Viol and viola da gamba categories

[kalliwoda]

Just to add some dissenting voice, for option 2:

Shouldn't the names spelled out via the categorization system be understood by the widest (non-specialist) audience. Now my own perception may be colored by my native german, but I hadn't even encountered the name viol until the uploads from wima kept coming

If the Viola da Gamba society keeps its name instead of changing it to Viol society, would that not be an example to follow?

[afolop]

Just to add some dissenting voice, for option 2:

Shouldn't the names spelled out via the categorization system be understood by the widest (non-specialist) audience. Now my own perception may be colored by my native german, but I hadn't even encountered the name viol until the uploads from wima kept coming

If the Viola da Gamba society keeps its name instead of changing it to Viol society, would that not be an example to follow?

I just discovered this comment. My only reply would be that if one (non-specialist? ) hasn't encountered the name 'viol' he certainly hasn't seen much modern music for the instrument, where I would guess about 99% of the music is labelled 'viol' . And this is all about the music. Even the various 'Viola da Gamba Societies' publish their music as 'viol' music, and I would concur in following them as an example.

On reading it over, this reply sounds a good deal sharper than I intended it .

[afolop]

This still leaves the question of the name and categorization of the player. The modern viola player is called a violist, and we are not going to be able to change that. The common term among players of viols today is 'gambist', and not emphasizing its origin, it is a unique name for the player that will not be misunderstood by most who encounter it.

[KGill]

This still leaves the question of the name and categorization of the player. The modern viola player is called a violist, and we are not going to be able to change that. The common term among players of viols today is 'gambist', and not emphasizing its origin, it is a unique name for the player that will not be misunderstood by most who encounter it.

Well, I guess that isn't such a serious issue since the instrument userboxes don't actually have to conform to any style guide/etc., and there are only a few pages affected anyway (whereas hundreds and later thousands of pages will be affected by the viola da gamba->viol change). Unless you meant just in general?

[afolop]

I was just recalling some of my early trials of the category walker and the search boxes using the term 'viol' when I was startled to find almost all of the references were to the viola and violin with the user sometimes being a violist--scarcely what I was looking for.

[kalliwoda]

@afolop
Yes, your earlier reply is a bit sharp, there are people interested in music for whom viol consorts are not a daily encounter- and here in Berlin they are "Gambenconsort" - that is the term I know, and among the first results from a google.de search there is only one entry that also mentions Viol... But my ignorance is not what imslp should take into account.

What I ask is: you should be aware of the fact, that by implementing the global change in the tagging system, you also affect music beyond the renaissance era, and you will find e.g. a Heinichen Triosonata for oboe, viola da gamba and B.C. (not on imslp yet) now with the genre for oboe, viol and continuo - I find this unusual and confusing .
Not that I advocate sticking by the LC cataloging rules , they are sometimes problematic, but they still have separate subjects e.g. for Sonatas (viola da gamba and continuo) - several... and Sonatas (viol and continuo) - only 2.

[KGill]

I was just recalling some of my early trials of the category walker and the search boxes using the term 'viol' when I was startled to find almost all of the references were to the viola and violin with the user sometimes being a violist--scarcely what I was looking for.

Ah, yes, that is a problem of no little importance. Feldmahler, maybe there could be a couple search options (checkboxes or something) with the default setting to search only for the exact text entered by the user, separated by commas? If something like that isn't implemented, then the CW search function will continue to be almost useless for viol categories...

[afolop]

Is this another vote? The ' Viola da Gamba Society' (of Great Britain) publishes the most comprehensive index of music for the instrument in question that I know of. Their name for the index (from their web site) is: "Thematic Index of music for viols".

Let's face it, the two names have been used interchangeably for centuries ( as well as Gambe also in German speaking countries) and for our purposes we can only use one. Most of the music extant for this instrument comes from the 16th and 17th centuries, and the general term used with this body of music is 'viol'. Let's use 'viol' as the indexing term, and allow connection - linking - whatever with other related names.

[Davydov]

This might cause more problems than it solves, but we could standardise the term "viol" in the instrumental category names, while retaining "Scores featuring the viola da gamba" as the specialist category. So the Heinichen trio sonata, for example, would belong to the categories "For oboe, viol, continuo" and "Scores featuring the viola da gamba". It could also be found with a text search on the terms "viola da gamba" or "viol".

Would this be the best of both worlds, or just add to the confusion?

[KGill]

In my opinion, it would be better to keep all the categories consistent, for purposes of both searchability and looking like we know what we're doing We can always add the side note 'also termed viola da gamba' to each realized viol category, so at least people will be able to find it that way.

[kalliwoda]

Obviously, the LC approach using both subjects is both inconsistent and illogical.
What I care for is the possibility to quickly recognize the example (Heinichen) as for viola da gamba, both on the workpage and in a search. If this can be accomplished while maintaining the viol tag, that would be fine.

But why the rush to change to viol, when even Stephen West had option 2 = Viola da gamba as an acceptable tag for the viol pieces, and then there would be no problem for the 18th century sonatas.

@afolop: I understand that from your point "viol" would be the optimal solution, but would viola da gamba be so wrong?? Looking at the 1952 Heinichen edition I just borrowed from a local library: Viola di gamba - someone crossed out the "di Gamba" on both score and part with red felt pen to only leave viola... somehow this strikes me like the mirror image of your stance. You say:in the 16-17th century it was "viol" - other works of later periods can be dealt with in footnotes etc. / vs. "who knows what a Gamba is, classical music (may be 1770-1950) only knows viola and cello" on the mind of the anonymous user of this library copy )

[afolop]

Other possible (minor to be sure) considerations are that 'viol' is a shorter and thus more convenient term. Longer, multi-word names tend to be shortened by using only one of the words. To those familiar with the subject, a non-misleading one will be chosen, e.g. 'gamba' ; but those less familiar with the subject may choose a more ambiguous one, as the library book example shows. Then again, the plural of 'viola da gamba' is correctly 'violas da gamba' which seems awkward and affected to me and apparently others; so much so that you will often hear the plural 'viola da gambas' being used.

I still vote for 'viol'.

[Davydov]

OK, there seems to be a clear consensus that having separate sets of categories for viol and viola da gamba is confusing, since the two terms are used interchangeably and inconsistently, and that there should be a single set of categories.

Of those who expressed a preference, there was a majority of 3 to 1 in favour of using "viol" as the standard term (rather than "viola da gamba"), and on that basis I've updated the category walker so that all references to "viola(s) da gamba" have been replaced by "viol(s)". Because of system caching this will take up to 72 hours to fully come into effect, but it won't change the title or content of any page that mentions the viola da gamba — only the headings under which the pages are classified in the category walker.

I noticed there are lots of inconsistencies in the ways that concertos for the instrument are currently titled, with "Concerto for Viola da Gamba", "Viola da Gamba Concerto" and "Gamba Concerto" all being used (amongst others). The page titles determine where the compositions appear in alphabetical lists of works (and there are big gaps between "C", "G" and "V"), so it might be helpful to settle on a consistent system. But that's another discussion

[StephenWest]

My thanks to everyone for resolving this. I'm sorry it is not quite resolved to everyone's satisfaction, but I'm sure that having a single category for the instrument is better than having several different names for the same thing.

Cheers

Steve