That's correct. You use a French bow in much the same way as a cellist. You hold the German bow underhanded, a bit like a Viol player (although you hold the frog, not the hair). I always preferred the German bow, but at the time at least, my preference was not widely shared. Most bassists used French bows. That was thirty years ago, and I have no idea what bassists are using these days.
-----Original Message----- From: Arthur Ness [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 11:35 AM To: Stewart McCoy; Lute Net Subject: [LUTE] Re: [Viols] question about the viola da gamba Yes, there are bass violins. I played in an orchestra once in which the first bassist had a bass violin, with the 90 degree shoulders. The player had to stand on a box to play it. Aren't the different types of modern bass bows called French and German, the French being held like a violin bow, but the German, by grasping around the large frog. And do bows get larger as the instrument for which they are intended get larger? Why not? And one of my pet peeves is to see 'cello spelled violincello. ==ajn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lute Net" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: [LUTE] [Viols] question about the viola da gamba > 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 was originally made for a three-string instrument, and 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
