# The Viola Yay or Nay?



## Lenfer

Me again, I really love the violin family. For me the cello is queen however I'd always thought that the next in line to the thrown would be the viola.

However another member posted a video from *Youtube * of a viola solo and I was horrified somebody let the cat out of the bag there and then strangled it. The violinist was not dragged away by an angry mob so I can only think it was ment to sound as it did.

Not the other members fault I'm not meaning anything bad about the other member. I do want to know what you think viola *yay * or *nay*? Also if you know of any slow or somber music for viola would you let me know, thank you. :tiphat:


----------



## Sid James

Yay for me!



Lenfer said:


> ...Also if you know of any slow or somber music for viola would you let me know, thank you. :tiphat:


A solo piece I know is *Stravinsky's* _Elegie_ for viola, composed in the 1940's (I have it played on violin, which the composer was fine about, on a recording with Ruggiero Ricci). This is an interesting work, one of the few where the old chameleon let his mask "slip" - written shortly after losing his mother, first wife, their child as well as a colleague of his in his favourite string quartet group. A quadruple whammy! No wonder it is so dark & emotional. HERE it is on youtube (the original viola version)...


----------



## Lenfer

Magnifique! Thank you *Sid*. 

I'd really love that on CD I'll have a look for it but untill I find it I've just ordered this from the internet.


----------



## Weston

I'll vote yay without even thinking. It's the violin that sounds too often screechy squawky to me. (Not always, but often.) The viola is more often a rich purring compared to the violin. Of course I prefer all of the strings in ensemble to any of them solo.


----------



## violadude

Oye! I voted yay...but this reminds me of when I was in orchestra and all the violists thought they were hot **** because they were like the hipster underdogs of the orchestra and all the violinists thought the same because they were the super virtuosos of the orchestra so each group got into these annoying arguments about which instrument was better. >.< It was kind of amusing at first, then it got to the point where every time the subject was brought up you knew exactly what everyone was going to say before the argument even started.

Violists: Oh ya! Well we have a warm and more human tone and it's not screechy like the violins
Violinists: Oh ya! Well we can play way uber higher and have way more pieces written for us because the great composers knew the viola sucks as a concerto instrument.

So long story short, I refuse to talk about the merits/demerits of either instrument because I've heard it all *way* too many times.


----------



## TresPicos

An easy yay there. 

The violin is a bit too high in pitch and the cello a bit too low, so the viola is perfect there in between. I prefer viola concertos over both violin and cell concertos, but that's probably because they were, in general, written later (Walton, Bartok etc).


----------



## Sid James

As a non-musician, I sometimes/often find it hard to distinguish the viola from the cello (on recordings). Esp. if they are playing in a similar "register." It's not a problem, really, but sometimes I hear a great solo in (say) a string quartet piece, and I don't exactly know if it's the viola or cello (unless eg. the cd notes specifically point it out). & to complicate matters, sometimes one of the violins, if playing low/deep, sounds like the viola as well!...


----------



## Aksel

Rather easy yay for me as well. The viola is not my favourite instrument (I prefer the cello), but I find the viola more pleasant than the violin, although it does have a tendency to sound rather nasal.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Another one who sometimes struggles to tell strings apart here. I'm more of a brass/piano person.


----------



## Polednice

Cello
Violin
Viola.

But still a 'yay'. A _qualified_ yay though: I don't like it when certain pieces are transcribed for viola. LEAVE BRAHMS'S CLARINET PIECES ALONE. Jeez...


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> Cello
> Violin
> Viola.
> 
> But still a 'yay'. A _qualified_ yay though: I don't like it when certain pieces are transcribed for viola. LEAVE BRAHMS'S CLARINET PIECES ALONE. Jeez...


Well to be fair, Brahms transcribed those pieces for viola himself.


----------



## itywltmt

A big Yay from me.

The viola has such a rich and noble sound, and violists (generally) make their instrument sound like that so effortlessly it seems...

It's as if the Gods designed the instrument (a la three bears) "just right", not too pitchy, not too dark.

No wonder so many virtuoso violinists also play the viola: the repertoire is so much more interesting!

And, no, I am not just sayiong that because violadude and World Violist agree with me all the time...


----------



## itywltmt

Polednice said:


> Cello
> Violin
> Viola.
> 
> But still a 'yay'. A _qualified_ yay though: I don't like it when certain pieces are transcribed for viola. LEAVE BRAHMS'S CLARINET PIECES ALONE. Jeez...


We discussed that topic on a couple of threads this week - the business about transcriptions for the viola. Since I'm the one who brought it up, all I said is that (as an untrained musician) the Bach solo partitas and sonatas had such a distinct sound when played on the viola, one that makes you appreciate some of the textures better than on the original violin.

As for the Brahms clarinet chamber works, they were indeed intended for the clarinet and a particular clarinettist (Richard Mühlfeld) and he came out of "retirement" to write them. It would be illegitimate (if not a travesty) to adapt them for any other instrument. Let Brahms rest in peace.

Yes Sir, I have your back on that one!


----------



## Ukko

violadude said:


> Well to be fair, Brahms transcribed those pieces for viola himself.


Yeah, without changing much, and most of that to place the viola in a more pleasing register. I enjoy both versions of those sonatas, but the compositions do seem to work better with the clarinet/piano harmonies and contrasts.


----------



## Bix

Lenfer said:


> Magnifique! Thank you *Sid*.
> 
> I'd really love that on CD I'll have a look for it but untill I find it I've just ordered this from the internet.


I have this set and it is also magnifique!


----------



## World Violist

Need I say anything? Why would I stick with it after all this time?

Re: Brahms sonatas, I'm not really interested in playing them anyway. They're just done way too much.


----------



## Taneyev

To those who hate viola transcriptions, I offer a good one to hate strongly:Tertis' transcription of the Elgar's cello concerto.


----------



## World Violist

Odnoposoff said:


> To those who hate viola transcriptions, I offer a good one to hate strongly:Tertis' transcription of the Elgar's cello concerto.


Yes, that one's just wrong. Good intention, because it's a great piece, but it is so obviously written _for the cello._ I don't get the logic behind this transcription.


----------



## Taneyev

There's more: Schubert's "arpeggione" and Franck's violin sonata have been transcribed to cello, viola, violin, and even flute.
The one transcription I hate most is the Katchaturian's v.c.to the flute.


----------



## violadude

I think the arpeggione transcription is justified since the original instrument doesn't exist anymore.


----------



## GoneBaroque

Since I have a preference for the deeper toned instruments and singers I am a definite Yea.


----------



## World Violist

violadude said:


> I think the arpeggione transcription is justified since the original instrument doesn't exist anymore.


At least for cello and viola, but violin? I didn't even know there was one for violin. I don't feel like that's particularly justified.


----------



## Klavierspieler

violadude said:


> Well to be fair, Brahms transcribed those pieces for viola himself.


Yes, but he expressed that he wasn't happy with the transcriptions.

For strings, I have no particular order of preference. I love Violins, Violas, and 'Cellos alike.


----------



## Ukko

Klavierspieler said:


> Yes, but he expressed that he wasn't happy with the transcriptions.
> 
> For strings, I have no particular order of preference. I love Violins, Violas, and 'Cellos alike.


If Brahms had been unhappy with the transcriptions to any significant degree, they would not have been published. You know the way he was.


----------



## Argus

I can't think of an instrument I would say nay to.


----------



## Lenfer

I'd like to thank you all for taking part in the poll, I'm glad no one has voted nay yet. It was my impression that there was a lot of violin supremacists lurking out there in the classical music world. I'm delighted that they have yet to find this site it seems.

Just ordered these from *Amazon*, Solo - Suites for Viola by *Tabea Zimmermann*.










&










A Portrait of the Viola by *Helen Callus * & *Robert McDonald*.


----------



## Polednice

Re: Brahms - he was an idiot sometimes.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Hilltroll72 said:


> If Brahms had been unhappy with the transcriptions to any significant degree, they would not have been published. You know the way he was.


I actually don't really know the way he was (not my favourite composer).


----------



## Ukko

Klavierspieler said:


> I actually don't really know the way he was (not my favourite composer).


Hah. OK then. Brahms was severely critical of his own compositions. Apparently a lot of them went to the waste basket instead of to a publisher.


----------



## robert

I love the warmth of the viola


----------



## robert

Polednice said:


> Re: Brahms - he was an idiot sometimes.


Could you please be more specific.......


----------



## Polednice

robert said:


> Could you please be more specific.......


I could, yes.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Grammar pedantry time. The "please" eliminates a hypothetical there and turns it into a request!


----------

