Talk:Violin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Violin as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hungarian language Wikipedia.
Violin was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: August 13, 2006
Peer review A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
Archive

Archives
1 2


Contents

[edit] There is a difference

I'm sorry, but I'm a violinist and I wanted to point this out. Fiddlers are violinists who come from the country and play the style of the country, which usually includes Gigues, dances...etc. They are very different from violinists and some of the friends I know (including me sometimes if I wasn't patiently explaining now) would be pretty offended to hear them classified as fiddlers. Not that there's anything wrong, just that we are very very different things. Regeane Silverwolf 03:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't be too tushy, guys. Nobody likes a tushed wikipedian!!! =) But then again, I quite agree with my friend Regeane - there is a difference - or otherwise I would have to call myself a fiddler!silverwolf_athame 22:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know where you're from, but that's just not true; even Itzak Perlman (you've heard of him, haven't you?) sometimes refers to himself as a "fiddler". What you believe is actually just a canard, one that certain conservative "classical" practicioners like to perpetuate. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between the styles of music designated (roughly) as fiddle tunes and as classical music, and maybe the connotation of 'fiddler' is different from 'violinist' for that reason. But the denotation is quite equivalent, I think. J Lorraine 07:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
That's much better put, and the connotation vs. denotation distinction is worth noting. It's a matter of context: obviously, no symphony orchestra is going to list its fiddle players in the program notes as "fiddlers": they're called violinists. Likewise, a violinist playing on a folk album is most likely going to be identified as a "fiddler". +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Inn-teresting. There is not a sharply defined boundary between the set of violinists and the set of fiddlers. Although there are people who are definitely, without question, one or the other, there are also people who cross between idioms. I'll leave it to someone else to determine which items in the following list put someone in one camp or the other, strongly or weakly, and which are irrrelevant, or are negative stereotypes:

  • seated audience, respecfully hushed during performance, politely demonstrative after each piece or movement
  • dancing audience whooping it up
  • performers attired informally or flamboyantly
  • performers in formal western European dress
  • players typically unshaven and toothless
  • performers in orchestral sections
  • most performances are solo or in a small group
  • players cannot do without sheet music on a stand in front of them
  • variation and free interpretation are valued and commonly practiced
  • pieces composed by a single person
  • traditional pieces of unknown authorship
  • fluid, almost constant vibrato
  • sparing or no use of vibrato
  • shorter pieces with ornaments and articulations stylistically interpreted
  • lengthy pieces with intricately determined structure
  • emphasis on emotional evocation
  • emphasis on rhythmic interest
  • emphasis on complex harmonic sequences
  • top-tier performers play on old instruments made by recognized masters
  • any old cigar box will do
  • performers undergo years of formal academic training
  • performers learn from the culture surrounding them

Some are not so obvious. For example, I recently read that Vassar Clements (a fiddler by most accounts) plays an instrument likely made in the 1500s by Gaspar Duiffoprugcar.

Just plain Bill 09:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
oops, left out the following:
  • performers overwhelmingly use standard Italian GDAE tuning
  • performers spend a fair amount of time in scordatura, or nonstandard "cross-tuning."
Just plain Bill 14:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Violin

The section is quite poor. We should mention more about the Cremonese School and the Brescian School (with Gasparo Da Salo', that tradition considers the inventor of violin and Maggini). More should be written about Stradivari new method of building violin, that actually defined a shape that remained unchanged until today. NO mention about the method of the "internal mould" (cremonese school, perfectioned by Stradivari) and "external mould" (french and others school) is in the article.This is a big information missing. The citation of he "Messiah" is not really needed, first because several important experts consider that violin form "Stradivari school" but maybe not made by Stradivarius himself. Historically, the most famous violin remains the "Cannon", ("il cannone" in italian), made by Guarneri del Gesu' and played by Paganini. Another mention should be done about the historical schools that developed after Cremonese: Venetian School, School of Naples, Bologna, the French School... Another (short) mention should be reserved to at least these others Violin makers: Gasparo da Salo', Maggini, Guadagnini, Montagnana (who is actually the "stradivarius of cello"). Finally a sentence regarding the strong role of the tradition in building violins should be added: after Stradivari, only a few has changed and even today musicians often ask for replica of that kind of violins considered the "non plus ultra". Pierpaolo Dondio


[edit] Tuning to non-standard pitch

Article currently says:

Sometimes, 441 Hz and 442 Hz are used to tune for solo pieces to give the instrument a brighter sound.

Is this true? Neverheardofit. Reference? or other evidence, please? Otherwise, out it comes! --ILike2BeAnonymous 21:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a violinist, and I always tune to around 442 Hz when I can (not playing with a piano, for example). In fact, the pianos at the Juilliard School are tuned to about 443. --Mets501talk 22:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Most orchestras tune to 442 Hz. However, I know that the London Orchestra tunes to 443 Hz. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.30.172 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 13 August 2006).
And how do you know this? +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
So how do you know you're tuning to such a precise pitch? In all my playing (with orchestras, chamber groups, etc.), I have never once seen anyone use a device for tuning that showed any measurement of frequency whatsoever, let alone to such precision. What do you use? --ILike2BeAnonymous 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Three of the tuners in this house do just exactly that. A Matrix MR-800 metronome gives an A tone from 440 to 445 Hz in steps of a single Hz. A less expensive clip-on chromatic tuner, the Center Pitch CP2 gives choices of 438, 440 and 442 for the reference A. An older Korg DT-1 chromatic tuner offers basis A from 438 to 445 Hz in single-Hz steps.
All the forks I can get my hands on at the moment are 440, but in the living room of one cellist I saw three A forks on the music stand, not one of them at 440. One Baroque, and two sharp by two or three Hz, so stamped on the stem by the manufacturer. If you listen for it, you can hear a beat frequency of 1 Hz. Just plain Bill 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
How would you hear a beat frequency of 1 Hz with a 441 Hz tuning fork resonating by itself? Galaxydog2000 06:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
You wouldn't. You'd hear the 1 Hz beat if your A was tuned to 441 and you had a 440 fork going at the same time (or a 442 fork, as it turns out in this case.) Presuming your bowing produces a stable pitch on the open string, which not everybody can do. __ Just plain Bill 20:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Just for giggles, I calibrated the Korg to 443, and offered it a 440 fork tone. It showed it to be about 12 cents flat. Just plain Bill
I also use a tuner on occasion to tune to a few Hz higher. I also have perfect pitch, so I can hear how I'm tuned without a reference. --Mets501talk 12:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As any piano tuner can tell you, if you have an A440 fork, and a string tuned to 442 Hz, together they will make a "wowwowwow..." beating at 120 bpm, or march tempo. It doesn't take electronics. Given a tuning fork, J.S. Bach could tune a string to within one Hz or better. So could any decent fiddler from the horse-and-buggy gaslight era or before. If you want to buy a 442 Hz fork, these guys will sell you one. Just plain Bill 03:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on, already: yes, what you say makes sense—in theory; in practice, no, I ain't buying it. What you describe could only be practical if 1) you could get the tuning fork note to sustain against your bowed tuning note for long enough to be useful (maybe possible if you have one of them wooden resonator thingies you stick the tuning fork in, but how many violinists do you know who have one? I know none), and 2) the tone is close enough in volume (and maybe even timbre) to be able to hear the beat frequency clearly.
Sorry, still sounds like a very poorly-proven violin urban legend to me. (Too bad there's not a violin equivalent of Snopes around to check up on it.) I changed it back to "minutely higher pitch". Seems to me that's something nobody can deny and we all can live with, huh? ILike2BeAnonymous 05:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Notum addendum: Don't know why I was assuming one could only use a tuning fork; I suppose it might be possible with an electronic tuner. But then, I have never, ever seen one of these used in an actual (classical) concert situation. And also wanted to mention that so far we have your word and that of a 15-year old violin virtuouso for this. I'd like to see a bit more evidence. ILike2BeAnonymous 05:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Orchestras tune to an oboeist, who tunes to an electronic tuner backstage set at a frequency picked by the conductor. That, and most violinists tune to an electronic tuner. Galaxydog2000
Wrong on both counts, by my reckoning ("original research": so sue me): yes, orchestras tune to the oboe, but in the ones I've played in, the oboist may or may not tune to an electronic tuner at his or her stand, not backstage. And I don't think you can back up the claim that "most violinists tune to an electronic tuner"; I don't, nor do any violinists of my acquaintance. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the conductor does require an exact pitch, the point is that it can be done by having the oboist tune to that pitch with an electronic tuner, the location of which is irrelevant. I have played in orchestras where as long as the oboists A sounds good, it goes, and others where a specific frequency is mandated. And as far as violinist tuning to an electronic tuner, maybe my wording was off. By 'electronic tuner,' what I actually meant was that most violinists tune to a metronome- or tuner-generated tone. I am basing this on the same "original research" as you - both me and most violinists I know tune to a generated tone. Most likely, neither of us know the actual habits of every violinist in the world. To my best knowledge, no survey has ever been taken. Galaxydog2000 20:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't need a resonator box. Hold the stem of the fork in your teeth, and bone conduction does the rest. In practical fact, timing the beats between fork and string, and between string and string, put the daily bread on the piano tuner's table before electronic gadgetry came along. Just plain Bill 12:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is still malarkey. Violinists, for the most part, just don't tune like that. The vast majority just tune to 440 and are done with it. ILike2BeAnonymous 18:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Windowsill resonator
Windowsill resonator

When I tune to a standard, it's 440. At home, I get it from that fork over there on the windowsill. Out of the house, I clamp a fork in my teeth while bowing and tuning, or tune to someone else in the room. Nobody I know tunes by counting beats; that would be silly.

I'm just trying to show you that tuning to within a Hertz or a fraction of one is not the sub-atomic micro-measurement that you seem to think it is. It does not take a rack of equipment, just a good set of ears and a reliable reference, (or an oboist.) From there it should be an easy step to "the whole world does not necessarily use 440 Hz as a standard, but they are quite precise about what they do use."

Remember the cellist with three forks on his music stand? 435, 442, and another "bright A," (I forget if it was 444 or 443.) He doesn't do that for his own amusement. He doesn't even do it because he got to like tuning to another A in his many years in the Austrian chamber orchestra. He does it because the orchestras he plays with here in the Northeast US use different standard pitches. Just plain Bill 03:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Where there's a piano, tune to that: which says:

The pitch of A440 has remained the standard since 1939. Pitches have risen a little, particularly in Eastern European countries, which often wish pianos to be tuned to A 444 or even a bit above. Some concert halls in the UK and European countries have two pianos on site, one tuned to A440 and one tuned to A 444. This is to keep the pianos stable, as constantly raising and lowering the pitch is not good for the piano; it makes it hard for the piano tuner to make the tuning stable.

Why do the piano tuners still need to lobby for 440? Must be a lot of instruments tuned to something else... the link lists a boatload of forks and their frequencies. Check the one Steinway used.

Your turn, L2BA. For every reference you find that says everybody uses 440, it ought to be easy to find a half dozen that point to a specific brighter pitch being used. Being used, not just being prescribed by some standards committee.

Maybe no one else who sees this knows or cares enough to chime in... too bad. Just plain Bill 13:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Many violinists do use 441 or 442. Also, most European orchestras use anywhere from 441-444. The Vienna Philharmonic and the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestras tune to A445. If one listens to an old recording, this is especially obvious, perhpas due to either higher A's or something about the recording. As a violinist, I tune to A440, simply because most other instruments are. -Wells Andres

Sorry to be a nag about this, but: references, please? Why would Berlin tune to 445? So far as I know, the standard, canonical pitch of the note A is 440 Hz, not anything else. Can you find anything on the Web to back up your assertions?
So far as "old recordings" go, nobody in their right mind would try to make any evaluation of performance pitch from them, since their recording speeds were so unreliable. (This is certainly true if they were 78 rpm phonograph records, which often didn't maintain constant pitch from the beginning to the end of a single side.) ==ILike2BeAnonymous 04:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
A little research right here within the Wikiwalls revealed that German orchestras do tune to 445, according to the article on pitch. But why? That same article states that A is set to 440 Hz by none other than ISO, which, so far as I know, is recognized by Germany. Why do they depart from the official norm? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 05:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The Violin article has settled into "440 is standard, and some tune a bit higher" for the moment, without mentioning specific frequencies. Playing the violin mentions some specifics. Discussion on that page gives a dozen references, and anyone with access to a web search engine could find dozens more without breaking a sweat.
The ISO can prate all it wants to about 440, and if I want to tune to 432, I will. If two of us tune to 432, then the military won't ask, we won't tell, and they'll take us anyway. If three of us do, then they'll think we're crazy, and they won't take us. But if four of us march in, playing in close harmony from a 432 A, they'll think it's a movement, and that's what it is, folks! (Sorry, showing my age, but description, not prescription, remember?) Just plain Bill 15:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, fine, but nobody has answered my burning question: Why do they (Berlin & Vienna, et al) tune to 445? At this point, I ask out of simple curiosity, not with a view to changing the article. Is it a Yurpeen thing? just plain cussedness? aren't there problems with audiences getting A445 in their ear, then hearing another ensemble that uses standard A440 and thinking them terribly flat? Inquiring minds want to know! (By the way, I got your "group W" reference right away, so I guess that dates both of us, huh?) ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know the particulars nor the who's who of it all. It may come down to nothing more than "because that's what the director likes." I think it would be really cool if someone told us the verifiable, believable story. There might be a book or two around the house I can dig through... Just plain Bill 20:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia article Pitch (Music) it mentions the phenomenon of pitch inflation. This might shed some light on the disscussion. Luke 60.228.172.195 12:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "chord mechanism?" What's that?

The recently added link to a schematic exploded view of a violin has an arrow pointing text somewhere in the vicinity of the frog mortise, labeling it the "chord mechanism." There's the frog itself, with slide, eye, ferrule, lining (if that's what you call the little trough-shaped metal piece between frog and stick,) two wedges, the hair knot, eyelet and screw, with its button, plus assorted pins and sheets of metal, but does anyone call it the "chord mechanism?" Further down it is called out as the widget that tightens the strings, or some such. Perhaps it's a translation... but not a good one into violinistic English. Other than that, the picture is fun to look at. Just plain Bill 23:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we don't have to worry our little heads over it anymore, 'cause I removed it. Not a very good illustration. The "Anatomy of a Violin" link just below is much better, even though it's just a single JPEG. ILike2BeAnonymous 01:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking more closely, I suspect much of the text is a translation, perhaps from French. Agreed that the unsw jpg is better, although what it calls "beak, nose, and end button" I call "corner, button and endpin." Just plain Bill 04:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pinky

Is little finger a universally-used term? Hyacinth 06:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes; what's not to understand? Seems self-evident to me. "Pinky", on the other hand, apparently is not used everywhere. Someone from Over There (UK, I guess) complained about it, so I've started changing it whenever I see it. ILike2BeAnonymous 07:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes Pinky over here was one half of a double act of two pigs!. The other pig was called Perky. THey had afew hit records too!--Light current 03:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
And of course you must be familiar with Pinky and the Brain, no? --ILike2BeAnonymous 05:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Fraid not!--Light current 21:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that's a pity: "What are we going to do today, Brain?" "Same thing we always do: try and take over the world." --ILike2BeAnonymous 21:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Im afraid that particular show didnt make it cross the pond!--Light current 23:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Truly a pity. Two animated lab mice... Pinky's voice reminded me a bit of Terry Jones. You will have heard of him. Just plain Bill 04:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overtone production on pizz

I think I see what you're getting at, and I think there's a slight problem with words here: what you mean (I think) is not buzzing but deadening, or damping. "Buzzing" means a sharp sound, usually produced by something repeatedly striking something else. If you hear a "buzz" on a violin, there's something wrong with the instrument (loose glue joint, etc.) that needs fixing. The finger on a string deadens vibration, since there's a soft object smushing down on top of it (that's a technical term, by the way). As Just Bill has pointed out, this damps higher overtones; it also reduces sustain, which is why open strings "ring" longer than a fingered note.
Does this help explain? --ILike2BeAnonymous 05:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[comment moved back to original place for continuity--ILike2BeAnonymous 22:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)]

You can also get a buzzing string in certain places on a bumpy fingerboard, one that needs to be planed or dressed. Assuming the nut and bridge are well cut, an open string is immobilized where it touches wood, free to vibrate everywhere else, and there is a clean abrupt transition in between. The transition offered by a smushing fingertip is fuzzier. Just plain Bill 14:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


I just did a little experiment with interesting, if inconclusive, results. If you stop a string with a hard metal object and pluck it, the sound sustains more than if a finger were used, but less than an open string. (You can try this yourself easily, assuming you have access to a violin. I used the head of a small socket wrench.) But other than that, the sounds of all three—open string, fingered note and metal-stopped note—are surpringly similar. So your theory is interesting, and I can't refute it, but it's not a very pronounced phenomonon in any case. There's actually not that much difference in sound between a plucked open string and a fingered note (the most noticeable difference is the length of sustain). I still don't really see this as being explained by "buzzing", because I don't hear that distinctive sound, even when stopping the string with a piece of metal.
As far as fingering harder or softer goes, that's pretty esoteric: I can't really perceive any difference there.
You can definitely hear slapping or buzzing if you pull the string off the fingerboard vertically and let it go (the famous "Bartók pizzicato"), but that's something different. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 22:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


I think when you talk about "open strings sound crap", you're confusing things: what they're referring to is the difference in sound between a bowed open string and stopped string. No argument that there's a big difference (for one thing, not possible to have vibrato on an open string). But the difference between a plucked open string and stopped string is not that great. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 23:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


Traditional Polish violin playing makes use of the player's finger nail in stopping notes precisely because it makes the sound more rich in harmonics, more brilliant sounding... I will try and find the reference to this one, something to do with teh word "Nagel" & It is possible to vibrate an open string, players vibrate the octave above or unison below to give life to the otherwise plain note... BAH 07:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone of bowed open v stopped strings

If you stop a note near a bump on the board, you may sometimes avoid the buzz by playing more softly. The amplitude of excursion has limits; before the middle of the sounding length (the loop of the fundamental oscillation) hits the board, intonation and tone will suffer. In other words, pluck or bow too hard and it starts to sound like something you don't want to step in. Better instruments behave better in this respect, or I believe they are supposed to do.
As I understand the geometry of the scoop, it allows the string to not be tangent to the board where it comes out from under the fingertip, without the action being so high that upper positions become difficult or impossible to play. I don't know anything about your bass, but I still believe that a buzz is a sign of something out of kilter, something that might benefit from professional attention.
Vibrato is secondary to the different tone of stopped vs. open strings. Play a stopped note without vibrato, and it still sounds different than an open string, even if the open string is "perfectly" in tune. I don't know why. Damped overtones? Perhaps. Certainly a mistuned open string is difficult to put in tune with the bow alone.
Just plain Bill 04:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I_Like2BeAnonymous other stuff that he doesnt want under my hdg

What's a "DB"? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 23:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a bumpy fingerboard will definitely buzz. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 22:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It buzzes. Sounds raspy. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 23:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes. (Unless you're playing "punk fiddle" or something.) And why do you keep messing up the indentation?

==ILike2BeAnonymous 23:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Bills comments

(I'll stay at a two-colon indent for a while here...) Agree that string buzzing on fingerboard is a nasty annoying sound. But, LC, I disagree that a stopped string "must slap." If the action is set high enough, and the fingerboard properly scooped, then the string departs from the fingerboard at an angle steeper than the end's half-angle of excursion as it vibrates. For a perlon (nylon) or gut violin G, that translates to about 5 mm off the end of the fingerboard, which is scooped concave in the middle by about 3/4 of a mm. For a steel-strung bass, that might be 9 mm off the end of the FB and 2.5 mm scoop under the fattest string, but I don't know; that's just what it says in the book. In my life I've planed exactly one bass fingerboard. Just plain Bill 03:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Bow' of a fingerboard

Instruments in the violin family as well as the acoustic stand-up bass typically have a lengthwise concave scoop under the strings. On a violin, it's about half a mm under the E, and 3/4 mm under the G for gut or synthetic strings. Steel strings may have less. There should be no noticeable flex under string tension; you can check with a straight edge with the fiddle strung up or taken down, and get the same picture. One way to check for bumps is to use a short stright-edge; I use a small machinist's square with about a 3" blade. Some modern makers may not put much scoop in their boards, but every fiddle, viola, or cello I've had my hands on has had a scooped fingerboard including the high-end electric. I've lost track of how many I've planed. Next time I'm in the same room as a contrabass, I'll sight down the board and see. Just plain Bill 22:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

THats very interesting Bill!. But are you sure that a DB neck does not flex when the strings are tightened? It must do somewhat unless it is of infinite stiffness. Next time you see a DB, check flatness with no string tension and then again with strings at full tension. If there's no difference, tell me what the neck is made of and we can make a fortune in the aerospace industry!--Light current 22:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Bits do indeed move when string tension is applied, and you will probably see more flex in the larger instruments. But, if you look at the side views in the picture gallery of the violin family article (which conveniently includes a picture of a double bass, even though it's not strictly a member of the family...) you will see that the fingerboard is only supported by the neck for a little more than half its length. The flex will show up mostly as raised action, that is height of string off the end of the FB will increase; and not show up very much as increased scoop in the board.
It's been a long time since I did a beam flex calculation. The neck is a lamination of ebony and maple, not an economical choice these days for struts and spars... perhaps we shouldn't go looking for startup capital just yet.
Violin necks can settle over the years under the influence of string tension, but my understanding is that the settling has more to do with the distortion of the corpus, particularly the top plate, and not very much to do with the neck itself flexing.
Just plain Bill 03:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for restoration of discussion order

I'd like someone (other than "Light current") to go through the discussions of buzzing, pizzicato and open vs. fingered strings above and restore them to their proper sequence (and to remove the spurious headings that LC put in). I frankly don't feel like doing this. I realize this is a fair amount of work. Maybe someone here has too much time on their hands? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 20:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dont be so damn silly. The order of comments is irrelevant on this talk. Anyway I didnt change the order. I just added hdgs for navigation, so why are you getting so agitated/--Light current 20:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The order of comments here is now fucked up beyond all belief, due to the diligent efforts of "Light Current" to rearrange the discussion to his liking. Perhaps he thinks he's punishing me for my many disgreements with him, but in fact, he's creating chaos for all recent contributors here. So make of it what you will. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 21:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Im off you foul mouthed idiot! The edit history will reveal the truth!!--Light current 21:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Class difference, fiddle vs. violin

"simply words that came into English via different languages, 'violin' having taken the Romance route and 'fiddle' the Germanic one. That a violin is seen as a higher-class instrument than a fiddle might be the result of the same social processes..." (Normans vs Saxons ? in Ivanhoe)

This could use some expansion in my opinion. If memory serves, the violin was initially seen as a lower-class instrument than the viol. The Latin/German distinction may be no more than an Anglo-centric artifact along the lines of the beef/cow, pork/pig, mutton/sheep (or ewe) difference (between the meat eaten by the French-speaking gentry, coming from animals raised by Germanic speakers,) or it may point at something more encyclopedic.

Just babbling, I don't have the resources to research it. Opportunity for someone here... __ Just plain Bill 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Slept on it: Here's the complete sentence I just removed from the article:

That a violin is seen as a higher-class instrument than a fiddle might be the result of the same social processes that Sir Walter Scott alluded to in his novel Ivanhoe.

With a bit of research and backup, it might find a place in an intro to List of fiddlers, or in Musical styles (violin)#Fiddle, maybe with brief mention somewhere in the body of the Violin article. Trying to keep Violin from getting too bulky again...

Not sure Ivanhoe is appropriate here; it's a work of fiction set in the 12th century, well before the violin showed up anywhere in the world. Besides, Its Wikipedia article says:

Most notably, its depiction of an England in which Saxon and Norman nobles are at odds is highly anachronistic - by the late 12th century, there were no such distinctions among an upper class which generally had a common Norman French culture, with elements of English nobility, mainly due to inter-breeding between the different nationalities.

Still, it is an interesting connection. __ Just plain Bill

It is interesting. I'm not sure quite how to write this all in the article, though. In my opinion, it's true; I mean, you wouldn't hear about the queen of England playing the fiddle, would you? In the article I wouldn't mention the Germanic roots of the fiddle, but would probably include somewhere the statement that the violin is considered a higher-class instrument than the fiddle (although, they really are the same instrument). --Mets501talk 13:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You're probably aware that Itzhak Perlman calls that old thing that he plays a fiddle, along with more than a few classically trained violinists. I see that bit as being more about nomenclature; the earthy Germanic English word vs. the elegant Latinate term... __ Just plain Bill 14:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC) (p.s. "took the Germanic route" is an apt choice, since "fiddle" started out as a Latin word for viol, and came to us by way of the folks to the north of there, perhaps including those stone axe-head guys, the Celts.) JpB 16:54 UTC

[edit] "violin" in Latin

What should be "violin" in Latin? (Note: there haven't been violins in Roman Empire.) What is a Latin word for "viol"? Also consider that the word "violin" comes from "violino", which means "little viola". (Does Latin form any diminutives? No.) Frosty 12:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad someone restored this comment, because I'd like to know the actual etymology of the words violin and fiddle. Someone has written in the article that one comes from Romance languages and the other from Germanic, but that sounds very much too vague for me. It would be nice if someone with actual knowledge of this could confirm or not. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 04:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Violas

For those of you who know anything about violas, please expand the viola article, as the violin one is so huge, it doesn't need expanding. Expand the viola article!

OK, good idea. Hey, here's a violin joke for the article (you know all those viola jokes, right?):
Did you know that violins and violas are actually the same size?
No, I did not know that.
It's true; it's just that violinist's heads are so much larger.
(Boom-tish) ==ILike2BeAnonymous 23:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem in Open strings section

This part of the Open strings section sounds like an instruction:

In classical music, an open string is sometimes considered to make a rather harsh sound and, in most cases, should be avoided (this is especially true of the E string which has a very metallic tone).

As you might already know, Wikipedia is not suppposed to be an instruction manual. I suggest that you delete this part... ['frαs.ti] 20:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Check it out.
By the way, is that actually IPA in your username? Ewwwww. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "construction" section —NPOV

I found couple of NPOV problems (instructions and weasel words)at the "constructions" section, but I am not sure how I can fix them.

[...]Loose parts or open seams may cause buzzes and should be professionally attended to;(I changed it to "require professional attention, but I'm not sure) in particular, no adhesive other than animal hide glue should ever be used on a violin. A well-tended violin can outlive many generations of players, so it is wise to take a curatorial view when caring for a violin.

The purfling running around the edge of the spruce top is said to give some resistance to cracks originating at the edge. It is also claimed to allow the top to flex more independently of the rib structure. Painted-on faux purfling on the top is usually a sign of an inferior instrument. Ideally the top is glued on with slightly diluted hide glue, to make future removal possible. The back and ribs are typically made of maple, most often with a matching striped figure, called "flame."

[...]Ebony is considered the preferred material because of its hardness, beauty, and superior resistance to wear. The maple neck alone is not strong enough to support the tension of the strings without distorting, relying for that strength on its lamination with the fingerboard. For this reason, if a fingerboard comes loose (it happens) it is vital to slacken the strings immediately. The shape of the neck and fingerboard affect how easily the violin may be played. Fingerboards are dressed to a particular transverse curve, and have a small lengthwise "scoop," or concavity, slightly more pronounced on the lower strings, especially when meant for gut or synthetic strings.

How do I fix those? Frosty 12:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a neutrality problem, it's a citation problem. — Miles←☎ 17:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. So far as citation goes, it's not really needed. It would basically be a pain in the ass to try to track down and confirm each and every statement in this section—and it would be basically needless effort. Nothing stated here is controversial or disputed. Refer to any credible website on the subject, or better yet, any text on the subject (or pop in to your local violinmaker), and you'll see that this is all from the canon of violin construction. (I also removed some remnants of the prescriptive stuff that was in the article previously, keeping in mind that this is supposed to be an informative article, not a how-to guide or a list of admonitions on what to do when bad things happen, like your fingerboard popping off). ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I just put a few of those things back (including something about FB popping off) without prescriptive language. If you object, I'll be paying attention here; confident we can find something to live with. __ Just plain Bill 02:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing I'd like to talk about putting back:

A well-tended violin can outlive many generations of players, so it is wise to take a curatorial view when caring for a violin.

The notion that "one does not so much own a violin as play it for a small part of its long life" is pretty well established in violinistic lore. As such, I believe it is worth mentioning in an informative encyclopedia article on the instrument. __ Just plain Bill 02:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That belongs in the Violin making and maintenance article, which is part of the violin "suite" of articles; in fact, it's already in there (in so many words). Feel free to change it there.
Just so you know, I took out all the material pertaining to maintenance, preservation, etc., since it properly belongs to the other article mentioned above. That's where you should make your points about curatorial approaches, fingerboards popping off, etc. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 22:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] archive

Can we archive this talk page now? I think it is becoming very long. Frosty 21:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Made 2 archives. Frosty (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two boxes

Now that an infobox has been added, wouldn't it be a good idea to merge the "violin and fiddle series" box into the "more articles" section built into Template:Infobox Instrument? Please respond. -Phi*n!x 02:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a good idea. Frosty (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yup. What does that look like? __ 141.154.81.117 07:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, when I tried it, estra "more articles" links appear below the image. (Try it yourself)
Does anybody know how to get rid of those extra links below the image? Frosty (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I did what I could. Do you all think it works? Phi*n!x 00:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I reverted it. Look carefully at what happened (specifically at the repeated section below the first violin image) when you did that. I have no idea why that's happening—maybe a MediaWiki bug.
I think that the issue is that the template was programmed wrong. I do not have enough wiki markup knowledge to try to fix it, though. It seems that no article has actually used the "more articles" section; therefore, the problem wasn't discovered until now. If anyone wants to try just editing the violin infobox based on what we've got, feel free to do so in my sandbox. -Phi*n!x 17:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've fixed the template. It was (accidentally) calling the parameter {{{articles}}} three times! Anyway, I've put back the merged box. It works perfectly. —Mets501 (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] good article nomination

Would it be good to nominate this article as a good article addition? Frosty ('sup?) 13:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think so. "Violin" definitely looks like a good article candidate. —Mets501 (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Electric Violin

When does a violin become an electric violin?

I think the entry and description should look something like I've written for this violin article. However

  • Would this suggest all violins heard via electrical signal output are electric violins?

(Strictly speaking that is my thought but not a widely accepted definition, so not Wiki...) Should then:

  • A violin only be electric when the method of electrical transferrence is in direct contact with the instrument?
  • Or, what??

A worthy discussion surely, maybe hair-splitting but a very real dilemma if electric violin is the preffered instrument beyond genre.

IMHO, not all violins heard electronically are electirc violins. Even if you play an acoustic guitar near a mike, it won't become an electric guitar, right? (Then what should the sentence say?) Frosty ('sup?) 12:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

... So, if the microphone is attached to the acoustic guitar, it's no longer an acoustic guitar? And, does the microphone affect the way the instrument can be played, and that where it is placed affects the electrical signal generated? It could be an electric violin whether the player uses it or not BAH 13:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How about saying that any instrument whose body was designed by its maker(s) to be acoustic and is merely miked or has an external pickup attached to it's bridge (or has a custom made "pickup/bridge" or "pickup/chinrest" or "pickup/shoulderrest") is NOT electric; any instrument which is specifically designed to be electric (and, therefore, probably cannot produce an ample sound if it is not plugged in) is "electric"? For example, when I say "acoustic bass", you should be imagining a stand up string bass, which, although it is often miked or often has a pickup permanently attached to it's bridge, and is often played in jazz combos pizzicato only, it can still be played acoustically and with a bow and produce ample sound in a symphonic orchestra section, or in a classical un-miked chamber music setting. When I say "electric bass" you should be imagining an electric bass guitar -- which cannot be heard in an ensemble if it isn't plugged in. When I hear the words "electric violin", I imagine something like the Yamaha "silent electric" series -- i.e. there is no way to mistake it for an acoustic, or even play it acoustically; or I imagine something which is shaped like a traditional acoustic instrument but with a thinner, solid body....
The hybrid acoustic/electric can be a side-note which straddles the line.
J Lorraine 04:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


What's not electric about a violin that is heard via electricity? Mics tend to bring with them further audio electronics - not just Popular/Rock technology... A purely acoustic concert discreetly electrified to be recorded, fair enough. But shouldn't electric violin apply if the natural capacity of the acoustic sound is boosted/altered/enhanced in anyway to suit the settings of the performance, especially the use of loud-speakers?

I don't think it is an easy definition. For the sake of clarity, the obvious difference between electric guitar and acoustic guitar seems alright by me, with electro-acoustics straddling the line. BAH 14:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is long -- but I hope it's clear. I think you have a different purpose than I understood from the original question. It sounds like you want to follow the line of logic which uses "electric" to describe everything that's electric. This is a fine line of reasoning. It's benefit seems to be that if you use it in this way, it will be clear whether or not a sound being discussed is transmitted through loudspeakers or amplifiers via electricity -- in other words, it could both be used to distinguish an acoustic performance from one that was amplified, and to distinguish between the person who was there and heard the concert without the aid of electricity, and the person who, although they could say they heard something "live" on TV or radio, was not close enough to hear it without electrical "messengers" carrying it to them. This could be a useful distinction. But there's a second distinction to be made which is also important, and by my line of logic, the word "electric" seems to fit this kind of distinction too. -- I'll try to explain it here.
I'm using the word "electric" not as a word which refers directly to the mere use of electricity, (as the other line of logic seems to do), but as an adjective to help differentiate between two kinds of instruments which, although so closely related as to be called by the same name, have nevertheless got fundamental differences in construction.
The one kind of violin has an acoustic sound box, sounding boards, functional sound holes, sound post, bass bar, etc., -- and any time you want to hear this instrument via electricity, you must add something which is not required by the nature of the instrument: that is to say, it is not required if you want to hear the distinctive timbre which makes the instrument recognizable as that instrument, or if you want to make the instrument "sound" at a volume level which is audible to a listener placed at the opposite end of a standard recital hall.
The other kind of violin hasn't got this acoustic design at all. It has no sound post, no functional sound holes, etc. In order to hear it at all, with any kind of recognizable timbre, and to hear it's sound at a volume level which carries as well as the first kind of violin's un-electrified sound, you need to have an amp, and maybe a pre-amp, and probably a cord, and a source of electricity, etc.
In other words, there is a kind of violin -- the "traditional" kind -- which was, historically, called a "violin" for many decades before electronic amplification and recordings of performances became standard, and it does not require electricity to "sound". There is a second kind of violin -- a more recent addition to the scene -- which is so fundamentally different in materials and construction from the "traditional" violin that it ought to, by rights, have a different name. It's called a "violin" because it's played in the same basic manner as a traditional violin -- as far as the skills of the musician are concerned, any "traditional" violinist ought to be able to pick one up and play it with hardly a blip on the learning curve scale. It's this similarity in how the musician holds it and plays it that makes it deserve to be called a violin -- yet because of its very architecture, it NEEDS electricity in a way that the first violin does not. It is this newer kind of violin which I propose to call an "electric violin".
I admit that I can't think of any other word which would fulfill your puprose as succinctly as "electric" does, and if we were the deciders of how people used English words, we might go on for ages debating which purpose gets to use "electric" and which one has to come up with some other word (or, worse, go through long explanations and modifiers every time one wants to speak of the distinction). However, the only thing we can do on Wikipedia is to try to figure out how a majority of people are already using the word. I happen to think that the majority is already on "my" side -- no hard feelings! :P
After reading the original question again, I guess my answer is that a violin doesn't "become" an electric violin -- it's either "born" that way, or it's not. ;P J Lorraine 08:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with J. Lorraine. No one has any problems in differentiating an electric guitar from a normal acoustic guitar, so why the hair spilting over the meaning of an electric, or more accurately, an electronic violin. This catergory of violins have electronic components built into them in the factory. That's why they're called electronic violins. Suisse2007 03:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Excellent stuff! Please note though, I'm trying to come at this from no-side, so no hurt feelings here! I think though you will find that the term electric violin gets used a lot for violins of an acoustic nature too. To reiterate what I wrote in the last part of my previous post - I think the division between electric and acoustic that you have described is fair and alright by me... but we are just two, hardly a true consensus. I'm not sure though I tally with your thinking that an electric violin can be played just like that, by an acoustic violinist. The same wouldn't be said about an acoustic guitarist - particularly a classical player picking up an electric, or do you? My experience is that there's a whole load of difference, admittedly in some areas made easier by having learnt violin, but in some fundamental ways - tone production - very, very different. And just to be sure, I think the distinction made between acoustic and electric for these purposes is fine! Where the line is drawn for electroacoustic however might be harder to draw? BAH 09:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violin "sizes"

I'm surprised there is no explanation of how the fractional designations for violin "size" were adopted since terms like "1/2" and "3/4" have no apparent relation to the actual size of the instrument. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.143.94.112 (talk • contribs).

It sounds like you may know more about this than others who have written here; certainly more than me. Care to take a stab at it? +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm.... in addition to not bearing a simple relationship to the full sized instrument, I've also come across "Large" 1/16th sizes, and "small" 3/4 sizes, etc. In fact there are small variations in the length, depth, width, height, and breadth of full sized violins as well. (ha! you didn't know the violin was built in five dimensions, did you! ;P
J Lorraine 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
<groan> I can see it now: a new article, List of violin sizes. We're doomed, I tell you. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I used to play on a violin (when I was younger) that was like between a 3/4 and full size, which was sometimes called a "large 3/4 size", sometimes a "small full size", sometimes a "lady's full size", and sometimes a "7/8" size. —Mets501 (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I know what to do now; there, I've done it. I think this clears things up nicely. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MIDI violin

As it stands this is not what a MIDI violin is. Described is actually a synthesiser's "violin" General MIDI setting... Should this entry stand? I don't feel it really says anything about violin. BAH 08:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sound post details

Look: the sound post is situated below the treble foot of the bridge. For the purposes of this article, that's good enough. You want to overstuff this article with every bit of violin lore and arcana; suits you, I suppose, but gums up the damn article. That kind of detail belongs elsewhere (you know where). You can rave on and on about how many millimeters behind it's supposed to be (also keep in mind that this is in no way a how-to manual or instructions on sound-post setting). Please don't make this a painful exercise for the reader to fight through thickets of facts to get the simple scheme of how the instrument is put together; that's the purpose of this section. Likewise, a detailed chart on top graduation profile thicknesses would be TMI. Look at a regular encyclopedia on the subject while you're at it. Too little information is not good; neither is too much. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I can live with "transmits vibrations between top & back." Likewise, I have no intention of putting back the measurement behind the foot, since it will differ from instrument to instrument. But look:
It costs one extra letter to say it sits behind the bridge foot instead of below the bridge foot. You call that gumming up the article? Exaggeration and black&white thinking are a poor choice of tools for reasonable discussion.
Just plain Bill 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed it back again because, as I pointed out in my edit summary, this is the worst of all possible worlds; to the poor uninitiated reader, who has perhaps never even known that there's a little stick of wood inside the violin, this is simply confusing in a basic geometric sense. If you're going to tell someone that there's a post inside the instrument, you don't say it's "behind" something; you say it's below or beneath or under something (the top in this case). 'K? +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, here's an idea: why not put that picture in the article, under the picture of the bridge? There's plenty of room, and it would show just where the sound post is spatially. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Works OK for me with the pic. "Behind" was a poor compromise; "tailwards" is more accurate, but not in the standard vocabulary, whatever that might be. Just plain Bill 03:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

I saw this article listed at WP:GAC. At the moment, I don't think it meets the criteria at WP:WIAGA. These are some areas where I think the article needs improvement:

  • I think the lead needs some significant copy-editing.
  • For example, I think that "The violin is a bowed stringed musical instrument that has four strings tuned a perfect fifth apart." could be better written as "The violin is a bowed string instrument with four strings tuned in perfect fifths." Anyone who doesn't know what a string instrument is is going to click on the link, where they'll be more than informed that it's a musical instrument. A perfect fifth is always an interval, so "apart" here isn't really necessary; again, if someone doesn't know what a perfect fifth is they can follow the link to learn about intervals.
  • I think "highest-tuned" doesn't read too well; this would be better if it were "highest-pitched".
  • Lastly, I think the sentence about the double bass doesn't really make sense in the lead. It's not a violin, and it's not even technically in the same family — so leave this for the double bass article.
  • The article isn't very well referenced. A discussion of the history of the violin, for example, needs to point to sources for the information. Stuff like the construction section, obviously, doesn't need a footnote on every sentence (because a lot of that is an explanation, rather than an assertion of fact), but the history and playing sections ought to refer heavily to existing sources.
  • Some other miscellaneous notes:
  • Andrea Amati and Niccolo Amati are redirects to Amati, so there's no need to link to them all.
  • The tuning section ought to link to Concert pitch somewhere, as the standardization on 440 Hz is recent and somewhat less than universal.
  • The MIDI section can probably be removed altogether, or perhaps replaced with a more general discussion on synthesis of string instrument sounds. I don't think the General MIDI allocation for violin sounds is terribly interesting, but I think a look at how violins have been imitated by electronic instruments warrants a closer look; i.e., analogue synths, FM, sampling, etc.
  • There seems to be something of a link farm going in the "External links" section. For example, I don't think www.PabloSarasate.com or a page about signing up for a fiddler's retreat are of relevance to a general article about the violin. Someone might want to go through and check all of them and pick just the best 5-10 references. There are some excellent guidelines at WP:EL.

It's an excellent article, with a nice, balanced view of the instrument, it avoids POV assertions, and covers the topic broadly. I don't think it will take much more work to get it listed at GA. —ptk✰fgs 13:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outoftuneviolin's "contributions"

I think I've figured out Outoftuneviolin[n]'s beef with this article: he, she or it is confused, as "tune violin" is (almost) an anagram of "evolution". Yeah, that's the ticket. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Clever! What do you think we should do with him/her though? Should violin be semi-protected or something? —Mets501 (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amati violin

I just wanted to add that the Andrea Amati "Charles IX" violin is actually dated 1566 and not 1564. In addition, Andrea Amati's accepted year of birth is 1505 (or 1506), not 1500. Last year in fact the Amati 500 festivities were held in Maastricht and in Cremona to celebrate the half-millenium from his birth. Dimitri Musafia, Cremona, Italy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.123.9.119 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 18 August 2006.

[edit] Anon addition on violin sizes

An anon user added these, which I think is dubious:

The 4/4, or full violin is most typically used for adults, and is the viopin size that gets used for the longest time. This is why full violins are of better quality and more expensive than a 3/4 violin for example.

Can I remove it? -- FrostytheSnowman 'sup? 02:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, because I beat you to it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the ideas in it weren't that bad...might need some rewording. I know what the anon is talking about. --HappyCamper 14:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huge Problem!

Most of this article is a copyvio from http://www.violaheaven.com/violin.html which has been in the article for over a year, copied word for word. The entire "Playing the violin" section needs to be completely reworded to avoid copyright issues or completely removed quickly. The pictures are also all copied from that site. —Mets501 (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, did http://www.violaheaven.com/violin.html copy from Wikipedia? —Mets501 (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they took it from us. Bad, bad. They're supposed to credit us, not slap their copyright tag on without attribution. Look at all the other articles they took as well. Antandrus (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I know! I see now! I'm writing to them. —Mets501 (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Cool; thanks. They're allowed to copy, they're just supposed to put the GFDL license on, say they got the content from Wikipedia, and all that. Antandrus (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I know. —Mets501 (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a practice known as web scraping. Get used to it. Soon, all Google searches will show nothing but entries copied from Wikipedia, glaring inaccuracies and omissions and all. We're doomed. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've written to the site, they've written back and changed their site. No more problems :-) —Mets501 (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bring to featured article status

Wouldn't it be nice to bring this up to featured article status? Apart from the references, what's a wishlist of things to do to make this article better? I'll jump in and help when I can. --HappyCamper 21:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there are any problems aside from references. Helping with those would be great! —Mets501 (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fine tuners

The section on tuning seems to be written in an unnatural way. The reasons for having the fine tuners is multifaceted. One of them, is simply preference. Some people like them, some people do not. A more reasonable explanation is practicality. It is very awkward to tune the A and E strings with the left hand twisting the pegs. This is because the ones for the A and E strings are on the right side, while the thumb and index fingers of the left hand are on the left side when holding the scroll. Hence, if fine tuners are used, they will likely be on both strings. Also, fine tuners are also used to avoid breaking thinner strings - hence, A and E, and especially E strings tend to have fine tuners. Of course, I'm not sure how to work this into the article. It seems rather odd to do so...For one thing, it is difficult to find a source to support this view. Suggestions on what to do? --HappyCamper 05:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, from my experience (and this can probably be verified by others), almost all "classical" (for want of a better word) players only have the one tuner on the E string. So the choice is between this and tuners on all strings, such as with a Thomastic tailpiece w/built-in tuners; these are almost invariably used on instruments strung with steel strings; which usually means a fiddler's fiddle, rather than a "classical" or symphonic player's violin.
As I pointed out in an edit comment, I'm pretty sure the real reason most "classical" players only have the one fine tuner is just hidebound tradition—the fact that every other violinist has only one fine tuner, as if that's the "classical way"—not necessarily for any more practical reason. As you say, it would certainly make tuning easier with fine tuners on the top two strings, but I have yet to see an instrument set up that way.
By the way, I think the "extra mass" issue raised by someone else is negligible and not worth mentioning. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Somewhere I read that a lot of Russian classical players used to (perhaps still do) use steel for both A and E, with a fine tuner on each. I know I've seen plenty of violas and cellos with 2 tuners. Before anybody jumps on that, I agree they are not violins, but it's a big world out there, and just because one hasn't seen something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You may say the mass of a fine tuner is negligible, but I'll argue that the mass of three "overboard" tuners is not to be lightly neglected. Mass and springiness have everything to do with how things vibrate acoustically. Clip a small "negligible" split shot at some random place on your A or D string next time you're about to change it and see what it does to the sound... or try a glob of picture-hanging putty about the size of a Hershey's kiss on the string end of your tailpiece. Just plain Bill 08:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
OK I did a bit of searching. Amazing how many sites now copy wikipedia word for word. Two sources I believe to be reliable are:
"meemtp" who says “There's really nothing wrong per se w/add-on fine tuners, you just have to be prepared for the fact that they will affect tone. They've been avoided by classical musicians for that very reason. It's not a purist theory, it's hundreds of years of proven acoustic principles.” in http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=34125
and Stephen Perry, who says “Changes tailpiece mass and string afterlength. Effects can be noticed. Generally not good. “ at http://www.violinist.com/discussion/response.cfm?ID=9326
and “Note that fine violins may have the mass of the tailpiece adjusted to optimize the violin's response. Adding mass will hurt the response.” Stephen Perry again (Giannaviolins) at http://www.stringsmagazine.com/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=000373;p=1
I have dealt with Mr. Perry several times, buying bows, pegs, and a violin from him, and I find him to be a no-BS individual, much more so than most others. Just plain Bill 10:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...I have fine tuners on A and E :P -- I agree, yes, it would affect tone, but the effect is not as pronounced as what we might be lead to believe. Anyway, this point doesn't seem to be worth the legwork to really stamp out, so maybe I'll move on to something else. --HappyCamper 16:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
At least, to qualify this, we would need an oscilloscope, and I don't think Wikipedia needs to set precedent on this! (Wikiversity might pick up this project though and get back to us). --HappyCamper 16:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
More like an audio-band spectrum analyzer, but the ones who know how to read one of those already have their ears pretty well calibrated. It's really not so much a technical issue as an esthetic one. Subjective, yes, but there's a reason Rembrandts are scarce on the market and go for serious moola when they do show up. In the violin world these details may be more important to pro soloists than to section hacks or parlor players such as yours truly, Just plain Bill 17:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
On another note...Hey, Bill - you know what might be a neat thing to do? I assume you make bridges, so perhaps take a snapshot of it from beginning to end periodically, and make a nice animation from it. That would be featured picture article for sure! --HappyCamper 19:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Could do. Got a couple of new-bridge candidates in mind for the near future, as the Honey Do list gets pruned. Gotta go study GIMP animation, I suppose. Thanks! Just plain Bill 21:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bass is not part of the violin family

The bass is not part of the violin family. The based is tuned in forths and has several different characteristics. I will make the correction now. Keegan 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There was some discussion about this on Talk:Violin family. J Lorraine 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] violin in jazz, instead of other instruments (which ones, again?)

Mentioning the double bass worked a lot better for me here than "sax, trumpet, piano and guitar." In jazz context, the bass is as much a solo instrument as is either the piano or guitar. Further, I'm not convinced that the article needs a list of solo instruments here. We're not paid by the word... please talk to me, I'll wait a while before trimming that sentence back so it stays in the string family. best, __Just plain Bill 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the bass is in no way the equivalent in jazz of the other solo instruments mentioned (sax, trumpet, et al). With the notable exception of Charles Mingus, most folks would be hard pressed to even name a solo bassist. There are bass solos, true, but far fewer than solos on other "melody" instruments. So the comparison as it stands is appropriate. The point that's trying to be made is that the violin doesn't appear nearly as often as a solo instrument as those other well-known instruments. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Charles who? Never met the cat. Does he play anywhere people can go listen these days? Canned music is about as lively as a pinned butterfly, but that's a side issue here. You haven't pointed out why, in an encyclopedia article, an editor should care what "most folks" could name by way of jazz bassists (over 100 to choose from) besides him, so what's Mr. Mingus got to do with this?
What has "equivalent in jazz" got to do with it anyway? In a live group there's usually a musical conversation going on between the players, no matter what they're playing. In a big horn band, which trumpet, or sax, or trombone is a "solo instrument" and which ones are backup? You seem to have conceded that the piano and guitar are rhythm as well as solo instruments.
This is a violin article, not a list of jazz instruments, solo or otherwise, as if there were such a distinction. The nearest relative to the violin with a marked jazz presence is the string bass in its several forms. The violin does not show such a wide representation as the bass. True? __Just plain Bill 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, come on, "just Bill"; aren't you being a bit obtuse here? The "equivalence" has to do with the role played in jazz by the violin, or other melody (or "lead" for you rock-n-rollers) instrument, as opposed to the bass, which, you must admit, usually is not cast in such a role. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to name one solo jazz bassist extant today; can you? Yes, the roles aren't straitjackets, but they exist nonetheless: there are these folks known as "bandleaders", after all, and usually pretty clearly demarcated things called "solos" played (for the most part) on piano, guitar, and various horns and blowpipes. Ocassionally a bass, but it's an outlier, statistically speaking. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I try to only be obtuse when it serves a useful purpose. And we agree: jazz is not confined to a specific roster of instruments in neatly-organized rôle slots. If a small group includes a bass, and the bass not taking a solo several times in a night, I would wonder what the story was. I associate strong leadership with big bands; in a properly (functionally) formed small group, I'd rather think of the leader as "first among equals," but that's just my own narrow view. Balancing the personalities in a musical group is another interesting topic we might stray towards, preferably somewhere else. At the end of it all, a jazz act is a musical conversation, not a rigidly set form.
Seriously, old bud, a lot of my objection to putting "saxophone, alphorn, piano, sackbut, guitar etc." is right-brained and more about esthetic sensibility of the writing than logic. It just feels wrong. It seems like the list unbalances such a small section, and draws attention away from the instrument the article is about. __Just plain Bill 05:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
"I try to only be obtuse when it serves a useful purpose." I grant you, there is that. Touché. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/o/Talk%7EViolin_f9bb.html"