Talk:Viola bastarda

Viola bastarda as an instrument

I'm confused by the image of a viola bastarda. This article, as well as the Grove article, make it pretty clear that Viola bastarda is a style, not an instrument, with the one allowance that "Rognoni describes the standard size of a viola bastarda as between that of a tenor and bass viol, indicating a change in understanding of the term." What do you think? MarkBuckles 08:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read the full Grove article, and the entirety of this article, it will hopefully make it clear that although bastarda is primarily a style, there were also instruments created which were meant to maximize the player's ability to play in this style, in this case the viola bastarda. The same is true of the lyra viol and division viol. I don't think it's at all inappropriate to give an illustration of what the instrument looked like, when it was an instrument rather than a style. Mak (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Jason Paras' book on the viola bastarda (currently the main authority on the 'instrument', and with transcriptions of all the music) is not mentioned on this page. I have just concluded research on the viola bastarda for a paper I gave on the matter and I think the evidence is pretty clear that a specific instrument is not intended by sixteenth and seventeenth century sources. There are a few reasons for this. The main sources for the 'separate instrument' theory are Prætorius (Syntagma musicum) and Rognoni. Both indicate that the viola bastarda is an instrument between the tenor and bass viols in size. However, it is clear from other information in the Syntagma that Prætorius probably never saw the thing he calls a viola bastarda. The instrument he shows in the woodcut illustration of the viola bastarda is not different in size or construction (with the exception of some superficial variations) from the ordinary bass viol he shows and the tunings he gives are actually those of the English lyra viol repertoire and not those established in the Italian contemporary literature. Rognoni's statement is ambiguous, too, due to the variable meaning of 'bass' and 'tenor' viol. The same instrument, the bass viol, is called anything from the soprano to the bass of the viol consort depending on the theorist one reads. Sources of the 1590s, for example, favour very low consort tunings in which the current bass viol tuning is the 'soprano' viol tuning. One has to bear in mind that the viol was not standardised in construction or tuning for most of the sixteenth century, and so insisting on a literal reading of 'between bass and tenor' as an indicator of size is useless. Most sources of this period are far more concerned with function than size, and one should probably be reading 'between tenor and bass in size' as an indication to choose the viol most suitable to the music. In most cases this appears (from the repertoire) to have been an ordinary bass viol (i.e. the music does not descend below low D) or a violone as currently understood (i.e. an octave below the current tenor, and thus with a 'low G' tuning - some of the music goes this low). However, all of the music does what is functionally expected of a viola bastarda, i.e. quick divisions, invention of new counterpoints to an established polyphony, and movement at will between the various voices of the polyphony. I propose a complete rewrite is in order and am happy to do this, unless Makemi thinks that I've missed something. Barochetto (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)barochetto 06:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(13 years later) No one ever followed up by adding mention of Jason Paras's book, as User:Barochetto proposed years and years ago? What does that say about the seriousness of our project? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Etymology

How could someone have written an article and failed to include basic information such as the etymology of this term (i.e., what exactly does the "bastarda" in viola bastarda refer to)? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)