This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I do believe that in the early days of Jazz, a man called Bob Haggart invented something called the syncopated triple slap technique. THis is described in his book on Bass playing. This does sound similar to that technique which User:Badagnani describes and I think therefore should be included in the article. I can provide a ref if needed!-- Light current 23:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A couple of years ago at the National Folk Festival in Bangor, Maine, I saw a young double bass player in an acoustic rockabilly-style group at a party at the hotel one night playing in this style. It was my impression that in that style of music he was playing it's not as syncopated as in some of the early jazz recordings. He was basically doing what is described in the article: plucking as normal for the first and third beats, then "filling in" with one, two, three, four, or more "clicks" in between." Occasionally I think he would do some sort of reversal or displacement, where the clicks came on the downbeat, somewhat like what some funk drummers will do to switch the beat around for variety. I was told that this young player had devoted his life to the study of this style of double bass slapping, and that he was known as an expert on this. I don't know who this player was or what the name of his band was, but I suppose there might be some way to find out. Perhaps with his help a separate article on the double bass slapping technique could be created and the information moved there to shorten the double bass article. Badagnani 23:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it is (was) a recognised technique in the thirties (Im told!) So whether it should be included Im not sure. I mean how far back are we going in jazz ? (or classical for that matter). I dont think a separate article would be desirable. Just a short mention will be OK-- Light current 23:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Jazz may go back at least to the end of World War I, with James Reese Europe's military band (which didn't really swing, but contained many elements of later jazz). He had various society orchestras which were ragtime-based over the preceding decade as well. Badagnani 00:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I called the National Council for Traditional Arts and found that the group I saw was from Maine, the leader being the rockabilly guitarist/singer Sean Mencher. The bass player was Shane Kiel (from the band Two Timin' Three, formerly of Massachusetts and currently of Austin, Texas). In the audio tracks on their MySpace page, the "drums" you hear (there is no drummer in the band) are actually played by the bass, using a virtuosic "slapping" technique. Blows my mind. Give it a listen. http://www.myspace.com/twotiminthree http://www.rockabillybass.com/cgi-bin/discus/board-profile.cgi?action=view_profile&profile=shane-users Badagnani 20:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Be careful how you throw the term "virtuosic" around. But anyways, the music sounds cool. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If you saw the guy live you would certainly use the word. I just listened to all four songs and only two have the multiple slaps between bass line notes (the fourth, and, to a lesser extent, the third). I would argue that, of the four, the fourth track's bass part is virtuosic at least as regards this difficult technique. The bass players I've worked with, while great, have had trouble consistently doing one slap between bass line notes, let alone three or more at a fast clip. The bass parts in the other two songs here are not "virtuosic" in my view. Badagnani 20:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I turn my back and look what happens! I was going to comment on a version of the page I printed last week, but that page is in the bit bucket. Okay, so some off-the cuff notes on where the page is now. Some of these may be blunt, inflammatory even, so take them with a grain of salt. Some of these reinforce discussion above (to the extent that I have scanned it)

• Overall the page is cleaner. Maybe a little too clean for my taste. Prose is now quite simplistic in parts.
• Quite a few wikilinks have been lost - arco, pizz, bow, in section 0 for a start.
• In Section 1 (history) too many one-sentence paragraphs. Bad writing. It reads as a list of dot-points supporting an argument as to why (or why not) the bass is really a viol. Or not. IMHO a bass is a bass, and its form and construction is a result of a range of influences and traditions, based on what worked (bassists like it when luthiers make playable sweet-sounding instruments, and so they spent their money there). Might be an idea to mention octobass here in passing. (and where is my quadrabass???)
• Section 2 (terminology). Formal instrument name subsection is terrible. Is it derived from italian, or is it the size, or does it double? I always thought it was the "doubling" but not from a 'cello POV. In a harpsichord and organ, you often use a combination of registers - pull some levers that double any line, usually with an octave displacement. But this is not called double on the pipe organ or harpsichord page, so my version of this myth is flawed too.
• Section 3 (design) is good. Drop sentence with explicit reference to "websites quoted below", or at least get the referencing working properly. Which websites, and are they quoted (or merely listed with hyperlinks). Look up the current WP guidelines and decide whether to have a direct link to the external site or an internal link like "... see the external links below"
• Section 4 (Tone) why is the only reference point the electric bass? Comparison with 'Cello would also be useful.
• Section 5 (construction) disagree totally on pegbox being important. It is a 20C innovation. Basses existed before then with friction pegs (I've played one). Machine heads are not what makes a bass a bass!! What is important to the sound of the bass are the arched belly and to a lesser extent the arched back, coupled via a soundpost. (some basses have flat backs). Front is usually 1-piece, but back is often 2-piece. Extremely anal nit-pick: weight not mass determines the need for a robust spike.
• Section 6 (strngs) is OK
• Section 7 (tuning). Maybe drop 5ths tuning, unless you can come across a good reference for it. Could be merged with prev section.
• Section 8 (pitch). Is OKish. I am getting tired. Clarify: Bottesini as composer or player? Change "concertos" to "solo works". Maybe call section "Pitch and notation". Drop "extreme" as tenor clef is used for a 2-octave range on G-string. Picture of clef could have open strings and approximate upper range notated.
• Section 9 (technique). drop inside leg measurement. typo: inefficient -> insufficient. Is there a page on general string technique so that we are not reinventing the wheel? (vibrato, bowing, pizz) Much of classical technique has gone astray. Probably worth mentioning that bassists often use multiple fingers to stop a single string, unlike other stringists.
• Section 10 (Bows). Nice section. I think this section should be earlier, with other "physical" aspects. Maybe after strings. Put length of bow in first paragraph.
• Section 11 (problems). Is this section here just so people feel sorry for us?? If this section stays in, can it be put in a more positive light? It could be useful to cross-reference the 4ths tuning to the problem with "reach". Carbon fibre and fibreglass variants should go alongside plywood in construction. Andrew's recommendation: get rid of this section totally, and distribute between technique and construction.
• Section 12 (modern playing styles). Here "modern" is ambiguous. There is modern art music, modern popular music. Just list them all (arco, pizz, variations on pizz) under "playing styles" or "technique". Also note that many playing styles attributed to popular music (slap pizz) were known in classical music (partic 20C art music). Other classical playing "styles" are col legno, sul tasto, sul ponticello, but I guess they should fit in "technique". Andrew's recommendation: merge with technique
• Section 13 (classical repetoire). I like this section. Ah, memories (I am not an active classical player)
• Section 14 (DB in jazz). A bit short. Here you could actually bring in influential players, as they correspond to classical repetoire and composers. Mingus mingus mingus mingus mingus!! Maybe a description of styles of bass line other than walking bass, and how this has developed as jazz has freed up from 1950 on.
• Section 12 1/2. Before the current section 13, we need a section DB in classical music, explaining its role in the orchestra, chamber music, and solo (rather than just a list of repetoire).
• Section 15 (DB in bluegrass) I don't know much about BG apart from Edgar Meyer. I'll duck this one.
• Section 16 (DB in popular music). Can we have a term other than "popular music"? Jazz was once popular (snif). The role of the DB in rockabilly was partly put down to R+B and country - the first mention of these forms of music in the article. I know the DB was used in R+B, but country?? I have an allergy to country music, so don't ask me. Trim paragraph on EB to a sentence that describes DB being replaced by EB as it more suited aspects X Y and Z of the music.
• Section 17 (Bassists) either we don't include any names, or we include some jazz bassists and others that people think are noteworthy. Otherwise links to lists of players.

OK - the above are some quick gut reactions for others to mull over their worth, and to incorporate into future edits. Some of these are corrections that are quick to make (I would have made them, but I was not in "correcting" mode) and others require a bit more careful planning and thinking. HTH! Andrew Kepert 10:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

THis para seems to be very short campared with the other genres. Do you think we should try to balance up the amount of content on the different styles of music in which the DB is used?-- Light current 17:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the section was much better a week or two ago. I recommend using that version as a template. I agree that this version does not do justice to the jazz double bass tradition as well as the previous version. Badagnani 05:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I dont recall anynoe removing stuff- certanly not I. Ill have a look at earlier versions to see whats there. BTW I lke the new pic - but is that the natual color or is it just the most worn out double bass ever!! 8-? -- Light current 12:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Found the stuff and reinserted it.8-) Now the para is the largest and may need some pruning 8-(-- Light current 12:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I note the last prargraph about Jazz Rock stan clarke and Miroslave has been deleted forgotton is there any rason for this?

Also I think Slapping is important But I disagree with elements / issues of projection. A well set up bass non amplifyed will fill a whole room and indeed project. A well knowin Sydney bassist (I'll see if I can find the book in which this is mentioned) useed to listen to Jazz bands on boat's out on Sydney Harbour in the 1920's and 30's His observatons where that the a good double bass sound carried better than even a tuba due to the wave length. I think the slap stuff would be better placed in the technique section.

Anyone else have thoughts on this? -- Steve Abrahall 13:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)-- Steve Abrahall 13:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah its because the page is about double bass. Stan and Jaco played fretless electric. 8-|-- Light current 13:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Stanley Clarke and Miroslav Vitous do both play double bass (Clarke playing both electric bass guitar and double bass). I don't think Jaco was mentioned above. Badagnani 16:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. But the para is really supposed to be about the role of the DB in jazz and not necessarily the players- although I agree its hard to separate the two. I feel we should only mention the pepole known mainly for jazz DB playing. But if we could concentrate on the role of the DB rather than the players, I thikn that would be preferable.8-|-- Light current 16:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Right, there are really too many -- and they appear in the list of jazz bassists. But one could pick out a few of the greatest masters, Mingus being one. I guess a couple of others are worth mentioning, like Milt Hinton (who could be mentioned as regards slapping), as well as Gary Peacock and Ron Carter are others who are considered some of the best (like the Gary Karrs or Edgar Meyers of jazz bass, ha ha). Badagnani 16:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I think we could restrict mention to those who were actually innovators in the use of the DB. Mingus is probably one. Chambers another (arco style). But someone like Ray Brown (who is one of my favorites) I dont think warrants being mentioned under these criteria 8-(-- Light current 16:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• I would agree with the above. Chambers worked with Coltrane and so did Jimmy Garrison (maybe also Reggie Workman). I don't know their individual styles well enough to tell them apart. As far as "innovation," Alan Silva and Henry Grimes were also good in "very free" jazz. Badagnani 17:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. What I suggest is that we all propose names here of jazz bassists with the reason for their importance. Ill start it off; Please ad to the list, then we can all agree on how to prune it to the bare essentials. -- Light current 17:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As already stated Stan and Mirsolave did / do play double bass and incorporated it into the Jazz rock thing. The reason they are mentiond is that the Jazz sub article is written in a style that notes how the bass is an important part of Jazz and who and how that person contributed.

Just as a number of Bass players are mentiond in classical section/s. I think it's a good and important part of the article that we mention double bass players. And while we are on the issue of bassists I think it insane not to incuude Ray Brown! His solidity musicality and the people he worked with did a massive amount to liberate the bass! I don't think the musicans should be seperated from the article.

I don't know how old you people are but back in the early 80's it was darn hard to find out about Bass players (it still is although the Net and I tunes helps a lot)

I was of the opinion that this was a positive and usefull side to this article. You want to know about the double bass - music it is useed for and who made that music. May be this could be considered a positive function of this article? -- Steve Abrahall 06:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

AS I said earlier, we should restrict mention of players to those who have been major innovators on the DB in jazz. Otherwise, the section will grow out of proportion. I agree that Ray Brown was a fantastic, solid player, and actually my hero, but I dont think he was an innovator really. Also, I dont think it appropriate to mention players just 'cos of the people they played with. Sorry to appear so uncaring but we have to be strict to make this a good article. 8-(-- Light current 07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ray Brown thru his musicality choice of musical partners (Eller Fitzgerald, Duke Ellington, Oscar Peterson) is an example of a truley great ensamble player, and solist (A not so well knowin album he did with Duke Ellington a few weeks before Duke passed away is an amazing, musicaly it pre dates a heck of a lot of work that people like Myer, Stan Clark and Jaco did ) His ensamble playing is as good as anyones he was the Fritz Chrylzer (sp!) of Jazz double bass playing! An exlemparary team member a refined soloist. He Set the standard for all Jazz Bass players! Shame on you! LC! :) Steve Abrahall

Yes. I said Ray Brown was my hero but unfortunately, I cant think of any innovations he made. He was just a damn good bass player. But there are other 'damn good bass players' Anyway I see he's still mentioned. I wont be removing his name (but I wont be putting it back either) 8-( -- Light current 21:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

These are just suggestions- please add to/delete/amend as you see fit!

• Charlie Mingus -- experimental, Composer for bass, Unique Harmonic language
• Milt Hinton-- slapping
• Bob Haggart-- big band bassists and inventor of syncopated triple slap.
• Paul Chambers - introduced arco style Modal and impresionist influence, Miles Kind of Blue Album.
• Scott LaFaro -- Musical and melodic virtuosity extension of the trio (the bill Evans work)
• Neils Henning Oersted Pederson - great technical virtuosity,

---

Players can be listed by "substyle," as it is now. Slappers, big band players, bebop players, more modern arco guys, free jazz. Previous edits listed Bill Johnson, Wellman Braud, Pops Foster, and Milt Hinton as notable slappers. I've never heard of Haggart. Oscar Pettiford is also important for bebop, maybe also Jimmy Garrison. Plus the above mentioned Ron Carter, Gary Peacock, and Silva and Grimes for free jazz. Maybe it's too many but these cover many (though not all) bases. I'm not familiar with Le Faro or Pederson. Badagnani 17:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well, I think we should pick one only from each substyle as an example of that substyle. That would give more than enough matl for the para! 8-| -- Light current 17:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is that sometimes there are two or three of equal prominence in a given substyle.

In reference to the above, I wouldn't place Mingus as "free jazz." I think he was more pushing the limits of the big band into more experimental territory. Badagnani 17:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK well these were just my guesses. Please amend the list as you see fit! 8-)-- Light current 18:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• My preference is simply to edit the jazz section in a collective way until we arrive at the finest bass players, rather than create a hard-and-fast list of only which players may be mentioned. We can discuss here, but as we've seen with previous overly restrictive proposals, they can "box in" editing in a way that is not helpful to the article. If more editors even more knowledgeable about jazz come along, they may have amendments to the list. So my suggestion is to use the discussion to arrive at the main players, but not be too restrictive. Our collective judgement is pretty good, I think and if someone adds a player to the text we consider extraneous or fairly insignificant we can remove that player. Criteria for inclusion could include virtuosity, influence, and reputation as well as innovation. Badagnani 23:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well of course that is one way of doing it. The problem is that we may get into an article edit war situation. I thought it would be best to thrash out the problems on the talk page first. Edit warring on the talk page is obviously not as damaging to the article! Im not sure if you are talking about discussing things on the talk page first or not! I thought this would be a reasonable way to come to a rough consensus of whom we might include. It would not be definitive, but just a gut feeling amongst we interested editors. Of course, someone elese with superior knowledge could come along and change things. But we have to start somewhere! I am not an expert on great jazz bass players but 'I know what I like'. However I am willing to be educated as to who the real giants are!-- Light current 00:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was just worried that if we somehow forgot someone really great, through our collective oversight or because we rushed through hammering out the list here on "discussion" we wouldn't be able to add them in later. Badagnani 08:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well of course others could be added later. But we need to decide on the main infuential players here initially and reach some consensus. 8-)-- Light current 10:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Just letting you all know that I have tickets to go see Edgar Meyer tomorrow night. I'm excited. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 18:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is he? No its OK - I looked him up. Aha! Botteesini Is that why you suggested Bachs unaccomp cello suites to me? If so, can they be obtained written in the bass clef? 8-)-- Light current 19:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard him play live a few times and have never heard an arco double bass player play with such "singing" musicality and flawless intonation. Any recording you can find of his should be great. Badagnani 19:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a lot of recordings by him. His recordings of Bottesini's 2nd concerto are amazing. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 19:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Light Current, the cello is usually written in bass clef, so yeah you can definately get Bach's suites in bass clef. You can get them for free around the internet, a while ago I found the Prelude to the first for free on a site, can't remember which one. Bottesini... damn you. Hope you have fun. Gnome

OK thanks for that. But the last time I looked at cello music in the shop it was in the alto (C) clef I think! Ithink it may be written in both! 8-(-- Light current 21:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it can be written on any clef, but at least half the time in bass clef. and I've definately seen the cello suites in bass clef. Although I think there's one (the sixth) that was written for a five string cello or something so that one might be in treble. Gnome

OK Well Ill have another look in the shop.8-|-- Light current 21:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Bottesini, I got to see him in Boothbay Harbor up here in Maine and I'll tell you, he is simply amazing on the isntrument. A number of my teachers have kind of scoffed at him, perhaps because he mixes bluegrass and classical, or perhaps because his style is a little unorthodox, but he makes the instrument sound amazing. I heard one of his original pieces where the second movement is played pizzicato and he just flew on the thing. Hope you have fun! Kntrabssi 01:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This article fails many gudielines for a good article, poor referencing/citations, over-reliance on a single source, (in this case Paul Brun's book) confusion over established definitions of terms, or misuse of those terms, as well as a large degree of internal inconsistency. A list of items that need major attention.

Origins and History section. this entire section is a poorly worded paraphrase of Brun's book, but taken out of context to promote the specific and unverifiable viewpoint that the bass is a gamba or viol family member, and not a violin at all. Also makes this section contradictory to later sections (e.g. Design section)

Tone. Nowhere in this section is there an actual description of the tone of the instrument, instead there is only a comparison to the bass guitar. (electric bass guitar? acoustic bass guitar? That should be explicit and not infered from the next two paragraphs) This is inappropriate as it does not at any time describe the bowed tone of the instrument. Further, the comparison to the bass guitar is inaccurate. The presence or absence of frets does not create or relieve the 'buzz tone' that the article describes. Buzz tone is a matter of playing technique, string material and specifications, (particularly thickness and tension) and the individual characteristics of each instrument. This section should be replaced entirely with specific descriptions of the tone, or a media file of a few long tones.

Construction. again, a section that is inconsistent with the rest of the article. An unverifable claim that the bass is closest to the violone, followed by descriptions of the violin family internal construction. Perhaps merge this section with 'Tuning.'

Strings. No mention of the use of silk strings for solo performance. Specifying specific strings is probably inapropriate for an encyclopedia, doubly so as there is no way to describe the tone differences between strings without a basic description of tone. Also look at this-

The classic 19th century Franz Simandl method does not utilize the lowest strings in higher positions because with older gut strings set up high over the fingerboard, the tone was not clear in these higher positions.

If we cut the unecesscary descriptor 'classic' and all other places where such language shows up, we'll save space in a long, and somewhat meandering article. Besides, even steel strings are unclear in the high register, the advent of steel strings and synthetic core strings led to higher playing positions generally, no just on the E string. Simandl also avoided the higher 4th string positions because of the physical and endurance challenges in playing thick, high tension gut strings.

Technique. This section really describes posture, not technique. I think it should be rewritten to include a description of finger technique, or include descriptions of feasible technical agility on the instrument.

The middle of the article is extremely well written, whoever cooked up the sections on bows, practical problems, and madern playing styles, congratulations.

Repertoire. there is confusion here over what constitutes solo works. Everything described in this section is either an orchestral solo excerpt, (Saint-Saens) or chamber music. (Mozart, K. 612) The 'Solo Works' should be better labelled 'Orchestral Solos.' True 'Solo Works,' (non-Concertos) would be things like Bert Turetzky's D Blues For the Solo Double Bass Which has no accompianment part, or the adapted version of Ernest Bloch's Prayer from A Jewish Life. Also Mention should be made of work transcribed from other instruments rep lists. It May be time for a Main article on Double Bass rep, as this section could get out of control pretty quick.

The rest of the article is high quality, but there are still general formatting and citation issues. I feel this is a confusing article in it's present state and I'm looking for consensus to remove the Good Article tag. I won't unilaterally take the tag off, and I would like some feedback or rebuttal if anyone thinks I'm out of line. -- Macjonesjazz

Well rather than remove the tag, could you help us to justify its retention? I actually disagree with most of the points you have made here. The valid criticisms you have are minor and can be corrected very quickly. THere is no need to delist this article as GOOD! -- Light current 23:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I largely agree with Macjonesjazz. See my comments from last week --- Talk:Double bass#Comments on progress above. Macjonesjazz is probably better informed -- e.g. I don't have a copy of Brun's book. It is an "okay article", needing attention if it is not to be delisted. It is better than the dog's breakfast it was 6 months ago. Suggested strategy that I will start on (probably over the weekend) in the absence of other progress or objections:

• fix minor problems
• compile an agreed list of major problems and possible actions (e.g. starting with those raised)
• wait for comments
• fix those that I am able. I have limited access to definitive references.

Andrew Kepert 01:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

To quote my comment to Macjonesjazz's user page:

I invite you to contribute to the double bass article yourself. This is wikipedia, anyone can edit. Instead of only listing well-founded complaints on the talk page, it would be nice if you were a little more pro-active and edited the article to improve it while explaining your actions on the talk page. Again, welcome to Wikipedia!

— ßott e siηi ^(talk) 01:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bottesini - I can't speak for Macjonesjazz, but the reason I haven't dived in on the major edits is that the page a busy one. I took a printout a couple of weeks ago and scribbled on it, but this was completely irrelevant when I sat down to edit a week later, due to the largely positive changes made in that week. So I gave some quick feedback (not complaints IMHO) on the major changes. Some of the changes I am thinking of partially reverse changes made then, and are time consuming. Odds are they would be immediately reverted by wikipedians who are more active on this page. So such changes are better done with some consensus, reached via this Talk page. (e.g. I hated the "practical problems" section while Macjonesjazz and others like it, so for me to delete it, throw out what I thought was rubbish and salvage some parts of it for other sections would not be polite.) This is also how wikipedia works. If there is no comment on the points raised, I can't guess whether anyone agrees or disagrees, and so will lose interest in trying to make the page better. Andrew Kepert 02:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the reference to Jaco Pastorius where it used to refer to him in the career section as a composer. Jaco did not play the double bass so I substituted him with Dave Holland, who is a better example of a jazz bassist/composer in this context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.211.30 ( talk) 04:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There should be a differentiation between double bass and upright bass, so we should split this page into two. Although generally the same physically, they serve a different function. Most bassists in other genres do not call it a double bass because the "double" term is irrelevant. The instrument's role and function is different. The Double Bass should retain the classical content while the content for jazz and various genres should be moved to an upright bass page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.236.218 ( talk) 15:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Double bass comes from the Italian "contrabasso". The double part means twice as low as bass range instruments. DavidRavenMoon ( talk) 00:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm reposting this so I don't delete the source in case someone wants to use it for something else:

"Tuning in fifths can also make the instrument louder, because the strings have more common overtones, causing the strings to [[sympathetic vibration|vibrate sympathetically]].<ref name="fifths">[http://www.dennismasuzzo.com/bassinfifthsarticle.htm ''Taking the Fifth: How Tuning in Fifths Changed My Experience Playing the Double Bass''], Dennis Masuzzo</ref>"

This is just not true. There are more common overtones on open strings, but as soon as you finger a note, this commonality disappears. The same commonality can be accomplished by playing a fifth interval on a fourths-tuned instrument. This source is a player with much more experience than I, but he is not a physicist and his understanding of the physics of sound is very limited. Conical Johnson ( talk) 05:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Conical Johnson, please listen to Bottesini: Music for Double Bass and Piano, volume 2. Joel Quarington and Hal Robinson play the Gran Duo together. Please tell me who you can hear better. It's not a engineering or mastering trick, Joel plays in fifths and sounds clearer because of it. Louder? No, probably not louder. http://www.amazon.com/Bottesini-Music-Double-Bass-Piano/dp/B0013JZ4HG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.134.171 ( talk) 01:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever thought Joel Quarrington sounds clearer because he might just play clearer?-- 99.181.21.113 ( talk) 07:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've occasionally tuned in fifths over the years and noticed that it certainly sounds different, but in any case, this sort of assertion comes under the category of "original research" until someone can cite a respected source on this matter. Thus Wikipedia-wise, the topic seems to be moot. JacquesDelaguerre ( talk) 17:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is where we will put together a list of issues and strategies, based on comments made above. Feel free to add to the list, or to add signed comments against each item. I have only started this as a template for me or others to proceed on. Andrew Kepert 01:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Overall structure and focus of article

• Problem: some inconsistencies with depth and treatment of different musical styles. Andrew Kepert 01:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Sections "DB in classical music", "DB in jazz", "DB in bluegrass" etc covering (in paras or subsections) the role of the DB in that field, repetoire, styles, influential musicians. Andrew Kepert 01:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• History

• Problem: muddy POV of origin of bass construction. Andrew Kepert 01:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Suggestion: real research, or reference to real research (rather than folklore). Andrew Kepert 01:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Playing and performance problems Do we need this language? From my reading of this section of the article, this is really about technical issues and use of the word problems is not constructive or open in its approach (for example weather a player stands or sits is not a problem - just a professional consideration) Also ask yourself does the violin section have a Playing and performance problems section? - Part of me feels that this is a hang over from the original Brtanica article that was some what derogatory in it's consideration of this most Noble on instruments. May be re name this section something like Playing and performance considerations? or simply Playing and performance

Statements such as (in the largest orchestras, the bass section may have as many as twelve bassists) don't make sense when you consider a large orchestra may have 20 - 30 violins Steve Abrahall ( talk) 11:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As no one objected to my sugestions I have changed the name of the sub section. - Note section still needs work as it contains tautology

Steve Abrahall ( talk) 01:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In the article, it jumps from jazz to bluegrass to early rock and roll. But the link is the early rhythm and blues of Louis Jordan (very popular throughout the 1940s), which did use a double bass to great effect. Bill Haley copied Jordan's basic style years later. This should probably be added in the early part of the "pop" paragraph, as Jordan is generally credited as being the bridge between jazz and rock and roll. Here's an article about his bassist: http://library.missouristate.edu/meyer/speccoll/Bartley/pages/playing.htm Badagnani 20:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please add it! 8-)-- Light current 00:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I put something in. Badagnani 01:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That is one fantastic photo! Badagnani 22:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Although it doesn't show Foster "in action." Badagnani 22:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I had to crop it out of a picture off of a magazine cover. — ßott e siηi ^(talk) 23:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks cropped because there's some other guy muscling into the shot. Check out the slapping link I just added if you get a chance; it's extremely informative. Badagnani 23:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it my imagination, or has that bass that Foster is holding got a shorter than normal neck> 8-?-- Light current 00:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It really doesn't look all that short to me, and it could have something to do with the perspective of the shot. — ßott e siηi ^(talk) 00:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering about the credibility of A New History of the Double Bass saying that the double bass is the member of the violin family. Does the double bass really have the internal structure similar to that of violin, viola, and cello, and different from that of viola da gamba? And all the viol-like features of the double bass (i.e. sloping shoulders, tuning in 4ths, etc.)-- are they merely modifications to make the instrument more convenient for playing? (i know the German bow system is not)
P.S. All your bass are belong to us!!!!
['frαs.ti] 20:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the internal structure of the viol da gamba, but the internal components of a bass are almost exactly the same as the other members of the violin family. Of course there are differences in structure and support that allow for the increased size, but they share many basic pieces. One difference is the back; a lot of basses are flat-back, as opposed to being swell or round back like all violins. But this is due to the size, and there are also a lot of round-back basses as well. The structure of the bass is still changing, luthiers are always experimenting with new designs. — ßott e siηi ^(talk) 21:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the "usage" change not discussed here? "Use" is better than "usage." Badagnani 23:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then change it. It is not discussed because I wrote "per peer review" in the edit summary. I guess I figured that you'd look in the peer review and see that it says not to reuse the article name in the section titles. (If for some reason that seems like it should have read in an angry tone, re-read it in a happy voice, because I'm not trying to be angry or anything). — ßott e siηi ^(talk) 23:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not use a smiley face? :-) or 8-) to indicate emotions-- Light current 23:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Because "smiley faces" are smarmy. The English language in the hands of a competent writer did not require pictograms in the many centuries before the Internet went commercial, and it does not require them now.

I created this diagram from a picture of my own bass. Anybody think it should go in the article somewhere? The image to the right is not full-size, obviously. Just click on it. — ßott e siηi ^(talk) 22:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I like your diagram Bott. However, I would make a suggestion that maybe you could label the upper and lower 'bouts'? THen I think it would be an asset to the article (as any good diagram is) 8-)-- Light current 23:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How does the new version look? — ßott e siηi ^(talk) 17:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am the one who put the Jazzbass.jpg picture on the jazz section a few weeks back. It's a picture of my friend Rudy, a jazz bass player from Indonesia, well he's not really renowned internationally but quite renowned in Indonesia. I took that pic during a practice session in his studio in Bandung, Indonesia. Anyways, I think the pic is good to be put in the jazz section because it shows a playing technique that is distinctively jazz. Current porter picture, albeit historical, does not show he's playing a bass. So I would like to propose to also insert my picture in addition to the current jazz picture. My picture is not copyrighted anyway, and i think it explains the technique better. Thanks! Meutia Chaerani 10:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought this about your photo as well; it shows a jazz bass player "in action," doing an upper register pizz. solo. Badagnani 10:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Chaerani, Could you tell the reason for his strangely coloured bass?-- Light current 15:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

He sandpapered that part of the bass, i forgot why he did it. I don't play bass myself so i can't put any opinion about that either Meutia Chaerani 22:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh! I see 8-?-- Light current 22:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How is the technique unique to jazz? And it's pretty obvious that Foster is a bass player considering that he's holding a bass. — ßott e siηi ^(talk) 15:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that a very high register pizz solo is more typical of jazz than classical (though I don't have time to do a statistical analysis of jazz and classical compositions) :) Badagnani 18:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK — ßott e siηi ^(talk) 18:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I reapply the jazzbass.jpg picture into the jazz section, as agreed under this discussion. Besides, per Wikimania conference, it is agreed that it is preferable to use open sourced photos (as in the jazzbass.jpg) instead of copyrighted fair-use photos (as in the Porter's photo). Meutia Chaerani 13:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Is intonation more difficult on a double bass compared with other string instruments because of its size? It seems to me intonation as such, ie producing a note to the required pitch, is not really related to the size of the instrument, otherwise one could argue that a cello is easier to play in tune compared with a double bass because it is smaller, and a violin even easier. Yes, the positions for the fingers are further apart, so to play the same range of notes as a violin one needs to stretch their fingers and move their hand over wider distances but that is that is not intonation. LDHan 04:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's my experience--primarily because in faster passages the entire hand (and arm) must jump up and down the neck, often way up the G string. With the violin passages can be played with much less movement of the hand and thus the intonation is easier. Part of it is probably the thickness of the bass strings as well. Let's see what some of the other bass players here have to say. Badagnani 04:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

One could also say that intonation is easier on a double bass because the wider distances give a greater margin of error. LDHan 05:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, but one that is belied by the severely out of tune bass player we've all heard (and whose sound unfortunately lingers in our minds)!  :) Badagnani 05:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm lost. Are you talking about a particular bass player? Gnome 05:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, isn't perception of pitch less accurate at low pitches? LDHan 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with LDH, perception of pitch is less certain at low frequencies. On the DB, although the distances are greater along the strings, most bass players do not purposely jump up and down the neck, they use all 4 strings! Intonation can be a problem very high on the neck, becasue the notes are so close together. But on a violn, they are even closer! I think Badagnani has just been listening to a rather unaccomplished player!-- Light current 11:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're a bass player I'm sure your ear develops as you learn the instrument and one can start to tell when they're out of tune more easily, or at least in my experience. If you have develop a good technique (you know, practicing and doing what you're supposed to), it would be easy to remedy this. The instrument physically is harder to play, and it's been one of the most discouraging instruments to learn. It's huge, it's a pain to carry around, and that sure does make it difficult to learn how to play, or at least it did to me. But it doesn't matter. Stop wasting time trying to find an excuse for a problem and just fix it. In the end something you're not used is going to be harder at first. 66.32.69.231 ( talk) 17:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The PNG file that shows the range of the double bass needs to be corrected. Double bass music is written an octave higher than it actually sounds, which causes the pitches of the four open strings in the diagram to be an octave higher than they actually are. The user that uploaded that PNG needs to add an 8va below the open strings for the diagram to be accurate.-- Markjdb 15:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, playing range is wrong. Whats shown is the written range. Can someone fix this? I cant! 8-(-- Light current 21:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The article on the Hungarian Wikipedia has a correct one. -- FrostytheSnowman ^('sup?) 00:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed image. The previous one was [[Image:Written range double bass.png]]. I changed the image to [[Image:Range contrabass.png]], which has a 8vb below the open strings notes. -- FrostytheSnowman ^('sup?) 01:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing! 8-)-- Light current 01:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, one note about the range image. It is only correct for four string basses. Five string basses, if they have a lower string, generally tune it down to a low B, which is lower than the C shown in parentheses on the image. Granted, five string basses are less common that four string ones, but it's probably worth being accurate. Lovelace ( talk) 04:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Recently I have looked for and found a very informative video on Youtube explaining the range of a double bass. The bassist, Jason Heath, has a 4-string Double Bass, which however, has a mechanical extension to subcontra-B (31 hz.). I realize this is very rare - or is it? The bassist also managed to play a B natural a semi-tone below the C two octaves above middle C. Coming back to my question: is the lowest string on a 5-string bass tuned more commonly to B natural or C. And, does anyone here know, own, and/or play a Double Bass with a low B-extension? -OliverKahnNr1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.52.131 ( talk) 22:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Since playing my EUB regularly now for about 9 months, I have developed a sore neck on the left side when I rotate my head to the left. i went to the doctor and he said it was due to the action of the left arm in playing the bass. He recommended an excersise with the arms thet make it look like Im doing the funky chicken dance. Anyone else had any similar problems?-- Light current 11:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't say that I have. If you are developing soreness, there is probably something wrong with your technique or you're holding too much tension or something another. There are whole classes you can take about the body's mechanics while playing and how to play more efficiently and correctly. - ßott e siηi ^(talk) 18:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I cant see that Im doing anything specifically wrong. What are these classes of which you speak ?-- Light current 00:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You may want to check this out: [1] It was in the latest edition of the ISB magazine. -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 02:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I went to the doctor the other day, he couldn't stop laughing. I asked why this was, he said "You see that guy that just went out? He'll be doing the funky chicken for hours" Gnome 03:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 14:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha very funky!. It works though! Try it and see!-- Light current 05:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this may be the key:

Muscle-Specific Bass Playing

When you play the bass, be careful to use only the muscles necessary to perform the specific tasks involved. As the body tires, the tendency is to overuse these muscles and to involve muscles that aren't necessary for playing. By building muscle-specific awareness, you can conserve energy, reduce the risk for injury, and allow your body to be more physically fit to play the bass.

from international bassist -- Light current 07:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Article says that DB s have always used M/C heads. Im sure I read somewhere that old DBs had pegs just like other members of violin family. Any comments?-- Light current 01:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It says that a citation is needed for the line below, but in reality this is common knowledge among bassists and will be found in most any source.

Historically, strings were made of gut, but since the 20th century steel has largely replaced gut due to its better playability.

Well, if most any source will do, why not just cite one of them? I, for one, do not use gut because of its short lifetime when exposed to moisture, not its playability. DaveCW ( talk) 08:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 03:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then it's time to get to work. -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 23:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few, hopefully someone will keep up the work (I will be back after some rest). -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 00:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation #3 actually contradicts the statement to which it is appended. The statement says that the double bass is a viol, while the cited article describes it as a member of the violin family. (In point of fact, it's not exactly either, but is more commonly considered a viol because of its shape and tuning).

Sometime in my absence from wikipedia, all the images from the bow section disappeared. Anybody know what happened to them? -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 02:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of this page (esp. the Origins and History section) appears to be copied from this web page: [2] which carries a copyright notice. I suppose it's possible that they copied it from here. Anyone know for sure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.170.66 ( talk • contribs)

That actually appears to be copied from wikipedia, as I have seen that prose actually developed and written here over time. It's not a copyright infringement for them to use it (all wikipedia articles are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License), although I am curious as to their claimed copyright. -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 21:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair that they're claiming copyright over something that was collaboratively written here. What can we do about it? Badagnani 22:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can email the email address that I found for them ( info@ibay-hk.com) if you want. -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 22:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

They have also used the photo of my Double Bass, which I put up as GFDL. I will e-mail them. Andrew Kepert 03:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why, those f*ers! Badagnani 03:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Double_bass/Copyright_notice for my e-mail. 8-) Andrew Kepert 04:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No news yet -- see User_talk:Bottesini#Bass_page_copyvio. However, I will draw from Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter next time, and one of you might like to use one of these letters as the next step -- it gives them a softer option to fix the problem, if they are prepared to wear a "GFDL" and foreign copyright notice on their site. Andrew Kepert 09:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Further update: I found WP:MIRROR has a place to put lodge GFDL violations. Andrew Kepert 09:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Last one for today: http://musical-instrument.koopal.com/ and related sites are also ripped from WP. I put a suggestion on Talk:Musical instrument for a contributor to follow it up. Andrew Kepert 10:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that serious placing Fernando Grillo before Gary Karr and Edgar Meyer? Is he a more prominent player, with more experience and notability than those two? Badagnani 08:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, he is not. -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 21:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Why, then, does he not only add himself in most paragraphs but he adds himself as the first name? And there is no Wikipedia article for him other than his user page. Badagnani 22:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... vanity? -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 22:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! He just added himself again, before Turetzky and Karr. Those players are senior in their field, with many decades of work, but I really don't think Grillo should be placed first in this list. Badagnani 01:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

He just put himself as the first name in all those sections. I don't think that's appropriate. Badagnani 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I. I'll drop him a line as well. -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 23:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we not have the length of the instrument (in inches/centimeters) listed? Badagnani 08:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It can vary quite a good bit. -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 16:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, we'd better at least have a "mean" for basses used for orchestral playing. As a bassist, I suppose you have access to this information? Badagnani 19:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess most 3/4's (standard size) are probably close to 72" (from scroll to end of body, not including endpin). I play a 7/8 (it's documentation says it's a 3/4, but it takes a 7/8 case) so you can see that even opinions at to what constitutes the different sizes varies. -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 20:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read, bass sizes are bassed (sorry) on the scale length - nut to bridge. A table I found a while back on Gollihur music's site had that a full sized bass is 43.4" (110cm) and a 3/4 is 41.3" (105cm). After finding this I measured my bass (you know ... the famous one pictured at the top of the page!) and it came in slightly over the 105cm - I can't remember exactly. I always thought was full-size, but something I read somewhere claimed that true full-sized basses were not common.

Actually, after having written that, I googled and found the page http://www.urbbob.com/FAQ-size.html which is where I got both pieces of information. Andrew Kepert 09:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The picture for the tuning of the bass needs to be changed to reflect its actual pitches, which would mean that the notes need to be lowered by an octave. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markjdb ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Yeah I forked that off the french wikipedia a while ago. I'll make one myself. -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 00:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 01:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Does he really belong alongside bassists like Bottesini and Simandl? Mehta is FAR better known as a conductor; the only time I've ever seen/heard him play bass was in a video of the trout quintet on youtube. His article doesn't even mention the fact that he's a double bassist...I would think that any addition to the list should be based on their contributions to the bass, instead of music in general (ie conducting). Markjdb 21:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's moot now... Markjdb 00:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Bass is in no way related to the violin family and, as such, I am removing that information from the page. Kntrabssi 22:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you posting this all the way at the top? The article itself states that the double bass has many similarities in construction with the violin family, so you're wrong about that ("in no way related"). It's also a member of the orchestral string family, of which the violin, viola and cello are part. In fact, the cello is not proportionally the same as the violin either. So you're off base and a bit reactionary, not even following the text of our own article in this regard. Badagnani 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've returned this; as the article says, modern scholars have varying positions on the issue, but there is at least one body of opinion, led by Paul Brun's book which we mention in the article, suggesting that the double bass is descended more from the violin than the viol; while borrowing some viol-like features (fourths-tuning, flat back in some cases) for practicality. Some of the very earliest instruments considered double basses are made in the violin form, with pointed corners, rather than the gamba form with square corners. While both bodies of opinion exist, I see no harm in listing both descents. I'm not sure that any scholar would say that the modern double bass has no relationship to the violin family - even if you believe its descent is purely from the viol, at the very least it has been modified (for example, in removal of the frets) to more closely resemble the violin. TSP 00:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The instrument is usually and traditionally considered a member of the violin family, and that doesn't hinge on whether it derives from the viol (or some viol). The instrument's derivation may be controversial, but its violin-family membership is not. TheScotch ( talk) 06:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have difficulty with arguments about the 'evolution' or 'descent' of musical instruments. Instruments are creations of the human mind, not reproductive organisms. I do not claim to know about the history of the double bass, but I do know something about making and inventing instruments. When I make, modify, or invent an instrument, I usually use everything I can about everything I know to create the best instrument I can. I might, as an absurd instance, get inspiration from the shiny hardware on a clarinet (or a '57 Chevy for that matter) to design a new shiny tuning peg (or bridge or body) for a double bass. Does this make my double bass a member of the clarinet family?

At other times, I make an experimental instrument by flattening, rounding, straightening, sharpening, adding, subtracting, or otherwise subtly or radically modifying what I have made or seen before. Whether I, or someone in a large audience, gets inspiration from the experiment, and takes it further, is difficult or impossible to trace from one day to the next, let alone across centuries. I can't always pin down where my own inspiration came from, let alone someone else's.

I accept that trends and families exist in the development of instruments, and that there are many interesting and instructive accounts from history which demonstrate chains of innovative thought. I can not accept that there is proof of, or such a thing as, a pure descent for any instrument, as this would require a reconstruction of the experiences and thought processes of thousands of instrument makers through the centuries. As a logical thinker, not a historian, I regard statements such as the modern double bass has no relationship to the violin family as patently absurd. I think the many articles which claim to have certain knowledge of the evolution of musical instruments only degrade the overall quality of Wikipedia. DaveCW ( talk) 09:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As a practical matter, the degree of certainty varies according to the instrument. In some cases derivation is clear; in other cases derivation is obscure. The relevance of your personal experience making and apparently inventing instruments would depend on how notable your instruments are. (As a rule, one should be wary of phrases like "as a logical thinker, not a historian". Historians are guided by logic too, but they try to avoid thinking in a circular manner. Unlike mathematics, say, history is not a closed discipline. Internal consistency is not the only test of historical veracity. There is also, and mainly, correspondence to reality.) TheScotch ( talk) 02:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In any case, we as editors are not allowed "original research" here; Wikipedia is obliged to go with what the most reputable sources say, and this is what Grove says about the subject of this section (membership in the violin family in contradistinction to derivation): "...the Double bass is also usually considered to be a member of the violin family though in some of its features – all explicable in terms of the practicalities of playing such a large instrument – the influence of the Viol family is apparent: it is tuned in 4ths rather than 5ths, historically had a variable number of strings and normally has sloping shoulders and a flat back that is ‘broken’ so that the upper section slopes inward towards the neck...." TheScotch ( talk) 06:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DaveCW, talking about 'descent' is strange, and the double bass was probably created using elements of both the violin and the viol. I do not pretend to be an expert, but as I understand it this is basically what Paul Brun himself says. Here is an excerpt from his book: In effect, neither the cello nor the double bass are in any way derived from instruments they simply superseded. The offshoots of the bass violin, both of these instruments have been consistently in use from their inception in the late 17th Century to our own time. Admittedly, as a result of the demise of the viol family, a number of contrabass viols were converted into double basses at some point in history. But it is our view that the interpretation of the particular point should not lead to unsubstantiated generalizations, nor should it constitute an article of religion, to be accepted with unquestioning faith. TheScotch, the double bass is tuned in 5ths as well (although it is admittedly less common); the bass violin had three strings, showing that historically there was some variability in the violin family as well; and the wikipedia article itself states that the shape of the double bass can vary. Furthermore, the affirmation that The double bass is generally regarded as the only modern descendant of the viola da gamba family of instruments is debatable: it is just one body of opinion, and implying that it is the most reputable is questionable. I think that this article might be biased in favour of one body of opinion and therefore might infringe on Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Patrick59 ( talk) 00:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "TheScotch, the double bass is tuned in 5ths as well...":

I have no idea why you're addressing me in this manner (and Grove clearly means the instrument is now usually tuned in fourths). I have not voiced an opinion about the derivation of the double bass and I have none. I have only pointed out that 1) its membership in the violin family ("Violin family" is the title of this section) does not hinge on its derivation ("Derivation" is not the title of this section), whatever it may be, and backed it up with a citation from Grove--I don't know why this fails to get through--and that 2) for some instruments, not necessarily this one, derivation is clear. It is not for you or "DaveCW" to decide whether " 'descent' is strange", as you put it; Wikipedia articles must be sourced. It's odd, by the way, that Brun should speak of "an article of religion". Are there persons really that hung up on this matter? If so, I don't think Brun's book is going to help them. TheScotch ( talk) 04:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is a really dumb reason to add another section to the discussion, but I swear I've heard the Double Bass referred to as a Floor Bass, along with the other names listed. Is this a real term? Albino Bebop 02:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you thinking of a ground bass? Markjdb 23:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"double bass is derived from the tuning of one octave lower than the cello." This needs to be reworded - too many people are confused thinking that the cello and bass have the same strings with the bass strings being one octave lower. Farful 10:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a mistake in the terminology: a " bass violin" is actually a cello ancestor and not a double bass. -- Shutterfreak ( talk) 10:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

In order to trim the size down a bit, should we just list repetoire, instead of giving a small description about quintets, concertos and such? Kntrabssi 09:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't many German orchestras use a five-string double bass? This seems as if it might be important enough to be mentioned in the main article. Grover cleveland 16:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The traditional string arrangement is 4 strings. The sentence Some bassists use a fifth string tuned to B one half step below middle C. mentions the fifth string. Kntrabssi 18:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the fifth string is supposed to be C exactly one octave bellow the cello's low C. Moreover, although pupils usually play on a four strings instrument, in professional orchestras (especially in the opera and in baroque repertoire) they use nearly exclusively five strings. AdamChapman ( talk) 16:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

B would seem more likely, as it would keep the instrument tuned in 4ths - I can't see a pressing reason to have the lowest string a semitone higher.

I understand that practice varies a lot by country - German orchestras usually use 5-strings, as do several of the major British orchestras; in America, I think that 5-strings with extensions on the E string are more common. Then of course there are wacky alternatives like tuning the bass in 5ths, an octave down from the cello.

I think this is all reasonably well-covered in the the 'Tuning' section, though. TSP ( talk) 13:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The double-bass is tuned in 4ths, like a guitar. Therefore I don't see what is the problem with putting a 3rd in between. I'm a cellist, and played with several bass players (classical music. I don't know about jazz). The reason it's C and not B is that the strings are tuned to support the keys of C major, G major and related keys. A really low B would not fit. Moreover, I don't remember any piece of music in which a bass is required to play lower than C. AdamChapman ( talk) 10:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just talking to an American jazz bass player with a five-sring (and examining her instrument) last Thursday. The low string is B, a perfect fourth below the normal low E. (She does have an orchestra background too. She said her fingerboard is wider to accommodate the extra string, but not so wide that she doesn't have to bow much more carefully than she would on a four string to avoid hitting the wrong string.) The logic of C, though, is that many old orchestra scores give only one part for cellos and basses, and where the part goes below E it isn't clear what the bass is supposed to do (drop out? jump up an octave here? jump up an octave a bit before?). The five-string is one solution; an extension is another. (Saw plenty of instruments with extensions at a bass conference a month ago.) TheScotch ( talk) 02:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi The Scotch, the Groves Encyclopedia discusses the whole "what the bass is supposed to do"...in the days before extensions, bassists would often rewrite the part, either putting the super-low notes up an octave, or if that made the line too "jumpy", then shift the whole passage up an octave....By the time Mahler was writing his symphonies, though, he knew that some bassists had the low notes, so if he had a rumbling low D, he would sometimes specify "Not an octave higher" -- thus telling the bassists who didn't have the low D just to lay out OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 19:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

One concern I have about the five-string, though, is wouldn't adding an extra string tend to place more pressure on the top of the instrument, thus maybe affecting how well the instrument can vibrate and resonate? We need a physics/luthier expert to chime in here... OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Listen Badagnani 00:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"The wire wrapping is gold or silver in quality bows..."

I know very little about bow or instrument construction, but I question this statement. If something is "gold or silver" it is usually for decorative and/or price-inflating purposes, not for "quality" purposes. I highly doubt that there is some particular tonal or structural quality shared by gold and silver, but not shared by any other (cheaper) metal. -- 74.229.197.48 01:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The wrapping length (both the exposed length and how far it extends under the leather cushion) and material may be used to adjust the balance of a bow, since a gram or so near the end makes a difference to the feel of the bow, in how it tracks on the string, and how it performs in various lively techniques. Typically, a maker will use a "finer" metal on a higher-quality stick, "labeling" it in this fashion. Of course, label inflation is not unknown, but the material of the winding, and more importantly, the metal of the frog and screw button mountings, do have some significance regarding bow quality. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 13:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bow price. I've played plenty of bows without any obvious signs of valuable metal or other ornamentations. The reverse may be mostly, true, however. A bow maker is not going to waste valuable metal on a stick he considers inferior. However, a first class bow can have none of it and still be a first class bow. Tom F. ( talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Silver is actually extremely common in bass bows, not even really expensive ones. $350 and more will typically use silver. It is used to add weight and balance to the bow. Seriously, do any of the people editing this page even play bass, it's kinda an embarassment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazkev92 ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In light of a severe lack of references, I have taken this article to Good Article review. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 19:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has been delisted - find the archived discussion here. Giggy ^Talk 00:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The double ASS is generally & possibly mistakenly, regarded as the only modern descendant of the viola da gamba family of instruments, a family which originated in Europe in the 15th century, and as such it has been described as a "bass viol."

I figured I had better change that...

71.74.13.103 09:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that's a typo? I think there's a different name for that ... + ILike2BeAnonymous 17:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ray Brown is "known for his virtuosic bowing technique"? "the Fritz Kreisler of jazz double bass playing"? If ever a citation was needed, it's here. Wikipedia's page on him doesn't use the words "arco" or "bow" anywhere. I'm a huge fan of Ray Brown and don't remember ever having heard him play arco. http://www.musicianguide.com/biographies/1608001296/Ray-Brown.html tells us that "His arco {bow} technique is excellent, though he seldom reveals it. " I got excited watching a YouTube video of the Oscar Peterson trio where Brown picks up a bow... and after using it to check his tuning he just puts it down again. In a jazz bass method book I have by him, there is a picture of him using a German bow, but again, I have yet to actually *hear* him use one. If there are a few examples out there, I'd love to hear them, but as reputedly the most recorded musician in history (because of all of his studio work), there's not nearly enough recorded arco work from him to justify the claim that he's "known for his virtuosic bowing technique." Bobdc 21:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobdc ( talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed pending source being provided:

“

Ray Brown, known for his virtuosic bowing technique, has been called "the Fritz Kreisler of jazz double bass playing."

”

Badagnani 00:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that a certain website has basically plagarised the whole thing. They've just added a few things by themselves. Please do something about it! http://www.jazzdoublebass.com/articles/article.php?id=MQ== —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunwhim2 ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of the infobox that just showed up is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 23:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a music clip from the German Bottesini that we could use as a listening clip, so users could hear what a bass sounds like? Also, I'm sure there are many freely available jazz/pizzicato sound clips? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.127.171 ( talk) 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed the fingerings image, because I believed the other one was a bad example. Also, it was a poor image (taken of music with camera). So, I uploaded a new one with an excerpt of Tchaikovsky and added the fingerings with lilypond. What do y'all think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael miceli ( talk • contribs) 07:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not much; I removed it. First of all, it's too small at its small size to really see anything. And it's not particularly useful and is actually misleading: so far as I know, actual orchestral music doesn't contain fingerings. That's left up to the player's discretion (unless you're talking about a grade-school orchestra). + ILike2BeAnonymous ( talk) 07:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Other strings often have bowings determined by the principal player in the section, & sometimes fingerings, don't they? Basses also? If so, a good-quality image of a part marked up in pencil might be appropriate, but not a lilypond pretty-printed one. (By the way, Michael, I think lilypond and sliced bread are both right up there near the top of the pantheon of Admirable Things...) L2BA, your first point cuts no ice with me-- the full size image is only a few clicks away from the thumbnail, but I still think deleting the image was the right thing to do this time. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 19:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In reply to the second point, no; at least for real (i.e., adult) orchestras, no string parts contain fingerings. This is something you'll find in parts for elementary-school players. Bowings are put in in pencil (and subsequently erased) by the section leader or concertmaster (or "leader" if you prefer). But not printed in the part. + ILike2BeAnonymous ( talk) 19:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It seemed that there was a need for a page with explained fingerings. I thought it would look more professional than the elementary bass part with fingerings written in that was up before. Maybe something else would be more appropriate like an etude (it could be larger)-- Michael miceli ( talk) 20:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than an etude, I'd rather see an actual (interesting) orchestral part, as marked up by an actual principal bassist, but that might be tough to find as a free image, since printed scores & parts tend to be copyrighted, sometimes rented copies, depending on how any given orchestra's library works. I suppose an etude with some teacherly fingerings and shifts written in would do, but not for every note, as in the previous photo. Not really sure we need such an image here anyway, but open to being persuaded. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 17:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see nothing there, thank you very much; this is far too trivial to even merit inclusion in the article. Bass fingerings are very much a personal choice, and I seriously doubt that many professional players even bother marking them in their parts. Again, this is elementary-school stuff. + ILike2BeAnonymous ( talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Add to that the fact that a lot of basses are played outside an orchestral context, without even paper to write the fingerings on... works just fine for me, to have nothing there, thanks. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 03:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I seriously doubt that many professional players even bother marking them in their parts.":

I think you assume too much. Cellists spend oodles of time deliberating about fingerings, and I certainly marked fingerings in my cello parts when I played in orchestra. Violin playing doesn't involve nearly as much shifting as cello playing, but bass playing involves more. It's true that professional orchestral parts aren't generally published with fingering, but fingering is certainly a valid topic for this thread; it's really only a question of where it should go and whether the way it's presented is misleading. TheScotch ( talk) 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I know many professional double bass players and principles who, when first receiving a part, are required to fill in fingerings and bowings. However, I can see where a whole page with complete fingerings would be overkill. I was just trying to replace a very elementary and poor picture. So, I guess what I am saying is if there is an excerpt or something to show anything about the bass my lilypond experience is always welcome to help out. :-D -- Michael miceli ( talk) 04:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to differentiate bowing and fingering here. Scores and parts do generally include bowing. This is often changed by the conductor or section leader, and the conductor or section leader usually sees to it that bowing is consistent within a section. Fingering is rarely included in scores and parts, and players generally work this out for themselves individually--fingerings are not usually dictated to them by the conductor or section leader. TheScotch ( talk) 06:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bill Haley and the Comets.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A recent edit removed from the opening sentence the terms bass violin, bass fiddle, and bull fiddle on the ground that "no one calls the bass, bass violin or bass fiddle. Even if they do, it's innacurate because the bass descends from the viol." I restored the terms, remarking, "Bass violin is actually a very common term & whatever its lineage, the instrument is considered part of violin family. Fiddle is the British term for violin. Not familiar w/bull fiddle."

In support of my restoration I now proffer this citation from the fourth edition of the American Heritage English Dictionary: "The double bass, usually considered a member of the violin family [my emphasis], is tuned in fourths and has the sloping shoulders and flat back characteristic of the viols. It has a deep range, going as low as three octaves below middle C. Also called bass fiddle [ditto], bass viol, bull fiddle [ditto], contrabass, string bass." TheScotch ( talk) 06:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, restore them; it doesn't matter if the terms are inaccurate or not, it's clear we're just listing all the commonly used/heard vernacular names to have the most encyclopedic possible article. The issues of lineage are discussed in the article anyway. Badagnani ( talk) 06:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the less common terms (bass fiddle, bass viol, etc) from the lede, because the lede paragraph is where the reader goes for quick, ready reference. I think it is great for the rich variety of terms to be discussed in the terminology section of the article. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 19:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in full support for eliminating the terms bass violin and bass fiddle. Just because people refer to the instrument as that, does not mean it is correct. Dictionaries are not always right either, this is coming from an avid and active bass player pursuing a career in the field. I would rather not give them such incorrect names to such a wonderful instrument, I see it as an insult. Although I see the integrity of this page to be flawed in many areas, I would like to see the name correct amongst all things.

Also as opposed to what has been stated above, the bass is not a member of the violin family. Violins are tuned in fifths, the bass is tuned in fourths. The bass also has sloped shoulders characteristic to the viol family, for the most part at least, since all string instruments have large amounts of variation even within their instrument category. The violin family however have rounded shoulders. Still, the term bass viol wouldn't even be correct, since it has long since strayed away from that class. It no longer has frets like the viol family does. The bass is very much it's own, unique instrument. Neither viol, nor violin.

Thus, I beg that bass violin and bass fiddle be removed from the alternative names for the instrument. Let us not dumb down society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazkev92 ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The terms are actually used in the vernacular, and thus are presented, as "thumb piano" is for mbira. Badagnani ( talk) 04:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

People also refer to the bass as a "big cello" or "that big thing." That is vernacular amongst many, therefore it's appropriate that we must include those too if "bass violin" and "bass fiddle" stand.

I don't believe those are widely used vernacular terms for the double bass, while "bass fiddle" is one of the most widely used. [3] Badagnani ( talk) 05:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh believe me. I've heard them said to me many more times than upright bass. I've never heard anyone call it a bass fiddle, but maybe that's because I don't associate with ignorant redneck? I'm sorry but this is extremely frustrating. I'm just trying to make a change for the good of the page and people alike, yet it has to be so difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazkev92 ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Bass fiddle" is a widely used term, as evinced by this Google Books search. Many terms for specific musical instruments are "wrong," yet still widely used nicknames for those instruments. Badagnani ( talk) 18:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when were google books the standard of accurate information? Laughable at best. But still, it does not matter what family people believe the bass is in, since it is it's own as I have said. It has lost attachment to it's former ties. But if we have to be that way, you must include kontrabass viol, and this suggestion is with as absolutely no sarcasm. By any chance badagani, are you a bass player at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazkev92 ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

With sourcing, maybe you can make a case for a sentence like inaccurately called a "bass fiddle" or "bull fiddle", but an upright bass is very commonly known as a "bass fiddle". Bluegrass musicians probably don't appreciate being call ignorant rednecks, and that is probably the most common name for it in that genre: witness sites like this, this, and this. Since I play tricordia and tenor guitar, I sympathize with your frustration at people not knowing the correct names for your instrument, but at least people recognize what you play, and have a name for it, even if it's wrong.
Kww ( talk) 20:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That is very true how within the Bluegrass genre it's referred to as Bass fiddle. I'll still call them ignorant though, not so much rednecks. Even the term fiddle for violin bothers me. It's just so undignified, much unlike the instruments themselves. It makes me want to create a seperate classical bass page, though that would never fly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazkev92 ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's get real here -- the alternative names are perfectly legitimate and should be noted

The discussion here seems to reflect a shocking ignorance of language and how it works, as well as the purposes of an encyclopedia. Words mean what people use them to mean. Bass fiddle, bass violin, and bull fiddle are entirely legitimate and commonly used terms for the instrument, especially in certain cultural circle. To label them "inaccurant," "incorrect," "ignorant," "undignified," reflect blatant prejudice, as well as a misunderstanding of language, of encyclopedias, and of the notion of ignorance, and, more importantly a misunderstanding of the principle of neutral point of view. People who come to an encyclopedia looking for basic information on topics should at the very least have access to information regarding various terms used for things that are covered. I am going to restore all the alternative names and I hope that there will be a discussion based on the values of information and language rather than that of blatant prejudice. Acsenray ( talk) 15:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, it should be possible to FIND information in Wikipedia. A redneck like me, desiring to become less ignorant, might only know the instrument as a 'bass fiddle' and would therefore do a search on that term. Should Wikipedia return no results? -- 68.144.70.5 ( talk) 17:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I believe that we should set a high standard for the external links section (for the Wikipedia guidelines on External Links, see WP:EL) Ideally, the External Links should be non-profit, educational or scholarly websites with a variety of quality resources and information on the topic. Along with other editors, I always remove advertising websites from the EL section, whether they are major online retailers or small indie instrument makers. However, with the Bluegrass webpage now in the EL section, we have a "grey zone." The bluegrass webpage does have resources on playing double bass. However it also has a large advertising sidebar on the left-hand side of the page, and a number of smaller "business card"-sized advertisements along the right side. I think that there are enough high quality non-profit, non-commercial websites out there that we should remove website links that have significant amounts of advertising......................................Is the Bluegrass webpage a non-profit webpage that has advertising just to cover its costs, or is it an advertising webpage that uses bluegrass content to draw webhits and make money? We don't know. But I think that we should err on the side of caution, and on the side of setting a high standard for the External Links section. Comments? OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 19:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The site seems good. Badagnani ( talk) 19:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have run across this issue with other articles' links and could use more guidance in the form of more defined standards and policy. -- 68.144.70.5 ( talk) 17:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

correct me if im wrong, but isnt the double bass also used in many black, death, and symphonic metal songs? Chipthief00 ( talk) 16:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of significant use in metal - in my experience, "double bass" in a metal context usually refers to a double bass drum setup. But if you can provide reliable sources for the use of double bass in metal, it can go in the article. TSP ( talk) 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

ṜedMarkViolinist ^{Drop me a line} 19:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So how did that go anyway? Willi Gers07 ( talk) 19:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have a bit of a concern about edit counts being used as a measure of the quality of an editor. Some editors (myself included) have an inflated edit count, because we make lots of little edits and save often. However, there are also editors who will write entire articles "offline" and then save once. Doing a whole article and saving it as you go could net you 100s of edits. Yes, in a rough way, the edit count can give you a sense of a person's involvement, but I would rather see, as the first credential, something like "significant contributions: articles written, substantial edits, or substantial overhauls" rather than edit count. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 02:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)