Dear Howard, The double bass I used to play many years ago had a violin-type body. At least, the back was flat (not carved), but the shoulders didn't slope - they came into the neck at 90 degrees. The tailpiece was originally made for a three-string instrument, and later adapted to accommodate four strings. It had a full, rich tone, but it was a little awkward to reach round the top end with one's left arm, because the body didn't thin out at the back, and the shoulders didn't slope.
To add to what you say about melting pots, in Christopher Simpson's _The Division-Viol_, (London, 1659; 2nd edn 1667) there is a picture of two different sorts of viol: one has sloping shoulders like the familiar bass viol one sees today; the other is closer to a violin in appearance, without sloping shoulders, and with bouts coming to a point like on a violin. Both instruments are shown full frontal, so it is impossible to judge the depth of the body and what the back looks like. The caption is in Latin: "Forma Chelyos utravis Minuritonibus apta, sed Prima resonantior." I would hazard a rough translation as "The shape of viols suitable for divisions, but the First is more resonant". I presume the "First" to be the one on the left, i.e. the viol looking more like a violin, without sloping shoulders. It is interesting that Simpson considers viols with that design to be more resonant. Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard Posner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "lutelist" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:42 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: [Viols] question about the viola da gamba > The double bass section of a modern orchestra is something of a racial > melting pot. Some instruments have violin bodies while others have the > slope-shouldered viol form. Post-baroque basses have historically > taken a number of forms. Two centuries ago there were versions with > three strings and five strings. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
