Talk:Viol/Archive 1

Archive 1

If Saint Cecilia is indeed playing a viola da gamba in Domenichino's painting of 1617-18 (Louvre Museum), edit this caption suitably and paste it in the text. --Wetman 11:13, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The below from when the page was at viola da gamba

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "viol da gamba" is a very eccentric way to name this instrument. In Grove, the main entry is "Viol", and it immediately gives "viola da gamba" as the alternative name, but not "viol da gamba".

Google comparison of "viola da gamba" and "viol da gamba" indicates about a 100-to-1 frequency disparity in favor of "viola da gamba". A fair number of the "viol da gamba" hits are repostings of this very Wikipedia article!

I'll give people a day or so to complain if they want. If no one gives a compelling reason not to, I will make this page a redirect to Viol, which will contain the actual text. Opus33 16:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you're right. I'd never really considered the title before - "viol da gamba" wasn't really familiar to me, but it seemed a reasonable enough alternative, so I never checked up on it. But, as you say, even if "viol da gamba" isn't exactly incorrect, "viola da gamba" or simply "viol" (my preference) are a great deal more common, so I've been bold and moved the page here to viol. --Camembert

Thanks, Camembert. Opus33 17:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thump? Details needed.

From the article:

An unusual style of pizzicato was known as a thump.

What's unusual with this style of pizzicato? Googling for "+pizzicato +thump" didn't give any usable information in the first few pages. My guess is that it's simply an English term for pizzicato and not a particular style at all, but I'd be interested in seeing some sources. --EldKatt 12:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Searching for 'thump viol' proves more fruitful. It looks like the thump may be plucking with the left hand whilst bowing with the right. But it may just be plucking with the left hand, as described in our own Thomas Ford (composer) article. -- Solipsist 16:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed; I wonder how I could've missed that. Still, judging by the sources we have, it is as the article says unusual. I would very much like to see how common it was. And, of course, what it meant. Google finds this article, which could shed some light upon it, but the site requires membership. Perhaps if somebody has access to this JSTOR service, or finds it important enough to dig up an old issue of the Journal of the American Musicological Society... --EldKatt 08:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is part of the old vocabulary of English viol playing. The thumpe is apparently played with the left hand, the finger used for the thumpe indicated in tabulature by dots underneath the letter (one dot for the forefinger, two for the middle finger, three for the ring finger). A piece of music featuring a thumpe may in turn called a thumpe. This is what appears in the tabulature collections of music for lyra viol edited by Martha Bishop of Emory University, Ga., USA. A link to an email address for her, should someone want to confirm this, is here: http://www.newtrinitybaroque.org/artists/marthabishop.html .

I seem to recall seeing something about this in Tobias Hume's Musical Humours from 1605, which is available in facsimile (but which I do not have to hand), and which also includes instructions for playing col legno ("drum this with the backe of your bow"). A little web searching yields a few likely references for information on the thumpe: Furnas, Paul Lindley. "The "Manchester gamba book": a primary source of ornaments for the lyra viol," dissertation, Stanford, 1978; a modern edition of the Manchester book, with an introduction by Furnas, Peacock Press, Hebden Bridge, UK, 2003.

Most of the other English ornaments and their symbols are listed in Christopher Simpson's Division Viol. For ornaments in French music, see the prefaces by Marin Marais in his Pièces de viole. - 71.9.52.42 08:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Alison Crum's book "Play the Viol" mentions the thump, but it only warrants a single sentence in a book of 180 pages (which is probably about right!). She also includes a facsimile of of a an Almain from Playford's "Musick's Recreation on the Viol, Lyra Way" (1682). At the foot of the page, Playford has a note: "When the character . is placed under the Letter a, that must be struck with the Finger of the left Hand, and not with the Bow, which is called a Thump." (The character is not actually a dot, but is something that is absent from my keyboard, like a u with two lines across it.) In other words, it is simply a left hand pizzicato. Also, given that it only occurs under a letter a in the tablature, it is only performed on open strings. It is not clear whether it is more concerned with overcoming technical problems or is to be used as an "effect". For example, the fifth string is thumped in between two statements of the same chord on strings 2 and 3, which would certainly avoid an awkward bit of bowing. Bluewave 12:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Double bass

Should the modern double bass be mentioned as the only surviving direct descendent of the viola da gamba family? I realise that the double bass viol is mentioned, but there is no link with the modern viol.

Fatboy06 21:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It certainly should, and considering the size of the article I'm somewhat surprised that it isn't. I lack the time to do something at the moment, I'm afraid, but do go ahead and put it in. EldKatt (Talk) 22:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You might want to say "only member of the viol family that remained in continuous use," or something similar. "Surviving" makes it sound as if the others are dead, which they are not -- they have been revived! 71.9.52.42 08:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a separate Wikipedia article on the violone. I don't know if it really merits its own article as it is usually just the largest member of the viol family (though I have seen some instruments which seem to be hybrids with, for instance, double bass-style tuning machines). Bluewave 10:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Composers for the viol

I think the composers for the viol are not mentioned enough in this article. Would anyone object to a composers section? A list can be found here. [1]

Makes sense to me. Mak (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You can all go check out what I have added about the composers for the viol at my sandbox. If you have any suggestions or comments, feel free to add them. DeineMutter 22:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

violin family

the article states that these two families are only distantly related, but they seem (to a bystander, anyway) to be essentially the same instruments. why are they classified as being so different? how did they evolve from each other? 67.172.61.222 17:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The violin family evolved from the Medieval rebec (which in turn derives from Middle Eastern bowed instruments) via the lira da braccio and was essentially originally a high, squeaky instrument for solo or duo performance. It has a rounded back. The deeper-sounding viol clearly evolved from the vihuela, a plucked guitar-like instrument with a flat back. The construction, sound, playing technique, method of holding, bowing, etc. and number of strings are different. And it was first used in "consort" (groups with viols of different sizes). I think the articles already explain most of this. Badagnani 18:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Badagnani verses Cyclocifra -- edit war

Hello Badagnani;

I conceeded, upon closer inspection, to let stand the Domenichino instrument reference (regarding it being a possible early 7 string viol) You win on that one. Thank you for the education. Beyond that , I believe you have nothing more to justifiably object to regarding my edits, deletions, and inclusions. Your whole sale reverts are rediculous! I doubt you even bothered to see what else you were reverting.

What issues are you needing to discuss?

- rebec/rabab?

- lira da braccio?

- early construction details? (and if so which details specifically are you objecting to?)

- vihuela/viol connections?

- my added reference: Ian Woodfield "Early History of the Viol"?

Have you read that book? I own a copy.

Thanks Cyclocifra 04:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I objected mainly to the uncommented deletion of information about the lira da braccio, and the insertion of lirone and rabab mention. Obviously North African Arabs lived in Spain and played rababs but the rabab doesn't resemble the viol and is quite far removed in construction and playing technique. That made me suspect some of the other information. You're clearly knowledgeable on the subject and all else seems good. Badagnani 04:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize then for not commenting about the lira da braccio reference (but not for deleting it). Violins were never known as lira da braccio, but they were known as viola da braccio. If anything, violins have more to do with _rebecs_, rebecs being a direct parent in the violin famly tree (three strings in fretless fifths bowed on the arm -- which particulars were then ported over to the newer waist-cut "viola" body-type shared by (all these) vihuela, viol, violin, lira da braccio, and viola da braccio). This is why it was nessessary to make the distinction and revision in the first paragraph from "rebec" to "rabab". The rabab's influence in the evolution of the viol was mostly a matter of playing position and perhaps even the role it played in ensemble groups (so says Woodfield). There were some very large rababs in the late 14th and early 15th century bowed "da gamba" if you will, and some of then even had frets. Google images brings up many different instruments for rabab, most of them being something other than the one I'm refering to, and the one which Ian Woodfield is refering to and illustrates in his book (and you're right, there is no real visual similarity to viols other than playing posture). As far as I'm concerned any rabab connection is fairly trivial, but if we are to include one or the other on the viol page, rebec or rabab, and declare it as having had "some" kind of infuence in the early developement of the viol, then rabab is the one. Thanks Cyclocifra 05:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, are you now saying that the lira da braccio didn't exist? Or that it has absolutely nothing to do with the violin? If so, do you believe that the vielle has nothing to do with the violin? I don't think that's correct. The lira da braccio is very violin/vielle-like and was very popular as a more violin-like arm-held instrument in Italy at the same time the viol was developing in a separate lineage in Spain. Badagnani 05:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For more pictures of rababs, try searching under "rebab," "rababa," and "rebaba." Badagnani 05:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, of course liras existed, and side by side with viola da braccio, and they can be said to be partially related to later violins, or that part of the lira tradition was later taken up by the violins. The issue was the word "called". The viol article said the violins were earlier called (known as) lira da braccio which is not correct. In the interim, I uploaded 2 pictures for you to look at, two rababs: http://www.TheCipher.com/rabab_G_Ottonello_late14th.jpg http://www.TheCipher.com/rabab_PeruzziBaldassare1505.jpg Cyclocifra 06:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And I forget to add that no, I don't believe that every instrument in history ever bowed on the arm is a violin any more than I believe that every instrument bowed in the upright position was cello, nor that every instrument played with a plectrum was a guitar. Violins are _rebecs_ that jumped into a new body in the late 15th century and ultimately added a fourth string. Even Praetorius includes a rebec in his violin family illustration. Cyclocifra 07:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This all makes sense. And thank you for the photos. But I don't understand why people who appear to be Europeans are playing an instrument with an Arabic name. Badagnani 17:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that Arabic influence in Spain was very strong during the medieval period, if you look at the Cantigas de Santa Maria you can see a lot of Arabic influence (IMHO). The lute was definitely very closely related to the ud, and Arabic instrument. I don't think it's at all implausible. Mak (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the ud looks almost exactly like a lute, though the lute has added frets. So the same might be true of bowed instruments. Badagnani 18:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is more than just surface similarity - they are constructed in the same way, and some uds have frets, I believe, although I don't know exactly when that started. I've also seen "medieval European lute"s without frets, although I think they were pretty much made up out of a lute maker's head. But that's sort of a side issue. Mak (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you saw an ud with frets? Buzuqs, tanburs, and baglamas have them but I've never seen them on a ud. It's also possible that European lutes from the early Crusade years didn't have frets either, though I haven't seen any iconography to confirm that. Badagnani 18:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Badagnani; You're welcome for the photos. And as you and Mak are discussing, the Arab/Moorish/Islamic/North-African infuence in Iberia was huge all the way up until their final expulsion in the late 15th century (I believe it was). I learned on the lute list a while ago that Arab ouds originally had frets as well, btw.

ok, so I'll make that revision then, rebec to Moorish rabab, at the top of the page. Danka Cyclocifra 18:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The only thing is, the North African rababs with which I'm familiar don't look like the ones in the photos. I see what looks like a tapering triangle (covered with skin perhaps, like a sintir or banjo?) but the rababs I know, especially the Egyptian ones, have a small hemispherical body made from a coconut shell. The kemences of Turkey are like the "kit" or Pontic lira, having a thin straight body. But these are something different. Badagnani 18:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the naming is confusing, with so many dissimilar instruments using that same name. I'm simply abopting Woodfield's usage (he is a recognized authority). Cyclocifra 18:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did some Google image searching and find 3 types of rabab: 1) The Egyptian kind with tiny skin-covered hemispherical body: [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/korba11.jpg] 2) the kind with a big rectangular skin-covered body [2] [3], and 3) the one that early music people have latched onto [4]. This third one appears from the photos here to be of the Turkish kemence type (similar in shape to the European kit), which isn't used today in North Africa much, at least as far as I know, because they prefer the actual European violin (as tuned and played in North African Arabic style, as used by the Orquesta Andalus de Tetouan and other similar groups). Originally this type must have been used by Moors, then brought up north to Spain. Badagnani 18:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty. I'll add that Woodfield says that the kingdom of Aragon (north-eastern Iberia) is where this merging of influences, plucked vihuela and bowed rabab was key-most and central to the story.

By the way, there are good photos of both lira da braccio and viola da braccio here: [5] They don't appear that different though the latter does seem slightly more violin-like and doesn't have the additional set of plucked strings. Badagnani 18:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I know Marco. Those extra strings were bowed drones (btw). Lira's go back at least to, for example, the Cantigas (i.e. way before violins) Cyclocifra 18:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

More terminology issues: when you say "liras" in reference to the Cantigas, which lira are you referring to? I assume the one shaped like the kit or kemence, or Pontic lira, which is not as bulbous in shape as a rebec? You certainly don't mean the lira da braccio, which is a strictly 15th century contraption. Badagnani 19:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The general configuration of having 4 or 5 strings on the fingerboard plus 1 or 2 drones off to the side, "lira", played on the arm (da braccio) was continous, an unbroken chain, for hundreds of years prior to the Renaissance pattern lira. The later is distinguished (again) primarily by it's body-type -- the new "viola" body-type which it too abopted at the same time as vihuelas, viols, and early 3 string violins adopted that same new body and construction manner, including specifically the characteristic waist-cuts.. Cyclocifra 19:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know any of that. I think of drones off to the side in connection with the theorbo, but not with bowed instruments. I read somewhere that the lira da braccio's drones were played by plucking with the thumb; is that not correct? Badagnani 19:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't categorize a theorbo's additional strings as being drones -- they're extra bass notes, used as needed, and plucked with the right-hand thumb. The lira's off-board strings where primarily bowed drones. They say that the style of "lyra-viol" (e.g. the English manner viola da gamba lyra-viol) is so called because it's scordatura tunings (lyra-way or lira-way) often produced it a "droney" kind of sound reminiscent of a lira (da braccio) and it's drone strings. This same sound is also reminiscent of bag-pipes, but it's the drones that are the common denominator (lira and bag-pipes) Cyclocifra 20:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. Can you recommend any recordings of lira da braccio (especially that played in the way Leonardo da Vinci is supposed to have played it, accompanying Italian poetry)? Badagnani 20:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have nothing to point you to by way of recordings. If there is a lost art, lira da braccio is it. I'd ask at the newsgroup rec.music.early. Todd (from medieval.org) keeps track of early music recordings. He or someone else may be able to help. Cyclocifra 20:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen Bruce Molsky sing to double-stop violin accompaniment and maybe it sounded something like this (track 6): [6] Badagnani 20:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the theorbo's low strings certainly aren't used as drones. The lyra viol doesn't really have drone strings, but it can sound that way. The baryton, which may be closely related, does have plucked strings behind the the bowed strings, which are played by the thumb. Then you have the viola d'amore... There was a lot of experimentation in instrument construction, and the relationships aren't always clear. Mak (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried playing (after tuning) a beautiful baryton at Elderly Instruments in Lansing, Michigan a few months ago. It's by a famous maker but they haven't been able to sell it for a few years. I think they want $6,000 for it but said that they'll take offers. Badagnani 20:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That must have been fun! Cyclocifra 21:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't make sense of the plucked/sympathetic strings but the viol part sounded like a really great viol. I just looked it up and it's by John Pringle. Badagnani 21:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

btw, thanks for the ongoing little clean-ups, tweaks, additions, moves, links, and general fine-tuning, etc. Cyclocifra 21:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Names

While we're at it; there's another entry in the article I'd like to see revised, this one . . . "Similar Names: The Viola da gamba is occasionally confused with the Viola, an instrument in the Violin family." The confusion is actually reversed. Violin family "violas" came way after the original late 15th cent Italian "Viola", which included the viola da mano and viola da gamba (plucked and bowed viola guitars.) The names viola (Italy) and vihuela (Spain) were synonymous and interchangeable. Vihuela and Viola are thus both synonymous names for the plucked guitar-like instrument. Viola da gamba, viola cum arculo, vihuela de arco, are some (true) alternate names for viols. Both names vihuela and viola were fairly generic in usage, even to include early violins (viola da braccio). It is common enough and justifiable for players of viola da gamba to call their instruments "violas", and to call themselves "violists". That the "alto violin" eventually usurped the name "viola" is unfortunate and is more the cause of any current confusion. Other names for viols include: "viole" or violle (French), gambo (plural of gamba), and a few others we could hunt down. Cyclocifra 23:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with adding a paragraph to this effect. The thing is, the viola (alto violin) is hugely more common in the present day than the gamba, so we have to operate from this perspective. I agree that it's unfortunate that the viola (which was my second instrument) has usurped the name of this earlier, noble instrument. Badagnani 01:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, will do then. I understand what you're re saying re modern usage and default associations. But just so that we can give a little history of the terms, and also honor contemporary viol players their right to call their instruments and themselves by their rightful names, etc. Who knows, in time the default associations might expand to where they probably should be. Cyclocifra 01:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Did Italian gambists ever say "I play the viola," or would that have created confusion. English gambists clearly could say they played the viol or French players could say they played the viole (as in the Marais "Pieces de viole"), but in Italy and Spain the terms "viola" and "vihuela" without qualifier could be confused. Badagnani 02:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to assume they did. Paolo Pandolfo, present day Italian gamba virtuoso does (call his instrument his "viola"), and he's "the man" in my book ;-) Cyclocifra 03:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I imagine they would have used the appropriate qualifiers if present company demanded it. Yet, it does remain a source of great confusion to this day, trying to interpret period documents and often being unsure _which_ specific instrument is being referred to . Cyclocifra 03:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you know the Carl Orff De Temporum Fine Comoedia? Its lovely finale calls for 4 viols, played by Kuijken, et al. It's worth a listen as an early example of 20th century gamba revival as manifested in contemporary composition (a subject I wrote about in a big article in the Winter 2003-2004 issue of Early Music America). Badagnani 03:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't know the piece. It'll be intersting to find out if they were in fact playing viols. If you find that they were viols let me know and I'll get a copy. I'll try to get a hold of your article someday too. Cyclocifra 06:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain they are viols, played in canon, in the last part, "Con sublima spiritualità." It's composed in consort music style. The Deutsche Grammophon recording of the work was recorded at the Salzburger Festspiele 1973 with Sigiswald and Wieland Kuijken, Adelheid Glatt, and Sara E. Cunningham, "Violen-Quartett," which is translated (probably wrongly) into English and French in the booklet as "Viola quartet"/"Quatuor d'altos." The track is only 5 minutes but it's worth getting the CD of the admittedly not very good work just for the track. Badagnani 06:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the info. I often get CD's for just one or two outstanding viol tracks, so no prob there. Cyclocifra 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My favorite gamba player so far is Hille Perl (her Sainte-Colombe CD is one of the best CDs I've ever heard), but I'll take a listen to Pandolfo. I think I have at least one CD by him. Badagnani 03:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have only one of Hille's CD's, Doulce Memoire, which I like, but I have all but two of Paolo's I think -- he is just freaking astounding. If you get a couple few of his CD's over time, put this one high on the list, his rendition of the Bach cello suites performed on solo bass viol (double CD). His liner notes from that CD are a must read too "An imagined dialogue between a viol and cello" (which you can get a PDF of at Glossa's web site too). His Forqueray is fab too (they're all great, hard to pick favs with him, they're all must-haves) Cyclocifra 06:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting; one wouldn't think the gamba suited to the cello suites. I'll look for these. Badagnani 06:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hold on to your chair if you get the Suite's ;-) I made a text file of those liner notes a while back, here http://www.TheCipher.com/PaoloPandolfo_Dialogue_Viol_Cello_Bach6CelloSuites_TranscribedForViol.txt Cyclocifra 06:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that he would have chosen the medium of the dialogue, so popular during the time period the viol was at its height, as with the works of Giordano Bruno. Badagnani 06:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

ya, he's an artist of high order through and through. I must thank you, by the way, for making my day (last night). As big a fan as I am of his work, I hadn't known he began on Guitar and Double-Bass (verses the more typical violin-family to viols track pushed during the 20th century or the first couple generations of viol revivalists). Given that he is, in my estimation, the single greatest living master, this goes far in confirming my belief that viols _belong_ to guitarists, players of fretted fourths string instruments that is, the missing half of our family and expressive vehicles, etc. I've spent the better part of the last two years focused on the guitar/viol connections, and this last revelation was all the icing on the cake, additional inspiration and validation, one could ever have hoped for -- being a guitarist myself, and in love with viols, i.e. bowed guitars. It was just too ironic, this late revelation.  ;-) Cyclocifra 23:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Lorenzo Costa instruments are NOT viola da gamba

This one might be a little more tough to challenge because the image is so part of the fabric of early viol lore by now. Some people have apparently built their reputations on this image (to whit the article cited under “references”), but maybe we can do it better.

On our viol page we show the San Giovanni altarpiece, Lorenza Costa (1497) image as being exemplary of early viols – as do many other web sites and books.

First detail image http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/15/Costa_-_1497.jpg

Blow-up detail image (see 3 paired courses of strings) http://www.TheCipher.com/viols_NOT_LCosta_1497-deta.jpg

Close inspection reveals that those instruments are strung in 3 double courses! Body shape, body depth, over-hanging top and back plates, super-narrow neck width, tightly gathered strings nut to bridge, are all red flags. The instruments depicted are "some" bowed string instrument played "da gamba" but they are not viols. There are other far better early examples we might display but copyright issues might be a problem initially. First things first though. Is anyone here emotionally attached to this particular image or to the text which refers to it? i.e. are there any objections?

I’ve been studying early viola da gamba iconography (in fact all vihuela and viola, plucked and bowed) intensively for the last two years. This image has always bothered me. It wasn’t until I noticed recently the 3 paired courses of strings, however, that I had my best and most convincing evidence, the deal breaker.

If there are no objections, objections accompanied by better solid evidence or contrary arguments, I intend to delete both the image and the text referring to it in the near future and ultimately replace it with a more representative image. This print, for example, is more than likely in the public domain, and is representative of the early instruments, and is also very clearly related to plucked vihuela and viola – something people are hearing more about these days (finally) yet still they're only rarely shown the examples and proofs, the needed iconography. http://www.TheCipher.com/viola-vihuela_de_arco_Mvsica_early-mid16th-deta.jpg The family relationships _are_ illuminated via this picture – not so with the Costa image (wonder why ;-). Let’s raise the bar. Cyclocifra 09:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you intend to delete this, I think you need to find a published source that disputes John Bryan's article, referenced in the main page. A lot of people have been convinced by this image, including Roger Rose who built a set of viols for Musica Antiqua, based on the picture. I have seen and heard these, and they certainly work as viols! Bluewave 09:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Bluewave. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, and although I think you make good points, we need to reflect the current scholarly consensus. If you can show that that has shifted, we can discuss it further, but if it's based solely on your research, I'm afraid we can't. (see WP:OR for more info) Mak (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Bluewave and Mak, I don't believe we have to _prove_ anything to anyone. We can simply sidestep the whole issue by choosing to use a different, better, and more representative image -- and there are many others available to choose from (copyright issues aside). Certainly we are under no _obligation_ to use that particular image, right? If you'd like, take a look at the many images of early viols at my website, the first two pages of that section in particular. There are at least a dozen other early examples, images, we might use, some of them even earlier than Costa's (in addition to being better representatives). Costa's instruments are truly odd-ball one-offs. They resemble _no_ other early example. Cyclocifra 21:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The above comment seems sensible and it seems we have the Internet's chief authority on this subject working with us now, so we ought to take advantage of his iconographical collection! :) Badagnani 21:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You have my permission and blessing to use any of the images on my site. And I encourage at least a few of you to suck down those pages in their entirety while you can, for your (the public's) future reference. There are no guarantees in life (re how long my web site will be up, for example). But if you want to use the images on Wikipedia you'll have to be responsible for any copyright related issues. I pointed out that one print earlier specifically because I think there'll be no problems using it here. Cyclocifra 23:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's not be hasty here, though the apparent discovery of courses of strings if of course interesting. Life is life and art is art and back then artists, though their work may have appeared realistic, injected fantasy into their work (see Bosch). Often artists didn't have the instruments at hand so just guessed, or created amalgams of instruments from memory. See this page for examples of artists' mistakes when depicting bagpipes. Badagnani 17:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Paired courses alone are not a red flag, but having only _3_ of them is. There is no kind of lute tuning that works on 3 strings (or courses). Here's an [instrument] most believe to be using paired courses, 7 strings in four courses. Martin Agricola documents a whole family of 4 string lute tuned (fourths and third) fretted fiddles (viols). Cyclocifra 21:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the cluelessness of visual artists that often comes into play when depicting instruments (did you look at the bagpipe pictures, most of which have the wrong numbers of drones?)? Badagnani 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about that problem, trust me ;-) that's one of the reasons why I've had to be so selective, and why I have so many fuzzy/questionable (unused) examples of most any 15th/16th string instrument there was. And also remember that people very often "see what they want to see" ;-) The other side of the coin is people assuming many early artists must have been "wrong" because what they document (and accurately) doesn’t fit with what we moderns think the facts were. The most recent case in point, relevant and illustrative of our very topic here, is the depiction of viols which Virdung used in his 1511 treatise. Until just a couple months ago (literally) most people believed his illustration to be a very exaggerated "cartoon", there couldn’t possibly have been a vihuela, plucked or bowed, that looked so extreme, that had such exaggerated waist-cuts. A couple months ago I tracked down a little known recent discovery of a vihuela in a (newly discovered, centuries hidden) fresco in the cathedral of Valencia, which [instrument] is a dead ringer for Virdung's bowed vihuela, and predates Virdung's by a full 35 years (dates firm). When I first saw this new icon, the new plucked Valencia vihuela icon, I knew immediately what it was and how it connected to Virdung’s bowed vihuela (because I’ve made it a point to know both types, plucked and bowed). I nearly fell out of my chair. The artist was right all along, Virdung’s illustrator was right. Vihuela with such extreme deep and long waist-cuts did in fact exist! So it works both ways. Cyclocifra 22:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

...although John Bryan took the picture seriously enough to get a set of viols made! By the way, although he built some viols from the picture, it is nonsense to suggest that he built his reputation on it, as suggested by Cyclocifra, above! Bluewave 18:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cyclocifra, are you the webmaster of this website? If so, I have to say that you're an authority on this subject, because it's a great resource. Badagnani 18:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Badagnani, that's me (and thank you , I try). It took a very long time to get a good enough hang of the early landscape to feel confident in my selections and juxtapositions, confident of my eye and nose. I have 10 fuzzy/questionable images on file and unused for every one I ultimately do use. Cyclocifra 20:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, sure, take it off, I feel like there are too many images on the page already. I thought you wanted to have a section on the page about how it's not of viols. It would be nice if we could get a really clear photo of a modern replica or a surviving viol, that showed really clearly the strings and the frets and the shape of the instrument, that would be really nice. Just a thougth, though. Mak (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty. And sorry if I was unclear regarding what my intentions were. Cyclocifra 21:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There are no surviving viols of such an early vintage. The earliest survivors are probably c.1550-65. As far as iconography goes though, [Raphael's St. Cecila viol, c1510], is probably the most clear and detailed of all. Closer magnification is available as well. Cyclocifra 23:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Cyclocifra is especially interested in that transition period between vihuelas and bowed viols. But any and all of the above would be great. Badagnani 21:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am. And Costa's instruments (what ever they are) do fall within that critical time period. Cyclocifra 21:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me have one last attempt at convincing people that we should give serious attention to the Costa viols! Firstly, they are given serious discussion in the literature: not just the John Bryan article, but, for example, in Woodfield's The Early History of the Viol. As stated above by Cyclocifra, the iconography is all we have to go on before about 1550 and the Costa altarpiece would be one of the very earliest dipictions of viols, and therefore notable and important. The stringing of the "viols", apparently in double courses is an unresolved issue that is well-known and was certainly discussed in a paper presented by Patsy Campbell at the ISMA conference in Mexico City in December 2000. Nevertheless, she seems to accept the instruments as early viols. Musica Antiqua of London (who were exploring the music collected by Isabella d'Este) were looking for contemporary instruments for playing music of the late 15th and early 16th centuries and decided to commission a set of viols to be built, based the image. Roger Rose constructed a chest of viols: treble in c; 2 tenors in g and a bass in c. These have been used in live performances and recordings. By chance, I attended the Early Music Festival in Greenwich, London, at the weekend, and Alison Crum and Roy Marks gave a concert of renaissance viol and lute music. Crum used one of the Costa tenors for the pre-1500 music and I have to say it sounded wonderful - the design certainly works as a viol. The room was perhaps 100ft long by 50 wide and 40 high, with an audience of around 300, but the viol was loud enough for the venue (which surprised me, given the thin body). So, the Costa viols have convinced a number of eminent people: Crum (who is a performer, teacher and has made at least 80 recordings); Bryan (academic and performer); Philip Thorby (director of Musica Antiqua and head of Early Music at Trinity College, London), for example. These people may all be mistaken, but their opinions surely need to be taken seriously. Even if they are mistaken, and the Costas are not really viols at all, I suggest this still needs to be written up in the Wikipedia article under the heading of "Greatest viol hoax in music history"! Bluewave 09:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bluewave. Woodfield, p.57, shows another three string viol-ish instrument , Castilian school, c.1500 (which, I might add, has smooth curves, no cuts, which is extremely atypical). Woodfield also missed the fact that Timoteo Viti's viol has two bridges!. Just about _any_ shape, within reason, made well, can sound good (in and of itself). i.e. That the reproduction instruments sound "ok" neither proves nor demonstrates anything. I'm guessing that the Costa painting instruments were known about long before Woodfield's book (1984) and the new iconography it contained, and at a time when the known quantity of early viol iconography was quite small. People (viol enthusiasts) leapt at any possible candidate (saw what they wanted to see). Heck, the violin enthusiasts have gotten away with _far worse_, to this day, by calling the claiming the Gaudenzio Ferrari Saronno Cathedral dome fresco instruments, c1535, violins! "The first iconographic proof in history of a _compete_ “family of violins”. Every single scholar, book, encyclopedia, “history of violin”, and web site, has parroted this baloney for well over a hundred years. Never mind that the so called “cello” in that grouping has a very wide neck, a very wide bridge. and _FRETS_! It’s a VIOL. Again, the violiners were and are desperate to prove some ancient illustrious roots (they see what they want to see, until someone challenges them). At that early date, no-one in their right minds could see that instrument as being anything other than a viola da gamba, 4, 5, or 6 string, _except _ violin enthusiasts desparately looking for a history. If you want a “biggest-ever scam/sham/hoax in viol history” to write about, try _that_ one! I’d be happy to help (I’ve already started that ball rolling on my web site ;-) By the way, the “viola” in that grouping has 4 peg dowels visible in it's peg box, this at a time when violins only had 3 strings. There were 4 string _viols_ however, and I believe many of the small ones were played on the arm, da braccio. So not one but two of those instruments are suspect. If anyone thinks that in 1535 Ferrarri just somehow “forgot” to include even a single viola da gamba in and amongst the hundred or so instruments and musicians depicted in that monumental fresco, yet he managed to remember and include a whole _family_ of “violins”, I'd think again!! This is simply to say that just because a dozen eminent "experts" repeat the same thing doesn't make it correct. The weight of authority, in the end, almost always ends up going to the _thinking minority_ present within any herd of "learned colleagues", no matter what the discipline or period. Look around you, mediocrity is the rule, the norm. Please don't take any of this personally, I'm just going with the flow, writing spontainiously. Cyclocifra 22:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. I suppose the next question is, assuming that they are painted from real-life instruments (and that the "courses" of strings aren't just shadows or a depiction by a clueless artist who painted from memory rather than from life) what do you believe the Costa instruments are, or what they would have been called in that region, at that time? Badagnani 22:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't know (and I really don't care either ;-). There were some Italian fiddles, c.1390 (I believe), which I've seen in iconography, that used 3 paired courses of strings. Costa's instruments could have been an experimental da gamba machine that didn't last. Their lira da braccio patterned bodies didn't take either (on viols). Cyclocifra 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Here, let me insert an image of the instrument I refered to, a 3 course Italian fiddle (Florence), Agnolo Gaddi, c.1360-96. Cyclocifra 00:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Could be a kemence/Pontic lyra or vielle-type instrument with VERY THICK STRINGS!  :) I can't say I've ever heard of a bowed string instrument with double courses except for the Chinese sihu/Tuvan byzanchi, but those instruments have a double bow with two segments of horsehair that passe between the strings of each course. Badagnani 00:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

no cigar today ;-) Cyclocifra 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Bluewave. At the top of this thread you were the one who insisted that before I remove the Costa image I must first provide a "published source" corroborating my observations and objections. And then you yourself provided it! You said;. . "The stringing of the "viols" (Costa's), apparently in double-courses is an unresolved issue that is well-known and was certainly discussed in a paper presented by Patsy Campbell at the ISMA conference in Mexico City in December 2000. Nevertheless, she seems to accept the instruments as early viols. . ." In other words, that these instruments are indeed strung in _3_ double-courses is a _known_ and _published_ FACT, no secret anymore, it's been in the literature since 2000. The only thing missing now is for you or her to explain how one applies LUTE TUNING across _3_ strings or courses. If you or she can satisfy that (minor and unresolved detail?!) requirement , then you may keep the image on our page. If you can't explain how this was done, and yet still choose to continue displaying the image, as if it is "representative" of viola da gamba, then I believe it's your duty and responsibility to inform your reader-students of the known and very controversial facts now surrounding this picture and these instruments. Ok? How's that. Seems only fair. These are the rules you wanted to play by -- so let's play ;-) Cyclocifra 22:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I should warn you though, if you were to seriously consider and propose we take the later route, i.e. leave the image up and then explain all the details regarding how we're just going to “agree to keep pretending that these are viola da gamba”, I would then argue that we needn't waste readers time with such academic debates and controversies on the main page and that you should write up a separate stub article on the "Costa Viols Hoax", complete with necessary pictures, references, supporting and contrary arguments (given that you’re the one here most invested in keeping the image), and then we can link over to it from the main article. In the process you will of course be building your own solid reputation as being the guy who proved how the ancients got lute tuning to work on three strings. Cyclocifra 03:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Good discussion. There is variety in tuning within the viol family (the pardessus, for example, isn't tuned like a lute, and it's mentioned in the article that there were 4- and 5-string viols as well as 6- and 7-string ones). And, again, the drawing may have been done from memory, by an artist who was more familiar with lutes and depicted doubled strings, or maybe the "second strings" are actually shadows. If it turns out, however, that the instruments are depicated accurately and that they do have six strings in paired courses, then what would one call the instrument if not "viol"? Badagnani 03:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Renaissance viols proper, including 4, 5, 6, and 7 string models, all shared the same common lute tuning, fourths and third. Their standard/stock/default tuning is part of the agreed upon definition of viol da gamba or vihuela de arco. Scordatura tunings, after-the-fact, are just that. The Costa instruments, being Italian, may well have been called "viola" of some kind, given the often generic usage of the term. If we want now, at this late date, to include 3 string or course instruments, of any unspecified tuning, under the umbrella of our definition of "viola da gamba", what next? What about frets then, absent or present? Shall we embrace all fretless bowed strings instruments of any string count or tuning as well? If everything is a viola da gamba, then nothing is, i.e. we're in trouble. Cyclocifra 04:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose they could still be viols if the artist depicted the strings mistakenly, in the same way that the numerous bagpipes in the iconographic examples I submitted earlier are still bagpipes. Otherwise I'll leave comment open for Bluewave, who seems to feel more strongly about this esoteric subject. This is a great educational forum, isn't it?  :) Badagnani 04:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he was mistaken. He was confident enough to also make the corresponding necks super-narrow. His eye would have told him something looked really "off" about his neck-width when he was done, and that his memory must have been wrong (if one wants to assume he was working from memory only), i.e. they must have had at least one more course (he would have said to himself, I believe). Costa painted a 5 course lute in his painting "A Concert" sometime between 1485 and 1495, so he was already familiar with how paired courses of strings should be rendered (and not) and by extension how single strings and their spaceing might be rendered (and not). So I don't think that either the courses nor their quantity and resulting neck-width were an accident, a mistake. Cyclocifra 05:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is all important background. This is what good scholarship is all about. Badagnani 05:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Having said I would have "one last attempt", here I am having another! (Sorry!) My point is that I don't think it is our role to judge the evidence and determine whether the Costa instruments are indeed viols. Rather, it is our responsibility to present the consensus from reputable, published sources. I have pointed to several: Woodfield's book, John Bryan's published article and Patsy Campbell's paper, for example. That at least one of these sources acknowledges the apparent stringing in double courses, but still concludes that the instruments are viols, does not negate those sources. The Campbell paper (or at least a summary version published in the VdGS magazine) is in no doubt that these are viols: she says "The Costa altarpiece is remarkable and unusual in showing two early tenor viols..." She goes on to note that Berenson's Italian pictures of the Renaissance lists no other painting that depicts 2 viols in this way. She concludes that the "visual information [in the Costa painting] therefore has particular importance". I cannot add any personal insight: I am not an expert in early viols, merely an enthusiast (for viols and for good scholarship). So I say again, is there a published source which challenges the accepted view that the Costa altarpiece is important in depicting very early viols? Bluewave 12:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

PS ...and, no, I'm not going to write a "great viol hoax" article. I find it a bit bizarre that the suggestion that I write one should come from Cyclocifra, who is the only person to have put forward the hoax argument. If Cyclocifra can point me to any published sources that would support such an article, I might consider it! Bluewave 13:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Our contribution, our role and responsibility, is to help provide a freely and widely accessible educational resource and reference of the highest quality we can. If we didn’t have any editorial powers, choices, we wouldn’t be here having this discussion.

You either appreciate good scholarship or you don’t. That 3 paired courses make a viola da gamba is _not_ good scholarship, period.

If the Costa instruments _were_ viola da gamba, as we define them, and as Renaissance Europeans described them (from Virdung on at least), then yes they would be important, and the picture might also be singular in that there are two played together in one picture (in Italy, and at that early date). Last time I checked though, Spain is the womb of viola da gamba, vihuela de arco. So almost any Spanish picture of early vihuela da arco, single or duo, should trump any picture of any early Italian experimental machine.

There _is_ a published source which challenges the accepted view that the Costa altarpiece is important in depicting early viols. But the author of that document, Patsy Campbell, is apparently not bright enough to grasp and understand the significance and ramifications of her own work, her own observations. One more time: 3 paired courses do not make a viola da gamba (at least not on this planet). Agreeing to ignore the evidence and continuing to pretend that such a configuration is a viola da gamba does not qualify as “reputable”.

The word “Hoax”, associated to the Costa picture, entered the record and vocabulary thanks to you, you penned it. But after you mentioned it, it does seem fitting and appropriate.

Studious parrots and good scholars are not the same thing. The later requires at least a well-exercised diversified and independent intellect -- over and above one's familiarity with, and ability to cite, other people's work. Cyclocifra 00:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I’m concerned; here’s the most important and unquestionably representative early Italian viol pictures, chronologically:

Timoteo Viti,. c.1500, Madonna]

Baldassare Peruzzi, 1505, Church of San Peitro, Montorio, Rome, Coronation of the Virgin. And close-up of bass viol therein.

Raphael (Sanzio or Santi) 1510, St.Cecilia

Individually and collectively, the features visible in those pictures are important and representative. By comparison, however, NOTHING about the Costa instruments is representative. Nothing in the picture is therefore “visually important” to early viol history.

Here’s another early Italian picture (Ferrara, anon) containing TWO Italian viola da gamba (far left and far right) c.1503-15. And close-up of bass viol therein. Cyclocifra 03:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope people understand that I’m not so foolish as to think the Costa image will ever go away, or that it'll ever be completely eliminated from the deck. But when the day comes, that rational and discriminating heads prevail, the Costa image will take it’s rightful place at the absolute bottom of the deck. This is the point I want to emphasize, the point I want people to begin getting their heads around. At the end of the day, the Costa image is the single worst and least representative early surviving viol-ish icon to be found throughout the whole of Europe. Numero Zed. We have limited space on our page. Editorial prerogative and discretion means we have a choice. Shall we take from the top of the deck or the bottom? In the year 2006, we have the benefit of having many many options and alternates to choose from. The notion of “representative image” can mean many things. We have the option of doing two or three different things at once using a single image, or we can use multiple separate images. We should be most concerned with _illuminating_ our subject, and doing it in the shortest amount of time and space. In an ideal world what might our “minimum requirements” be of the few pictures we ultimately choose to display? What are our criterion? Which images illuminate the evolutions and connections between plucked and bowed vihuela and viola? Which images reveal the genetic bits, the key definitive features, which were strong enough to survive the test of time to become manifest and retained in all subsequent generations? How can we best show the common threads and continuity throughout the timeline (if such exists, and they do exist)? The Costa image fits nowhere within that equation. It is of no use, none, in achieving any of our (should be) declared objectives. Selectivity _is_ one of our duties. Cyclocifra 05:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at it, the more cartoonish in style it seems. It doesn't seem to have been drawn with great sophistication and I'm guessing it was done from memory, so possibly doesn't depict any real instrument. The instruments seem to be very thin, as well. Badagnani 05:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually believe they did exist, but not as viola da gamba as we define them. But I agree completely that the more one looks at the Costa instruments and all their particulars the more one realizes that many many things are wrong, off, and suspect. The tally sheet, the number of negative check-marks accumulated and compounded, isn't pretty. It's truly hard to find a single "saving grace" there. And that's why the icon goes to the bottom of the deck. Cyclocifra 05:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a great argument but I'm not sure that Cyclocifra and I will get much further. In the Bluewave corner, the argument is that there are three points: firstly, that the verifiable sources tell us that the Costa instruments are indeed viols; secondly, that the same sources tell us that they are important in the history of the viol; thirdly, that, at least in Europe, thousands of people are being given this message by the supposed experts, so the Wikipedia article can hardly avoid the issue. In support of the first 2 assertions, Bluewave offers three published sources. Cyclocifra disputes the validity of the sources cited by Bluewave. In two cases, this is largely on the grounds of their authors' credibility. Bryan is dismissed on the grounds that "some people have apparently built their reputations on this image (to whit the [Bryan article])". Patsy Campbell is dismissed on the grounds that she "is apparently not bright enough to grasp and understand the significance and ramifications of her own work". In the opposite corner, we have the extensive research which Cyclocifra has personally undertaken, plus the research done by Patsy Campbell, which Cyclocifra believes points to an opposite conclusion from the one reached by Campbell, and both of which are claimed to indicate that the Costa instruments are not viols. Furthermore, Cyclocifra does not accept that the Costa picture is important in comparison with other near-contemporary images. Bluewave acknowledges the research done by Cyclocifra and finds its contents fascinating and informative, but does not believe that it should be accepted above published sources unless it is either corroborated by other published sources or is itself peer-reviewed. I think it is going to be difficult to shift either of us from those positions so, at this point, I really will try and disengage from the argument and let the community decide. Incidentally, I would strongly encourage Cyclocifra to publish a summary of his/her work. I am sure that VdGS journal, for example, would accept it for publication. It has devoted a lot of space to the views of the pro-Costa advocates. I would genuinely like to see that view challenged in a specialist publication and for this debate to be resolved between the experts. Bluewave 10:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That "the experts" are still dicking around with this issue, and apparently on an ongoing, recurring, continual basis, indicates to me that it isn't worth my time and effort to "publish". If it hasn’t happened yet, there will never be an absolute final conclusive end to it. This is as much an art as it is a science. Art-full skill and talent is the harder of the two to come by. If I had wanted to play their game, if I had placed great value in it, nothing would ever have gotten done! That’s why I decided to take things into my own hands. That’s why my web site section exists.

As I said earlier, we don’t have to prove anything to anyone. We simply choose to use a different, better, more representative image. Problem solved. We are under no obligations to use the Costa image.

Bluewave, I commend your conduct. I’m generally pretty impassioned about these topics and I let it show. I rarely censure my thoughts, as perhaps I should do sometimes. So thanks. Cyclocifra 12:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, Martin Agricola’s sentiments come to mind (we might be kindred). Said he in his 1529 treatise (and this is not directed at you Bluewave). . .

. . “Since I have spoken about the lute, and have set down a second tablature arranged adroitly for the neck of the lute, I have reflected even further that I could apply this tablature appropriately to fiddles without causing an uproar. But it would not proceed simply, for I must receive some censure for it, although I expect it not from skilled people but from uneducated, lazy good-for-nothings who do not know what things mean. Off to the rubbish-heap with these people! Why should I waste many useless words? They will only laugh themselves to death at them.”

P.S. This Talk page is getting too large, something must be archived. I had to switch browsers and it’s still touch and go. I’m using Mac OS 9 at the moment. Thanks Cyclocifra 12:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: copyrights of images

In the U.S., Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. applies to most of the images we're talking about, "exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality.", so 2-dimensional copies of PD paintings are PD in the US. Mak (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mak. That's encouraging. I think I still might have to leave it to you guys to determine just how the specifics of this ruling apply to specific images we/you'all might like to add to the page. I believe lots of iconography is a good thing generally, but I take it you don't, or not on Wikipedia? Is there a particular dimension that any substituted or added images should adhere to? If anyone else here, already familiar with Wiki formatting, wants to do the swapping, adding, scaling, layout, that's fine with me -- Badagnani would probably only have to come back and clean up after me anyway ;-) I mainly wanted to table the idea, talk a little about iconography in general, and point out that pile of potential other image options we have available now. I can't guarantee how much ongoing commitment to the page I might be able to offer or contribute, even this little bit was spontaneous and out of the blue. If someone were ask me something like, for instance, "if we could only have two or three early representative images which would you suggest", I could probably help in that regard. For example, few people, even guitarists, have ever seen any of the waist-cut _plucked_ vihuela/viola. If one is hoping to help people see, understand, believe, the connections, one picture of one of those instruments seems almost mandatory. Seeing is believing, and iconography is the instrument of faith. Let me know, you'all. Cyclocifra 02:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I've been wondering about this for a while, what do you make of the bowing technique of the angel on the Isenheim altarpiece image? It seems a bit fanciful to me. Mak (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It does look odd, that's for sure, but I'm prepaired to believe almost anything these days. Playing postures and bow holds were far more varied in the16th century than is usually reported, of that I'm sure. For example, I eventually found almost three dozen pictures similar to the Veronese Cana "guitar-hold", and half of those are bowed from below as well (Veronese is bowing from above while using a guitar-hold). I've got another dozen pictures of people playing viols kneeling on one knee. Dozens of images of what appear to be small (and not so small) fretted viols played on the arm (da braccio) which really throws a wrench into the notions of what "viola da braccio" really meant or included. The Isenheim gal is using a pretty short bow, so maybe someone could pull it off without poking themselves in the side, God knows ;-) Cyclocifra 06:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the Swedish nyckelharpa's playing posture. Badagnani 07:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. That's very much like what I'm calling the "from below" guitar or lap hold. Here's an English picture, c.1598, showing that combined viol and bow hold. This one too looks almost as odd or contorted as the Isenheim hold, but I have more like it. Cyclocifra 07:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Lira da braccio

Since the reference to the lira da braccio is dealing with a precedent to the violin family and the viola da braccio is the true predecessor, should lira da braccio then be removed? I was always under the impression that the lira da braccio was a precedent to the violin along with the viola da braccio, as they look very similar, are both held on the arm, and were used in the same geographical region at the same time period. Badagnani 20:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that "viola da braccio" is the more general term for all viola-type instruments played on the arm. The connection between the lira da braccio I don't think is entirely clear to anyone. It's a chordal instrument, mainly, but since the upper strings could be played melodically, it might be more closely related to the violin family. I don't think it's entirely clear, and I don't think it ever will be, given that instrument makers and players probably played and made a variety of instruments, along more of a continuum than one sees today. Mak (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In the end, I think lira are a class unto themselves. If we're going to mention the direct predecessors in the violin line, then rebec to viola da braccio is the direct and actual path (in stages; three string viola da braccio to four string viola da braccio). So, we might revise the entry to something like; . . This differentiates it from the similar but only distantly related violin family, itself descended from similar looking instruments called viola da braccio (lit. "viol of the arm"), which in turn evolved from the earlier three string bowed rebec (also being fretless and tuned in perfect 5ths) . . .

As an aside, "the tradition", the part music polyphony, which the "formal" violins ultimately took up, actually had more to do with earlier viol tradition (I would say) than lira da braccio. The violiners have recently been trying to uncover or erect and document a version of their own independent, illustrious, early history, playing part music "in consorts" (i.e a whole family of violins), a tradition they're claiming ran parallel to what the viols were doing early on (See Peter Holman's book Four and Twenty Fiddlers. So even they, in effect, are distancing themselves even further from lira. Cyclocifra 21:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK, if it's rebec => viola da braccio => violin, then how does the vielle fit in?

vielle doesn't factor in here Cyclocifra 23:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Is it vielle => lira da braccio => lirone / viola d'amore => extinct?

First, not all vielles were lira (not all had drones). Medieval lira to Renaissance lira is however a family thread. Lira and Lirone may be related (?). Lirone had frets, most lira didn't (for example). This might be confusing but there appear to have been a few very large frettless bass-lira that we'd have to call "lira da gamba" (distinct form "lira-viol") and which could be grouped with lira da braccio as "a family". Viola d'amore I'm sure has multiple influences. Relationships aside, that these are all now extinct is certainly true. Cyclocifra 23:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• And does the vielle relate to the rebec (and rabab) as well? Badagnani 22:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No relation Cyclocifra 23:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK, so you're saying that the vielle has no antecedents and no descendants? I doubt this. Or you just don't know? Badagnani 23:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying mostly is that just because a bow is involved doesn't necessarily mean there is any real relationship beyond that. This applies both to those instruments present side by side within and given time period, and also to those bowed instruments which existed within successive time frames. Sometimes there are relationships, threads, evolutions, that can be traced and tracked, and sometimes not. Medieval vielle to Renaissance fiddle might be a thread one could claim, but even that might be questioned, could be suspect. We still know very little about early musical instruments. There were a myriad of stringings and tunings, frets and not, the majority of which are _lost_ to us beyond what we see in iconography. I wish I or anyone could give you an easy pat answer but it doesn’t exist. I’ll add that medieval instruments are not my specialty or main focus, but I think I have a clue, the gestalt. Without signing off on everything he says, I suggest looking up Christopher Page’s books and articles (medieval music, instruments, and performance practice). Most of the crap on the Internet is just that, crap and parroted crap. Cyclocifra 00:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Now that I think about it, the body shape of the vielle isn't that different from that of the vihuela... Badagnani 00:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The second generation of plucked vihuela you mean. The first generation had waist-cuts. Vielle never had waiste cuts. Waist-cuts first appeared c.1420-30 in the kingdom of Aragon (Iberia). Cyclocifra 00:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why a plucked instrument would have, or need waist cuts, let alone such severe ones, and then why the design would change so much to the more vielle-like shape -- unless the earliest ones were intended as dual use (plucked and bowed). But I guess that wasn't the case.

As far as we can tell so far, the first Aragon waist-cuts, c.1420-30, apear on small arm-bowed string instruments. About 20 years later the first waist-cut plucked vihuela appear, also in Aragon. The cuts may or may not have been related to bowing technique. If they weren't intended at first to be multi-purpose instruments they shortly after did become so, and apparently did remain so for a couple or few decades at most. That early viols had flat glued-down bridges, just like the plucked models, indicates that there was little if any difference between the plucked and bowed version at the outset. Cyclocifra 01:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm also thinking that the position and shape of the "C" or "F" holes could tell a lot about origins and links between instruments, as these things often, due to the force of tradition, change very slowly, or not at all. Once a model is found to work, makers stick with it (as seen with "modern" violin F-holes). I notice on your iconography site that the "C" holes switch direction after 100 or so years. Badagnani 00:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a little something there, but not all that much in the end. There was indeed a vocabulary of stuff, features, but most of it was shared among many different instruments, mixed and matched at the discretion of the independent builder. In the early years there was not so much visual standardization particularly among viols. Viols often had C holes, then S holes, and also F holes. They might have had 2 or 4 C holes. If 2 C holes, they might be placed in the upper bouts, centrally, or at the lower bouts. And you're correct, C holes were most often inward-facing at first. Cyclocifra 01:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that many of these early instruments have complex circular central cutouts or rosettes that seems to show an Arabic origin. Badagnani 00:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Lute and vihuela-like rosettes or other small round ports, centrally or otherwise located, were also incorporated into viol design, and in German/Austrian viols in particular were retained to the very end. That feature, alone, truly is almost exclusively unique to viols, and reflected and reminded of their more ancient plucked vihuela roots, their "luteiness". And yes, I guess that feature can ultimately be traced back to the oud.Cyclocifra 01:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's two pages of info and iconography to add to your medieval bowed strings collection, regarding Rebecs and Medieval Viols the later being unrelated to Renaissance viols. Cyclocifra 03:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)