Talk:Double bass/Archive 6

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Bunjevac picture

Just wanted to note that the bass instrument in the picture of the girl from Bunjevac is not a double bass. It is a berda, the bass instrument of the tambura (tamburitza) instrument family. Other names for it are: begeš, tamburaški bas, or in English: tambura bass.

Dorfnerw (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

~~== Double-bass, viols, violin family ==~~

~~Arguments against inclusion of the double-bass in the viol family:~~

it has only 3 or 4 strings (the viol-family has 6 or even 7 strings; some high-pitched viols sometimes have 5 strings)

it is unfretted (the viol-family is fretted)

it was early on functionally used to double the bass of the violin family (the cello) at the (lower) octave
~~There is some analogy between the viol family and the double-bass:~~
it is mostly tuned in 4ths (the double-bass is almost never tuned in 5ths like the members of the violin family)

the shape of the instrument, with its sloping shoulders, is analogous (not identical) to that of the violone (double-basses with the general shape of the violin family are rare)

in some places the bow technique used is more analoguous to that of the viol family
~~In conclusion I suggest people should refrain from broad statements as seen on talk pages~~
the double-bass is not a viol although it has some analogies with the viol family

most double-basses are not part, from the point of view of construction and tuning, of the violin family

double-basses are, in the Western classical orchestra (sometimes in chamber music) part of the string section, and as such can be said to be functionally part of the violin family, even though a distinction could be made between the two words

~~Contact Basemetal here 12:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Basemetal 15:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)~~Basemetal 15:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Dimensions

There seem to be very few dimensions of basses quoted in the article. For instance I cant find any reference at all to scale length.86.177.63.179 (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Concern about undue weight given to violin octet in lede

Is it just me or does the lede give undue weight to the concept of a contrabass violin from the violin octet? I think the lede's space would be better spend covering the key issues from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.246.150 (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that shouldn't have been mentioned in the lede at all. I took it out. Thanks.BassHistory (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I don't want to get in an edit war about this. This needs to be resolved here.BassHistory (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the edits had the description "don't just remove information". Here's the thing: the info was not about the double bass. This information is not notable in relation to the double bass, and clearly constitutes undue weight.BassHistory (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine. If not in the lede then find some place else in the article to put that information. Don't just delete information. Since the contrabass violin is a type of double bass it should go somewhere in the article even if it is not wanted in the lede. Contact Basemetal here 23:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Basemetal 15:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If the editor who's removed the information about the contrabass violin doesn't find a place where to put that information he took from the lede I'll replace it where I see fit. When editing a page you don't just throw away information that others have contributed and which should justifiably be part of the article. If you object to the place where it is in the article you find another place to put it in. That's just basic manners. If you don't I'll replace that information where I see fit. Contact Basemetal here 23:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Basemetal 15:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

~~Regarding the claim this has been discussed: two people who object do not make a discussion. Contact Basemetal here 00:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)~~Basemetal 15:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please explain why this information is relevant anywhere in an article about the double bass? To me it seems to violate

WP:UNDUE. We are not here to promote the violin octet. Are you suggesting that another mainstream encyclopedia would mention the violin octet in an article about the double bass? I doubt that, but if you can argue otherwise I'm all ears.BassHistory (talk

) 00:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Please resolve this here before adding anything else about the violin octet to an article about the double bass. Also, let's not get personal. I removed the information because it wasn't relevant to the article, and especially not the lede. I suggest that if you want to add anything to this article about the violin octet, that it be well sourced.BassHistory (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to promote complete information. The contrabass violin is a version of the double bass. The double bass can come in several shapes, number of strings, tunings. The contrabass violin is one of them. It's not about mentioning the octet but one instrument which fits naturally into the topic of the article. Thus the mention of the contrabass violin (not the octet as you keep pretending) is relevant to the topic of this article. The same way the article about the violin mentions the mezzo violin, which is a member of the octet. It is there not to promote the octet but because the mezzo violin is just a version of the violin, and even though violins are much more uniform as a group than double basses. Contact Basemetal here 00:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Basemetal 15:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

How about this: I replace the information in the article. THEN we discuss it here. YOU started throwing away information BEFORE you discussed anything. Contact Basemetal here 00:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't place that information in the lede. If you wish to mention the violin octet in the article, please discuss it here.BassHistory (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want it in the lede then put it where you think it should go. My arguments why I think the contrabass violin belongs in an article about the double bass are above. Contact Basemetal here 00:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Basemetal 15:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Two editors were in agreement that undue weight was being given to the violin octet. This is not meant to be pejorative, but the violin octet is fringe information as it relates to the double bass. One could spend an entire life's career as a double bassist and not encounter the

contrabass violin. That's not to say that they aren't interesting to read about, but they still aren't relevant to a basic discussion about double bass, and certainly not in the lede.BassHistory (talk

) 00:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think it belongs in the lede, though?BassHistory (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not say that. But it does belong in the article. I don't know who put it in the lede in the first place. I remember putting some info about the contrabass violin in the article about a year ago but I don't think I put it in the lede. But I replaced it there now because it was taken from there and thrown away and because I'm of the opinion that when an editor takes away relevant information from an article because he does not think it's in the appropriate place, he has a duty to try and find some other place to put it and not just throw it away. When I edit an article and find a piece of information that I think is not in the right place that's what I do. Contact Basemetal here 00:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Basemetal 15:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad that we are in agreement that said info does not belong in the lede. By all means then, let's not put it there. As I have explained, I do not feel that there is a place in this article for mentioning the violin octet. There is a reason why this is listed under "High-importance musical instruments articles", while the contrabass violin doesn't in fact have its own article. However, if you find a place in this article to mention the violin octet bass, please include a source as to why it is relevant to an article about the double bass.BassHistory (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The contrabass violin belongs there by virtue of its being only a variation of the double bass as I've explained above already. If there was a type of double bass made out of aluminum you wouldn't need a source that stated specifically it's relevant to the article to include it in the article. This article is not for you to shape according to what you personally think is or is not relevant and then to require from all other editors a source that explicitly says what you think is not relevant is indeed relevant. But your general advice about sources is good. I think we do need to start removing some statements in the article which are not sourced and there are many of them. Contact Basemetal here 05:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Basemetal 15:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there are double basses made of aluminum. They are not mentioned in this article for precisely the same reason: notability. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it gets mentioned in Wikipedia. Please review

WP:UNDUE, it seems like this conversation is going off track.BassHistory (talk

) 16:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Career section

I count zero citations. I don't know if people visiting this page are necessarily interested in the job prospects for double bassists. I don't see a similar section for cellos and other instruments. I suggest this section either be greatly reduced or axed altogether. --Webbie1234 (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's one of the better-written sections of the page, maybe bassists are just more mercenary :) It's harmless, symmetry between wikipedia stringed instrument pages is not a requirement, somebody or somebodies spent a long time writing it, it's fairly accurate, eh, leave it. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Now the cello section has a career section : ) OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

One string too many

The third use of "string" in this line in the History section: "Before the 20th century many double basses had only three strings, in contrast to the five to six strings typical of instruments in the string family or the four strings of instruments in the violin family." doesn't make sense to me. Is it supposed to be viol, perhaps? Ineverheardofhim (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

edit for typo Ineverheardofhim (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"Playing modes"

I reverted a recent edit about Lully. I didn't fing it at all relevant to this article.BassHistory (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a fan of the complete list of all stringed instruments

Maybe it's just me, but I do not like the massive list of every single stringed instrument ever used. I would much rather see a blue link that LINKS readers to this list, rather than having the full list in the article.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't like it either. It also crowds the cello page. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The half-bright use Wikipedia as cloud storage for anecdotal knowledge. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed it. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Restarting an old debate

The lead of the article starts out by giving ELEVEN variants of the name, all bolded: The double bass, or upright bass, also called the string bass, bass fiddle, bass violin, doghouse bass, contrabass, bass viol, stand-up bass, bull fiddle or simply bass. I think this is overkill for the lead. I would like to cut out a few of them in the lead. The lead is where the reader goes for quick reference. I think that all these names have a perfectly good place in the article--in the section on terminology.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

reliable sources." This means that if there is very little evidence from published RS's to support "bass violin", "doghouse bass", and "bull fiddle", it would be appropriate to relocate these terms out of the lead. Not out of the article, but out of the lead.OnBeyondZebrax (talk

) 23:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

After two days without any negative response to my proposal, I am going to be

WP:BOLD and trim the lead.OnBeyondZebrax (talk

) 21:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Playing seated or standing

I didn't like the original, but I didn't think the recent edit was an improvement. Maybe because it retains "specialized" to refer to players favouring just one of the two positions. I don't think that term is clear here.

I replaced the original "one player rarely can satisfactorily perform both standing and sitting" with "it's unusual for one player to be adequate in both positions", but 'adequate' seems an odd word here. "Proficient", maybe?

I also think it's important to remove the unnecessarily redundant duplication in "some players sit to play solo" and "Some soloists sit (as with". Willondon (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead list of names is contrary to WP guidelines

I have never liked the long list of alternate names in the lead, some of which are rarely used for the instrument (see my Talk page post 2 sections above, in which I relocated some of these alternate names to the "Terminology" section. I just learned (from a debate on the

MOS:LEADALT: "Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead."OnBeyondZebrax • TALK

02:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the edit is a vast improvement. Willondon (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on

nobots

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —

Talk to my owner

:Online 23:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Practicing

I don't think this section is entirely necessary. You could replace 'double bass' with virtually any instrument and it would still be a basic practice guideline. It might as well redirect to Practice (learning method). Also, I doubt every professional double bass player practices exactly like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmodnar111 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Other tuning/variations

Quote from this section: The Berlioz/Strauss Treatise on Instrumentation (first published in 1844) states that, "A good orchestra should have several four-string double-basses, some of them tuned in fifths and thirds." The book then shows a tuning of E, A, D, G from bottom to top string. "Together with the other double-basses tuned in fourths, a combination of open strings would be available, which would greatly increase the sonority of the orchestra."

A recent editor changed the tuning indicated above from "E, G, D, A" (minor third and two perfect fifths) to "E, A, D, G" (modern tuning in fourths). i.e. possibly changed from the tuning indicated by Berlioz. This does not look good to me. Could someone who has the Treatise please check what tuning Berlioz actually wrote?. P0mbal (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem now - I looked up the Berlioz original on IMSLP, Berlioz put E-G-D-A, so I reverted to that. P0mbal (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"In jazz, blues, and related genres...

the bass is usually amplified...". Sorry, but that's downright wrong. Most jazz bands use un-amplified bass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:7F5:4340:B8D3:DE3C:3BA3:5C31 (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)