properly the generic term inclusive of both the violin family and the subjects of this article...content specific to the "da gamba" variety should not be under the generic name alone.LE (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the consensus is that "viol" and "viola da gamba" mean the same thing in English. I have never heard anyone use the word "viol" to refer to the violin family. The only potential for confusion, is that some people say "bass viol" to mean double bass, however, "viol" by itself is not used this way. The New Grove Dictionary (i.e. Grove Music Online) has the main article under "Viol" and then also includes this brief entry:

Viola da gamba.

An Italian term for the VIOL (literally, ‘leg viol’). During the 16th century bowed string instruments were sometimes classified according to the way in which they were held during performance, the viol being designated ‘leg viol’ and the violin ‘arm viol’ (VIOLA DA BRACCIO). From the mid-17th century the bass instrument of the viol family was most regularly used, and ‘viola da gamba’ gradually assumed its modern specific meaning of bass viol. By the time of the final phase of the viol’s popularity in England, in the 1770s and 80s, corrupt forms of the original Italian term, occasionally found since the early 17th century, had become the norm, e.g. ‘Viol de Gambo’; ‘viol-de-gamba’; ‘Viol di Gamba’; ‘Viol da gamba’; ‘Viol di Gambo’. The abbreviated form ‘gamba’ is now frequently used.

This should be taken as authoritative as regards current usage.

--HenryPurcell (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it is "viol" (and I can think of no alternative) we need a generic term inclusive of both the "da gamba" and "da braccio" variants of what is essentially the same form of bowed string instrument.LE (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something originated from Spain doesn't mean it automatically has a Moorish link. The Vihuela, from which the Viol evolved, first appeared in north eastern Spain, Catalonia or nearby, in the 15th century, hundreds of years after the Moors were kicked out of the area.

This is not my article, but please check out:

Woodfield, Ian. Howard Mayer Brown, Peter le Huray, John Stevens. ed. The Early History of the Viol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

This text documents how the viol playing position was otherwise extinct in Europe until it was adapted from the rabab. FYI, the book does not seem to have any bias towards the Moors. Just about every other aspect of the evolution of the Vihuela and the pre-Italian viol are credited to the Christian populations of Aragon and Valencia.BassHistory (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with it as it is now, just need the reference at the end of the first paragraph.Provocateur (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.BassHistory (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The History section currently ends with a paragraph about an ancient Hebrew harp with a name that happens to be a cognate of viol when transcribed into the Latin alphabet. But the two instruments share no common history or etymology. In fact the instrument is unmentioned in the Hebrew Wikipedia article that corresponds to Viol. In modern Hebrew, apparently, the viols are called "the Huoiolim" and there is no sense of them being connected to the Hebrew "viol."

So the information on this Hebrew viol is out of place in this article. Here are some things we could do:

1. Start a new article, Viol (Hebrew) or Hebrew viol, and link to it from a hatnote. (We already have one hatnote link to Viola.)
2. Link to Kinnor (often translated "lyre") if the Hebrew viol is similar enough to that instrument. That article contains text about the Hebrew viol almost identical to what has been inserted in this article.
3. Add a section to the History and development section of Harp or the similar section of Lyre. Neither article currently mentions ancient Hebrew instruments.

For the present I am shortening the passage about the Hebrew viol to make clear that it is not related to the instrument this article is about. I am keeping the link to Kinnor.

Please comment on the options. Who is interested in expanding WP coverage of the ancient Hebrew instruments? — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 15:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Pio's theory that the viol does not have its origin in the vihuela rests on two foundations: (1) that Johannes Tinctoris did not mention the arco de vihuela and (2) the rapid development and diffusion of the the instrument around Italy is implausible.

Both these claims are extremely weak:

(1) The first, that a foreigner in Renaissance Italy could be reliably aware of everything going on Italy is plainly ridiculous. Those times were not like more recent times where even trivial things are documented and information is widely available. Most likely it was still very much a new minority instrument being experimented with by some luthiers.

(2) The second claim totally misses Ian Woodfield's point, that Renaissance Italian instrument makers had highly developed instrument making traditions of their own. Any new, underdeveloped instrument, like the early vihuela de arco, would immediately have presented new possibilities to Italian luthiers who would have rapidly developed its potential according to their own traditions. A skilled luthier would have seen new possibilities the moment he first saw the earliest version of the instrument. Ten years is a long time for luthiers and would have been plenty of time for the more developed versions of the instrument to get around Renaissance Italy given Italy's well developed and busy road, sea and river links. The interest created by an exciting new instrument would have ensured a rapid spread. The commercial and political links of Italy were highly developed and the links across the western Mediterranean with the commercial hubs of eastern Spain, Barcelona and Valencia, which were then major cities of Aragon, were strong. Pio's arguments smell of special pleading.

Pio's argument for the viol evolving from the vielle, based on the fifth string being called, incorrectly, a "drone" in old documents is his most plausible argument but falls far short of being decisive. An alternative explanation to Pio's postulated evolution from the vielle is that Italian musicians simply applied the language of the vielle to the viol. It is even possible that in its early evolution into a distinct instrument from the vihuela, the viol may have been influenced by the vielle and so some terms used for the older instrument were applied to the new instrument. This would be unsurprising. Pio needs more evidence.

The traditional starting point for identifying the emergence of the viol from the vihuela are their great similarities in construction and tuning and their coincidence in time and space and given the strong commercial and political connections across the western Mediterranean between the Italian states and eastern Spain at that time, this should not be surprising. Provocateur (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This English-language article on the Viol is already fairly well written and thorough, but has anyone here had a look at what they've done to the German article? [[3]] It's totally insane (in a good way!) -- some very busy bees over there ;-). Anyone looking to expand this article could do a lot worse than run the German page through Google translate and start incorporating bits of content from it into this one. Lots of great photos, etc. Turjan (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that the German article gets about right and this one at present gets embarassingly wrong is the tunings of the various sizes of viol. (E.g., the 5-string pardessus is NOT tuned like the 6-string pardessus, and the great double bass is not the same thing as violone in G -- its likely tuning was in A.) However, I would recommend NOT following the mishmash of clefs that the German article uses for tunings. Modern notation best-practice for the viols uses treble, alto, and bass clefs only. The German article may in some cases be following the cleffing of the historical sources for specific tunings, but clearly it is not always doing this (no historical source uses the octave-transposed treble clef!!). So I'd advocate normalizing to treble, alto, and bass clefs wherever possible. Gambaguru (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the problems with the tunings finally started to bug me enough that, without addressing this article's other problems (which I haven't time to do), I at least corrected the table of tunings and edited the paragraph preceding it to more accurately indicate its scope. Gambaguru (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun an article on the Viola da Gamba Society of America. The draft is in my sandbox now. I would appreciate any feedback or suggestions to prepare this article for publication. You can find the draft article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HenryPurcell/sandbox --HenryPurcell (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The draft version of an article on the Viola da Gamba Society of America has now been accepted as an AfC (Article for Creation). It has now been moved to the draft space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Viola_da_Gamba_Society_of_America Please feel free to help prepare it for publication.

--HenryPurcell (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A point needs clarifying: if the baryton is not a member of the viol family (this in itself is confusing because several RS seem to suggest it is) then evidence should be here to support it, and the page Baryton should also be edited accordingly as it states that it is a member of the viol family and links here. I am sure there are some knowledgeable music historians here who could point to the definitive answer and sort out the contradiction. Mramoeba (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC) The german wikipedia page referenced above also seems clear that it is. Mramoeba (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a couple of sentences to the article to try to clarify the connection between the viol family and the baryton. --HenryPurcell (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term "flat-edged instruments" occurs at the beginning of the history section of the main article in referring to vihuelas. This term does not make sense; it is unclear what might be meant by "edge". Normally, only the table and back of the vihuela are flat. The sides (ribs) are curved. The edges where the ribs meet the table and back are therefore also curved. Perhaps what is meant is that vihuelas do not have an overhanging edge on the table and back, as the violin family has where these edges extend beyond the ribs. Can anyone here elucidate on what this phrase "flat-edged instruments" is supposed to mean? Otherwise, I can re-write the sentence to make sense. --HenryPurcell (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes me that it was meant to be "flat-topped", what with the vihuela not having a curved top like the viol family. Probably a case of a passage poorly translated from another language and/or written by someone with a weaker grasp of English. I'm going to adjust that. oknazevad (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]