Talk:Cello da spalla

This article should be called "Violoncello da Spalla"; I have yet to find a single printed instance of "cello da spalla" anywhere in the literature. This needs to be changed.

In response to the unsigned comment above, I agree that the article name needs to be changed to "violoncello da spalla" with a redirect from "cello da spalla". The word "cello" as a shortened version of "violoncello" simply did not exist until the very late eighteenth century at the earliest. Additionally, this article will need to address the fact that many of the ideas circulating about this instrument are speculative, based on a handful of historical accounts, some of which are open to more than one interpretation. The relationship of this "violocello da spalla" to "viola pomposa" is murky at best. It is unclear whether it would be more appropriate to call the current interest in the instrument a "rediscover" or a "reinvention". --HenryPurcell (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

"The instrument was used by some composers, including J. S. Bach."

This is not a fact, but a speculative (and contested) claim made originally by Badiarov and argued by Kuijken. This sentence should be rewritten saying something like, "modern proponents of the violoncello da spalla claim that...." and then citing Badiarov, or the sentence should be omitted altogether, since it is followed by a sentence saying that Bach may have written his 6th cello suite for the violoncello da spalla. --HenryPurcell (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)