From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Cello was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Musical Instruments (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Arts.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

New subhead for ponticello & tasto[edit]

The new subhead shares some redundant text with the tone production paragraph above it, but redundancy in technical writing is no crime, since a casual reader who misses the info in one place may catch it in the other. Does it need fixing? __Just plain Bill (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


I archived the old discussion. See the archive box at the top right of the page. Magicpiano (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The playing range picture[edit]

The cello can go a lot higher than a high D, but it goes up above first position. The picture wouldn't even be correct in first position. In first position you can go one note higher than a C (the note shown as highest in the image), up to a D. Then you'd go into half position, third, etc. moocowsruletalk to moo 01:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like the picture shows the top of the range at 3 octaves above A440... there's a treble clef there, and a 15va sign... __Just plain Bill (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
XD I feel stupid. For some reason I didn't see the treble clef there, and thought that was a C on the bass clef... moocowsruletalk to moo 04:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, you made me go figure for a second or two, so all is not lost ;D __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Urgh... and now it's my turn to feel ignorant-- I just mis-spelled 15ma up there. I'm willing to deny that's a grievous error, though, and call it a minor lapse. Carry on... __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The highest note on the cello is actually the E a fifth above the A shown in the current playing range picture--Faerlys (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The playing range picture has two notes for the top note. Why is this?
Also, both notes are incorrect, one being too low, the other too high. The C above 880A (i.e., two ledger lines above the treble clef) is rather common in intermediate/advanced work. The A above that (1760A) can be played -- there is no "highest note" on the cello, or on any string instrument, since you can play right up to the bridge -- but notes above where the fingerboard ends don't sound too good and so are rarely called for. On most cellos the fingerboard ends at around G, four ledger lines above the treble clef (just below 1760A). (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)captcrisis
One is a harmonic. Hyacinth (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

How about someone simply put the Name of the highest note, and the range, perhaps in standard English, as it is still using Notes. Many people today use instruments that do not use sheet music. -Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep it encyclopedic : playing details?[edit]

I would take out the sections on playing specifics - stacatto etc. This section reads like a list written by an excited student and isn't cited. Spanglej (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it is "encyclopedic" (whatever that means). Most of it can be cited by reference to a cello method book, but the article still wouldn't cross into making Wikipedia a "how-to" manual (one of those WP:NOTs many people here love to duckspeak). But this would: "When playing quadruple stops, first hold the bow at x angle, and while rolling the shoulder..." etc. Willi Gers07 (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The article is too long and most of this is tangential to Cello. I have split the material into Playing the cello which compliments Playing the violin. -—Kvng 02:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

New Wikiproject[edit]

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.

edMarkViolinistDrop me a line 19:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Two "History" sections?[edit]

Is that an editing goof, or are there supposed to be two separate History sections (one near the top of the article and another one several paragraphs down)? Should they be merged? Galseven (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a goof; when the history of bowed instruments was added, it should have been merged with the other history section. I combined the two sections, but it feels a little clunky. How important do you think it is to have the general history of bowed instruments here? Should this article focus on just the history of the cello, or is that earlier history important for context? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Also - the reference to the Byzantine Age is not just inaccurate; it's completely wrong. The Lyre pre-dates Byzantinium by about 2000 years - as shon in the history of the lyre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickschuyler (talkcontribs) 17:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Cello" or "Violoncello"?[edit]

Sounds like a silly argument but it does matter. I strongly disagre with the idea that "Violoncello is not obsolete in enligsh usage." Thats just not true. Violoncello is used all the time as a borrowed word. "Cello" is very much an informal usage of "Violoncello" that has made its way into common language. Be that as it may, its technically incorrect to say that "Cello" is the proper name for the instrument because its not. I think it should be either revised to show "Violoncello" as the instrument's primary name, or at least as a secondary name equal to "cello". Justin Tokke (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

See [1], [2] and [3], which demonstrate that cello is far from an informal usage. I agree that saying "violoncello is obsolete" overstates the case, because it is indeed used in various contexts. (Btw, I think you meant to say I strongly disagree with the idea that "Violoncello is not obsolete in English usage.") But that doesn't deny cello's right to be used as the primary word for the instrument, regardless of the fact that it was orignally an abbreviation for "violoncello". It's rare to see that even acknowledged any more by way of a leading apostrophe – 'cello. That means that it's been fully accepted as a word and that it is no longer considered an abbreviation. Nobody insists on changing our piano article to pianoforte, so why hold out for violoncello? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
JackofOz, I see that you're the one who originally added the phrase about it being obsolete, but it sounds like you're willing to back off that strong claim now. Would you be OK with simply removing that clause and saying simply, "The word derives from the Italian violoncello" and ending the sentence there? Justin, I disagree with the idea that cello is informal or not the primary name, but we can acknowledge that violoncello is still in use. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm more than happy to do that. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thats ok with me. On second thought it isn't only informal usage for sure. I'm just saying, Violoncello certainly hasn't died out yet and they can both be used interchangably.Justin Tokke (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, Justin. If I read "Concerto for violoncello and orchestra", I'd know exactly what they're talking about. It's just that the shorter form "cello" has become fully accepted, and has replaced the longer form as the standard, normal way of referring to the instrument, including in most (virtually all, probably) formal contexts. But sure, "violoncello" has not died out as I erroneously tried to claim. But it's considered as old hat as "pianoforte" is. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I was startled when I discovered that the Wikipedia article for this instrument was under "cello". It's true that "cello" is far more common in conversational usage, but in printed scores, it's almost scarce as hen's teeth. Scores tend to use "violoncello". Saying that it's the same as the case for "pianoforte" would require some evidence. While similar, I'd say its not identical by any means. It's my impression that the formal name is, to this day, "violoncello", and "cello" is simply an informal shorthand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Museslave (talkcontribs) 07:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
This institution and many others would disagree with you; although, I acknowledge that some institutions use "violoncello". Many orchestral scores still use "violoncello"; but then, many of then use Italian names for the instruments, even where the publication is written in English in all other respects. The Italians still use the full name, as is their right. In program notes for symphony concerts, you'll still see overly-formal titles of works, such as "Tchaikovsky: Concerto No. 1 in B flat minor for Pianoforte and Orchestra", or "Elgar: Concerto in E minor for Violoncello and Orchestra", etc. But they are much more commonly referred to by the shortened names of the instruments - Piano Concerto No. 1 (Tchaikovsky) and Cello Concerto (Elgar). You'll look in vain in the latter article, or in Cello Concerto (Dvořák), for any mention of the word "violoncello". My summary of all this is that, while "violoncello" has definitely not died out, its shorter form "cello" is fully accepted as a legitimate English word, it is not even considered an abbreviation any more, it is by far the more predominant version, and it has become, like it or not, the primary name for the instrument. Who ever heard of the "Bach Violoncello Suites"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say it does not matter what the article is called. Cello is the same thing as a violoncello, just like the sax and the saxophone. Saxophone is the the name of the wiki article but right after the name of the article, it says, "(also referred to as the sax)". The cello used to be called violoncello, but now the accepted name by most Americans/English people is cello. I think that right after cello it should say "(also referred to as the violoncello)". D.anderson1988 (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to add in my two cents 3 years later, I agree with D.anderson1988. At first I was actually surprised that the Wikipedia article for this instrument was officially "Cello", not "Violoncello", since "violoncello" is the formal and full name of the instrument. That said, I agree that "cello" is a legitimate, accepted, and recognized word, not just an abbreviation - and if you look at similar articles, "piano" is the word used for the article of the instrument formally known as the pianoforte. Stara729 (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In conversation, which is informal, I always say "cello", but in a score I always write, "vc.", which stands for violoncello of course, and off the top of my head I don't know any other abbreviation. On the first system of a score one is obliged to write the full name of the instruments, and for consistency's sake (since I'm abbreviating it as vc.) I always write violoncello. The latter may not be current standard practice--I'll check some scores and then report if I remember--, but it's certainly not my impression that cello has replaced violoncello in formal usage. My impression is that in formal usage both are current, but one is more likely in some formal contexts and the other more likely in other formal contexts. Informally, it's almost always cello. TheScotch (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Better Description?[edit]

The description, in my opinion, could be much more...well, descriptive. I see no mention of the different parts of the cello, e.g. the head, neck, bridge, and whatever the thing at the bottom of the strings is (I'm teaching myself, so I have no idea). Also, the last paragraph is about music for the cello, and has nothing to do with the description of the cello. I would change things myself, but as I said I'm not professionally taught so I don't know all the names for the cello's parts, and I'm not much of a Wikipedia guru, so I'll leave that last part up to them. Darktangent (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be no mention of electric cellos. Any stringed instrument can have the vibrations of its strings amplified, sustained, or distorted. There seems to be a POV and neutrality problem with most of the article as it is written. (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Deliberately mis-tuning a cello[edit]

Some guitar players deliberately mis-tune their guitars, perhaps by duplicating a particular string at a particular note. This lets them perfect a musical style that is unique to themselves, and difficult for other performers to emulate.

What about cellos?

Does the same thing ever happen with cello players, where a cellist deliberately removes a string (actually taking it off the cello) and replaces it with a string of his own choosing, and tuned to a particular note (being a huge departure from what would otherwise be expected, and making it impossible for any but the true owner to use, short of replacing the string and retuning it)? I heard that cellists who ply their trade in a high crime neighborhood can more easily identify their cello as the one with a particular string of a particular color, tuned to a particular note that is wildly out of order. (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't really for this sort of discussion. You may wish to try asking this at our reference desk. → ROUX  14:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The main article could be improved by listing the ways a cello can be modified, and naming those illustrious cello players who went ahead and modified them. (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
If the information comes from a reliable source, and is reasonably notable, then by all means include it. → ROUX  22:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Searching for: cello scordatura -bach -encyclopedia -wiki*
turns up some hits, such as this one. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
They are called alternate tunings and have been in use for centuries........Coal town guy (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
One of the 6 Back Solo suites does call for it, I would need to crack open my copy on the shelf, I think its #2 or 3, I cant recall yetCoal town guy (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


I wonder about wording in this article as inspired ... dozens of composers and think dates would be more helpful than terms as "recently" or "currently". I appreciate Mstislav Rostropovich highly and loved to hear him play at the Rheingau Musik Festival (Rheingau Musik Festival (German)) but think one link in the article is enough. I don't dare to judge if Julian Lloyd Webber - pictured! - really belongs in the same category as Rostropovitch, Gregor Piatigorsky and Siegfried Palm.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


I'm going to half of the stuff like staccato. It would be nice if some one can finish the rest - Edude —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edude7 (talkcontribs) 17:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What? Hyacinth (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

History Section: Violin or Viol family[edit]

There is a discrepancy between the cello article and the violin family article. The cello article states that the cello is in the viol (gambas) family, whereas the violin family article states that the cello is in the violin (braccio) family. I don't know which is correct, but one needs to be changed for continuity sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Image in "Strings" section[edit]

Regarding this diff, I got this message on my talk page:

My photo contribution shows people where to put the bow on the string. I would appreciate it if you did not delete it again. I am a cello teacher, and a lot of students do not know where to place it. The other picture on there is incorrect on where to put the bow. I did not delete it because that was not its purpose, it's purpose was for showing you where to put your fingers. I am a contributer. I see that you delete a lot of nonsense, but I consider this a contribution. I hope you understand. D.anderson1988 (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
First, I believe the image is misplaced at the "Strings" heading. Some similar image might be relevant at "Right hand technique," but more importantly:
I do not think that the image in question shows bow placement on the string very well. The bow does not appear to be perpendicular to the strings, and is tending toward a placement sul tasto instead of a more generally useful sounding point.
I will wait a day or two before removing the image again. Please comment. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The bow placement will be slightly different on every cello. I was playing a song when the photographer shot the photos, so I don't know exactly which part I was in, but I was probably in a more soft part, and moved my bow for a soft tone. I assume when you took cello lessons (or violin or viola), you would often play above the finger board. Most people do this. Some, but few, will play to close to the bridge, as the other pictures shows. My picture shows where it is supposed to be. My cello is tilted, and that is why the bow and strings are not perpendicular. You can argue with me about how small of a thing it is, but it is a contribution. That is why Wikipedia can be edited, to contribute. It was in a bad spot, so I have moved it. Explain how it is hurting the cello page. D.anderson1988 (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
This picture
If you put yourself in the place of a new cello student, does the picture look like it shows anything clearly about "good" bow placement?
"It does not do any harm." is not a very good argument for keeping something. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It does help new students. And about the "It does not do any harm" statement; what is the point of deleting it, if it has no harm, and is not cluttering the page, as some might think of it as useful? (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Helps new students? How? What is the benefit of having an unclear picture showing a crooked bow placement? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It is better then the one on there right now. It should be kept until you, me, or someone else puts a better one on there. So go ahead and put a better one on there; and if you do, I will accept it and go on. (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


The other picture

How is it "better"? Which other picture are you talking about? Particulars will be more persuasive than simply stated general opinions here. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The bow is more towards the middle in my picture. The picture I was referring to is the one that has the caption "A cello French bow held with the palm facing down". I've already looked for pictures with better bow placement online, but they are all copyrighted. (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Middle of the bow? You mean nobody should start a bow stroke at the frog or tip? Nothing wrong with the placement in the other picture— looks like the start of a slow downbow on the A string, with heavy weight and close to the bridge. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The middle meaning between the bridge and the finger board. If you played with the bow that close to the bridge, it would scratchy. My bow is placed between the bridge and finger board where I normally start my students. A far as MB, UH, or LH, I was playing a song, so I was in the middle of a bow movement. (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Where I come from, that is called the "sounding point," where the hair meets the string.
Won't be scratchy on the A string there if the attack is confident, the bow speed low, and plenty of weight applied. I don't usually play that close to the bridge, but almost, when I want to make the most of a single bow, and get a clear tone. Not scratchy.
I hope you do teach your students to bow parallel to the bridge, square to the string. The picture does not show that; it shows a crooked bow. I doubt all of that can be blamed on camera angle, and even if it could, wouldn't it be better to use a picture which more clearly showed good technique? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Did I not just say, you can post a better picture if you want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Does that mean we should keep a so-so picture? Looks like you have got the resources to put up a better one yourself. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I just removed it. Here is a better one, but it is a posed shot, and shows the hair flat on the string, or very nearly so. I would prefer to see it at a more realistic angle. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I found this Picture
Sul tasto
, and have added it to the article. The original picture showed my face, so I took that out, and was color, but the cello had a little bit of glare, so I made it bw to take out the glare. I believe this pictures serves it purpose. Do you agree? D.anderson1988 (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That is a better picture, as far as square to the strings goes. I call that sul tasto, and typically keep my neutral sounding point more like 2/3 of the way from FB to bridge. My first cello lessons, in a previous century ;-) came from a world-class principal cellist, who kept after me to get closer to the bridge. (That "other picture" shows an extreme example of that, as mentioned earlier.)

There isn't really one "proper" sounding point, in my experience. It will vary according to what the player intends to accomplish. (almost wrote "trying to accomplish," but in the words of a wise master, "There is no try. There is do, or not do.") You will see how I edited the caption in the article itself. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In my student cellist years, I had the opposite problem; however, My students do play closer to the fb then then the bridge most of the time. Thank you for editing my caption instead of deleting it.D.anderson1988 (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Can some one tell me how else your palm will face when playing with a french bow on the cello?????Coal town guy (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


I've seen "cello" pluralized as "celli". The article uses "cellos". Is cellos preferred? Joefromrandb (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. While the lead paragraph shows the "plural cellos or celli," previous discussion, now archived, has favored "cellos" as the English plural. As one editor put it, when ordering more than one pizza, do you ask for several pizze? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Of six dictionaries consulted, only one, Merriam-Webster, lists "celli", and even then it's the second option. The other five—American Heritage, Collins, Oxford American, Oxford Concise, and Random House—don't list it at all. Fwiw, I have encountered "celli" too, but only infrequently. Rivertorch (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I played in an orchestra with a conductor who always said celli, and I always considered him to be oozing affectation (in this regard). It's possible he was trying to be funny, though. In any case, this is an English article, and it should use cellos. TheScotch (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


There is a reference tag that begins the "Playing Technique" section. The tag is three years old. This looks like a fine article, and that tag is just plain ugly. The article seems to be amply sourced; unless someone is questioning the validity of the information in that section (three years later) can we remove the tag? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Better not. There appears to be exactly one ref in that very long section. Most or all of the content looks valid and verifiable, though, and it ought to be sourceable for anyone with the right books or easy access to good reference material. (I, unfortunately, have neither, although I'm willing to poke around a bit and see what I can find.) As ugly as that tag is, it's preferable to several dozen inline "citation needed" tags, and those monstrosities might start popping up if you remove the big template. Rivertorch (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


Is there any reason the sound files for the stops are MIDI? That doesn't really help anyone except for the sounds of major and minor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


Re: "In early times, female cellists sometimes played side-saddle, since it was considered improper for a lady to part her knees in public."

I'd like to see some evidence, and I'd like to know what "early times" are meant. TheScotch (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Posture pegs[edit]

I went to a chamber music concert a couple of days ago, and the cellist appeared to have no C or G tuning pegs on her cello. I talked to her afterward, and she told me that she had had "POSTURE PEGS" installed, which allowed her to sit up straighter and play better. Perhaps a cellist who has experience with "posture pegs" could add a section about them to this article. (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Posture pegs, to the best of my knowledge, are NOT a standard in any way. Posture pegs are not posture pegs. They are bass tuners stuck on a cello......Coal town guy (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

cello banjo vs banjo cello[edit]

Bass banjo has picked up a description of this instrument. While I've got no problem including cello banjos as a form of bass banjo, I tend to think that a banjo cello is actually an oddly constructed cello and belongs in this article. Any comment before I transfer the data to this article?—Kww(talk) 15:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

While I'm unfamiliar with the banjo cello, it appears to be more like a large banjo than an oddly-constructed cello. I see it as analogous to the mandocello, which is definitely in the mandolin family, not the violin family. Consider:
  • violin - viola - cello
  • mandolin - mandola - mandocello
  • banjo - ? - banjocello
Rivertorch (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I see the primary distinction as being that it's bowed. I play the cello banjo, and, as a result, I can pick up a mandocello and get by: same tuning, similar scales, similar playing techniques. The banjo cello that is pictured in the link is designed to be played upright and has a pronounced arch to the strings to enable the use of a bow. I play all kinds of banjos and couldn't get anywhere with it. On the other hand, I suspect that a cello player could be playing it correctly in minutes.
Look at the difference between the image pictured at File:Item-ceb-4-1296_lg.jpg (a "cello banjo") and at (a "banjo cello") and you can see what I'm talking about.—Kww(talk) 21:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Note to self for future reference: word order matters. I Googled around before replying, and I was somehow looking at banjo cellos, not cello banjos. Grrr. Sorry. You're right, of course: how it is typically played is an important distinction, and if a banjo cello is bowed, it might be considered more like a cello than a banjo. However, every definition I can find for "cello" places it in the violin family, and there's just no way that this is a type of cello. Maybe it's not a type of banjo either—it could be in a class by itself—but I'd say it's at least as much a banjo as it is a cello despite its upright stance and arched strings. Do you suppose there are enough sources to develop a separate article for the thing? Rivertorch (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
It's barely notable enough to get mentioned in bass banjo. My problem is that it makes an already confusing topic even more confusing. The terminology surround bass and cello banjos covers four subgroups of instruments already, and adding a fifth bowed variation doesn't help, especially when it's such a rare variant. Cellos, on the other hand, have very few variants.
I'd love to convince myself that it's just such a one-off that it doesn't warrant mention at all.—Kww(talk) 00:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
It wouldn't take much to convince me of that. I poked around a little more and found essentially zilch. Rivertorch (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed it. It seems to be a one-off from a single luthier. Interesting, and I'd like to have one, but not worth complicating an already confusing article.—Kww(talk) 04:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

How about a REDO???[edit]

Hey Folks, can we take a look see at this article from the top down and start a re write??? I will do some work, BUT, there are some GLARING statements that have zero citations that are at best, NOT correct. As far as what I would do, IMMEDIATELY, remove all of the general statements about when the cello was in use, if darker rosin has a "better" grip and oh yes, alternative tunings etc etc....ANYONE else want to chime in here? AND my all time fave, cases, being made of "better" materials. The case ios used to transport the cello, IF a case is made of a STRONG material, dropping the case will then transmit the force of the drop therough the cello, which is BAD. Thats why we also have LINED cases, and TRAVEL casesCoal town guy (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How's the redo coming? I'm of limited use in composing new material because I don't really know much about cellos. But, I have library access and can look for sources if need be, and I can help copyedit if you want to bring it to GAN. --Laser brain (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Getting there AND I LOVE YOU for offering the copyedit. I took a peek at the german wiki and their cello article is a GA, I am however a tad perplexed at some of the language here on the page. Specifically, this thing reads like a how its made episode. It also has some rather bad statements that look like they were written by a new student of the cello, and that is great, but in fact, its rather factually wrong, and it was not done by intention of wanting to be wrong, it was done because of a series of edits with good intentions. I need to rework the history section and the intro paragraphs are funny. We also need to start having an agreed upon definition of the instrument and not have objections based on minutae that may or may not have been based in the 17th century. Also whoever dug up the original data for strads and their ratios, UH NO.....the years were wrong as were their interpretation of the proportions in realtion to the function of the cello. Sorry, my cello teacher would eat me alive from the grave if I did not correct some of this. I would guess, and I do mean guess, another 2 weeks. MANY thanks again for you offer for a copyeditCoal town guy (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
With academic sources, like Grove and Grout and JSTOR articles? The current article is useless for college students.BassHistory (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


How about this alternate tuningsCoal town guy (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Damp Its[edit]

Can anyone tell me where, or what source, is stating that a damp it is a stajndard piece oif equipment for a cello? Last I recall, was my teacher screeching at me some 20+ years ago that they were a cheap way to ruin great instrumentsCoal town guy (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


Is the accepted plural form of "concerto" "concertos"? I always thought it was "concerti." Stara729 (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In English it's concertos. Say concerti only if you want to pretend to be Italian (and sound very affected). TheScotch (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Oxford Dictionaries online do not entirely support this view, though they do list the naturalized plural "concertos" first. Presumably this means it is preferred.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


Hello. I have made a pretty assertive edit to the History section. I found the rmvd material to be a bit misleading and even incorrect. The main problem is that for some time the downward playing position of bowed instruments (ie. as in cello and bass with the neck pointing up) was extinct in Europe, besides some Arabic instruments in Spain. Therefore, the cello is NOT descended from the Medieval viol. The info about the lira da gamba was also wrong, as several different types of bowed instruments existed, and weren't all liras. This article needs a lot of work, especially considering it's on one of the most important instruments in Western music.BassHistory (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Basshistory, good to see a chimig in on that. I have played for about 25 years and yes, I had some issues with the "standard equipment section" as well as some of the technique wording....see the section on using a French Bow...I am back from a self imposed wikibreak...Also, did you happen to note the usage of Strads and their dates as concerning the proportions of the current cello? Morbid curiosity...Coal town guy (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Check out this article: [4]. You can also check out the wiki article I made a few years back, Bass violin. The modern size of the cello originated in Bologna around 1680. I am not sure what you mean by "chimig" and"standard equipment section".BassHistory (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I meant chiming, as to the Standard Equipment, it was indeed Accesories, which has some items, I cant quite recall as being part and parcel of any well made cello, BUT thats me. Good article link by the way, and for some odd reason, I recall 1680 as well with a few bumps in the historic road around 1730, need to look that up again. I very much agree that a college level player would probably not find much use of the data here, example, I made the chart for parts of the cello and converted the measurement table to reflect metric etc etc. We also had a large amount of data move to cello playing, which mirrors the violin article now in structure, NOT content. OF note, the German wiki has a good article rating for the cello, perhaps we can message the folks there and ask about? My German is OK and should suffice for what we need. There are still some parts about the construction and composition of the instrument which I am puzzled to see here at all. BUT again, thats just me. As far as content, for encyclopedic purposes, I dont know how in depth a person should go, I am more used to doing articles on remote places in WV.....Coal town guy (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Broken Link in Reference[edit] - what is the best way to reconcile this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansonkao (talkcontribs) 13:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is really peculiar. I presume that you tried the Wayback Machine and discovered, as I did, that this particular URL is not archived, but they offer to search for the general domaine name. This search produces five results but every single one of them, when clicked, produces a "not found" error. I'm baffle.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


Hey guys, there's a question about this phrase:

Bruegel's "The Rustic Wedding" and de Fer.

What does "de Fer" mean? And for further questions about this article or others, shall I ask my qustion in the Talk section or would it be some user's personal page? Regards Princilll (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Philibert Jambe de Fer was a composer and writer on musical subjects. I have added a link to the article. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)