Talk:Cello

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Musical Instruments articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
A This article has been rated as A-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Cello was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: November 8, 2006
Peer review Cello has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Peer review Cello has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Peer review Cello has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated A-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Arts.

Contents

[edit] Lefties

Sorry, what exactly does it mean that a lefthanded player uses the "same position" as a righthander?

It means that left-handed people use their right hands to hold the bow, and the left hand for the fingerboard, same as a right-handed person would. Purple Is Pretty 20:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violone

"Violone" is a flexible name, often taken to mean a 16' viol nowadays. But as far as the derivation of Vcello, surely it refers to the Bass Violin (Bb-F-c-g). btw, does anyone plan to write a Vc piccolo article? Sparafucil 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hello! Please add your signaturing by typing "~~~~" when you're done. Also, please sign up for an account on wikipedia, so we know who you are. --shaile 18:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question about the picture

In the picture with the different clefs, the note C is marked on all. However the note in the viola clef is in fact an E not a C. I was wondering if this was an error in the picture itself.--66.214.247.123 03:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The viola uses the alto clef, while the cello uses the tenor clef; the confusing thing, of course, is that the two clefs look the same: the difference is that the alto clef is centered on the middle line of the staff, while the tenor clef is centered on the next line up. Fortunately, this means that the picture is correct because it has the tenor clef. Adso de Fimnu 04:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

More about the picture with the different clefs: although cellists encounter all three clefs in the literature, the top two (treble and tenor clefs) have the wrong octave (two 8ves and one 8ve too high respectively) indicated for the open strings.

[edit] Very Good

I just want to say that this is a really good article. Thanks everyone. 20:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)my_name_is_archie

[edit] violoncello or cello?

Shouldn't the article be called "Violoncello"? Because that is the actual name.

'Violoncello' already re-directs to this article.

Cello should redierect to Violoncello, not the other way around.

I agree. Cello is informal, no matter how much it is used in formal text. 20:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)My name is archie

  • In common useage Cello is more popular than Violoncello. I strongly suspect that fewer redirects (and therefore less server load) occur with the redirect this way around. Also if it ain't broke don't fix it. -- pcrtalk 18:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

in the dictionaries i have looked at, "cello" is not considered informal. it is now just as much a word as violoncello, even though one is derived from the other. one source states that "cello" originated in the late 19th century as a shortening of "violoncello." if you really feel strongly about this, i would recommend finding a reference to some scholarship or professional opinion supporting "violoncello" as the sole proper name, and then writing about it briefly in the article. for example, see Flutist. tej 03:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

People say cello. I've never heard anyone say "violoncello" in casual conversation, or anywhere. English-speaking cellists talk about balancing on the string more often than they use an archaic (in English) Italian term for their instrument. Fewer redirects => less server load; ain't broke, don't fix. That works very well for me. Just plain Bill 03:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

similarly, "celli," though a popular colloquialism within an orchestral setting, is not an English word (i.e., not in major modern dictionaries), whereas "cellos" is the recognized plural form in English. i just reverted this change, so i thought i'd add a note about the distinction. i think a brief note about when "celli" might be used would certainly be appropriate, but not using it throughout the article. tej 00:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

need we mention 'celli' at all? The only times i've heard it used (in an orchestra rehearsal), it was somewhat laughed at afterwards. Oh, btw, I vote for 'cello'. I know this isn't a dictionary, but would it be useful to put up a phonetic spelling/pronunciation guide as you often see in dictionaries? Many non-musicians are apt to think and say 'sello' at first sight. J Lorraine 08:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: violoncello: This is still the official name. It is true that no one speaks it, but it is still written in parts, and in scores the instrument is abbreviated vc., which wouldn't make sense unless it stood for "violoncello".

Re: celli: I agree that this is pretentious in English, but I know two conductors who always say it.

Re: sello: Um...I think the cello is very well-known among non-musicians. I can't imagine anyone old enough to read who would pronounce the word thus.TheScotch 09:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Having such a limited imagination must be a real blessing. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 18:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


I have never heard cello called celli. I have had numerous conductors and teachers as well so I have had plenty of opportunities to of met a conductor call the cello celli. I think celli should be removed. Keegan 22:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it is the plural for cello, rather than cellos. dictionary.com. --BenWhitey 20:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the title should be "Violincello", however, there should be mention that "cello" is the most common name. Purple Is Pretty 17:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Folks: language is defined by those who speak it - dictionaries record language, language doesn't obey dictionaries, etc. if some want to keep the more pretentious-sounding violoncello in their written work, let them do that, but everyone else calls it the cello. Fewer redirects means less server loads means points means prizes. Simple! --91.105.38.46 21:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC) I beluieve that this article should be called Violincello because that is how it appears in any dictionary that uses formal English--jojo 16:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The OED shows "cello" as an English word, cited as early as 1881, with "violincello" being used in the 18th and 19th centuries. Violoncello is still an Italian word, also used in other languages such as Portuguese and English. Still not broken, let's not rush to fix it. __Just plain Bill 00:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Would someone with more technical savvy than I please change the image heading (image that is next to "Construction" heading) to VIOLONCELLO, not VIOLINCELLO? You will see this error once you click on the image. --Pcienniwa (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the name of the image file in the Commons. Why bother changing it? It's just a tag to get to the picture, it could just as easily be "Flying_spaghetti_monster.jpg" and still bring up the same pic. I admit I'm a little put off by what amounts to a mis-spelling (in up-to-the minute English-- see above ref to OED) but other fish need frying first, and since "check image use" in the Commons is badly broken at the moment, I'm not about to go see what other links will fail if the name is changed. cheers, __Just plain Bill (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Just plain Bill, for your comments, but (now looking above) I can't believe that "violincello" was ever used--except in error--in the 18th- and 19th-centuries. Do you have a source beyond OED? Even Grove's Dictionary of Musical Instruments has no "violincello" article. As an extensive British encyclopedia, one might expect such an article (or, at least, a redirection) within. A google search of "violincello" only seems to turn up cases of misspellings. Still frying fish...Pcienniwa (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The OED here, a paper copy printed in 1984, has it as a variant under "violoncello," citing quotes from 1773 (Barrington, Phil. Trans. LXIII) from 1797 (Mrs. Berkeley, Poems G.M. Berkeley) and 1852 (Dickens, Bleak Ho.) The Dickens quote goes, "Mr. Skimpole could play on the piano and the violincello."
May well have all been mis-spellings that made it into print... That's the only resource I've got here at hand that's likely to have anything to say on the subject. __Just plain Bill (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second-best string instrument

The article claims: The cello is widely regarded as the second-best known string instrument, only behind the violin. I find that a very bold statement, and I'd like to see some reference for that. Surely the cello isn't better known than the guitar or the piano?

I thought the piano was percussion, but I don't know. I play cello and baritone (brass). --FrogTape 01:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If noone can backup this claim, I'll change the line to The cello is widely regarded as the second-best known string instrument in the violin family, only behind the violin itself. 193.172.135.148

That's certainly an improvement, but I would question whether the sentence really says anything of value anyway. Or at least it seems misplaced. Sep. 4 2005

In spite of the fact that the average piano has about 230 strings, it is considered a percussion instrument. Symphony orchestra's consider it part of the percussion section

the string family includes all stringed instruments, including guitar and piano. It makes a lot more sense to talk about the more specific family in the opening paragraph. Makemi 00:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I was right! According to list of percussion instruments the piano is a percussion instrument. You should check before you type! --FrogTape 01:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] overview template

I'm interested in adding an overview template containing information like a picture, range, etc, on this page. A sample can be found on the German version of this page: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violoncello, as well as my English translation of it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shaile/cellotemp.

Does this sound like a good idea?

shaile 22:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cello technology and definitions

I have competed on the state level and had trained as a cellist for nearly 12 years.

I have re-edited this article as it has some utterly false assertions.

1)Baroque tonality is indeed defined a a half step lower than our current tonality. HOWEVER, there were at least 2 other sets of tonalities as the development of the orchestra progressed. Examples include the development of woodwinds and changes within their design and playing throughout the early classical era.

2)The Degamba was 5 stringed, and this was NOT the first Western stringed instrument played in the lap.......I would want to hear how the Lute or Zythr and several accepted permutations of the Bass were defined and accepted particularly in Northern Europe.

3)I have attempted to provide example pieces within the article that would epitomize each era of development. These were chosen on a rough concensus by reviewing traditional repetoires of known great cellists. This is very broad and I have not yet attempted to provide Impressionist or Romantic composition examples yes as there are probably some far mor experienced music foks out there right now

4)WHY is there a debate about the popularity of the cello as this is an encyclopedia and not a music thoery debate class on the development of tonality of the Physics of music?? Of note, there is an arcane text on the physics of Cello Playing published many years ago and I have to get the ISBN to even attempt to get a publish date

5)PLEASE do not generalize the construction of the cello as there are endless traditions as to the copmposition of which woods and years of experimentation with intentionally non-traditional shapes/materials that extend at least 350 years.

6)PLEASE do not generalize about bow construction. There are synthetic bows which have excellent sound qualities that are in the same league as more traditionally constructed models.

7)WHY are there rock groups and their web pages here that BARELY us the cello when the cello has been used in pretty much every single genre of music known in Western Civilization. Kronos and Jimi Hendrix do come to mind as actual string quartets (by design they use a cello) that actually do these things.

8)Updates will be forthcoming....

[edit] Who wrote that?

Who wrote the above comments?? --shaile 18:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I did. I am going to start again attempt to contribute to the Wikipedia community. The contents are not meant to be harsh, they are the result of a very dedicated cello teacher. Why? Whitby Mark 20:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I only asked because you wrote a lot, and if you're going to contribute so much, it's helpful knowing at least a username. Besides it's part of Wiki Etiquette .  :) Thanks! --shaile 20:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, I am new to Wiki etiquette.

Whitby Mark 21:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yay! I've been playing for almost 3 years.--FrogTape 01:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tuning

1)Could we please NOT say that 2 octaves above (choose a note) is a totally differing note name? 2 octaves above any note, will be the same note name, just 2 octaves higher.

2)Why publish a range when depending on the way the instrument is tuned, this is easly exceeded?

Whitby Mark 17:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The person who is posting the range of the Cello is incorrect. Please abstain in posting this data. NOTE an aoctave above any note is that same note. Please do not say that 2 octaves above c is e. No it is not. It will still be a C its just 2 octaves higher.

Whitby Mark 17:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Whitby, welcome back to Wikipedia. In response to your second question above: the tuning of a cello, and indeed of all the mainstream string instruments, has been standard for so long it is considered to be pretty much fixed. ie. CGDA. (I don't consider using a different pitch reference, such as A=442Hz, to be a different 'tuning' in this context). Of course, scordatura works exist, but these are deliberate exceptions to the rule and as you probably are aware, exceeding rare in the cello repetoire compared to the violin. Hence my opinion that we should publish a range of an instrument. Lambyuk 22:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
No, not true. The tradition of retuning the instrument is hundreds of years old. You mention the violin. Great, Vivaldi has pieces requesting cellists to retune. I will look at my library at home. I plyed the piece.
20.137.216.64 12:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, what's not true? They *are* "exceedingly" rare - you have not made a comment that supports your opinion that they aren't. Please explain. Lambyuk 12:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, as to retuning the cello for pieces, in my library here, we have Night of the 4 Moons, George Crumb, he requests that the cellist retune.
Vivaldi, have to look up the call number and ISBN, yes, I am requested to tune a half step lower
Bach Yup, you guessed it again, I will look up the number as well as surprise! I dont have that on the copy I played.
So, by barely looking at my own library I have found 3 "exceedingly rare" examples. They are not rare. If I can from memory, recall 3, look t my library a6t home, see them , I really do not think the retuning thing is a rarity.
If you require more, go get them yourself.
Whitby Mark 21:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Regarding your comments about note naming: You are only simply arguing over the use of the words "note name". Agreed, a C anywhere is a C, but when I qualified my argument by highlighting the octave in which the C resides in, it must be pretty obvious which C I am referring too. I have heard this method used frequently to describe exact 'notes' (or "frequencies" if one agrees on a pitch reference) without being misleading or causing confusion to the listener, hence my reversion. However, I have made an addition which indicates *exactly* the range in which I am referring to. (UTC)
"WRONG have you ever D# is an extension of 1st, 1/2 position in extended for can get the E, this is again false on a factual level"
I'm sorry, but I don't actually understand this sentence. The D-sharp can be considered an extension of either the 1st or 2nd position, depending on whether you are using the first finger or thumb as the reference point. Regardless, I did qualify my statements with "In the most basic hand position" which doesn't imply any sort of extension or use of the 1/2 position. As this article is lacking a detailed description of the notation of the positioning system used on the cello, especially at the lower positions, it seems that my description was adequate and useful without 'glossing over' detail.
Please don't revert without adequately responding to these comments. Lambyuk 22:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
How about we talk about D sharp??
2nd position would not require an extension to reach D sharp. First does, 1/2 with thumb does, 3rd position does not. Fourth would require reaching back, but, its doable. So, here we have seen 5 different ways of getting a note. I could retune the string as well. Ha ha ha. Thats exceedingly rare.....
Whitby Mark 21:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I will promise to be factual at Wiki to the best of my knowledge. I will not however, in any way, shape or form, feel as though I need to justify musical technique which in reality are first year questions found in a lesson book for the new cellist. This will result in edits or I will just get bored and have other musicians on other lists come in and edit it themselves.
Good day to you.
Whitby Mark 21:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The basic position you refer to can achieve the notes without a position change. You can extend the finger back. Its not a detail. Its incorrect on a technical and playing level. I am not glossing over it. It is again, and I do mean again, incorrect to state what you are without in any way shape or form. Any cellsit I have known or played with has never ever stated what is in this article or on position work. If you do not play on a semi competent level dont post incorrect data. Sorry but I spent hours a day in a room doing nothing more than sound and technique for months at a time before even starting to play any piece. Again, please, pretty please, do not post incorrect or false info because you think its OK.
Whitby Mark 12:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
You don't seem to have read or understood my comments, or attempted to explain your objection past saying it's "false" or "wrong". I'm really not understanding your point - to play a D# you must either move to 2nd position, perform an extension or a combination of these two. Those are the only ways you can do it, thus my comment about only being able to play a D using the "most basic hand position, first position".
Also, please refrain from editing posts with offensive comments. Lambyuk 12:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The D you refer to can be reached in thumb postion. We could call this 1/2 position, howvere, thumb position in extended 1/2 would allow the note to be hit. Unless, you have a smaller hand (watch a tiny handed person try Rachmaninoff). Point being is that in a document such as an encyclopedia, static statements about this should be just that static. In fact, with pratice, its not. This will be a great article if indeed we are actually editing fo content.
Whitby Mark 16:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


(Just read your comments you embedded into the article) Daily reverting is not a solution for disputes, so please don't threaten to do this as you will be banned. Please try and explain on Talk. Lambyuk 12:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

YOu may or may not have seen this, but it has come to my attencion that someone keeps saying the the cello is ONE octave lower that the violin. Please note that the cello is TWO octaves lower than the violin, and the viola is one octave higer than the cello and one octave lower than the violin. I know this I am a cellist myself and play in an orchastra.

Errr, no. The cello is an octave lower than the viola, but the viola is only a perfect fifth lower than the violin. Thus the instrument is tuned a twelfth lower than the violin. Antandrus (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tuning AGAIN

2 Octaves above a note is the same note name. When you play, that what it is. You do not have a device or an oscillator telling you what to play. Again, 2 octaves above any note is that note.

Again, it is a fact. Again, it has been so for hunbdreds of years. Again, it is not correct.

As to the notes achieved in first, first extended or 1/2 position. It is wrong again to say, you can only do this note. It is not correct. Second position is again NOT a limit of a certain note. You can do second extended and get yet another note. Again, it is incorrect on a technical, musical and player level to state what you have in this article.

Whitby Mark 11:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

See my post in the category above. Lambyuk 12:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a very very difficult post for me. I have to the best of my knowledge and ability tried to post factual data. Re tuning an instrument for a piece is not rare. It has been a custom for many stringed instruments for over 200 years. If something is 200 years+ old, it is hardly rare or exceptional, its a known practice. Hence, not rare or approached as an extended technique. An extended technique would be scratching the strings with electronic augmentation. Thats rather rare and hence, extended technique. There is debate on this as well.

If your solution to not accepting this is to say, I will get you banned, then go for it. Go nuts. Let me know what I can do to help you out. It is obvious that to threaten to ban me is a real journey towards knowledge on your part. I do not agree, so, lets ban them. You feel as though my posts were meant to offend you. They were not. If you cant see that its not correct. Fine. If you want the world to see thousands of oscillators in an orchestral pit while triple jointed mutants pluck away, go nuts. They dont. In fact, the whole sound measurement thing is well, incorrect as well. If you tune that way, what happens when say, during a piano concerto, the piano is a bit flat? Do you say, hey, my 444 tuning is now perfect, everything else is wrong. No, you retune so you dont stick out like a sore thumb. BUT, hey, I know you have been there before. ;-)

Tell you what, you are correct. Put whatever you want. Who cares. Its always correct. Thats great.

Whitby Mark 14:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You have completely overeacted. Nowhere did I say that I would ban you -- are you just not reading the paragraphs where I'm trying to understand your point? When I mentioned banning, I was trying to get across that posting things like "Get lessons" is offensive, childish and totally unproductive and would eventually get you banned by a moderator.
"If something is 200 years+ old, it is hardly rare or exceptional…"
How so? Why is being rare and being old linked? Are they not mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to have things that are old and common? What about new and rare then? Does that not exist? My point here is: the technique *is* old, yes, but it doesn't therefore follow that it's rare. I still stand by my statement that cello scordatura works _are_ rare and challenge you to provide enough evidence that they are common. :P
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about a orchestral pit of oscillators to be honest. That I listen to frequencies instead of "notes"? That I'm a unmusical listener? That I perform in my own bubble and ignore all outside influence? Does it even matter? This is the 'Cello' article on Wikipedia, not a fine discussion on the philosophy of naming notes or non-440Hz tunings, so I'm not sure what to really draw from this.
Anyway, my overall aim is to communicate useful and interesting facts to Wiki visitors, and not including the range of the instrument, however variable, seems a complete fallacy. Do you have the same problem with the violin and viola pages on this matter? Shall we post on their talk pages to find out their opinion? If you believe you're right, then the worst thing you can do is give up. You still haven't really explained why you think I'm wrong -- if I *am* wrong, I have an open mind to the truth.
Hoping we can go forward, Chris. Lambyuk 15:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
In a leap of "good faith", why not? Cello Technique: Principles and Forms of Movement Gerhard Mantel ISBN: 0253210054
After that there were a few other raw math approaches that were published but were mainly in academia and not public use unless you feel inclined to hit a library and search.
Tuning of a cello or for that matter my grand daddys Banjo can be defined as a mathematic value. It is a physical fact. BUT, its not good music which (again no sarcasm of offense) is what a cello does, it makes music. If it made bad music, nobody would play it. Unless of course, sounding bad became popular. I digress.
If you play with others you must listen to everything in the piece and whats happening with the others there. They may have played together for years and you guessed it, not use a device which measures the frequency of their strings using a value as a benchmark. They play what works. It happens.
I wish to go forward as well. The asserion that a custom is old and hence common is not what was meant. The assertion, more clearly, ince a musical practice has documentation in the baroque and modern and classical era, I do not believe one could say, thats rare. Students are also taught how to retune. In fact, music theory and really dedicated study actually focuses on these very things. Kind of odd to say that this is rare when its an accepted part and parcel of learning the art.
Yes, its a Wiki article. Yes, it would be nice to have facts. Hey, why not??(more sarcasm, nothing personal).
Whitby Mark 15:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


Whitby, you seem to have an extensive knowledge of the cello and music in general. But there is a little trouble following a few of your arguments, in part because they are obviously not completely checked before posting them. They are riddled with spelling errors and tricky grammatical constructs. While you may be able to easily look back and understand your own train of thought, it is hard for others to delineate some of your arguments. Please take the time to make your contributions clear to all, so that we can fully gain from any insights you share.
That said, I think it may help to sum the arguments (re:tuning) to this point, eliminating extraneous arguments, to keep from creating tangents without consensus.
1)the original assertion is that the cello is tuned according to each string playing C,D,G,A,, then the "range" of the instrument is provided according to this tuning. Lambyuk believes that this is the standard, and states that deviations from this are deviations from the norm, as alternate tunings are "extremely rare"
2)Whitby asserts that the strings can be tuned higher or lower (scordatura), adjusting its attainable frequency, and thus its "range", implying that the range is not fixed.
each argument now has its own burden of proof. The prior needs show that the "standard" tuning of the cello is well accepted as a norm, and that to state the range of the instrument is to assert a standard, not an absolute. The latter should demonstrate that scordatura tunings are a commonality, or are not outside the standard.
for the most part, I am in agreement with Lambyuk. I think that we can all agree that the standard tuning is just that-the standard. Further, while I have played several scordatura parts myself (I've played for nearly 15 years now, and spent two years on the South Florida Phil), that is quite definitely the exception rather than the rule. When I am not playing such a piece my cello stays tuned (or at least I wish it would stay tuned! horrid humidity!) to the "standard" tuning. I would venture, without proof, that probably at least 90% of all cello compositions are written for that standard. Further, I believe that Whitby mentioned above that he teaches cello. If so, I ask him-to what arrangement of notes do you teach beginning students to tune their strings? I would say that the wording must be careful in the article to account for the "range" as a standard that can be exceeded to either end, not an absolute.Leppy 06:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite follow what the above argument is about, but it seemed prudent to specify the tuning (and potential for alternate tunings) with more detail, and to provide a rough guide for the range. I hope no one objects.tej 09:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't. Frankly, I got rather bored and annoyed with this argument so I left it alone. Lambyuk 01:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Excellent revisions to the tuning Section.

(I agree with whitby) especially about hte range of the instrument in question.)

[edit] Cello and viola da gamba

Re. Request for review: I'm a bit confused by the sentence "The earliest known cello was made in Italy. At first called Viola da gamba, it literally meant 'leg viola'" - Are you saying that the Viola da gamba was an (early) cello? That seems dubious, given the well-established difference between the "da gamba" and "da braccio" families. Or are you saying that the earliest cellos were not terminologically distinguished from the viola da gamba, and were referred to by that name besides the viola da gamba proper? In that case, I think this would need a bit of rewording. Lukas 23:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who added those comments. It's simply not true that the cello developed from the viola da gamba. If forced to I can find some sources, but I'd rather not spend time on something so patently false. I'll also try to find that painting. Makemi 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Makemi, or anyone, if you can find anything that suggests that the cello didn't get it's large size and a gamba playing position from the early viols I would be interested to see the evidence. PS, I didn't write the dubious sentence in question.BassHistory (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how come peer review?

should we discuss specific (or for that matter, general) concerns about the article? tej 03:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

For one, most articles go through at least two peer reviews before achieving featured article status, so this is the first of what could be many. Also most of the items on the talk page have been resolved. i just felt it was neccesary in order to make this article better. And it has pointed out some flaws. --kralahome 02:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pine back?

Can someone point me to one please? Willow, yes... Just plain Bill 03:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[1] (towards the end) Mark1 13:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yup, that's the only one I found when I went looking... I don't hang out on that forum, so I know nothing about the poster's reliability. :-) At any rate, it seems he's talking about an old cheapo. Was pine common? How to tell? For the encyclopedia, I'd rather see "maple, poplar, or willow." Look for one with a flamed pear scroll and a willow back here, a ways down the page; I was so lucky as to spend time in a room playing across from that one about weekly when I was first studying the cello-- its owner, Joel (not the Boston Camerata guy) is a great guy and a fantastic principal-class player, shows up at the New Directions shindigs pretty regularly. Just plain Bill

[edit] Strong Cello manufacturers

I'm a guitar player who's totally new to the world of violincellos and would love to have some insight/direction into which are some good "brands" to look into purchasing, whether new or used.

thanks!

Take a deep breath, and dive into http://p078.ezboard.com/fcellofuninstrumentsandequipment . Depending on where you are, it may make more sense to rent in the beginning. It also makes a lot of sense to look for a live teacher, since there are quite a few un-obvious things about getting around on a cello. You won't forget to have fun with it, of course... Just plain Bill 23:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

one brand i recommend is..oh no i forgot the name![bangs head on desk]]SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE HAHAHAH PWNED! 14:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many quality factory cello's available. The chinese entered the market around 2002, drastically lowering the prices. You can get a fairly decent factory cello for around $1000, and really a very good quilty student instrument now for under $3000. One brand I reccomend ie Eastman, but there are many others availlable. I suggest you google Shar, which is one of the largest mail distributors of stringed instruments, for ideas about what things should cost, and if you search you can probably find a better price than shar charges. Make sure you take your instrument to a luthier and that it is set up properly. If the distances aren't correct this will present difficulties to you. I also highly reccomend getting a teacher. www.cellos.com should have some good advice for you as well. Mustadia 17:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing the Opening

the opening line, "Cellists are often gregarious by nature, and will insist that more cellos (or celli, as they are familiarly called) are better, up to at least twelve" is amusing and does refer to some of the most notable modern cellists, however it does not belong in the overview for the instrument, and perhaps not at all in the article (objectivity).

the famous works for the cello should probably not be a part of the Description section of the article. They should have their own section, near the end.Leppy 06:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It does skate close to a line of frivolity, doesn't it? But, taken in the context of "What does it say about the cello as an instrument? How does it distinguish the cello from other instruments?" it opens the door to notions such as the cello's ability to hold its own in all-cello ensembles such as Die 12 Cellisten der Berliner Philharmoniker.
The "often gregarious" part, (esp. its "good-natured" componenent) I have found to be true across the board, not just with regard to notable cellists I have never met. Again, it says something about the enormous versatility of this intimately majestic instrument, and the maturity of attitude, the well-contained ego in balance with other parts, that goes along with being an accomplished cellist. Oops, is my POV showing? The cello is often called upon to support and blend in, yet capable of complete musical "statements" without accompaniment. Just plain Bill 17:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your assesment completely, and I've always found it to be the same in almost all my experience. But that is all circumstantial. I'd like to see it on there as quoted or referenced to another external publication. Leppy 19:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sul tasto, sul ponticello  :do not equal: piano, forte

I will let this sit for a while in the hope that someone more knowledgeable can edit the right hand section. Bowing near the fingerboard reduces overtone content, while bowing near the bridge enhances it, as well as allowing a slower bow speed.

I believe the edit of 04:39, 2 February 2006 is erroneous, including especially: "It is a common misconception that the weight placed on the bow affects the volume, but it cannot, as the force of weight is perpendicular to the vibration, which is horizontal." Simple observation will show that the string vibrates both vertically and horizontally. Adding weight to the bow lengthens the stick phase of the slip/stick cycle, promoting a greater amplitude of vibration Just plain Bill 05:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bill's right about bow pressure affecting volume. Also, in the gamba at least, bow speed affects both tone and volume. In reference to the overtone content, you're right about that, but the effect of the overtone content is that bowing near the bridge sounds louder, when done while producing a strong fundamental. Makemi 06:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

OK did some copy editing and pruning. While I was at it, I removed "Large muscle groups, like the shoulder, are used little if at all." I have seen a world-class cellist play with his entire back, and encourage his students to do likewise. Just plain Bill 17:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just Copyedited

Hi everyone. I just went through the sections I felt comfortable editing (for instance, I'm not knowledgeable enough about its history to bother with that), making slight wording changes to make it more readable. In addition, I made a few factual corrections. Examples: while the endpin is protected by a piece of rubber, no part of the cello itself is made of rubber. Also, a sonata is not (usually) a piece "accompanied" by piano, but rather a piece of chamber music for two instruments. Note, for instance, that the Beethoven sonatas are for PIANO and cello (in that order).

I tried to leave all factual information in the article, and merely reworded it to make it more readable. The only thing I actually DELETED was the reference to "posture pegs" as these are one particular company's solution to a problem and are rarely used. I don't believe they belong in the same category as "rosin" and "mutes." However, if there's strong disagreement, please change it back.

I hope no one objects to my changes. They were made simply from the point of view of a cellist who realized that certain aspects of the article were slightly misleading, and of someone who cannot stand irregularities (hence my removal of italics on some lists when others didn't contain it, my rearrangement of certain paragraphs so they were in the same order as their lead sentences, etc).

Please respond if there are complaints to any of my changes! I notice that this article is currently listed as "good," and I hope we can continue to improve it until it can become featured, because, after all, the cello is a wonderful thing! Dolphind88 06:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No argument that it is a wonderful thing. I believe this article has great potential, but still needs some TLC before it gets really "good." Thanks for your work here.
I re-worded the glue section to conform with my take on reality-- hide glue can be quite permanent in that it will hold indefinitely (thousands of years, I believe) in a well-made joint. It is reversible with dehydration or heat and moisture, however. Modern glues can leave a stubborn residue or damage the wood when one tries to release a glued joint.
Just plain Bill 09:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I just read the glue section - it's much better now than the way I'd worded it. I'm going to change one minor thing, just to emphasize what's "supposed" to happen if shrinking occurs. Good thought to put the "doesn't always happen" bit in, though. Dolphind88 02:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Nicely done! I just have one or two very minor questions. Firstly, is the nut really usually made of wood? I've basically only had experience with historical strings, but all of them seem to have a nut made either of bone or ivory, not generally wood. Also, under the endpin section should it be mentioned when endpins began being used? I don't know when that was, but it was later in their history. Lastly, I'm not sure if the whole discussion of A4=440 is useful in this context. A4=440 is a purely 20th century American invention, and a number of modern European orchestras don't play at that pitch. I've just gone to Pitch (music) which also has the problem of claiming that currently everyone plays at A-440, but we could send people to the Historical pitch standards piece of the article for a discussion. Also, Welcome Dolphin88! Makemi 17:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
In my limited experience, modern nuts in the violin family are ebony, or lesser wood on cheap trade instruments. Just plain Bill 18:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
That's correct; the nut is almost always made out of the same material as the fingerboard, which is usually ebony.Dolphind88 01:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


I notice that 69.210.240.97 edited this page a number of times, and when comparing versions, I notice that most of this users' edits make the page much more confusing, rather than clearer. How does one deal with this? Thanks! Dolphind88 19:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Also, a sonata is not (usually) a piece 'accompanied' by piano, but rather a piece of chamber music for two instruments. Note, for instance, that the Beethoven sonatas are for PIANO and cello (in that order)." Um...piano sonatas are not pieces for two instruments. I'd wager there have been more sonatas written for solo piano than for any instrumental combination. TheScotch 09:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bows

First of all - congratulations on a great article. I came to this article looking for information on cello bows. Basically, my brother is after one for his birthday - I think he's just going to 'abuse' it to play his electric guitar with, so it doesn't need to be a good one, but looking around internet shops I've been left with a few questions that I'd hoped might be answered in the wikipedia article. Specifically, sizes smaller than 4/4 seem to be very common for cheaper bows (for understandable reasons). Are these litterally scaled down to the size suggested by the number (e.g. 1/4 is quarter the length of a 4/4; 1/8 is one eighth the length of a 4/4)? Your section on "sizes" in the article seems to suggest this, but only refers to actual cellos, not the bows. 82.13.223.11 09:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the fractional sizes came from, but they aren't scaled directly. For example, a half-sized cello body is actually about 6/7 as long as a full-sized one, or about 86%. Henry A. Strobel, in "Useful Measurements for Violin Makers," lists the following nominal cello bow lengths in mm:
4/4  715
3/4  670
1/2  630
1/4  590
1/8  560
Just plain Bill 13:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved from my talk

[edit] Bow length

I've not yet fixed the erroneous bow length you put into the Cello article. Why not put in the correct info if you know it (and it seems you do,) or ask on the talk page for someone to do so? What you've done to Cello and Violin skates pretty close to trolling, in my opinion. It seems there are better ways... Just plain Bill 23:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed mistake. Should be cm. My info should not have been removed ! Also if you spotted my mistake, why did you leave it?--Light current 23:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe your use of the term trolling is not appropriate to this discussion.
Trolling:
In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts rude or offensive messages on the Internet, such as in online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants (see Anonymous Internet posting). :"Troll" can also mean the message itself or be a verb meaning to post such messages. "Trolling" is also commonly used to describe the activity.

--Light current 00:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You either know or can find out what "disingenuous" means. Engineers aren't accustomed to confusing units of :measure, in my experience. Furthermore, I didn't say "trolling," but rather "skating close" to it.

First you said 75 inches, then you said 75 feet, and three inches wide. And you said the reason for the shorter bass bow was "nuclear." OK, I'll grant you probably meant "unclear." It's pretty clear to me why cello bows and bass bows are shorter and heavier. Bright as you seem to be, it shouldn't be that hard for you to grasp either. More bow weight needed to stir up fatter strings. More pressure difficult to apply at tip of bow, hence shorter bow.

If indeed the whole inches-feet-cm confusion was an honest mistake, then none of the above rant applies, and sorry. But at the time, that's how it seemed to me. cheers, Just plain Bill 01:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I honestly thought that bass bows were bigger than cello bows were bigger than violin bows. I later found out that this is not the case. I estimated the sizes initially in feet then when I looked it up the sizes were in cm. My spelling is terrible I know- people always comment on it. BTW It would have been better if you had left out the trolling comment. I dont like being accused of that!--Light current 01:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

--Light current 01:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Holding a bow by the usual end, I can easily scratch my right ear hole with its tip. That makes it under a yard long, or less than 36". In practical reality, I don't use a dictionary when writing. My working definition of "trolling" is "making statements in a web venue that others are likely to take exception to, with the intent (conscious or not) of inflaming the discussion or bringing out some other predictable response."

In that case, you should rewrite the page on trolling. What you take exception to is not a proper definition of the word trolling. You are using words to mean just what you want them to mean. Can I ask you to look up the words before using them in personal statement to someone? If you want to accuse me of something, find the right word in future please!! Thanks --Light current 17:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not taking this personally-- but putting misinformation in an article, or putting in "this is unclear" in the hope that someone else will come along and fix it, is the "skating" I mentioned. What I take exception to is having an article standing inaccurate for a while. Based on your edit summaries and timing, I seem to have badly misread your intent here, sorry, but I'll still ask you to check info and get it right before putting it in an article. Not "my" article, but obviously a WP one. Just plain Bill 18:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that if something puzzles you, such as why a gamba bow is shorter than a braccio bow, the place to address it is the talk page, not the article. cheers, Just plain Bill 13:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The articles' para on bows was startlingly lacking in a fundamental way: the physical dimensions etc. I put those in. Maybe I wasnt accurate. You talk as if its your own personal article and no one has permission to edit it without your say so! Get real -this is WP. However the aim has now been achieved. ;-) End of story! --Light current 17:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"I would rather see something that is inaccurate removed rather than remain on the article page to confuse the innocent." I agree. Just plain Bill 18:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been removed/added and everyones happy :-)) .Nice to see youre keeping an eye on the bowed string articles tho'. I shall be more careful in future now I know you are watching--Light current 18:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK all apologies accepted.--Light current 18:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "classical"/classical

Justplainbill, I disagree that "in the popular sense, "classical" includes other eras." If that's true, than I'm pretty sure you'd have to include quotes around "popular" to include such things as rock, metal, etc, besides just "pop" music. To say popular and "classical" music makes it seem as if "classical" is not the actual name of the style of music, but something it's referred to as. I'd argue that without the word "era," classical doesn't automatically mean classical-era music, but rather Western art music in general.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dolphind88 (talk • contribs) .

I think to the unwashed masses just saying "Classical music" without context means European art music (see the article European classical music) which tends to include both the Classical music era, of which Mozart is the exemplary figure, as well as Baroque and 20th century music. It's important to make a clear distinction between these two ideas when discussing music. The cello is clearly an important instrument both in European classical music and in Classical music era music, but since "classical" music and "popular" music are the more all-encompassing terms, they are more appropriate for the introduction. Otherwise, in my experience, it will become "The cello is used in Classical, Baroque, 20th Century, Rock, Pop, Emo, Contemporary rock-pop-metal-hardcore-emo, and classical music." (repetition intentional). Makemi 19:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tenor voice?

Just now the article says "It has the tenor voice in its family and sometimes can reach countertenor ranges." with the italics being a recent addition.

As far as human vocal ranges go, the cello can certainly cover alto, tenor and bass, excepting the very deepest basso profondo B flat and below. In the right hands, it probably also covers soprano and high countertenor ranges, but being a novice cellist, I consider that uncharted territory.

That "tenor voice in its family" bit has been confusing me for a while now. Up to now I have scratched my head and taken it to mean that the cello is the second to lowest voice of the violin family taken together with the contrabass. (For now I'm willing to ignore the technicality that the bass fiddle is not a member of the violin family. Where you find an exaltation of violins, a chorus of violas, and a shrewdness of celli all gathered together, you are likely also to find a herd of bass.) I'm not even sure what the sentence in question is doing in the Construction section anyway. I would be in favor of its clarification or removal. Just plain Bill 23:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objection for a week, that sentence is history. Just plain Bill 18:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Added "tenor-like timbre" to the Sound section. _ Just plain Bill 02:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subjectivity is not necessarily bias

WP:NPOV is more properly applied to political or religious discussion. I say the cello has a "deep, rich, vibrant" sound. It vibrates, that is undeniable. No one is likely to claim it has a "shallow, sterile" sound. "Quod erat demonstrandum" is Latin for "I don't know what else to say." ;-) _ Just plain Bill 02:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Im not saying youre biased Bill, Im just saying that terms like deep, rich, vibrant are subjective and therefore your POV!--Light current 02:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
What we could say is that some people have described the sound as deep rich....... How would that be?--Light current 02:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

With all respect, I think it would be uneconomical of words, that the clarity would suffer by an iota or so, that it would be unnecessarily politically correct, and that it would be weasel-wording in aid of an issue that is not hugely contentious. Not a bit contentious, in fact, but there's my bias showing. What to do? _ Just plain Bill 02:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Its not that important to me. I'll leave it for someone else to comment on it.(ie see if anyone else picks up any POV)--Light current 02:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
OK by me. Cheers! _ Just plain Bill 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Describing the tone as rich refers to the physical presence of the overtones in the sound, which are scientifically observable phenomena. Mustadia 17:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] how to make it better?

i have read the per=er reviews and know WHAT they want made better in the cello article,but i dont know how-e.g.,where to find sources that say something.will someone explain how to do this?SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE HAHAHAH PWNED! 16:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to the library and ask a reference librarian. Or use the catalogue. Or ask the librarian to show you how to use the catalogue. There should be many useful books at a basic level at most libraries. You could look up things like "string instrument" and "construction" or "cello performance". Then read the books, if you find something cool and relevant in them, put them in the article, and include where you found the information. Good luck. Mak (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

i just went to the internet site of my local library and there were no search results for cello. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The pink panther (talk • contribs)

Go to the actual library. A search of the library site is not the same as a search of the library catalogue, and a reference librarian will be able to help you find books which do not necessarily contain the word cello in their title which would be helpful. Mak (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Is it really appropriate to have viola da gamba in the infobox? It's a very distantly related instrument, which people frequently think is closely related because of superficial similarities. Is having a link to it in the infobox more likely to perpetuate misinformation, or dispell it? Discuss. Mak (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there should put the parenthetical note "distant relation" and just say "viol;" it would appear Viol (distant relation). I copied the content of the infobox from shaile's translation of the German template. The cello's relation to the viol is more its association with the double bass. Also, maybe there should be a violin family link within the "related instruments" category. Phi*n!x 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that the similarities in the way the two instruments are played are sufficient to have a link, which should probably be in the form of a sentence like, "The cello and the viol de gamba are physically dissimilar instruments which evolved from very different instruments." Mustadia 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigur Ros

Does anybody have any additional NPOV information about Sigur Ros's collaboration with an Icelandic string quartet? I notice that vasyL entered a poorly worded Discussion-like detail about the collaboration at the end of "Pop Music" which I've just hopefully edited into comprehensible colloquial English. It was low on fact, however, and to be honest I couldn't understand what vasyL was saying in half of it. For instance, what is post-rock? --Charlene.fic 22:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Weight of the arm"

The weight of the arm is only at the extreme frog relevant for sound production on a string instrument. Just like on a lever there has to be a counter weight in order to produce a downward force. And there is none unless one uses the left hand on the tip. (On a piano the weight of the arm is of much bigger importance, because the force comes directly from above) The tramission of power with a bow is done by a inward rotation of the forearm, called the pronation. I have changed this. The only problem is my spelling: I am not a native speaker. Please correct me! (Not concerning pronation - that is indeed correct...) Thank you.--61.45.48.223 11:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert cellist, not even an accomplished novice, but: if one maintains such a tension as would pronate the hand, while leaving the shoulder relaxed, will that not allow the weight of the arm to rest on the string? Of course the feeling (and difficulty) will be different near the tip, but that's the way I try to sense it. Thinking about hinges and cantilevers here... __ Just plain Bill 01:11, 7 September 2006(UTC)

The 'Weight-of-the-Arm-Teaching-Concept' is basically an attempt to obtain a relaxed right arm by lowering the right ellbow. It is suggested that this way the weight of the arm has more effect on the sound production, less force is needed and playing becomes easier. However, the actual mechanical facts are quite different and therefore this concept is of very little use when teaching students how to use and control their instrument: Lowering the ellbow might help to achieve a generally relaxed posture but it has nothing to do with the application of force from the bow to the string. If the weight of the arm would be of importance one should be able to produce a sound without any pronation of the forearm by simply pushing the bow down while pulling it to the right. But this will only result in a sound at the frog for a very little amount of time. Nearing the middle of the bow the arm will just push the frog down towards the ground - the force will not be transmitted to the string. A comparative demonstration would be to pull the bow with two fingers (placed at the outer end of the frog) to the right and then have somebody apply weight from above on the frog. There will be no sound - the tip will go up and the bow will want to fall down.(You also can simply demonstrate this effect by using a pencil lying on a table. Point your index finger and rest it with the full weight of your arm at the right end of the pencil. The only pressure you are able to apply on the pencil concentrates on the very point you are pushing on. Now move the right end of the pencil a bit over the edge of the table. The edge is now the equivalent of the string and the pencil is the equivalent of a bow pulled to the right of the frog. Again put your finger on the right end of the pencil and apply the weight of your arm. You will now have successfully flipped the thing in your co-worker's eye...)You only can rest your arm on something that provides at least the same amount of counter force directly beneath it! Another example: One could also create the necessary pronation (or 'twist') on the bow by inserting some kind of fork between frog and bow stick, one spike pushing where the index finger usually is placed and the other one 'counter'pushing where the thumb is. Force would have to be transmitted by turning/twisting that device, and not by pushing it downward. Additionaly: The weight of such a device itself would be basically of no importance concerning the principle of the sound production. If you would have to build a machine playing the cello you would actually have to worry how to keep that right arm up in the air for most of the time, its weight presenting more trouble than help! Greetings from Thefritz5 10:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but you don't bow by letting a single finger rest on the stick. It takes a thumb and usually four fingers, which is where the cantilever concept comes in. Since the right forearm keeps some tension in the pronation direction, the weight of the arm does rest on the string, right where the hair crosses it. Weight does not need to be applied directly below the mass in question; that's what the levers (humerus, radius/ulna arrangement, and bow stick) are for, in this case. Just plain Bill 04:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I've been playing cello for 15 years. You're both forgetting that the foce of the bow on the string is applied to hair under tension. The normal force of the string on the bowhair is turned into tension on the string, which is applied roughly at both the tip and the frog of the bow. The tension created in the stick y tightening the bowhair is very helpful when bowing. Also, when I hold my bow, I rest my hand on the stick so that most of my arm weight is divided between the rearmost knuckle of my middle finger and the second knuckle od my first finger, which are spread about 6 cm apart. The interplay of forces is far more complex than in your pencil anaolgy. If somone with a little more physics knowledge than me wants to calculate the forces involved here I'd be very interisted to see it. Pronation is an essential part of cello playing, but it is all too easy for a cellist to hurt themself. I once injured myself so severely I was unable to play cello for three months due to thinking about forcing the tip of the bow onto the string with pronation, using the fingers as levers. Arm weight is essential to good cello playing. It is true that the forces involved in playing cello are less than the weight of my arm, but this doesn't mean that in order to play cello I need to push with pronation while squeezing the bow with my fingers. To continue that pencil analogy, squeeze the pencil with your fingers for thirty seconds. Your hand will feel exhausted. Never squeeze the bow and don't overwork as a cellist. Mustadia 17:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] review

i asked for another review because i think weve improved this article a lot since the last review.please post a review here:Wikipedia:Peer review/Cello/archive2 thanks!lol. 22:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 03:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Music

Re: "The Beatles pioneered the use of a cello in popular music, in songs such as 'Eleanor Rigby' and 'Strawberry Fields Forever'."

'Eleanor Rigby' is scored for two voices and double string quartet. I say "double string quartet" instead of "string octet" or some such thing because George Martin's intention (see All You Need is [sic] Ears) was to have the listener consider it a string quartet. The effect was too thin for his liking so he placed two string quartets on opposite sides of the studio and recorded them both playing precisely the same music--a recording studio trick. In any case, there are just as many violas as cellos involved and twice as many violins. I doubt very much the Beatles "pioneered" the use of a string section in popular music. The remarkable thing about "Eleanor Rigby", it seems to me, (for its time--in pop music) is that its strings are not "sweetening"; they're fairly strident. I don't know the precise instrumentation of Strawberry Fields, but I'm sure the song uses other orchestral instruments besides the cello, and I don't remember the cello as especially prominent. TheScotch 11:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How can you talk about cellos in pop music and not even mention Apocalyptica?

[edit] Wonderwall - NOT a real 'cello!

The Oasis song mentioned as featuring a 'cello actually uses a Mellotron keyboard which plays tape recordings, in this case of notes played on a 'cello. The 'cellist in the video is (presumably a competent 'cellist) miming to the song. According to expert Mellotron sources, you can hear various artefacts ("key click" etc) which are a telltale sign that this instrument was used rather than a real 'cello. User:Butterfingersbeck 28 September 2006


Thank you, sir. Many arrangements heard on pop albums have been synthesised or in fact were played using a mellotron. I cannot speak for the validity of other such mentioned pieces, but Wonderwall was not recorded with a live cellist. JAMES 15 December 2006

[edit] Archive This Talk Page Please

Can someone archive older discussion please? The page is rather large. LuciferMorgan 00:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for GA Delisting

This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 00:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End pin

Why is the end pin called a "tail spike" in the picture? Do people actually call it that? I've only ever heard it refered to as an "end pin." The article only mentions that it has a "spiked tip" which I think should be reworded to be "sharp tip." I do not consider the end pin to be a spike. --BenWhitey 20:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


Oh no no no no no no no! I play the cello and it is absolutly, positivly NOT called a tail spike. The technical and most commonly used term for it is an end pin. Change it, I BEG OF YOU! Binglebongle2000 17:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


It's very commonly called the spike in the UK - not heard of it referred to as tail spike though! End pin is also used though.

[edit] Famous Cellos

Should there be a list of famous cellos? Or a descripton of them? --BenWhitey 14:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Different Picture

I think we should have a different picture for the cello bow. Not only does it not give a very good perspective of it but the cellist is holding the bow nearly on top of the bridge which is something no cellists would do. Keegan 22:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you think it should look like? Should it just be on a table or should someone be using it? etc. --BenWhitey 21:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think just the bow would be a good idea. 24.247.190.67 22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Williamsburg Video is a Gamba not a Cello

The instrument being played in the video is a Viola da Gamba not a cello. It has C -holes and the typical shoulders of a gamba. The player is using the gamba underhand bow hold and the tailpiece is much broader than that of a cello.

24.46.197.7 02:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; I'll point this out and edit the article/video to reflect this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Short Lists of Cellists

I know this would probably be too controversial but I think a SHORT list of cellists may be a good idea. The only criteria I think should be they are still alive or "recently deceased" (du Pre). They should also be a big name like Yo-Yo Ma, Mstilav Rostropovich (sp?) and Janos Starker. This will probably start a ton of arguements on your favorite cellists but how does the principal sound? Keegan 22:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cello history: Bow

Most of cellist that are specialized for playing Baroque music hold the bow as it is described in the article: not on the frog but closer to the ballance point. But on the most of the paintings from the Baroque era we can see cellists holding bows like modern bassists that play with a German-type bow. I believe that way of holding bow was mush more used in Baroque as we believe, but modern cellist that play on Barogue cellos don´t use it because they can´t learn to hold the bow like that! Of course they won´t admit that: if you ask them, they will say that their way of playing cello is apsolutly authentic.--83.131.145.178 20:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bass member of violin family

I've taken excption to describing the cello as the lowest sounding member of the violin family: 1) as it's diminutive name suggests, the cello does not sound as low as its predecesor the violone, and 2) among modern survivals, the double bass is often classed among the violin family. Sparafucil 09:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The double bass is in the viol family, not the violin family, as is made abundantly clear in all the articles here (when they haven't been mis-edited, that is). "Lowest sounding" is clear, simple, plain language. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My concern is with fact, not written style, so you're welcome to come up with an alternative to "bass". The bass violin (which is beginning to enjoy a modern revival; an example by Stradivarius in the Smithsonian can be heard on recordings of the Boccherini Quintettes) is in fact a whole tone lower than the cello. Among 'standard' instruments, double bass is defined in ther Harvard Dictionary Of Music as "the largest member of the violin family". Double bass does a fair job of outlining (and documenting) the arguments on both sides. Sparafucil 21:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that it's pretty well settled and non-controversial here (cf. article on double bass) that the bass is not in the violin family. The "bass violin" is not common enough to warrant a change from "lowest-sounding member of the violin family" for now.
Besides, if it turned out that the double bass was in the violin family, that would make the 'cello neither the lowest-sounding member nor the bass member, no? +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "here"; WP is supposed to reflect the state of knowledge out in the real world (including the Harvard Dictionary), and in fact double bass does describe a controversy. There is a distinction between a "bass" and a "contrabass" voice, whereas "lowest" is simply non-factual. Sparafucil 00:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but after Sparafucil's most recent edit (where they added "low-sounding"), I've put everything back to the status quo ante (that is, "lowest-sounding member of the violin family"). Here's my rationale: After viewing S's edit, I clicked on the link provided and tried to put myself in the shoes of a clueless but interested reader. Up comes a section of the double bass article that has pretty much nothing to do with cellos. WTF?

In the interest of clarity and simplicity, at least in the lead, this mini-tempest-in-a-teapot simply doesn't belong there. The contorted attempts to convey that "well, it's not really established whether the double bass is a member of the violin family, therefore the 'cello could be the lowest-sounding member--or maybe not--and furthermore ...". You see the problem? Find another way to deal with this problem, preferably somewhere down below in the article, unless you want to confuse readers from the get-go. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Least confusing might be to omit the 'controversy' altogether, rather than keep reverting to lowest, which fails on two counts: 1)many consider the bass to belong to the violin family, but 2) the violone is both a violin and lower. Why not try to come up with something factual if you dont like my edits?Sparafucil 06:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
To answer those points: 1) Most people consider the bass not to belong to the violin family, which for the sake of deciding how much confusing material to add to the lead makes it pretty much a settled matter; the "controversy" can be dealt with elsewhere in the article; 2) Who cares about the violone? again, for the sake of the lead, consider that it's an obsolote instrument, and can be dealt with as a historical footnote, again elsewhere in the article.
In case you've missed it, the whole thrust of my efforts is not to introduce non-factual material to the article, but to simplify the lead, which is supposed to be a high-level overview of the subject. Let's not jump in media res here, is all I'm saying. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Good, we're agreed that simple is better, and that my compromise "sometimes said to be the lowest" wasnt very elegant. As to 1) I'm willing to be shown that 51% agree with you, but 2) (aside from whether anyone else cares about the bass violin) it seems needlessly confusing to first categoricaly state the the cello is the lowest, and then explain that its name is a diminutive of a lower instrument. But I'd be happy to consider other solutions! Sparafucil 22:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
We may possibly have to wait for a disinterested third party to come along and come up with a clever way to resolve this little conundrum ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Mostly disinterested third party here (although I have this article on my watchlist). ILike2BeAnon, may I ask what was your objection to "a low-sounding member of the violin family" in the lede? If it was that is was linked to double-bass, then how about the same text but unlinked. Possibly violin family should be linked in the lede (even though it's already in the infobox) since that article discusses the double-bass controversy a bit. In the description, I think you simply need to compare the range to the violin and viola; it's already noted that its role is of the bass or lowest voice of the string quartet. Btw, I would suggest the first graf of the Description section is a little convoluted as is. AUTiger » talk 01:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media

I recently got permission from music professor and cello player John Mitchel to include upwards of 80 of his cello recordings (and another 20 from his wife of her violin recordings). Many of these should be added to this page. See wikipedia:Sound/list (at the bottom) for the full list. Raul654 19:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why should they be added? Please explain. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Uh... because an article about a musical instrument should including recordings of that instrument. This is just common sense. Raul654 00:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Discussion of the infobox that just showed up is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments. __Just plain Bill (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cello association/conference?

Is there a cello association (either international or national) comparable to the National Flute Association or the International Trumpet Guild, and does it sponsor conferences? Such organizations exist for the violin, viola, and double bass. If so, it should be added to Category:Bowed string instrument organizations. Badagnani 20:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Body (construction materials)

Carbon fibre cellos have become increasingly popular in the last 10 years. The opening sentence of this section "Cellos are typically made from wood" was an outdated statement which contradicted the paragraph about carbon fibre cellos which followed. I added a short clause "although other materials ... may be used" for the sake of continuity with the rest of the article.

It would be very nice to expand the section to include other materials. In addition to the Luis & Clark carbon fibre cello which is briefly mentioned, there are other manufacturers who use non-wood materials such as ferro-cement, fiberglass and aluminum. It's fine to focus on traditional wood, but we can read that in any boring Britannica article. I feel Wikipedia should reflect the most current information available. Cheers Wikisicky (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I found an old publication from 1930 which talks about the Pfretzschner aluminum cello. Also in American Lutherie magazine (Spring 2007) there's a great article "Aluminum Sonatas" which talks about the use of aluminum for cellos, violins and double basses. I don't have that issue, but if someone out there does, it would be nice to have a few quotes. I agree that there should be some focus on alternative-materials (carbon fiber, aluminum, fiberglass) in the construction of cellos. Interesting stuff. Chazella (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Italian Instrument

Since there seems to be some argument about whether or not the instrument is italian, can we discuss it here instead of adding and removing the category? Dookama (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK; it is not an Italian instrument. It would be improper to try to assign Italian ownership or invention to the instrument. It is true that Italian luthiers made tremendous contributions to the development of the 'cello, but that's not the same thing as saying it's an "Italian instrument". Please do not place in this category again. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
My removal of that category from this article was as a result of following similar tagging on other articles such as Classical guitar and Piano which were similarly and repeatedly categorized as Category:Italian_musical_instruments by User:Shpakovich, User:SHPAK, and a number of IP editors. Since the origins of these instruments are broad and not limited to any one place, it seems unhelpful to classify them by any particular nationality. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The category itself Category:Italian_musical_instruments shows it is up for deletion. William Ortiz (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The plural of cello

Okay, I know somebody mentioned that on dictionary.com, celli is the plural of cello, but on the other hand, it lists only cellos as the plural here. Dictionary.com itself has a little bit of discrepency in this respect, and I think we ought to solve it here. Which one would people usually use? Keith Galveston (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Col Legno

The col legno section is mildly contradictory. It claims that col legno battuto is the 'proper' name, but then goes on to describe col legno tratto. Both techniques should be presented equally, even though col legno battuto is so much more common. If no one objects, I'll change that. Lordofmodesty (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording to better reflect the two separate techniques. Cellos (or celli? Ha!) completely rock! Lordofmodesty (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)