THE DOUBLE BASS: "violino" family or "viola da gamba"??

[vitoliuzzi]

Dear collegues and friends,
below my last very little article about the big question: but the double bass is based on the violin family or on the viola??

Well, my conclusions are very different from Paul Brun or J. Morton, and probably the more logical.

http://liuzzivito.blogspot.com/2010/...violino-o.html

Remember that the translator is not the best manner for translating in another language, but it gives you an idea of what I mean.

Let me know what do you think.

Bass regards

Vito liuzzi

http://liuzzivito.blogspot.com (probably the first Blog related only to the classical double bass)

[drurb]

Originally Posted by vitoliuzzi

Well, my conclusions are very different from Paul Brun or J. Morton, and probably the more logical.

Ah, modesty!

[vitoliuzzi]

Originally Posted by drurb

Ah, modesty!

I know that my English is no correct and it's very difficult to talk in this language

My conclusions are "ironic" : in Italian " Le mie conclusioni sono molto semplici ed ironiche, sono uno spunto per capire meglio perchè vi sono due nette e contraddistinte posizioni nel mondo del contrabbasso per ciò che attiene al problema dell' appartenenza ad una famiglia od all' altra del contrabbasso. La mia personale opinione può non aver valore, anzi non lo ha affatto se proprio volete, ma il problema rimane. Io ho cercato la mia personale soluzione dai miei studi e dalle mie ricerche che non sono meno approfondite di quelle di Brun o Morton, che sono fra i più grandi musicologi che io abbia mai letto. Perchè continuare a dire che da una parte il contrabbasso fa parte della famiglia del violino e dall' altra che fa parte della famiglia della viola da gamba. Io dico che il contrabbasso fa parte di entrambe poichè il problema è CRONOLOGICO. Questa è la conclusione più logica. Se vuole le mando tutti i miei studi in merito"

Probably in this manner it's better

Vito

[LeslieD]

Originally Posted by vitoliuzzi

I know that my English is no correct and it's very difficult to talk in this language

My conclusions are "ironic" : in Italian " Le mie conclusioni sono molto semplici ed ironiche, sono uno spunto per capire meglio perchè vi sono due nette e contraddistinte posizioni nel mondo del contrabbasso per ciò che attiene al problema dell' appartenenza ad una famiglia od all' altra del contrabbasso. La mia personale opinione può non aver valore, anzi non lo ha affatto se proprio volete, ma il problema rimane. Io ho cercato la mia personale soluzione dai miei studi e dalle mie ricerche che non sono meno approfondite di quelle di Brun o Morton, che sono fra i più grandi musicologi che io abbia mai letto. Perchè continuare a dire che da una parte il contrabbasso fa parte della famiglia del violino e dall' altra che fa parte della famiglia della viola da gamba. Io dico che il contrabbasso fa parte di entrambe poichè il problema è CRONOLOGICO. Questa è la conclusione più logica. Se vuole le mando tutti i miei studi in merito"

Probably in this manner it's better

Vito

Just so that everyone on TB doesn't have to go running to Google Translate to read Vito's post, here's the English translation....

"My conclusions are "ironic" in English "My conclusions are very simple and ironic, is one opportunity to better understand why there are two strong and distinguished positions in the world of bass for what regards the issue of 'belonging to a family or all 'other bass. My personal opinion may not have value, indeed it has not at all if you really want, but the problem remains. I tried my own solution from my studies and my research that they are less extensive than those Brun's or Morton, who are among the greatest musicologists that I have ever read. Why continue to say that on the one hand, the bass is part of the family of violin and by 'other part of the family of the viola da gamba. I say the bass is part of both as the problem and history. This is the most logical conclusion. If you want I'll send all my studies on"

[vitoliuzzi]

Thank you, Leslie. Very kind!

But this translation is a little bit far from what I would have prefer to tell you.

Joelle Morton and Paul Brun in very brief words don't consider one thing: the period in which the double bass has borned respect to violins and viola da gamba (viols). Many centuries before but "in the same time" (dal mediovo fino al Rinascimento).

By the way I will write something on my Blog to better explain the concept.

Bass regards

Vito liuzzi

[lunarpollen]

I thought it contained elements of both families, allowing it to function as a bass violin or a bass viol. A double bass role...

[vitoliuzzi]

Originally Posted by lunarpollen

I thought it contained elements of both families, allowing it to function as a bass violin or a bass viol. A double bass role...

Exactly! The double bass contains elements of both family.

But, you know, the great musicologists sometimes don't accept this concept because, and probably it's not a their own mistake, they study from two different point of view, leaving apart the main concept that the double bass borned when composers needed to extend the range of their orchestras. But from a point of techniques of construction they are the same. The first violins hadn't in their internal part the "soul" to connect the two main parts of the instrument. It was only in the Reinassance that we find this aspect. When the first "bass violin" or "violone" or "contrabasso" were bulit, they already had this element, as I already told. Liuthers took this idea also from viola da gamba and also from violins. So it's the chronology of the birth of the true double bass as we know has gone on until to 1580/90. Before we have thousands of different words to identify the same instruments.

VL

[MIKMAN]

+1.
Vito's opinion is widely accepted in our part of the world. In Cremona's Mondomusica Fair i found that it is strongly supported
by various luthiers from Italy and Central Europe.

[drurb]

As in so many other examples in science, when there are two opposing views, it turns out that the answer is "both." Is light a particle or a wave?

[vitoliuzzi]

Originally Posted by MIKMAN

+1.
Vito's opinion is widely accepted in our part of the world. In Cremona's Mondomusica Fair i found that it is strongly supported
by various luthiers from Italy and Central Europe.

+5

it's absolutely sure, Mike!
The question is that the best musicologists in this history should have been just the liuthers just because they're the ones that open and repair alto violin .... bass viol, violoni, viole da gamba.
When we want absolutely reason we do everything to obtain it. Mr. Brun has been a quite good double bass player but his researches give more importance to a questions of words, definition terms and not in the substance. Mrs. Morton take in consideration other parameters and arrives to another conclusionon.
In my honest opinion the better family for Double bass is simply the one of
Chordophones: just this!! The question of the different time in which violas and violins developed in comparison with the double bass let me think that this is the best answer if someone ask you a similar question.

Vito Liuzzi