Violin And The Viola? Options

[Philharmonica]

I'm interested in really taking the violin or the viola more seriously. I have the basics for them both, but I haven't been practicing in a couple of years.

What I really was wondering was if it was better to go from the violin first, then to the viola; or if it was possible to just go straight into the viola without first mastering the violin?

Of course I would love to play both, but I would like to make the viola the more prominent instrument out of the two.

[the_viola]

If you want to play the viola really well, forget mastering the violin, as it is a complete waste of time. The technique is totally different. My teacher and I are still trying to rid my violin playing technique, after four years (about 900 hours of lessons, scary thought that). My teacher is pretty hot on technique though. Just remember that the viola is much more heavier,so it must be held differently to a violin.

[jod]

I want to start my 5 year old son on the violin. We've found a potential teacher who uses the colour strings method. I just hope he'll let me work at the songs and other bits with me. Any other violin teachers in the area out there who want to contact me are welcome to pm me.

[sarah-flute]

If you want to learn the viola... learn the viola! You don't need to "master" the violin first (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Nax]

Personally I prefer the violin because of it's high range, but the viola has a richer tone. I don't think you should master the violin first because also they look similar, the violin and viola are very different instruments.

[benjaminja]

They're different instruments, certainly, but I wouldn't say they are very different.

[mattrattley]

i agree with the above. it's not the same as, say, learning the fife before the flute, or cornet before trumpet or something. they're fundementally different, and thus should be studied as different instruments. plus by learning both you may confuse technique - in the same way as playing lots of woodwinds can mess up embouchures. i'd go for viola, if only because you'd stand out more (far more violinists in the world than violists!)

[the_viola]

They're different instruments, certainly, but I wouldn't say they are very different.

Might I suggest that you get your facts straight when saying this. The list is endless in differences between them. I am guessing that you play the viola in a violinists style. Whereby you think that you can hold the viola like a violin, but you can not. It must be up on the table of the shoulder, it is then much easier to hold, as it is not so heavy. The chin rest is not a chin rest, but a jaw bone rest. You must not grip. This is merely skimming the surface of an endless topic. Then there is the bow arm, how you should hold the bow, do each technique, etc. Then there is the left arm, and how to move from each position to the next, vibrato,etc. Then you can consider which school of playing you like, Russian, French, British (as above), and many more. Please do not think that the violin and viola are not much different to each other

[mattrattley]

that's what i wanted to say, except i can't play either so i don't know that much. but i'm thinking its the same difference between say, learning trumpet to play tuba - they're related in that they're in the same group (strings), and the fundamental principle of how to play it is pretty similar (bow on string = note), but as soon as you look even slightly closer you can see big differences between the two.

sorry for the crude references above (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) my explaining skills aren't brilliant

[bohemian]

The Viola, if the viola and violin have "endless" differences, how come so many great violinists (eg, Menuhin) mastered both, and while they acknowledged the differences, also demonstrated the numerous similarities. I mean, it's not like anyone's suggesting that you laern clarinet and transfer those skills to viola...I think it's fairly reasonable to assume there are some significant advantages to learning violin before viola, although it is by no means essential if you are physically ready for a viola.

All but one of the violists who I know played violin first, or also play violin (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Edit: Maybe the differences are less problematic if you only play violin for a little while before transferring to viola, so your technique hasn't developed enough?

[Philharmonica]

Thanks for everyone's comments (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Just a little thing... So it's not a good idea if I want to learn both? Or rather (from bohemian's comment), when's a good time to start violin again perhaps? When I've developed my viola techniques?

[SirPrancealot]

The Viola, if the viola and violin have "endless" differences, how come so many great violinists (eg, Menuhin) mastered both, and while they acknowledged the differences, also demonstrated the numerous similarities. I mean, it's not like anyone's suggesting that you laern clarinet and transfer those skills to viola...I think it's fairly reasonable to assume there are some significant advantages to learning violin before viola, although it is by no means essential if you are physically ready for a viola.

All but one of the violists who I know played violin first, or also play violin (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

yep. exactly what are these great differences? seems to me the fingerboard is slightly longer, the neck thicker, the viola is bigger generally, the strings thicker and the left hand has to stretch more. the bow is hairier and heavier. but.....both kinsey and kreutzer violin studies have been viola-ised.

obviously the player has to do bigger stretches in low positions but they seem to be played similarly with minor adjustments. several violinists in the studio also play viola.

[the_viola]

The Viola, if the viola and violin have "endless" differences, how come so many great violinists (eg, Menuhin) mastered both, and while they acknowledged the differences, also demonstrated the numerous similarities. I mean, it's not like anyone's suggesting that you laern clarinet and transfer those skills to viola...I think it's fairly reasonable to assume there are some significant advantages to learning violin before viola, although it is by no means essential if you are physically ready for a viola.

All but one of the violists who I know played violin first, or also play violin (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

yep. exactly what are these great differences? seems to me the fingerboard is slightly longer, the neck thicker, the viola is bigger generally, the strings thicker and the left hand has to stretch more. the bow is hairier and heavier. but.....both kinsey and kreutzer violin studies have been viola-ised.

obviously the player has to do bigger stretches in low positions but they seem to be played similarly with minor adjustments. several violinists in the studio also play viola.

The reason that kinsey and kreutzer studies can be applied to the viola is because they are studies about the left hand (making it nimble/fast, in tune, etc) and how to use the bow. They do not tell you how to hold the bow, what position the elbow should be in, etc. Did you read my first post? If not here it is again:

Might I suggest that you get your facts straight when saying this. The list is endless in differences between them. I am guessing that you play the viola in a violinists style. Whereby you think that you can hold the viola like a violin, but you can not. It must be up on the table of the shoulder, it is then much easier to hold, as it is not so heavy. The chin rest is not a chin rest, but a jaw bone rest. You must not grip. This is merely skimming the surface of an endless topic. Then there is the bow arm, how you should hold the bow, do each technique, etc. Then there is the left arm, and how to move from each position to the next, vibrato,etc. Then you can consider which school of playing you like, Russian, French, British (as above), and many more. Please do not think that the violin and viola are the same.

On the subject of how so many great violinists (eg, Menuhin) mastered both the violin and viola. I do not know, but I would like to some pictures of Menuhin playing the viola. I have seed Maxim Venergov play the viola on TV, and he played it in a violinist style (and there was nothing wrong with that, as he does not call himself a viola player). Many teachers think that the violin and viola are the same, for example at the Menuhin school there are no viola teachers, as the violin teachers also teach the viola. Then, if someone decides to play the viola as a first study at Music College, then they learn with a proper viola teacher. This is probably the way Kennedy learnt how to play.

[purple viola]

I don't want to get into the discussion about the differences in playing violin and viola, but I do agree with 'the-viola' that they are significant. Unfortunately the viola is often taught by violinists.

Philharmonica it is possible to learn both. I learnt both violin and viola. I started playing violin a couple of terms before I started viola, then I continued learning both for several years. I was lucky to have a teacher who taught both instruments well. I alternated between the two instruments, having lessons only on the viola for a while, then having lessons only on the violin for a while, and changing back to the other instrument after maybe a couple of terms.

I ended up taking alternate grades on each instrument. This way of learning both instruments worked for me as it gave me sufficient time on each instrument to allow me to learn how to adapt my technique to suit each instrument. Now I play the violin like a violinist and a viola like a viola player. I have ended up playing my violin less and less as I love the sound of the viola, but I am glad that I learnt both. I hope this helps

[bohemian]

On the subject of how so many great violinists (eg, Menuhin) mastered both the violin and viola. I do not know, but I would like to some pictures of Menuhin playing the viola.

In that case, read his book called "Violin and Viola". He WAS a master of both instruments. Now its funny how you don't get many violinists mastering a 2nd instrument other than viola. It's also funny how the ABRSM allows Dip/LRSM/FRSM violinists/violists to also play the other instrument in their exam, but no other instrument. You really think that they are so different? Well I doubt all this is just pure coincidence.

Many teachers think that the violin and viola are the same, for example at the Menuhin school there are no viola teachers, as the violin teachers also teach the viola.

Yeah, like I said, most viola players also play violin, and many violinists see the benefits of playing viola. That's why. It's not a big deal, it's not like you've got a French Horn teacher claiming that their skills are good enough to teach viola (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)