Talk:Viola

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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] title of article

Suggest title of article be modified to viola (musical instrument) so that everyone looking for blue flowers will go directly to disambiguation page...

[edit] Viola the whole article

- Perhaps we should incorporate many of the features as seen in our family instruments (violin, cello). They seem to be well written. They do not include violin or cello jokes. The bass article refers to "notable classical players of historical importance." Perhaps that is what should be the criteria for listing the violist, is some significant importance. The genres that the viola is found should be grouped together and perhaps outlined more (orchestral, chamber music, solo music, modern music, folk music, future avenues-electronic violas?). debcallico/ut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.219.39 (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Violists

I've added Lillian Fuchs and Rebecca Clarke; I'm not sure if Clarke should be in the list of composers who played viola or, like Hindemith, be listed in the 'violists' paragraph. I still think the paragraph about jokes is incongruent in this context. J Lorraine 09:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In light of the recent flurry of changes to the list of violists, I request that anyone who makes changes to that list put the names they are adding or deleting in the summary along with a brief description of why they are adding or deleting. Thanks J Lorraine 00:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

After more careful scrutiny of the history of this page, I have come to the conclusion that User 65.88.88.148 is intent on removing people from the list of well-known violists without specific reason (all three of the most frequently removed names are sufficiently well-known violists. None of these names is going to have the recognizability of, say, Yo-Yo Ma, but that's not a reason to remove them.) J Lorraine 06:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for giving voice to that. I don't know who's who, but I've been watching the flipping and flopping with silent puzzled amusement. Just plain Bill 15:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I was amused too.... However if it continues (I hope not!), I may get annoyed. I believe this is what's commonly referred to as an 'edit war'..... It would be a shame to have to ask an administrator to step in and do something about stopping it. J Lorraine 23:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I put a "citation needed" template in the sentence "among the great composers, several preferred the viola to the violin when playing in ensembles", as it seems like a claim that could easily be more motivated by enthusiasm than actual history. Hjijch 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added Rivka Golani and Nobuko Imai to the list. Especially Golani, who has a huge international reputation and is one of the few violists who has made her living as a full time soloist. For 25 years she has toured and recorded. Someone keeps removing Golani and Imai from the list. Thats weird. Golani has had more than 50 concertos written for her and more than 200 works in total. I heard her concerts at the Glenn Gould studio and Wigmore Hall and was stunned by her genius. I suspect the individual removing Golani from the list (and Imai, who is an extremely eminent viola soloist, based in Holland but originally Japanese) may not have enough international knowledge of their importance. I havent added Yuri Bashmet as obviously its going to be a challenge to keep Golani and Imai on the list but I hope someone will come forward to stubbornly push for him too. The list as it stood was like a smile with three missing teeth, I have replaced two - please will someone push for Bashmet too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cshelley (talk • contribs) 4:47, 14 July 2007

First of all, you added this comment out of order in the discussion. But more to the point, the reason those names you've added have been removed is simply because the sentence in which the short list of names appears is not the place for the definitive, end-all, be-all list of violists in the world. By "consensus" (see the comment in the article text), it's to be limited to a small number (5) of representative players. The "list of violists" article is the place to add any and all names of notable players, not this short list. Please don't push for more list-bloat, which is an endemic problem all across this project (Wikipedia). +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have corrected the order for the discussion. I really appreciate your tenacity at policing this entry. It is certainly important to protect against bloat and I can see that this issue emerged before. You (ILike2BeAnonymous) seem to very much dislike additions to the violists/viola player category. You strongly suggested that two entries be removed if I insist upon the Golani and Imai additions. I have reluctantly removed two therefore (and I hope someone else will come along and restore them). You seem to like making the rules here, but anyone can refine a Wikipedia entry. That is what I have done - by adding these two Great violists here. No one, incidentally, has established absolute "objective" criteria for additions to the violists entries. I am confident, however, that if it really came down to it, arbitrators who do the research on Golani and Imai will see that I have made no transgression here whatsoever but have provided the names of two very famous and unusually gifted players who have made extraordinary contributions over decades as viola virtuosi through their recordings and on the international, solist circuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cshelley (talk • contribs) 04:32, 15 July 2007

I must correct you on a few points. I have myself reverted several attempts to re-grow this sentence into a list, so there is not just one editor acting as "policeman". Neither is there one person who is attempting to make up rules: as you've noticed - rather late in the day - the issue has been discussed before. It would have been nice if you had taken the trouble to re-open that discussion on this page in the first place, rather than attempting to get your own way by conducting an edit war. The consensus reached, reinforced by plain common sense, was that the sentence can't be allowed to carry on growing every time someone sees that their personal favourite is not included. Once that starts, people think that there's no good reason not to add the name of that really great teacher they had in third grade. The fact that no objective criterion for inclusion exists doesn't mean that choices don't have to be made, even if they have to be done by something as crude as a Google search.

Just to close with a personal anecdote, a few years ago I persuaded a friend to go with me to a recital by one of the two players you've just added. I had never heard the player, but her reviews and reputation had encouraged me to suggest it. The performance was painful enough for me to have suppressed most of my recollection; when it was over, my friend looked at me in silence for a few seconds and then said "I hadn't realised that the viola was such a difficult instrument". Odd thing, celebrity. --Stephen Burnett 09:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your anecdote: sheesh, that's almost as bad as telling a musician after a performance, "Wow, you certainly have a beautiful instrument there". +ILike2BeAnonymous 11:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. Whether the performance was liked or not, it acknowledges the arguments that I made, that both are well known and belong on this list. The "common sense" of limiting the list is sensible and the policing factor important as the list could grow to be too large. Its not an issue of one's favourite player, but an issue of accuracy and logic. The existing list of players that had been constructed under the sentence "More recent well-known" had no logic to it and was arbitrary, it was my aim to maintain the established logic in the paragraph by consistency, not one's favourite principal player but international solists of note (whether liked or not). "Rather late in the game" suggests that Wikipedia is a static entity in which no one can come along and make corrections, this is not the case. Finally, the individual referred to above was indeed policing my additions since they were replying to each one of the attempts to add the two players under my Watchlist and giving (actually ordering) instructions to place those names elsewhere. I stand by these additions and am prepared to go to arbitration with them if necessary. Thanks for caring so much about this entry regardless, I think it an important category. I have never engaged in an edit war before, I dont like the term "war", I prefer the struggle for accuracy and the search for consensus (an ideal that is often never reached or maintained). Thanks and appreciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cshelley (talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 July 2007

Well, I'm not going to remove those names, at least not now; my stated intention was to keep the short list short, which you've done. But more to the point, I don't intend to take part in this musical pissing match—"My violist is more notable than your violist". Try as you might, at the end of the day, you really cannot make a good argument that violist X is more worthy of inclusion than violist Y (in this short list, remember, not the definitive and all-inclusive scroll of great violists of all time), assuming, of course, that both X and Y are top-level performers. There just aren't any kind of qualitative, objective metrics that would make this possible. (And don't even mention Google ...)

And at the risk of being a nag, please sign your comments, so that others don't have to come after you and stick in the {{unsigned}} template. (The 10th button on the toolbar up there does this for you.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I just added Yuri Bashmet to the "more recently" group. From his bio at the Sony site, it appears that he is stellar enough to be on the short list. Disclaimer: I am truly clueless as to who's who in the upper reaches of viola players. But, beside his solo appearances, that bio says he has shared the stage with a few names that are pretty widely recognized:

In a number of major concert halls, including La Scala
in Milan and the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, Bashmet
has been the first violist ever to give a solo recital.
He has appeared on many occasions with Sviatoslav Richter
and has performed chamber music with many other leading
artists, including Natalia Gutman, the Borodin Quartet,
Gidon Kremer, Viktoria Mullova, Mstislav Rostropovich
and Maxim Vengerov.

I'd like to see some knowledgeable person take off a few more names, but perhaps that's not a sensible wish just now. __Just plain Bill 03:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brahms Sonatas (op. 120)

the most recent revision states that brahms transcribed the op. 120 clarinet sonatas himself. I have heard some debate about this -- regarding whether he actually did it himself or merely approved of it when the publisher presented it to him. Does anyone have a source for this information? If not, I'd like to change it back to the previous version, which states that the pieces were originally for clarinet but doesn't make any claim as to who did the transcribing.

From the Wiener Urtext edition of the E-flat sonata: "In the spring of 1895 the Sonatas were published by N. Simrock, Berlin, together with an arrangement of the clarinet part for viola ... The engraver's copies of the original version (score and solo part) and of the viola part arranged by Brahms still exist. They are located in th Staats- und Universitatsbibliothek, Hamburg ... They were written by a copyist, with numerous corrections and several important alterations in Brahms' hand." (Hans Christian Muller) The rest of the preface does not seem to doubt that Brahms was the original arranger. --Quadalpha 00:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. BTW, we should start citing sources, perhaps this is a good place to start. J Lorraine 23:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As documented in my article, http://www.solisti.de/brahms/sonatas120_eng.html which was published in German by the Viola Society, there is evidence that Brahms transcribed the Sonatas Op. 120 himself, although this manuscript is lost. The published version was based on a manuscript by the copyist Wilhelm Kupfer for the publisher Simrock, which shows evidence of only some hurried corrections by Brahms. It is not incorrect to state that Brahms made a transcription of these Sonatas for the viola, but nobody alive today has seen this version. - Prof. James Creitz

[edit] Viola jokes

I have a psychology book somewhere (a quite serious one) that has something like half a chapter on the viola joke (mainly musing on why the viola and not some other useless instrument like the flute). And I see even Google is getting in on the act of slating violists now: if you search for "virtuoso violist" it mocks "Did you mean:virtuoso violinist"... --Camembert

By the way, if you search for "violist", it says "did you mean violinist". Google doesn't think "violist" is a word. Frosty ^('sup?) 13:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I don't get that when I search google http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=violist&btnG=Search TehNomad 20:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

no, you don't get it anymore. Used to, though! (*assumes fake accent and far-off look of nostalgia in eyes* ...eh, back in "my day".... when the internet was young, my lad!)J Lorraine 05:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Viola jokes were the one source of amusement during the long hours I spend languishing in 2nd violins. http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/jokes/viola.html -- Tarquin

Methinks we should have some kind of gentle, viola player-friendly reference to those jokes, because orchestra culture wouldn't be the same without them. Weasel

True, orchestra culture wouldn't be the same without them. But I've always thought of viola jokes as akin to blonde jokes or lawyer jokes or ethnic jokes. Does an encyclopedia article on lawyers have a reference to lawyer jokes? Does an article on ethnicity have a reference to ethnic jokes? It may be a separate category, we can add to jokes the "musician" joke. J Lorraine 10:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the case, I don't believe the viola joke should be the first thing a person sees when they go to the section on "Violists". I've re-arranged the paragraphs so that the list of violists appears first, then the list of famous composers who were also violists, and put the reference to viola jokes last. If no one disagrees, I may move the reference to the jokes article.J Lorraine 10:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoever puts together the viola jokes (and they should go in a separate article, linked to "jokes", not in this article) should be sure not to omit the best of them all—the one that tops violinists:

Did you know that a violin and a viola 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. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Viola vs. Voila

About this bit:

Viola is a common misspelling of the French word voila, often used as a demonstrative exclamation (e.g. ... you mix the ingredients, bake for 40 minutes, take out of the oven, and voila!)

- I can't make up my mind - is it appropriate for this article? Does an encylopedia usually bother to define near-miss misspellings?? Nevilley 08:51 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)

No-one else wants to play (chiz), so I will answer my own questions - no, and no, I think. So I will remove the definition and see if anyone minds. Nevilley 02:09 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

This is me not minding. :-) -- Tarquin 10:34 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

heheh thanks. Nevilley 11:01 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

If you're so keen on anagrams, I suggest you hustle your alias up, say as 'Vile Neyl', but do your homework: there is NO French word "voila", just "voilà", a contraction of "vois là" ('see there'). There! Now back to the play pen: Wikipedia is serious business, and all the grimmer as pseudo-contributors confuse it with a mindless passtime, unfortunatelt wasting every one else's time- surely there are chat rooms if you're desperate for oocpatinal therapy- or maybe you might just have a go at an actual contribution?.

<sigh> Poor Fastifex just didn't get it, it seems. More careful reading might have helped ... oh well. 82.45.248.177 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better Photo?

I'm glad to see a number of people doing good work on the viola article. A better photo than we currently have of the violist holding a viola would be welcome; I uploaded this photo as there was none at the time and wouldn't be offended if it were replaced by a better one. A photo of a viola being played in proper position with a good view of the instrument would be great.-- Infrogmation 18:23, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

- I'd like to see pictures of the different types of violas listed, such as the Tetris model, the cut-away, the double bout, etc. (I probably don't have the types correct, but you get the idea)

debcallico from Utah** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.219.39 (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vertical Viola

I am convinced that it is a mistake to give such prominence to upright violas. In an article about the viola you would expect to read about what 99.9% of violas are like. The upright bit is an interesting aside but should be where it has been moved several times, at or near the bottom of the article. There could be all sorts of other wacky violas too but none of them shoudl be right up near the top - that's just misleading. Nevilley

Hi Nevilley--I respectfully disagree with you on the issue of whether the vertical viola is "wacky". So would Yo-Yo Ma, who called his encounter with the instrument "an amazing experience". But I do agree with you that the vertical viola should not be so prominent in the viola article. It's particularly annoying that the current version, created by an anonymous editor, isn't even correct; Hutchins invented the vertical viola for purposes of tonal quality, not ease of playing. I'll fix this soon when it looks like the coast is clear. Opus33 04:01, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, "wacky" was uncalled-for. I have no doubt it's a lovely instrument and I have the greatest respect for Yo-Yo Ma although I'm not sure what viola players generally would think about cellists poaching their way into the already sorely limited repertoire! But thanks, and yes it does need fixing to give this non-wacky, but rare, atypical and minority-flavoured instrument rather less prominence in the article than it currently enjoys. Nevilley 08:50, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I play the viola (the everyday type that falls under "99.9%). Now no matter how much I stick to the things I know and don't think much of musical varity, "Wacky" was not OK here. And I have the greatest respect for Yo-Yo Ma, who is the best cellist the world has ever seen.

[edit] True or false??

True or false: the bottom of this page can move to Viola (disambiguation). 66.245.99.122 23:21, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm amused at the "true/false" format for an opinion question! My opinion is it's probably a good idea. Opus33 00:24, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Me too. Nevilley 07:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] in play the viola

and I think that violins suck because they are all so whiney and they look down on us when, more often than not, they are the ones that have the greatest amount of problems with their parts. is it just me, or do the violas seem to be more talented. people always say that it is because our music is easier, but when both instruments get the same part, it is the violin that seems to have more problems.

Alright, calm down! Don't take yourself seriously - all us viola players know that we are better than violinists and we just humour them with their little jokes...

[edit] The picture

The picture at the top would be easier to justify if the young lady were actually playing the viola.

I'm not sure what you mean by "justify"... hunh? As I say above, a better photo would be welcome. I'd say it's "justified" for the time being as being better than no photo. If you can take a good photo of a violist playing a viola, and upload a copy to Wikipedia released under GNU FDL that's be great. P.S.: Please sign your talk page comments; you can put 4 tildes (~) at the end and it will be added automatically. -- Infrogmation 03:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For the record, the image in question, Image:Violist.jpg, has since been removed from the article in favor of a different image of a viola. However we still could use a decent photo of someone actually playing the viola. -- Infrogmation 17:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll take a closeup of playing the viola and upload it - I think I'll just add it, not replace the current image. That one is good for the size comparison. Aethir 05:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Put up a picture of actually playing the instrument. We'll see if it meets approval. Aethir 06:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there a way to get the text of the first 'point' to wrap around the bottom of the picture? J Lorraine 22:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the addition of the picture labeling the pegs and showing the notes on the strings, that was a good touch. 24.28.43.198 18:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] String instrument history

What does modern scholarship have to say about Forsyth's Orchestration claim, that the viola was the first to appear of the modern strings? Is it worth having a section on this anywhere? (There's a section on violin history in Violin but it makes no connections to the Gamba family or to the Viola d'amore, etc. ...) Schissel 13:25, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it's more of a folkloric claim than one that has been documented with actual evidence. Grove specifically refutes it (I'm at work now so can't look it up, I can later). As far as I know the instruments in the violin family developed concurrently; some early Renaissance paintings show three-string and four-string instruments which are about violin-size, but no instruments survive from before about 1560. Antandrus 00:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - good to know (sotto voce - *g* sometimes, not the first time, it occurs to me I should check a more recent reference work than his, anyway!) Schissel 01:16, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's a bit more. Probably Forsyth's claim (in an otherwise excellent book) is based on a misunderstanding about the word "viola". Before about 1535, "viola" referred generally to any bowed stringed instrument. It was modified variously to describe instruments of different families (viola da braccio, soprano di viola da braccio, viola da gamba, viola d'amore, etc.) It did not mean specifically what we modernly call a viola until about the 18th century. At any rate all the members of the violin family (now this is from Grove) developed at about the same time, in the first few decades of the 16th century. (Should this go in the article somewhere?) Fun stuff. Antandrus 03:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, and for including it in the article my own opinion is that it seems a good idea. Thanks. Schissel 10:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rictor Noren

I removed Noren from the list of better known recent violists. I know that Google is not the LAST word on fame but I do not think it can be completely ignored when it stacks up like this. Here are Noren and the other people who were in the same list, by Google entries:

Bashmet 20,300 Kashkashian 17,800 Zimmermann 16,400 Noren 24

However you slice it and dice it, it does not look, based on that count, like Noren belongs in the same list as the other three, not yet anyway. I would not be happy to see Noren reinstated to the list, in its present form, without some very solid evidence as to why this should be so. 138.37.188.109 08:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This criteria got me interested. It seems I have 17,100 Google entries, more than Tabea Zimmermann, which is somehow ridiculous, if this is the primary criterium. As I am not one of the most-known violists, I would have my doubts about this methodology. Why is Bruno Giuranna, arguably the most infuential and important violist after Primrose (987,000), not included? Google turns up over 58,000 listings for his name. - James Creitz

[edit] Jason

I just had a question about violas. I was wondering they can be tuned to violin tuning gdea? If so is it something commonly done?

Viola strings are calibrated for a certain tension level. To try and tune them up a full fifth would be an extraordinary amount of surplus pressure. I can't see how you would do it without breaking the strings. I have never heard of any situation where a viola is not tuned to the standard ADGC Evanbro 04:42, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have. The strings are not generally tuned up (too much tension will break the strings) but there are several compositions, especially music for viola ensembles, that call for the C string to be tuned down, for example, to a G. I suppose other strings could be tuned down as well. But not up. Unless you like broken strings. Bobhobbit 22:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is true, Bobhobbit. Pieces sometimes also call for tuning the G string down a half step, or something like that. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 01:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I once tried to tune my viola myself. I'm 10. It was a big mistake. It's hard to play with a broken A string.

I bought some violin strings for my viola, shaved down the bridge to relieve tension on the strings and it sounds fine to me.Although I miss the mellow mood the viola makes. Make sure your strings are long enough or lengthen your tail piece

- The bigger question is why would anyone ever want to spoil the wonderful sound of a viola by tuning it like a violin. Probably a "converted" violist (one who switched from violin to viola) who misses the violin. If you are an "original" violist (one who started on the viola) you wouldn't desicrate such a fine instrument. (lol) In all seriousness, wouldn't a 5 string viola viola meet your needs better?

Back in the dark ages, when I was 10 (ok not that far), I must have went through about 50 A strings. Don't give up on trying to tune your viola yourself. Be sure to have a reliable source for your tuning pitch and always come from below. Practice matching pitch on the next string down. The hardest part about tuning once you can here where you need to go, is manipulating the pegs and tuners....debcallico from Utah** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.219.39 (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section on "Playing the viola"

I've blanked and partially rewritten the section on Playing the viola. With a few minor exceptions, the entire section was an outdated duplicate of the similar section in the violin article. This struck me as fairly useless, so I decided to be bold and get rid of the whole section after merging any significant differences to the violin article. If this decision is hugely unpopular I guess it can be reverted, but I really think it's better if the Viola article offers unique, useful content, instead of just duplicating the Violin article. —Miles →☎ 03:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think the previous revision was a better fit to the article, but if someone can explain to me why the current revision makes more sense...Aethir 04:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think those things which are duplicates of items in another article are necessary here. I've posted some discussion of moving most of the material on 'playing the violin' (currently on the violin page) to the article how to play the violin, and changing that article's title to include viola. Hopefully this article would then become a place where more technical details can be gotten into, especially details comparing and contrasting playing techniques. With time, both the viola and the violin article could refer to this page.J Lorraine 10:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frog

In the UK, we do use the term 'frog' as well as (more commonly) 'heel'...

Fatboy06 16:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The second paragraph in the introduction seems to be too biased. It is true that violas are very underrated compared to practically all other string instruments and can have a beautiful sound that is vital for a group's overall sound. However, calling it the most versatile of string instruments is too easily contended with to be put in a wikipedia article. Could I get some feedback (no pun intended) on this? I am primarily a violinist, secondly a violist, so I am biased. I would appreciate any comments on the second paragraph. omnijohn 21:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A cello is pretty versatile as well, in the right hands, just not so portable. That paragraph does seem a bit overdone, as well as POV. Just plain Bill 00:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the defensive statement, including (perhaps mistakenly) this sentence:

In the right hands, it is capable of expressing both a mournful, penetrating melancholia and a dignified, joyous voice, singular and delightful in its restrained clarity.

I'm not sure if this sentence is really defensive. Frosty 12:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've put it back. The part about being underrated is the part of the general impression. And I think we have a right to wax lyrical about the viola's tonal qualities in the viola article. :) Also, the next sentence wouldn't really follow if we removed it. --Quadalpha 14:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the part about being underrated is not defensive -- it's merely a succinct reference to several facts: 1, the relative anonymity of the viola in "mainstream" culture: many people who would recognize the terms 'violin" "cello" and "double bass" or "string bass" do not know what a 'viola' is. 2) the lack of famous repertoire: many people who do know what it is perceive that it has less solo repertoire and of a lower quality than the other two instruments in the violin family (violin & cello), 3) the very fact that viola jokes are as prominent as they are among orchestral musicians -- more so than jokes for almost any other instrument... enough so that people feel the need to place a section about them in this article!, 4) the sad state of many youth or school orchestras where violists are few and far between, and where students play arrangements where the viola part has been reduced to nothing more than a section of "third violins", and this coupled with the lack of instruction for children on the viola (compared to the overwhelming number of young violinists and cellists -- which leads one to think that parents and teachers don't often choose or promote the viola as a suitable instrument to teach their young children: in short, they underrate it. J Lorraine 23:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differences in bowing: violin & viola

02:01, 2 April 2006 Quadalpha (revert POV/inaccuracy - a change like this would be better discussed on the talk page first)

part of the paragraph in question:

... right handed technique is quite different. For example, violinists tend to play in the middle-to-upper half of the bow. A violists strongest point in the bow is the lower half, and to create such a somber sound, violists are required to play in this part of the bow. It is a common mistake for violinists who also play viola to not note the differences in bow technique and produce a poorer tone that tends to be light and weak.

The article does mention the extra bow weight needed, and the fact that viola strings speak more slowly than violin strings. It will be useful to mention differences in bow distribution, if they are systematically taught or practiced. Any experts watching this? Just plain Bill 15:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I've never seen a violinist who systematically plays higher in the bow than I would on a viola for similar passages. "A violists strongest point in the bow is the lower half, and to create such a somber sound, violists are required to play in this part of the bow." - that seems too much of a generalisation, even if it has any basis in fact. --Quadalpha 01:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I play the viola!!

Righto. That part about bow location is bumpkus. The difference in technics lies in the weight and manipulation of the bow arm. I am, after reading this article, convinced it was written largely by someone who had never actually played the viola, rather just watched someone and decided it made them an expert. BKratchmer (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know, like they say: find a valid source for this, then go to it.

By the way, the word you want is "bupkis" (or "bupkes"). +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Audio Examples

I don't know about you guys, but I feel that the the audio example with the 4 violas, although cool, doesn't represent the instrument very well. Its muddled and unclear to me. Any possibility of putting other examples that are more straight forward for those people who really don't know what the viola sounds like? And also maybe a file format that is more common? (I had to load it in my studio recording software to play it) Thoughts? Pehaps a nice cadenza from a concerto? Cmw328i 18:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll put in a link to Shlomo Mintz's Brahms sonatas. --Quadalpha 05:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added the prelude to Bach's Fifth Cello Suite played on a viola. The post above is quite old but you can now play sound files online from Wikipedia. Also see Wikipedia:Media help for how to play the files offline. Graham87 05:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sound similar to elec. guitar?

How to describe the electric bowed sound? Amplified pizz may slightly resemble a guitar sound, but there are enough differences that I just took that part out, rather than go into a lengthy comparison. __ Just plain Bill 01:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] jokes

I've moved this bit here:

However, there are also jokes about the players and other instruments in the stringed sections. The idea that modern viola players are any less skilled or competent than violinists or, indeed, the players of any other instrument, is simply illogical.

Doesn't that strike you as awfully defensive? Any ideas for a re-phrase? --Quadalpha 01:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, defensive. Thanks for taking it out of the article. __ Just plain Bill 04:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

p.s. In cases of excessive solemnity and liability to take offense, "musical equivalent of the blonde joke" will provide a clue. (If you want me to play spiccato, just write "solo" over my part. ;-) Just plain Bill

Did we agree on what to do about the jokes section? I vaguely remember a consensus to not give it its own section, or am I imagining things? --Quadalpha 13:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Now the jokes section seems to have taken on a lot of original research. It's much too long and disorganised. --Quadalpha 14:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm seriously considering removing the section altogether.J Lorraine 10:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Darn. I've always liked the one where "he won't tell me which peg he turned..." Can we keep the section, leaving it as short as it is now? __ Just plain Bill 03:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If we removed it, someone's bound to add it back again, probably in a less grammatically-informed state. I'm fine with leaving it as it is. We can start a jokes collection on the talk page. (Are there other ones except the big collection that MIT site?) --Quadalpha 14:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Quadalpha, you're right. Even though I STILL don't think an encyclopedia should have this section in this article at all.... as a comparison: lawyer has jokes relegated to an aside in a section called "criticism" which is more about historical attempts to abolish the profession than it is about jokes (it has no link at all to the lawyer joke page, and blond only has a link to another page called the blonde joke in it's "see also" section. Since both of these forms of jokes have their own wikipedia pages, and I'm not advocating the creation of a separate "viola joke" page, we can compromise and leave the section here, perhaps changing the redirect on viola jokes to point to this section instead of to the page on jokes in general.J Lorraine 23:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I redirected viola jokes to this section. J Lorraine 08:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC) /// never mind; it seems not to have worked the way I intended. I reverted it back. J Lorraine 08:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =pertinent info for "Jokes" section

I've just added back two bits of info which were removed from the Jokes section. While I agree that, if we have it at all, it ought to be as as short as possible, I also hold that, once granted the section, it needs to refer to viola jokes as being more prominent than other instrument jokes (after all, that is the only reason we have this section: otherwise it appears to be a random reference to "instrument jokes" stating that there are instrument jokes -- and that there are viola jokes -- which is redundant and very not-useful information. If the section itself is unencyclopedic, removing any reference to why it's there in the first place makes it doubly so).

I also put back the reference to "jokes about viola jokes", which serves to highlight further how prominent/prolific the viola joke is. J Lorraine 05:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I say that we remove it; the reason for the "Jokes" section is not to say that there are more viola jokes than other instrument jokes, nor for it "to be a random reference to "instrument jokes" stating that there are instrument jokes -- and that there are viola jokes", but rather investigating the premise for viola jokes (i.e. the main premise is "that violists are not very good technical musicians")in the context of the instrument jokes. However, it is most certainly not up to us to say that violas (or indeed any other instrument) are any better or worse than any other instrument/musician, as was the case before there were anyone else editing it (nor is it an option say that one side of any issue is better or worse than another. We must leave the reader to make up their own mind). I must ask the obvious question, and please forgive me for doing so, but in what way was it encyclopedic before? It was not a balanced article.

By saying that violists are the object of fun any more than any other instrument (which they are not- they simply are not well known enough to be the laughing stock*) we are destroying the neutrality of the section, and thus the article. Any biased article is one too many, and this is one section which appears to want to lean to the negitive. If it cannot be neutral, which it certainly was not before the editing, then I say it ought to be deleted, and left at that.

(Plus I can give copious amounts of examples of jokes about almost all other mainstream instruments, all individually equalling the number and "bite" of viola jokes.)

1) please sign your posts, it helps when people want to follow a discussion if they can see when a new person is chiming into a debate.

2) In response to your post:

-I meant by "more prominent" that viola jokes are told more often than other jokes within the orchestral or chamber music world, and not that they are more numerous, nor that violists are "the laughing stock" of the entire world; for you are right in saying that they are not well known enough for that.

-I don't believe the section had a particularly negative POV before; rather, I thought that removing the reference to the prominence of viola jokes made it less truthful by leaving out the underlying reason for mentioning the subject.

-I hold that the section should not exist at all, OR that it should give the reason why there is a need to mention viola jokes on the viola page when there is no need to reference jokes about other instruments on their respective pages.

3) Given the earlier discussion and consensus about keeping the section, I propose adding the following sentence:

"In the music world, particularly in music schools or youth orchestras, the viola joke is often told with more frequency than other instrumental jokes."

This would of course be better if I could find some research to back it up, which I recall seeing somewhere, so I will go looking for it before I add it.

J Lorraine 09:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with looking for it as I do not believe you'll find it, but researching is good. Can never do too much research. Also, your comment "I don't believe the section had a particularly negative POV" implies that even you believe there was some bias in the article.

However, these jokes are not told anymore commonly than any other types of instrument jokes- I have played in many various youth and chamber orchestras for many, many years and I have never even heard an instrument joke told once, let alone a barrage of viola jokes that is suggested both by you (Plural), and in the article, seem to suggest. I have also played in full orchestras, jazz combos, rock mixes and have been in proffesional fierce competition with our rival ensembles and never have we heard a single viola joke. I have asked all of my peers and my former teachers and my conductor. None of them have ever heard of a many of instrument jokes, much less an insurmountable majority of viola jokes.

While it may not have been the intention to suggest that violas are the laughing stock of the musical world and they are inferior, it was certainly the implication and as such I maintain that the article is a freely biased form of prejudice, and as such should be removed. The idea that simply because the whole viola article has a “viola jokes section”, the viola must be inferior is deeply flawed; it takes one person to add such a section, and as such doesn’t mean that it is the “truth”. Also, since the viola joke is not any more prominent than any other instrument joke, saying (or rather, Speculating, perhaps?) that they are adding to the lessening the truth/ making the article “less truthful”, as you put it.

Also, the fact that there are so many jokes (and I don't mean viola jokes) implies that they would be told equally, if at all.

My very, very strong recommendation is that we remove the article, and I don’t think that anyone else will add it back again; the viola article did just fine without it before about May this year. Sunday, July 30

Hi, I still don't know who I'm talking to, or if you are more than one person (since there are two different IPs listed in the history section), or what. Please sign your posts so its easier to see who is talking, and who is making which points ! Thanks. I hope when you say "remove the article" you mean "remove the section on Viola Jokes" and not "remove the Viola article"? I would be happy to see the section disappear. Others who have chimed in to keep it before, what do you think now? J Lorraine 06:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Me again. I found that bit of "research" I referred to. [1] After re-reading it, it seems less methodical of a 'study' than I remembered it being. However it does provide a basis for the claim that viola jokes were more prominent than other types of jokes in the recent past, and it does cite evidence for their prominence from various major and international newspaper articles & columns, at least one well-known humorist's book, as well as from the authors' own original research. Having found this I now propose an ammendment to my previously proposed statment:

"In the recent past, there is evidence (mostly anecdotal) that the viola joke rose in popularity above other instrumental jokes, and although it may have since declined, the "infamy" gained from this joke cycle by the viola and by violists can still be felt in some situations (Rahkonen, Carl, 1994)." J Lorraine 08:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that we remove the section. You are right in that it is not really a study, but after researching it, it is clear that this a poorly studied and written, heavily personalized and biased text that is not well constructed. The author takes the quotes the people meant to be “proving” his point out of context, and misuses information when there is simply not really much evidence in the generalizations with which he provides the reader. Plus, it is not really right to have an “encyclopaedic” article based on only a single resource, much less one which is as poorly edited as this one. Therefore, this article simply is not a suitable for the basis of a Wikipedia article or section. This article is based on Rahkonen’s pov, rather than well-researched work. We can’t in good faith base the section on only one source.

And, a collection of 50 viola jokes is actually less than the number of any of the jokes that I have found about any of the instruments.

Also, having 1 article in a newspaper with viola jokes proves nothing- I have seen numerous articles on other instruments, and jokes just about people because they play an instrument- any instrument.

Even if we take his points as true, he states that the peak was in 1993,and then was "greatly diminished" by 1994-12 years ago!! They should be well and truely dead by now. It seems a bit pointless to me having a section about a brief flare-up.

I could also launch into a 12 page analysis of the weaknesses of the practice of using only one resource and using his article for this article, but I'm sure you see the weaknessess too.

I say that we remove the jokes section.

If this article was all it the section was based on, then really it should never really have been created. Monday, July 31

Please, sign your posts with a name. Use a screen name if you like, you can still be anonymous, but it's easier to keep track of who posts what when everyone signs their posts in each discussion with the same screen name each time they post. If you're using the same computer, you can use four tildes like this: ~~~~ at the end of each post; when you save it it will automatically post your IP and the time/date. Or you can create a username, and using four tildes will sign your username when you're signed in.

regarding the discussion here, I don't think the jokes section was actually based on that article. Rather, I got the impression that whoever created the section was basing it on what they thought was "common knowledge" in the viola-related music world. Most of the viola article seems to be full of such "common knowledge" information. I'm not saying we shouldn't find sources for certain things, especially if they are disputed, but that most people (except you) seemed to accept the idea that there is something notable about viola jokes which makes people consider placing a section on them in this article (see previous "joke" related discussions here). I only brought up the article because I recalled reading a paper about the prominence of viola jokes, so I thought I'd go look it up. My own experience as a musician and a violist, along with the experiences of other musicians I have spoken to, who hail from places all over the globe, leads me to believe that viola jokes are told more frequently than other kinds of musican jokes -- and that they are told more frequently in almost every music school, conservatory, orchestra (be it youth, community, or professional), and classical music festival or institute the world over. Therefore, I assumed that, since I saw no other notable feature in viola jokes, this prominence was the very thing which caused people to want to place a section on viola jokes in this article, when no such jokes section has been brought up in connection to other orchestral string instrument's articles. I maintain that merely stating that viola jokes are told with more frequency than other musician jokes is not in itself a negative point of view (it is merely a description of what happens). I maintain that if the section is kept (which is a position I have never wholeheartedly supported), it must refer to this prominence -- otherwise, by leaving out the only possible reason for mentioning the jokes, it becomes at best a very silly section which may leave readers wondering why it is there, and at worst a rather biased section which gives readers the impression that some Wikipedia editor thinks viola jokes themselves are somehow worthy of being described because of their great wit, charm, originality, and intellectual appeal. (that last clause is dripping with sarcasm :P in case you couldn't tell). J Lorraine 10:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your last sentence makes no sense and should be broken up into 2 pieces. However, as I have previously stated I have never heard a viola joke be told, and it would be ridiculous to say that the people that I have met and asked, both in the musical and general community, have all been "mysteriously isolated from viola jokes".

This (at the very least) equals and cancels out your assertion that you have met so many "viola joke specialists", and I have worked and/or studied in all of the institutions that you have mentioned and never one instrument joke has been uttered, much less a viola joke.

Also, I am clearly not the only person to be aware of the weaknessess of this wikipedia article. There were at least 2 others that saw the bias of the section, and clearly voiced their own outrage(this does not imply that my reaction is ooutrage, but that they were very angry about it), and as we know, not a great number of people can either actually A)Know how to edit an article B) Know how to leave a "talk" message, so your claim (which is verging on rude, so be careful to keep civil ": P") that "people, except [me]" "have no problem with it", is downright wrong. I daresay that the people that left those messages are also likely represent a large number of people that see the bias.

As few people are likely to research their own instrument, the violists are unlikely to read the article, so the people that would best to edit and write about the viola (i.e. violists) would not actually be the ones to write the article, so we are left with people that, by majority are most likely not primarily violists.

The entire (according to your argument) basis of the article is "common knowledge". However, as we have established, those which you have (apparently) heard are, at a minimum, negated by mine, and my experiences (you can only compare individual experiences with one another- you can't have 2 or more compared to only one person) it is not common knowledge. How can it be "common knowledge" if, forgive me, the "knowledge" is not "common". This section is based not fact but rather a misconception at best.

Also if we take that man's 1994 article as true, they were (perhaps)popular in c. 1992-3. this is certainly no reason for having an article on it 12+ years later.

You previously said that the article that you referred to from the mit site "does provide a basis for the claim that viola jokes were more prominent than other types of jokes in the recent past, and it does cite evidence for their prominence from various major and international newspaper articles & columns, at least one well-known humorist's book, as well as from the authors' own original research".You also said that there was "mostly anecdotal" evidence. However, after I "poked holes" in this poorly written article, you now say that it is "common knowledge". I'm sorry, but one cannot go from saying that there is merely "mostly anecdotal" evidence to the suppossed prominence of viola jokes being some thing that "everyone knows" and that is "common knowledge", as you said. I have managed to debunk most of the pro viola-joke arguments so far and, as it is, it looks like I will be able to continue to do so. It seems, with due dignity, that the relavence for the jokes section of this article is fading and the supposed reasons for the section are holding on for dear life.

If, as you suggest, the viola joke section is based on the idea that they are more prominant than other jokes, and that this was the reason for the section, then it should most certainly be deleted. Thursday, August 3, 2006.

Please sign your posts with a name, thanks. Otherwise it's hard to keep track of what you've said.

I'm not disputing your personal experience, and I apologize if you were offended by anything I typed. It was never my intention to be rude! :) J Lorraine 12:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV II

In fact, if someone says that a violist is less competent than any other musician, they are only repeating a centuries old myth. In fact, one could tell them to "get with the times", rather than just telling each other old instument jokes.

This paragraph looked awfully defensive to violists, so I removed it. Frosty 22:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bow length

Because the sounding point is further from the body, less bow length is useful to a viola player of average build. In other words, any given player will use less length of bow on a viola than a violin, so bows are built accordingly. All the full-size bows I can get my hands on at the moment confirm this, as well as Strobel's Useful Measurements for Violin Makers. __ Just plain Bill 16:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Viola bows have the same size as violin bows...

The Strobel reference hasn't changed, but I was just holding two "full-sized" bows, and the viola bow is a solid cm longer than the violin bow. The viola frog is a bit more massive than the violin one, about 0,6 mm wider at it's widest face, by the shell slide. Not sure what to do with this info... Just plain Bill 16:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Better to leave length out of it. More variable than violin bows, some viola bows are longer, some shorter. Cello bows and French style bass bows are shorter than viola bows. [2] __Just plain Bill (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV edits and vandalism

There are some IPs (they all start with 21-something) who keep making pro-violist POV edits to the "Jokes" section (like this, this, this, and this) and vandalizes the page (like this. What do I do with them? --Frosty ^(sup?) 12:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The vandalism IP is from a different country than the others, so it's probably not related to the viola-joke edits. It's a POV issue, not a vandalism issue. — Miles←☎ 14:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What should I do with the POV IPs? Frosty ^(sup?) 17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but you're right, the "pro-viola" edits are just as NON-encyclopedic as any anti-viola edits for the jokes section. The whole "jokes section is non-encyclopedic (IMHO -- but see above for discussion on keeping it in the article as it is). I reverted it back to the short paragraph and two examples which are 1) informative and 2)not particularly defensive nor particularly offensive. J Lorraine 04:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] jokes section

Can the "jokes" section be removed altogether? -- FrostytheSnowman ^('sup?) 00:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes! --Quadalpha 03:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hooray! Finally!! Guys, well done!!!211.27.194.16 14:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming into this discussion late, but I believe I wrote the first version of the now-deleted jokes section, last year sometime (it was very short when I wrote it) and I think its loss is a real one. I play and love the viola, and certainly wouldn't want to give the jokes too much emphasis. The section should be short and down towards the bottom of the article. But lore is a category of knowledge, and viola jokes are a real phenomenon, which people interested in the viola might well be want to know about. Deleting the section seems like insecurity, not a way to improve knowledge. I won't add it back in again, because that would an "edit war," but I strongly think that Wikipedia should be about giving people more, not less, information. Mschlanger 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

- Perhaps the jokes could be their own article. My viola teacher has shared many a viola joke with me. I can surely relate to the one: How do you get a violist to play down bow spiccato? Write "solo" above a whole note. That was me to a "T" (and sometimes it still is). I also like the musician joke: definition of a string quartet: a good violinist, a bad violinist, an ex-violinist, and someone who hates violins. Ahh, what a loss in anyones education to miss good jokes like these. (and to misquote Mary Poppins, "that was nothing like a good joke.") debcallico/Utah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.219.39 (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sound of Viola Ambiguity

In the second paragraph, the sentence "However, the viola's timbre sets it apart: its rich sonority is more full-bodied than the violin's, dark-toned and earthy." is a little unclear. It's a little confusing whether the Violin's sound is dark-toned and earthy or if it continues describing the Viola. I'm editing it so that it says "than the violin's dark-toned, earthy sound" for better readability.

It's rather a nitpick, I won't be offended if it's changed back or made into something better. It may be a minor edit, but I'm afraid that the sentence does mean 'viola's dark-toned and earthy'. I just want it to be reviewed to make sure it's correct. FrankieVA 22:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's supposed to mean that. The viola sound is darker-toned and earthier than a violin's, at least the way I hear it. __Just plain Bill 04:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It's not just a matter of range or tessitura. The same phrase on the G, D and A strings of either instrument will sound more full-bodied (talking about "body" in the sense of a singer's instrument here) on the viola, yes? Just plain Bill

[edit] List of "well-known" players.

I have pruned this list. Many of the names appeared to be there either because they were someone's favourite player, or the editor thought that if they deserved a page in Wikipedia, then they must deserve a mention in the list too. As a result it was becoming ludicrously long, as such lists have a tendency to do.

The important words here are "well-known". This does have the advantage of being amenable to the objective test of a simple google search of "+<name> +viola". Sorry if anyone thinks that's too crude and unmusical, but it's relative notability that is at issue here, not musicianship. Anyone who is upset by the removal of their favourite, please feel free to discuss it here. --Stephen Burnett 10:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the list was too long, but the objective test of a simple google search?? That is hilarious. I hope you don't take google ranks or hits as a measure for popularity, or as a measure for anything. According to your objective source, the most popular 'total idiot' is a certain G.W.Bush. I would say the number of compact discs recorded is a better parameter for popularity than the results in a search engine that sells its rankings.--Dr. Friendly 22:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the number of google hits doesn't always correlate with notability, expecially when the subject is a highly visible target for a google bombing campaign. But violists? I doubt that it's worth anyone's time to inflate a bratsche-player's standing like that. The google method is useful for ruling out the name of a high-school section player, for an extreme example. __Just plain Bill 02:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If theres 10 in the list or 20 pick 5, or pick 6, and eliminate the least notable. Google, notability, whether they are mentioned in viola schools and widely recognized as examples, maybe 1 russian 1 american 1 chinese 1 indian 1 latin american 1 european 1 african example for instance.71.142.91.34 12:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should all add our names so we can be famous too (lol).debcallico/ut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.219.39 (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New viola design

I believe this new viola design, with larger body size for resonation of the lower tones, should be mentioned. Don Ehrlich of San Francisco has just released a CD of the Bach Cello Suites on this instrument, here. Badagnani 04:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is currently mentioned in the third paragraph of the section called "form of the viola", along with several other designs which address ergonomic issues. J Lorraine 02:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electric viola section: WP:CB?

No way to put this gently, but the first paragraph of the electric viola section as it now stands is a load of um, nonsense. While electric violas do exist, they are rare, usually custom built, and not the same size as a violin. John Jordan, Ned Steinberger, Jensen, or someone like that will build you an e-viola, either to "standard" dimensions, a 16.5" viola for example, or to your own specification. Instruments exist with the scale length of a violin, with strings going down to C, F, or B flat, and they are called "violins," "e-violins," or "electric violins."

I'm thinking of deleting this section entirely. __Just plain Bill 15:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the stuff about violin-sized so-called electric violas is just plain wrong. To quote from www.zetamusic.com ....

"Zeta’s Modern Body design employs simplified yet elegant contemporary lines. Extreme waist cutaways and a highly sculpted back relief create a lightweight solid body design. With the key reference dimensions of a traditional acoustic viola, the Modern viola body maintains the positional cues so important for familiarity of feel and proper intonation."

Quite so - if you're used to playing a viola, why on earth would you want to go to a violin-sized instrument, with all the re-learning of fingering and vibrato which that would entail? --Stephen Burnett 18:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Viola societies

Viola societies such as the American Viola Society http://www.americanviolasociety.org/ as well as any other prominent ones should be mentioned in the article. Badagnani 19:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fractional violin strung as viola

I notice there is a fact tag from Feb '08 on this sentence: "Often, a fractional-sized violin will be strung with the strings of a viola (C, G, D and A) for those children who need even smaller sizes."

I don't think we should be too hasty to lose this sentence. It is an indisputable fact. When I was helping maintain a rental fleet, that's exactly how we "created" violas in smaller sizes. The smallest true viola I've seen has a 12" body. In some cases, I've seen a similar job done with a half-size violin strung as a viola. I have no clue where to find a reference to cite for this; who bothers to write this kind of stuff down, anyway? __Just plain Bill (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)