Talk:Cello

message: The new subhead shares some redundant text with the tone production paragraph above it, but redundancy in technical writing is no crime, since a casual reader who misses the info in one place may catch it in the other. Does it need fixing? __Just plain Bill (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New subhead for ''ponticello'' & ''tasto'' 

message: I archived the old discussion.  See the archive box at the top right of the page. Magicpiano (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: I would take out the sections on playing specifics - stacatto etc. This section reads like a list written by an excited student and isn't cited. Spanglej (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is "encyclopedic" (whatever that means). Most of it can be cited by reference to a cello method book, but the article still wouldn't cross into making Wikipedia a "how-to" manual (one of those WP:NOTs many people here love to duckspeak). But this would: "When playing quadruple stops, first hold the bow at x angle, and while rolling the shoulder..." etc. Willi Gers07 (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is too long and most of this is tangential to Cello. I have split the material into Playing the cello which compliments Playing the violin. -—Kvng 02:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep it encyclopedic : playing details? 

message: I have started a new wikiproject, WikiProject Stringed Instruments. I am looking for 2 other coordinators to help it get started. Apply on my talk page by answering the following questions.
1. Edit count, how long you have been active on Wikipedia.
2. How often you edit string-related articles. (Scale of 1-10)
3.  What you hope to accomplish if made coordinator.
Please post by March 1, 2009.
ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line 19:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Wikiproject 

message: Is that an editing goof, or are there supposed to be two separate History sections (one near the top of the article and another one several paragraphs down)? Should they be merged? Galseven (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a goof; when the history of bowed instruments was added, it should have been merged with the other history section. I combined the two sections, but it feels a little clunky. How important do you think it is to have the general history of bowed instruments here? Should this article focus on just the history of the cello, or is that earlier history important for context? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two "History" sections? 

message: Sounds like a silly argument but it does matter. I strongly disagre with the idea that "Violoncello is not obsolete in enligsh usage." Thats just not true. Violoncello is used all the time as a borrowed word. "Cello" is very much an informal usage of "Violoncello" that has made its way into common language. Be that as it may, its technically incorrect to say that "Cello" is the proper name for the instrument because its not. I think it should be either revised to show "Violoncello" as the instrument's primary name, or at least as a secondary name equal to "cello". Justin Tokke (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See ,   and , which demonstrate that cello is far from an informal usage.   I agree that saying "violoncello is obsolete" overstates the case, because it is indeed used in various contexts.  (Btw, I think you meant to say I strongly disagree with the idea that "Violoncello is not obsolete in English usage.") But that doesn't deny cello's right to be used as the primary word for the instrument, regardless of the fact that it was orignally an abbreviation for "violoncello".  It's rare to see that even acknowledged any more by way of a leading apostrophe – 'cello.  That means that it's been fully accepted as a word and that it is no longer considered an abbreviation.  Nobody insists on changing our piano article to pianoforte, so why hold out for violoncello?  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: JackofOz, I see that you're the one who originally added the phrase about it being obsolete, but it sounds like you're willing to back off that strong claim now. Would you be OK with simply removing that clause and saying simply, "The word derives from the Italian violoncello" and ending the sentence there? Justin, I disagree with the idea that cello is informal or not the primary name, but we can acknowledge that violoncello is still in use. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm more than happy to do that.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats ok with me. On second thought it isn't only informal usage for sure. I'm just saying, Violoncello certainly hasn't died out yet and they can both be used interchangably.Justin Tokke (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you're saying, Justin.  If I read "Concerto for violoncello and orchestra", I'd know exactly what they're talking about.  It's just that the shorter form "cello" has become fully accepted, and has replaced the longer form as the standard, normal way of referring to the instrument, including in most (virtually all, probably) formal contexts.  But sure, "violoncello" has not died out as I erroneously tried to claim.  But it's considered as old hat as "pianoforte" is.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I was startled when I discovered that the Wikipedia article for this instrument was under "cello".  It's true that "cello" is far more common in conversational usage, but in printed scores, it's almost scarce as hen's teeth.  Scores tend to use "violoncello".  Saying that it's the same as the case for "pianoforte" would require some evidence.  While similar, I'd say its not identical by any means.  It's my impression that the formal name is, to this day, "violoncello", and "cello" is simply an informal shorthand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Museslave (talk • contribs) 07:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  This institution and many others would disagree with you; although, I acknowledge that some institutions use "violoncello".  Many orchestral scores still use "violoncello"; but then, many of then use Italian names for the instruments, even where the publication is written in English in all other respects.  The Italians still use the full name, as is their right.  In program notes for symphony concerts, you'll still see overly-formal titles of works, such as "Tchaikovsky: Concerto No. 1 in B flat minor for Pianoforte and Orchestra", or "Elgar: Concerto in E minor for Violoncello and Orchestra", etc.  But they are much more commonly referred to by the shortened names of the instruments - Piano Concerto No. 1 (Tchaikovsky) and Cello Concerto (Elgar).  You'll look in vain in the latter article, or in Cello Concerto (Dvořák), for any mention of the word "violoncello".  My summary of all this is that, while "violoncello" has definitely not died out, its shorter form "cello" is fully accepted as a legitimate English word, it is not even considered an abbreviation any more, it is by far the more predominant version, and it has become, like it or not, the primary name for the instrument.  Who ever heard of the "Bach Violoncello Suites"? --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  20:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would have to say it does not matter what the article is called. Cello is the same thing as a violoncello, just like the sax and the saxophone. Saxophone is the the name of the wiki article but right after the name of the article, it says, "(also referred to as the sax)". The cello used to be called violoncello, but now the accepted name by most Americans/English people is cello. I think that right after cello it should say "(also referred to as the violoncello)". D.anderson1988 (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to add in my two cents 3 years later, I agree with D.anderson1988. At first I was actually surprised that the Wikipedia article for this instrument was officially "Cello", not "Violoncello", since "violoncello" is the formal and full name of the instrument. That said, I agree that "cello" is a legitimate, accepted, and recognized word, not just an abbreviation - and if you look at similar articles, "piano" is the word used for the article of the instrument formally known as the pianoforte. Stara729 (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Cello" or "Violoncello"?

message: The description, in my opinion, could be much more...well, descriptive.  I see no mention of the different parts of the cello, e.g. the head, neck, bridge, and whatever the thing at the bottom of the strings is (I'm teaching myself, so I have no idea).  Also, the last paragraph is about music for the cello, and has nothing to do with the description of the cello.  I would change things myself, but as I said I'm not professionally taught so I don't know all the names for the cello's parts, and I'm not much of a Wikipedia guru, so I'll leave that last part up to them.  Darktangent (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there seems to be no mention of electric cellos.   Any stringed instrument can have the vibrations of its strings amplified, sustained, or distorted.   There seems to be a POV and neutrality problem with most of the article as it is written.   216.99.219.231 (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Description? 

message: I wonder about wording in this article as inspired ... dozens of composers and think dates would be more helpful than terms as "recently" or "currently". I appreciate Mstislav Rostropovich highly and loved to hear him play at the Rheingau Musik Festival (Rheingau Musik Festival ) but think one link in the article is enough. I don't dare to judge if Julian Lloyd Webber - pictured! - really belongs in the same category as Rostropovitch, Gregor Piatigorsky and Siegfried Palm.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: I'm going to half of the stuff like staccato. It would be nice if some one can finish the rest - Edude   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edude7 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Hyacinth (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: There is a discrepancy between the cello article and the violin family article.  The cello article states that the cello is in the viol (gambas) family, whereas the violin family article states that the cello is in the violin (braccio) family.  I don't know which is correct, but one needs to be changed for continuity sake.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.218.19.131 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section:  Violin or Viol family 

message: I've seen "cello" pluralized as "celli". The article uses "cellos". Is cellos preferred? Joefromrandb (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. While the lead paragraph shows the "plural cellos or celli," previous discussion, now archived, has favored "cellos" as the English plural. As one editor put it, when ordering more than one pizza, do you ask for several pizze? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Of six dictionaries consulted, only one, Merriam-Webster, lists "celli", and even then it's the second option. The other five—American Heritage, Collins, Oxford American, Oxford Concise, and Random House—don't list it at all. Fwiw, I have encountered "celli" too, but only infrequently. Rivertorch (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

text: If you have a reliable source for that, it might be worth mentioning. We should take care to remember that most cel—er, well, you know...most things that look like big fiddles aren't used in recording studios, so that application of the plural would be a specialized one. RivertorchFIREWATER 22:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural 

message: There is a reference tag that begins the "Playing Technique" section. The tag is three years old. This looks like a fine article, and that tag is just plain ugly. The article seems to be amply sourced; unless someone is questioning the validity of the information in that section (three years later) can we remove the tag? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Better not. There appears to be exactly one ref in that very long section. Most or all of the content looks valid and verifiable, though, and it ought to be sourceable for anyone with the right books or easy access to good reference material. (I, unfortunately, have neither, although I'm willing to poke around a bit and see what I can find.) As ugly as that tag is, it's preferable to several dozen inline "citation needed" tags, and those monstrosities might start popping up if you remove the big template. Rivertorch (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

message: Is there any reason the sound files for the stops are MIDI? That doesn't really help anyone except for the sounds of major and minor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.77.189 (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIDI 

message: Re: "In early times, female cellists sometimes played side-saddle, since it was considered improper for a lady to part her knees in public."
I'd like to see some evidence, and I'd like to know what "early times" are meant. TheScotch (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Side-saddle? 

message: I went to a chamber music concert a couple of days ago, and the cellist appeared to have no C or G tuning pegs on her cello.  I talked to her afterward, and she told me that she had had "POSTURE PEGS" installed, which allowed her to sit up straighter and play better. Perhaps a cellist who has experience with "posture pegs" could add a section about them to this article. 96.236.213.217 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Posture pegs, to the best of my knowledge, are NOT a standard in any way. Posture pegs are not posture pegs. They are bass tuners stuck on a cello......Coal town guy (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posture pegs 

message: Hey Folks, can we take a look see at this article from the top down and start a re write??? I will do some work, BUT, there are some GLARING statements that have zero citations that are at best, NOT correct. As far as what I would do, IMMEDIATELY, remove all of the general statements about when the cello was in use, if darker rosin has a "better" grip and oh yes, alternative tunings etc etc....ANYONE else want to chime in here? AND my all time fave, cases, being made of "better" materials. The case ios used to transport the cello, IF a case is made of a STRONG material, dropping the case will then transmit the force of the drop therough the cello, which is BAD. Thats why we also have LINED cases, and TRAVEL casesCoal town guy (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How's the redo coming? I'm of limited use in composing new material because I don't really know much about cellos. But, I have library access and can look for sources if need be, and I can help copyedit if you want to bring it to GAN. --Laser brain (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting there AND I LOVE YOU for offering the copyedit. I took a peek at the german wiki and their cello article is a GA, I am however a tad perplexed at some of the language here on the page. Specifically, this thing reads like a how its made episode. It also has some rather bad statements that look like they were written by a new student of the cello, and that is great, but in fact, its rather factually wrong, and it was not done by intention of wanting to be wrong, it was done because of a series of edits with good intentions. I need to rework the history section and the intro paragraphs are funny. We also need to start having an agreed upon definition of the instrument and not have objections based on minutae that may or may not have been based in the 17th century. Also whoever dug up the original data for strads and their ratios, UH NO.....the years were wrong as were their interpretation of the proportions in realtion to the function of the cello. Sorry, my cello teacher would eat me alive from the grave if I did not correct some of this. I would guess, and I do mean guess, another 2 weeks. MANY thanks again for you offer for a copyeditCoal town guy (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: With academic sources, like Grove and Grout and JSTOR articles? The current article is useless for college students.BassHistory (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a REDO??? 

message: How about this   alternate tuningsCoal town guy (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scordatura 

message: Can anyone tell me where, or what source, is stating that a damp it is a stajndard piece oif equipment for a cello? Last I recall, was my teacher screeching at me some 20+ years ago that they were a cheap way to ruin great instrumentsCoal town guy (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damp Its 

message: Is the accepted plural form of "concerto" "concertos"? I always thought it was "concerti." Stara729 (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In English it's concertos. Say concerti only if you want to pretend to be Italian (and sound very affected). TheScotch (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oxford Dictionaries online do not entirely support this view, though they do list the naturalized plural "concertos" first. Presumably this means it is preferred.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concertos? 

message: Hello. I have made a pretty assertive edit to the History section. I found the rmvd material to be a bit misleading and even incorrect. The main problem is that for some time the downward playing position of bowed instruments (ie. as in cello and bass with the neck pointing up) was extinct in Europe, besides some Arabic instruments in Spain. Therefore, the cello is NOT descended from the Medieval viol. The info about the lira da gamba was also wrong, as several different types of bowed instruments existed, and weren't all liras. This article needs a lot of work, especially considering it's on one of the most important instruments in Western music.BassHistory (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Basshistory, good to see a chimig in on that. I have played for about 25 years and yes, I had some issues with the "standard equipment section" as well as some of the technique wording....see the section on using a French Bow...I am back from a self imposed wikibreak...Also, did you happen to note the usage of Strads and their dates as concerning the proportions of the current cello? Morbid curiosity...Coal town guy (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Check out this article: . You can also check out the wiki article I made a few years back, Bass violin. The modern size of the cello originated in Bologna around 1680. I am not sure what you mean by "chimig" and"standard equipment section".BassHistory (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that, I meant chiming, as to the Standard Equipment, it was indeed Accesories, which has some items, I cant quite recall as being part and parcel of any well made cello, BUT thats me. Good article link by the way, and for some odd reason, I recall 1680 as well with a few bumps in the historic road around 1730, need to look that up again. I very much agree that a college level player would probably not find much use of the data here, example, I made the chart for parts of the cello and converted the measurement table to reflect metric etc etc. We also had a large amount of data move to cello playing, which mirrors the violin article now in structure, NOT content. OF note, the German wiki has a good article rating for the cello, perhaps we can message the folks there and ask about? My German is OK and should suffice for what we need. There are still some parts about the construction and composition of the instrument which I am puzzled to see here at all. BUT again, thats just me. As far as content, for encyclopedic purposes, I dont know how in depth a person should go, I am more used to doing articles on remote places in WV.....Coal town guy (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: http://www.academicjournals.net/2/detail.php?id=2&jid=ajcb&theme=2&issueno=4&articleno=17# - what is the best way to reconcile this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansonkao (talk • contribs) 13:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really peculiar. I presume that you tried the Wayback Machine and discovered, as I did, that this particular URL is not archived, but they offer to search for the general domaine name. This search produces five results but every single one of them, when clicked, produces a "not found" error. I'm baffle.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link in Reference 

message: Hey guys, there's a question about this phrase: 
:Bruegel's "The Rustic Wedding" and de Fer.
What does "de Fer" mean? And for further questions about this article or others, shall I ask my qustion in the Talk section or would it be some user's personal page?
Regards Princilll (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Philibert Jambe de Fer was a composer and writer on musical subjects. I have added a link to the article. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cello. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090108101905/http://www.encyclopedia.com:80/doc/1G1-70397117.html to http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-70397117.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am sorry about the recent vandalism and wanted as I my friends do it. I had made a save of the original section on etymology and was going to revert the page back to normal as it should have been but it seemed that the community was much quicker at retrieving the lost information. I am really sorry for the vandalism on this page, I should have stopped it before it happened Omnipotentunknown00 (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent vandalism 

message: The section on Playing never mentions up bow versus down bow, which seems a basic aspect. I've noted a similar omission in the article on the violin and presumably in articles about other bowed instruments. The natural place to insert this information is the beginning of the section on Bowing techniques, but as a non-violinist I'm hesitant to write anything Ishboyfay (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Up bow and down bow 

message: — Assignment last updated by Keelytubbs26 (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies

message: — Assignment last updated by Nurbekyuldashov (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age

message: Elfentanz goes from D on C string all the way up to 5 octaves above that D
Different harmonics are possible on the cello. Lightly press p8, p5, p4, M3, and m3 above a stopped note in just intonation produces sounding note p8, p5+p8, 2p8, 2p8+M3, and 2p8+p5 corresponding the harmonic series.  The first two are limited by hand size while the others are limited by accuracy in placing the fingers in the right place. Very high notes may be achieved with some difficulty.
Subharmonics are playable on the cello (by same bowing techniques as on violin), but is not a recommended technique. The range in this way can be extended downwards by almost an octave. The exact amount depends on many factors such as bowing, the bow itself, and the instrument. 2605:59C8:37:4400:AC59:BAAD:B6AF:55 (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cello range