Talk:Violin

---

Archives
1 2 3

There is a difference

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

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

Well, I don't know where you're from, but that's just not true; even Itzak Perlman (you've heard of him, haven't you?) sometimes refers to himself as a "fiddler". What you believe is actually just a canard, one that certain conservative "classical" practicioners like to perpetuate. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the styles of music designated (roughly) as fiddle tunes and as classical music, and maybe the connotation of 'fiddler' is different from 'violinist' for that reason. But the denotation is quite equivalent, I think. J Lorraine 07:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That's much better put, and the connotation vs. denotation distinction is worth noting. It's a matter of context: obviously, no symphony orchestra is going to list its fiddle players in the program notes as "fiddlers": they're called violinists. Likewise, a violinist playing on a folk album is most likely going to be identified as a "fiddler". +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Just plain Bill 09:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

oops, left out the following:

• performers overwhelmingly use standard Italian GDAE tuning
• performers spend a fair amount of time in scordatura, or nonstandard "cross-tuning."

Just plain Bill 14:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. I am Irish and Scottish and in our culture, a "fiddle" is simply a violin that is used to play music of a certain genre, such as Irish Rebel music or Irish jigs, reels, etc. There is no such thing as an separate instrument from the violin that is called a fiddle. It is all about the style of music that is played. If one plays Classical music, then it is a violin; if you are playing Flogging Molly's "What's Left of the Flag," then it is a fiddle. Slainte! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suki561Fu (talk • contribs) 14:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Violin is Sometimes called a Fiddle when in celtic or county music otherwise it is a violin. The same goes with the name of the person playing it.--SJ3000 (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2008 (GMT)

I find the above comments bizarre to say the least. They also reflect a fair amount of musical snobbery. Which of the catargories of music you like to pigeon-hole things into has more emphasis on emotion and which on rhythm? In my experience, those who like exclusively so-called folk snottishly insist on calling it a fiddle. Those who likewise think they like so-called classical snottishly call it a violin, ignoring that period players (predominantly baroque)also call it a fiddle. Those of us who just like music refuse to get involved in this pointless argument and call the thing arthur. I realise the irony that I have got involved in this pointless argument & now need to bathe in a bath of logic. Free the Squid Six! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.120.9 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bring to featured article status

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

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

Bass is not part of the violin family

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

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

There is a difference!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash12158 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA

Reading through the article, I spot several mainly stylistic issues:

• The lead is too short for an article of this length, and doesn't summarise the article adequately (no mention of the violin's history etc.)
• "The word "violin" comes to us through the" sounds informal; "originates" suffices.
• "this word may also be the source of the Germanic "fiddle". OR? I don't see a source cited for this.
• In the history section, "middle east" should be capitalized (what does rebab have do with things? It's not clear)
• I'd the move the list of famous luthiers to the luthier article; a bulleted list doesn't flow in a section of prose.
• Several uncited remarks, such as " But these instruments in their present condition set the standard for perfection in violin craftsmanship and sound, and violin makers all over the world try to come as close to this ideal as possible."
• I've spotted a number of one or two-line paragraphs; you should expand or merge these, as they don't flow too well. The "Popular music" section is an example of this.
• "don't" should be "do not"; more formal.
• The web references should include access dates (take a look at {{cite web}})
• The further reading section needs trimming; 20 is a little too much.

Because much of the prose and lead will have to be expanded, I've failed this article's GA candidacy. If you wish to disagree with or wish to clarify any of my points, feel free to contact me on my talk page. CloudNine 09:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Pernambuco vs. brazilwood

I'm directing this Just plain Bill's way, as this seems to be the kind of thing he enjoys puzzling out. Currently, the article is at odds with another article here (surprise, surprise). This article says

The stick is traditionally made of brazilwood, although a stick made from this type of wood which is of a more select quality (and higher price) is referred to as pernambuco (both types are taken from the same tree species).

while the article on brazilwood begs to differ:

"Pernambuco" and "Brazilwood" as used in the stringed instruments bows come from completely different species, contrary to some popular belief.

(the article goes on to name several species that are called brazilwood when bows are made of them).

So which is correct? I really have no idea myself. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Like a lot of folks, it seems, I've "always" thought that pau brasil was the Pernambuco tree, and the heartwood called "pernambuco" while lesser wood from the same tree was called Brazil wood. I do know from personal experience that pernambuco is a hard, bright orange wood, and getting its sanding dust in one's nose will lead to fascinating purple stains on the tissues. I carry a scar on my septum, possibly from this exposure. Oops, TMI, sorry ;-) Give me some time to do a bit of research... __Just plain Bill 13:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Is a double stop a chord, or only part of one?

In my unscholarly view it is a chord spelled with only two notes. Someone can probably find a theoretical tome that says different. Not invested either way here, but discussion might be useful. __Just plain Bill (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own article about chords ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_(music) ) specifies they must contain at least 3 notes, so I would suggest a correction too. Posted 14:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.194.194 (talk)

"Specifies" seems like too strong a term here. That chord article says that experts do not all agree that a chord must have at least three notes. Similar disagreements exist about whether a power chord is really a chord or a dyad or an interval. In the context of solo fiddling, a double stop certainly suggests a chord, although which particular chord is often ambiguous. Power chords are neither major nor minor, and a third or a sixth may suggest different chords; for example, E and G together may be part of a C major or an E minor chord. Dominant seventh chords may be suggested by playing the tritone betweent the third and flat seventh, and so on... If they are used as chords, and sound like chords, why not call them chords? __Just plain Bill (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Tuning

From Tuning: "Another prevalent tuning with these intervals is F-Bb-F-Bb, which corresponds to Sa-Pa-Sa-Pa in the Indian carnatic classical music style. In the North Indian "Hindustani" style, the tuning is usually Pa-Sa-Pa-Sa instead of Sa-Pa-Sa-Pa. This could correspond to Bb-F-Bb-F, for instance." Sa-Pa would be the interval of a fifth, whereas F-Bb is a fourth. Someone correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.138.100.143 (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Violinist redirect to Violin?

A request has been made to move Violinist to Violinist (disambiguation), in order to then make Violinist a redirect to Violin. See Talk:Violinist#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

New Wikiproject

I have started a new wikiproject, WikiProject Stringed Instruments. I am looking for 2 other coordinators to help it get started. Apply on my talk page by answering the following questions.

1. Edit count, how long you have been active on Wikipedia.

2. How often you edit string-related articles. (Scale of 1-10)

3. What you hope to accomplish if made coordinator.

Please post by March 1, 2009.

ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 19:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

I have great doubts about the third paragraph of the "Classical music" section, and this last sentence in particular:

"This ability is at its finest in the string quartet literature where seamless changes from key to key and chord to chord create a kind of perfect harmonic world where even thirds ring with full resonance."

The fineness of the string quartet is something I've heard plenty of people say. But does "seamless changes from key to key and chord to chord" say anything? I thought all music was supposed to have changes of keys and chords. And "perfect harmonic world"? What are thirds? And why do they ring with less than full resonance in other types of music? I'm almost certainly missing something here, so hopefully someone (preferably a violinist) can enlighten me. Willi Gers07 (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm more of a fiddler than a violinist, but here goes: thirds are a musical interval, and can be justly tuned (that's the "perfect harmonic world" bit) in a small group of instruments with infinitely variable pitch. The system of equal temperament does not render thirds very well, mistuning them by an audible amount. __Just plain Bill (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Bill, you are also a violinist as well as a fiddler. They're just different names for the same thing. Stop being such a snob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.120.9 (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hogwash. My violinning chops are scant to nonexistent, and I don't mind admitting it. I do like the sound of clear true strong intonation, where performers put their notes exactly where they want them. Violinists and fiddlers, and for that matter, decent pub singers, can all do that, if they are any good. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill, after reading this page I see that you really do know your stuff, and hence if you want to solely be referred to as fiddler that's up to you. It just annoys me when people ask what I am, whichever I say, people have pre-conceptions, with all the baggage that goes with whatever name I give. Also, anyone who uses the word "hogwash" deserves a pint. Also also, I wondered why fiddle and violin had separate pages, till I read them. Makes sense, I suppose. Does anybody know how to use the signature thing?--90.203.120.41 (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back! Some violinists can fiddle, and vice versa of course, and after I get you your pint I'll show you how I once heard a violinist play "Old Joe Clark."

To this day I do not know if she was having some fun with us, or whether she actually thought it was meant to be played square and forthright, as shown by the notes in the book. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Bill, I've moved to your talk page, seems this was getting a bit irrelevant to the article.--SquidSix (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I read the interval article you mentioned, and I even figured out how to play some thirds on the piano. Still, it seems to me like thirds are an interval that occurs in almost all music today, not just string quartet music, and so that paragraph in the article is just saying a bunch of generic stuff that applies to a lot of instruments. Willi Gers07 (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, thirds on a piano are out of tune, which is the point. See Chamber_music#Intonation. Take C as one example. In an A minor scale it's the third, but sounds flat compared to a justly tuned minor third. In an A flat major scale, it's also the third, but sounds too sharp. Violin family instruments (and lots of others) can make that adjustment on the fly, but piano tuning has to be compromised so it somewhat works in all keys without constant time-consuming retuning. In a small group such as a quartet, the players can each hear the others well enough to stay in tune as a group at any given moment. Whether they do that, or not, depends on their skill as musicians. __Just plain Bill (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the {{fact}} tag off the "can play in any pitch" statement, and slightly reworded it. I have a sketchy reference to "expressive intonation" in Simon Fischer's Basics (ISBN 1-901507-00-9) in a sidebar on p. 198, where he mentions the term being associated with Pablo Casals. The language in that third paragraph may be overly flowery, but the gist of it is totally defensible. Stay tuned... __Just plain Bill (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe I know what the original author of that passage was trying to say, but it's coming through in a rather un-Wikipedia style, to put it mildly. Bill is right about how intervals are played in a group of strings; in fact, the same is true in any group of non-fretted, non-keyboard instruments. You can hear the same in vocal ensembles, wind quintets, and other groups. When you are playing violin in a quartet -- I'm speaking from experience here -- you are always unconsciously tuning your intervals with the other players so the thirds and fifths are as pure as is consistent with staying generally on pitch. (Add a piano to the mix and it becomes more complicated; I recall a passage in the Brahms piano quintet where the strings, playing unaccompanied, move around the circle of fifths through some enharmonic changes, and if they don't plan in advance, when the piano comes back in, it is off by a Pythagorean comma.) When a good quartet plays a triad, it aims for a perfect 3:4:5 sonority, and when done right it rings -- listen to the Emerson Quartet playing any slow movement from Beethoven. String players just learn to play in tune and that does not always mean "equal temperament" in-tune. Antandrus (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I've been fiddling for 12 years, but mainly with a piano, so I can play in tune, but playing in a quartet must be quite tricky. Wunt mind trying, though. What you said about the Brahms sounds particularly intriguing.--90.203.120.41 (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC) By the way, I still can't get this signature to work.

Range

The image for the playing range of the violin is incorrect, and I think it should be deleted because the range of the violin is already stated the "Range" section. However, the range stated in the "Range" section is also incorrect, because the violin can play beyond C8. --Number Googol (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The image is in the infobox, which provides a handy summary at the top of the article, in a format sort of consistent with other instruments' infoboxen. In light of that, redundancy is no crime.

As far as possible range goes (compared to commonly used range) for all I know, it could reach the inaudible range of a Fledermaus echolocation squeak. Pretty well guaranteed that no one writes for the violin in that range, and no one plays there on purpose. Need someone knowledgeable to chime in about that. __Just plain Bill (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

When one plays the violin that high, all one hears is the friction of the bow against the string. I don't think it is "pretty well guaranteed" that no one writes in that range. But I am quite sure some composers will write in that range. --Number Googol (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You are saying someone may have written, and definitely will write for the violin, notes at a frequency of up to 100 kHz? That's a real stretch, to put it politely. I'm all ears if you have some specifics to share about that, though. __Just plain Bill (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably not that high, but somewhere around 50 kHz, maybe. That is still significantly higher than what is shown in the infobox. --Number Googol (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Particulars, please... 50 kHz would be about G11, and not audible by human ears, not even close. With a normal violin, how is the player supposed to know what note they are playing? __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I estimated G11 on my violin and it is barely playable without harmonics - just enough for one hair on the bow to fit in. But I don't know whether I am playing G11, D11, E♭11, or even G10, etc. The player does not need to know what note he/she is playing - there is no use, since human ears can't hear the pitch, and all one hears is friction "noise". --Number Googol (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Then it is noise, not a note. There are indeterminate-pitch techniques involving chopping near the frog, that can be really effective when well done, but they are mostly learned and performed without written notes and, well, there is that indeterminate pitch thing going on. Are you seriously proposing to change the infobox? Gonna need to cite reliable sources for that. __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at my comment below (below Antandrus's comment) and see what you think. --Number Googol (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What I think is not necessarily the best basis for the encyclopedia page, but since you ask, I think the infobox should keep "Playing range" as it now stands. To me, going higher than that is better described as "Fooling-around range," until commonly accepted performance standards say otherwise. I'm all in favor of expanding the universe of violin technique; that "chopping" thing seems to have started up around the turn of our new century, for example. The time to make this change will be when reliable sources start talking about violinists playing above G7, playing there, not just reaching up there once in a while as a trick, and playing there in front of people who want to hear it. Not now, in my opinion... __Just plain Bill (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I personally composed a viola piece that I myself performed that went up to E8. But after all, I guess the range in the infobox should remain unchanged, for now. --Number Googol (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A commonly-cited upper practical limit for most purposes is E7, two octaves above the open E string. I've seen G7 in the first violin part in orchestral music -- it appears in Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet and also Strauss's Death and Transfiguration. A7 is probably the highest commonly-encountered artificial harmonic, but of course it is possible to play higher than that. At least one orchestration book I have gives G7 as the "top" note. "Upper practical limit" of course is a matter of opinion, but if I polled all the orchestration/instrumentation books I've got it would probably be E7 or G7. Antandrus (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the problem is in the title ("Playing range"), which implies that it is the possible range on the violin. I think the section should be called "Commonly used range" instead. --Number Googol (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Naming A Violin (Or any other instrument)

Hi. Forgive me if this doesn't show up right, as I literally just created my account and have no clue how this works, but i have a question. It's not as important as an argument between the differences of a Violinist and Fiddler, but I would really like to know... I have heard of people naming their instruments, whether it be after a beloved grandmother, or even a Greek God. So i was wondering...Why? Is it some sort of tradition, superstition,? I have looked for anything on the web to give me a clue, but no cigar. Any info out there for me?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle21 318 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is just something some people do (and some don't), pretty much a personal thing, as far as I can tell. There is a thread about it on fiddleforum, but it's in a section you need to register to see. (Registration is free, and the site won't spam you.) __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly -- some people do, many don't. When you play for many, many years, you develop a relationship with your instrument; you depend on it, and it seems curiously "alive." Hard to explain to a non-musician perhaps. My violin is over 200 years old, and that sound it makes has a voice full of history, and deserving of a name. (None of this belongs in the article -- it's just a rather personal response to your query, in the spirit of being helpful.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The school of Cremona, beginning in the half of 16 century vith violas and violone

From context, this should be the first half of the sixteenth century, but could someone who knows please fix this? Thanks. (fotoguzzi)