A Brief History of the Viola; an Unfinished Story

By David Milward, 2004

In writing this short article I have attempted to give an outline of the history of the viola and in
doing so illustrate the influences which have given direction to my own work as a Luthier
specializing in making new violas

Viola Size
“The subject of viola size has been an area of controversy and confusion, not least among recent
generations of luthiers.”

17 1/8 16 ¾ 16 ½ 16 ¼ 15 ¾
Viola size has always been, to a greater or lesser degree, a controversial topic since the early 17th century when
the instrument we know today as ‘the viola’ was more clearly represented by at least two distinct forms. Since
the viola has, in more recent times, found a greater popularity the issue as to the instruments ‘correct’ size has
evoked a continued debate. To look for reasons for the present confusion both the origins of the string quartet in
the late 17th and early 18th Century, and to the situation that persisted before this time should be considered.
During the early period of the violas history, at a time when the violin family was emerging as a group, the
different instruments generally represented the vocal pattern of soprano, alto, tenor and bass. Two different sizes
of violas were used to cover the middle voices. The ‘alto’ viola (small viola), and ‘tenor’ viola (large viola), both
had the same tuning (c, g, d’, a’), which is a fifth lower than the violin (soprano), (g, d’, a’, e’’), but due to their
different sizes they had quite different timbres, or sound qualities. However as the tuning of both the alto and
tenor instruments is so far removed from the bass tuning a true tenor tuning of (F, c, g, d’), was sometimes used.
Historically then, three distinct forms of viola seem to have existed; the ‘alto’ viola in alto tuning (smaller body
size), the ‘tenor’ viola in alto tuning (larger body size but with a relatively short neck), and the true ‘tenor’ tuned
to F. Since the 18th Century, however, the string quartet has used just three different sizes of instrument, the
violin, viola and violoncello. The bass instrument of the violin family, the violoncello, encompasses the tenor
register whilst the viola generally covers the alto voice. These new roles for the instruments of the middle
register overlap somewhat and reflect the situation that persists today. The term ‘contralto viola’ probably best
describes the instrument suited to this contemporary role, occupying the ground somewhere between the soprano
and tenor registers, historically represented by the older forms of viola.
The challenge, which faces the contemporary luthier, is how to define an instrument that will fit the middle voice
separating the soprano from the bass, and what quality of sound should this instrument possess? Which is the
more desirable, the alto or tenor timbre? Does the current desired tone colour call for a resonance that is nasal or
completely clear?
William Primrose, “That there is a difference in sound quality goes without argument, and it is up to the
individual player, to say nothing of the individual listener, to prefer one type of sonority to another. In my own
case I must confess to a strong preference for the mezzo-soprano quality over the darker contralto sound….”
However Primrose does go on to say, “experience has taught me not to expect a satisfactory ‘viola’ sound from a
short model….”
Lionel Tertis, “The small violas have insufficient air space and therefore lack C string sonority. The large ones
of over 17” or 18” in length, with their cumbersome features effectively prevent ease of manipulation.”
Contemporary performance demands an instrument that is neither too small for efficient sonority nor too large as
to compromise technical accomplishment. It would appear to remain, however, that the dark and pure tenor
timbre is still the desired quality sought after by many instrumentalists today. Given that a suitable size of viola
is required to give this desired timbre, that the instrument should be of a playable dimension, and that the form is
required to preserve the classical unity of the string family, what then are the factors pertinent to achieving the
ideal size of viola?
An increase in the body length goes some way to achieving the goal of a darker tenor quality and there exist
certain arguments as to what this ideal size should be. Let us first realise, however, that by modern set up
criteria, developed over the preceding centuries to establish the higher tension instruments in use today, that the
body length of an instrument will dictate, by proportion, the final string length. For a given body length a stop
length is established, which is determined by the design of the model. Using the modern proportion of 2:3 a final
string length is achieved.
It should be born in mind that the string is the acoustical centre of any instrument, and consideration should also
be given to the tension of the strings as this gives the variable downward force on the body of the instrument. For
any given instrument there will be an optimum tension of string that will cause the body to resonate at is full
potential.
As the viola is tuned a fifth below that of the violin and that the fifth indicates a vibratory ratio of 3:2, it has been
reasoned that an instrument built in proper proportion should have a body length in a proportion of 3:2 to that of
the violin. This would result in a viola with a body length of 54 cm. (21 in.), which for my part is not an
acceptable goal, and is a solution that ignores other critical aspects of an instruments design. Eugene Sprenger
(1882 - 1953), a luthier from Frankfurt, made use of basic design criteria to produce a viola that had a broader
body combined with deeper ribs giving an increased air volume to the body of the instrument, effectively
lowering the air space resonance tone. This ‘Sprenger model’ viola was used regularly by Paul Hindemith and
had a ‘strong tone with full character’. Lionel Tertis also used similar considerations combined with a wider
bridge platform in his ‘Tertis model’ viola to good effect, and William Primrose comments when comparing the
models of Andrea Guarneri to that of Stradivari, “The middle bout is wider, and therein lies the source of the
greater sonority on the lowest string…” The most extreme example of this feature is most amusingly displayed
by Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume’s earlier contribution to this argument, his ‘Contralto’ viola of 1855, which has a
body length of only 41.3 cm. (16 ¼ in.), but one that makes a valuable comment as to the criteria for design
proportions.
Considering the question of body length of the viola, it is interesting to note that if we divide what has at times
been suggested as the ‘standard’ size for a viola, 16¾ in., by 6, the violin dimension of 14 in. is achieved, and
similarly if a fifth of the violin dimension is added to its length of 14 in., then a 16 ¾ in viola is obtained. Whilst
the stature of any individual player will ultimately determine the size of viola sought, it should be remembered
that an instruments body length is not the only consideration. An ‘ideal’ model should also display other features
essential to good sonority. Not least, the neck should be in proper proportion to the body length to give the
correct length of string. Suitable width, especially in the C bout, effectively widens the bridge platform and
broadens the arching, allowing for a better mechanical dynamic. Good rib depth combined with considered
arching also contribute to establishing the final enclosed air volume of the body with its associated resonance’s,
whilst the style of arching, combined with sensitive thickness, determines the final response of the instrument.
All of these elements, each individually important, should in their turn be tempered by sensible playing
considerations.
What then should be the point of departure for present day luthiers when considering viola design? The variable
size range is a unique feature of the viola, and this does provide for individual requirements and taste. When
considering viola size, the following comments are enlightening:
Robert Dolejsi makes the very valid point in his article in Violins and Violinists, December 1943, titled ‘What
size viola?’, “…whose opinion and recommendation would be considered authoritive to define proper viola
dimensions, I would not hesitate to state that those of us who have spent a lifetime with the viola under all the
trying conditions of symphony, opera, chamber music and solo engagements, constitute a group of criterions
worthy to form a definite opinion on the subject.” Dolejsi continues, “The viola of from 16½ to 17 inches is ideal
from all viewpoints.” In the same vein Lionel Tertis comments, “…I have kept my eyes and ears open for nearly
half a century and have put two and two together. In other words the design (of the ‘Tertis’ model viola), is
simply an amalgamation of all the good points of the old masters in the many instruments I have seen, heard and
played, plus anything I have learned that makes for ease in manipulating the larger dimension of viola.” Tertis
also states regarding his own ‘Tertis’ model, “It is 16¾ inches long….the minimum from which to hope for
really satisfactory C string sonority.” And finally from William Primrose, “I adjure violists to seek instruments
not less in length than the models of Stradivari and Guarneri with an eye to those, like Guarneri’s, with a wider
middle bout. With that dimension up to seventeen inches I deem practical.” And when considering the smaller
dimension of instrument goes on to say, “…seek instruments of the widest dimensions and with deep ribs. These
departures from the norm sometimes make up for the shorter lineal dimension. But, avoid the oddball models
that have been offered from time to time.”
Revised Oct. 2004

Why are there different sizes for the viola?

I was recently asked the rather obvious question 'Why isn't there just one size for the viola, as there are for the
violin and cello?' First thoughts might indeed be that viola players do naturally seek such variation of the tonal
colour associated with the different sizes of their instrument. But why then is there such a debate about the 'ideal'
viola sound, and, or, size, if this variation is actually sought? It is with this apparent conflict between these two
opposing viewpoints where a better understanding of the nature of our alto instrument may be gained.
Unlike the violin and cello which, together with the viola, make up our current violin group, the viola appears
unique in that it is available in many different sizes. Essentially, this means that the viola player may choose
both a suitable playing size, and also, a particular voice for their instrument. However, this apparent flexibility,
some may interpret this as a lack of standardization, does indeed present a number of particular draw backs.
Firstly, differences in both string length and neck/stop ratios (the relationship between the position of the bridge
and the length of the neck), can cause certain difficulties for the player. For instance, it is common that a viola of
one particular size will have a different set up and string length than another of seemingly equivalent body size,
making a direct comparison between the two, apparently similar instruments, difficult. Then there is of course
the difference in the voice of a smaller instrument to that of a larger one, this can be further complicated by an
impaired tonal quality resulting from the use of either a restrictive pattern or an inappropriate set up. This
disparity between available instruments and their intended use is part of what Tertis was attempting to address
with his 'Tertis Model' viola, indeed an admiral and perceptive aim, the real success of which, however, was to
re-initiate an approach to viola making where the requirements of the player, rather than the perceived historical
interpretations of the maker, once again became central to the design. The 'Tertis Model' has a very simple
legacy; makers should not restrict themselves to simply copying a limited number of older forms, and this often
without any real understanding of either their design, or their intended function. It was this very situation, made
acute by a low standard of playing ability, that prompted Richard Wagner's derogatory comments in the late 19th
Century. 1
The need for a contemporary viola design began to be recognized in the mid 19th century, and from this time to
the present day, a number of avenues of experimentation have been followed. These range from trying to
reintroduce the larger tenor style instrument, to the outright obscure. The Ritter2-Sprenger-Tertis line, however,
being the most original in attempting to directly address the needs of contemporary players. Although many
'oddball' designs appear from time to time, I do not believe that there is any need to depart from the
conventionally accepted form of the wider violin group, a design that has endured some four centuries. Both the
violin and cello form have gone through significant changes throughout their history, arriving at the almost
'perfect' forms in use today, and this without a great departure from their original concept. This process for the
viola was, however, lost at the beginning of the 17th century, as composition styles and fashion changed. The
threads of this design were not to be picked up again until the late 19th century, it is not surprising therefore, that
this has been a somewhat difficult road back to perceptive instrument design.
Returning to the consideration of viola size in contemporary use. In order to understand more fully the issues
surrounding the question of viola size, it is important to gain an appreciation of the violas position in the wider
context of the emerging violin group of instruments that became established during the later 16th century.
Consideration of this period becomes essential in order to enable the continuation of the design process from
the point at which it was, in effect, abandoned.
Very briefly, from the emergence of the violin group, comprising originally of three string instruments, during
the early 16th century, the middle registers were expressed by two different sizes of instrument, tuned the same,
cgd' , their different voices gained by virtue of their different body sizes. This is illustrated well by Agricola,
Musica instrumentalis deudsch,Wittenberg 1529, for the tuning of this early three string violin group.3
By the middle of the 16th century, however, the addition of a fourth string was established,4 expanding the range
of each individual instrument. The middle violas were to gain their upper fourth sting giving the familiar tuning
cgd'a', and by the latter part of the 16th century a structured consort of instruments were in place, separated by
their tuning and associated size. However, it was to be further developments in both playing technique and string
manufacture that were to make some of these instruments redundant. For example, the smaller treble violin was
used extensively throughout this period, only later to be superseded when a shifting technique allowed these
higher registers to be encompassed by the larger descant instrument, or 'violin'.5 A similar story exists for the
bass instruments, which where later to be singularly represented by the later form of violoncello, after the
introduction of over-spun strings in the mid 17th century6 permitted better sonority to be attained than was
previously achievable with the earlier thicker bass strings.7
However, returning our attention to the later part of the 16th century, we see a further refinement of this concept
of different voices attained by two instruments tuned the same, but of different sizes. The introduction of a much
smaller viola,8 (for example Gasparo da Salo 1580, 386mm, 15 ¼ in. body length), was intended to express
more precisely the upper part of the alto register, and together with the then more common larger viola, further
developed this idea. Also at about this time the short lived, much larger tenor viola was introduced, (for example
Andrea Amati 1574, 470mm, 18 ½ in. body length), this perhaps with the tuning Gdae'. However, the tenor
viola has to be viewed in context with the small bass violin of the same tuning, this instrument often being
referred to as a 'tenor violin'.9
 Essentially, without going into further detail of the early violin consort, its changing sizes and related tunings, it
becomes very clear that for each body size there is a particular voice. This may be thought of as the natural body
resonance, determined by an instruments body size, and serves to reinforce a particular tonal range. From my
own work I have found that a 16in., model will express a natural body frequency at g', a 16 ¾ in., f', and a 17 ¼
in., e'. For a violin this corresponding body frequency is commonly found at c''. So I suppose this does really
answer the question, 'what is the ideal sized viola?', at least from a makers perspective. A viola at 16 ¾ in., or
thereabouts, with a natural body frequency at f ' is pitched exactly one fifth below that of the violin, and is
therefore ideally suited to expressing the alto register, in effect the ideal viola. I am unable to agree with the long
standing argument that the viola is too small for its intended register, the size often quoted of 21in., which is in
fact a size better associated with an instrument built to express the tenor register, not the alto. This true tenor
instrument did indeed exist in the early 17th century, often referred to now as a 'tenor violin'. It was in fact a
small bass violin played in either an upright position or across the chest, ('da spalla'), known by various names at
the time and tuned at first to Fcgd', then later to Gdae'10 The role of the large tenor viola of the late 16th century
was ultimately better suited to this small bass, or early form of violoncello, and later advances in string
technology during the 17th century11 firmly established this tenor role with the violoncello style of instrument,
rather than the large tenor viola, which ultimately fell from favour.
The idea of two instruments tuned the same, cgd'a', with different voices achieved by virtue of their relative sizes
alone, expressing either the upper and lower parts of the alto register respectfully, was firmly established during
the late 16th century. Although this principal has since been neglected, it is an important inheritance that cannot
be ignored. It is in fact the root cause of the misconception that there is a problem with viola size, and the reason
that there are instruments of such varying size. As the viola is today represented by just a single instrument in the
modern quartet, should the player consider not only the size that is best suited to their own needs, but also the
relative voice of the instrument as well? This choice is made all the more difficult, however, by the limited
number of suitable instruments currently available. A large or small viola will always present with a different
voice, but what is perceived as desirable should really be seen in the context of an instruments intended role. If
both the quality of design and execution of build are of sufficient standard, neither a small or a large instrument
should suffer from either a lack of projection or tonal focus. A viola tuned to f' may be considered ideal from a
generalized point of view, fulfilling the function of a correctly placed voice capable of adequately expressing the
intended register, but other voices and timbres, inherent of different sizes, can only add to the violas unique tonal
quality. It is an inheritance worth preserving, but one that could be better understood.
My own approach to contemporary viola design is such that I aim to present a classic range of instruments,
rather than a single voice. Tonal and playing characteristics inherent of the design are maintained across the
viola group, thus giving a choice of both size and voice. This has essentially been achieved by developing a
practical working workshop model that enables the same design criteria to be applied to each of the desired
sizes. Perhaps, conceptuality, not that dissimilar an approach to original instrument workshop design and
practice?

End notes for ‘Why are there different sizes for the viola?
1. Richard Wagner. Comments regarding the poor standard of viola playing in European Orchestras at this time.
'Ueber das Dirigiren' (On Conducting), 1869.
2. For an excellent recent study of Herman Ritter's Viola alta see Shaver-Gleason, Linda. Ritter's Viola Alta:
The Violas Nineteenth Century Identity Crisis. Journal of the American Viola Society, Vol 21 No2 p19-25
3. Main 16th Century and early 17th Century Treatise:
Johannes Tinctoris, 'De inventione et usu musicae’ (1481-83)
Martin Agricola, ‘Musica instrumentalis deudsch’ (Wittenberg 1529). 1969 English translation by William
Herrick, Cambridge 1994
Giovani Maria Lanfranco, 'Scintille di musica', 1533
Sylvestro di Gnassi in, ‘Lettione seconda, Venice 1543.
Jambe de Fer, 'Epitome Musicale' 1556
Lodovicio Zacconi, 'Practticia di musica', Venice 1592
Michael Praetorius (1571-1621), 'Syntagma Musicum' (1618-20)
Daniel Hizler, Extract Auss der neuen Musica oder Singkunst... (Nuremberg, 1623)
Merck, ‘Compendium Musicae Instrumentalis Cheliae’ (1695)
4. For the violin family this represents the first significant development, a direct consequence of improvements
in string manufacture, resulting in the emergence of the violins as a group of four string instruments each now
having an increased individual range. This was first recorded in France some time before the middle of the 16th
century, and was the direct result of an improved method of gut string manufacture. It is understood that this
improvement was at first in the form of a high twist string and later one of a rope construction, or 'catline', this
later form of string however was not to become generally available in Europe outside its region of origin,
Catalonia, until later in the century, but it is clear that by the time Jambe de Fer wrote 'Epitome Musicale' in
1556 , significant improvements in string technology had already taken place. Previously plain gut on the
thickest lowest string required a long string length to achieve sufficient flexibility necessary to attain any degree
of acceptable sonority, and as such, a higher string tension was required to achieve pitch. The very thin gut that
would have been required for an instruments upper fourth string could not then sustain the higher tension
necessary to achieve pitch at this extended string length. We do not see, therefore, the introduction of a fourth
string extending an instruments range in either an upward, or downwards, direction, until either a higher tensile
strength of the upper string could be achieved, or as was actually the case, a greater flexibility of the lowest
string in order to gain an acceptable degree of sonority for a shorter string length and lower tension. Achieving
such a flexible and sonorous lower string permitted a general reduction in string length, and as such, a lowering
of the required tension necessary for the thinner upper strings to achieve pitch.
5. Leopold Mozart, A Treatise on the Fundamental Principals of Violin Playing, Ausberg 1756 – 'The little
fiddle is no longer needed, as everything is played on the ordinary violin in the upper registers'
6. This represents the second most important development in string manufacture for the violin family
7. A gut string over spun with a metal such as silver or copper gave a greater mass for a much smaller diameter
than if a plain gut alone were to be used. A thick gut string, necessary for a lower pitch, had to be of sufficient
length to achieve an acceptable sonority, and as a consequence would have had to have been brought to a higher
tension to reach this desired pitch than a string of shorter length. The consequence of this development was that
shorter strings could now be employed much more successfully, resulting in a possible reduction of the overall
instrument size. It is of interest that this may have coincided with, or indeed have been a consequence of, the
raising of the tuning of some instruments as a result of placing alternate instruments an octave apart instead of
being based on a regime of separation by successive fifths. The greatest consequence was for the bass violins,
the smallest of which also encompassed the tenor range, ultimately resulting in a single instrument known to us
today as the violoncello.
8. This smaller form of alto instrument was made possible by the wider availability in the later 16th Century of
the more flexible rope constructed, or 'catline', strings. Used for the lowest string, the improved flexibility gained
by its roped construction over plain or twisted gut, gave a better sonority for a given string length. This
construction also resulted in a lower tensile strength and both these factors combined allowed for a shorter string
length to be more effectively used, initiating a reduction in overall instrument size. The result of reducing the
body length was of course to raise the natural body frequency of this middle instrument, favouring the upper
range of the register.
9. Kory, Agnes . A wider role for the Tenor Violin? Galpin Society Journal 1994, p123-153
10.References to articles about the tenor violin:
Kory, Agnes . A wider role for the Tenor Violin? Galpin Society Journal 1994, p123-153
Smit, Lambert. Towards a More Consistent and More Historical View of Bach's Violoncello. Chelys. The
Journal of the Viola da Gamba Society. Vol32, 2004
11.String articles:
Abbot, Djilda and Segerman,Ephraim, ‘Gut Strings’ Early Music 4 (1976) pp.430-7
Bonata, Stephen ‘Catline strings revisited, Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society 14 (1998) p38
Bonta, Stephen. From Violone to Violoncello: A Question of Strings? JAMIS 3 (1977)
Segerman, Ephraim. 1.Strings Through the Ages The Strad Jan 1988 Vol 99 No 1173 pp52-55 2.Highly Strung.
The Strad March 1988 Vol 99 No1175 pp195-201 3.Deep Tensions. The Strad April 1988 Vol 99 No1176
pp295-299

The Viola: Originality v Copyist Culture.

Why new design? With more talented luthiers working now than ever before, I find it difficult to comprehend
why we still work in a period in which a copyist culture predominates, one in which originality is often found
wanting. As luthiers, I feel we have lost, not the ability, but perhaps the resource, or even the inclination, to
understand how to draw out in our workshops the dimensions required for an instrument of the violin family.
Perhaps it is just too easy to put a pencil around another violin and claim to make models of this or that famous
maker. That's fine, but as they say 'the proof is in the pudding'. I'd prefer to put my own name to something more
original.
For the luthier working today, the rise in popularity of the viola in recent years has brought with it not only
challenges, but also opportunity. The copyist is faced with a difficult task of looking for a defined viola form, as
there is not much choice out there, unlike the very readily accessible developed pattern of the violin. Very
simply, as the demand for violas in different sizes increases, the luthier is faced with the not so straight forward
task of deciding what is a good or a bad feature in the basic dimension, how this relates to tone, and how this
translates into a particular size.
Like other luthiers of my own time, I was first introduced to the trade by learning to make copies of the famous
Italians, which I still feel is the best way to begin. Such a process of assimilation while one learns the 'tools of
the trade' is traditionally the way to get a sure footing, and it is important to do your time in workshops where
you can benefit by the exposure to many instruments of different quality and style. This is a crucial part of one's
career, even though the choice of reputable establishments can be somewhat limited. But where to go from here?
I felt that I was being offered a choice; either I carry on making endless copies, or I could choose to regain a
degree of originality and enjoy taking a more creative initiative. That is what the viola offered me; an
opportunity to be involved in the development of a hitherto neglected form of the violin family at a unique time
in its history, when the violas repertoire was being rapidly expanded by some very talented players, placing
extraordinary demands on the instrument.
If we continue, particularly at a time when players are gaining increasing confidence in new work, to rely on
copying instruments, without really understanding them, the trade will not develop and musicianship will
inevitably be restricted. It is my strongly held belief that it is only by making viable musical instruments
confidently, under our own name, using individual patterns that display a clear understanding of the mechanics
of the form, will we as luthiers be able to step up to the mark and work in true partnership with the player.
There are challenges. Controversial acceptance of the variability of size has given the modern viola the potential
to enjoy a somewhat broader tonal focus. However, it seems that most attention concerning the modern
interpretation of the viola, has been centred on attempting either, a standard single size, or, whilst trying to
translate the inherent tone of the larger instrument into that of the smaller, creating some very odd ball
instruments indeed. Although genuine responses in their own right, both routes appear to take the premise that
the violas traditional form is in some way wanting. Perhaps in the modern context it is, but what I feel is really
required is to listen to what the players are actually asking us for; to produce violas of varying dimension
representative of the modern ideal of a single viola voice.
The viola presents some very practical concerns not readily encountered in other members of the violin family.
Let me outline the problem. Firstly, there are very few extant early viola instruments, either to copy, or to inspire
new design. The few remaining original violas of the 16th and 17th centuries have, in most cases, experienced
considerable changes to their set up over the years, neck set and length followed advances in string making
technology and playing technique, alterations made to whatever was considered appropriate at the time. Towards
the end of the 17th century the viola fell from fashion, the spotlight was now on the violin, many of the larger
tenors were cut down and shortened so their dimensions became out of proportion. I have heard many times the
comment that as a particular viola had originally been a tenor, but now cut down, it had retained some of the
original tenor characteristics. At first this comment seems somewhat false, as once the body is reduced in size
then the tone inevitably changes. However, consider what is retained; broader dimension across the middle of the
instrument, longer ff's and longer C's, these features are all 'mechanically' desirable to good tonal production.
If any period of making can be seen as representative of genuine originality for the viola form it has to be the late
16th and early 17th centuries. Briefly, the early viola, or the instrument we have come to call by that name, held
a very exclusive, well defined part, in those early violin consorts of the 16th century, Peter Holman in his work
'Four and Twenty Fiddlers', puts forward a well researched and convincing view of the developing string consort
during the late 15th and early 16th centuries. Violas were the instrument(s) of the middle. Sharing the same
tuning, with two distinctive voices, the alto and the tenor. This was achieved by using two contrasting sizes, one
small and one large, built to express these respective parts. However, despite textural references to the existence
of a smaller contralto form in the early violin consorts of the greater part of the 16th century, the earliest extant
altos we have are the Brothers Amati 1615 and 1620, while larger tenors from the mid 1500's are better known,
which would suggest that the establishment of a consort of violins was not as linear as we might expect. Maybe
the contralto, in this early refined form, was indeed only properly defined in the early 17th century
Andrea Amati’s work, which suddenly bursts onto the scene in the mid 16th century in a very refined
geometrical form, appears only to have made the larger viola form with no reference available to us concerning a
smaller alto. This does not appear until his later sons work. But what is apparent in all the Amati families work is
the fundamental geometrical application and principal of simple geometric form and the proportion of parts.
Significantly, in almost every example of a makers work known to us from the 17th century there appears a
distinctive separation of these two sizes in which the stop/body relationship share a common proportionality.
Sizes between these two forms did not appear to have been common until the tenor viola, having become
redundant in the later part of the 17th century, began to be cut down in size to become more accessible in what
had became a less well defined role. These cut down tenors became the middle sized 16 ½ 'ish', type, and it is
these instruments, subsequently copied by successive makers, which has given root to the confusion of size and
voice that exists today. The viola had lost its identity.
The large tenor was overtaken by events and fashionable preference, its tenor role eventually to be taken by the
later violoncello. Interest in the viola diminished as the new kid on the block, the 'violin', began to enjoy a
meteoric rise in popularity, as it was the ideal instrument to express the fashionable musical styles of the day. It
was not until the late 19th century that the violas fortunes began to change, and it would not be out of place to
consider the later 20th century as a 'Renaissance of the Viola'. This popularity continues today, but now the viola
is seen as a single voice, but one represented by many different sizes of instrument, a heritage of the 'cut down'
years. Subsequent debate as to a 'true' viola tone has resulted in the quest for an elusive singular ideal and it is, in
my own opinion, a lack of awareness of the violin consorts of those early centuries that has resulted in many
entrenched and mistaken views about the viola today.
The suggestion is that if the viola is a 5th lower in its register than the violin, then it should be a corresponding
5th larger. If a 5th is given as a ratio of 2:3 then by the same proportion the corresponding length is indeed 21''.
However, one could also argue, similarly, that if that if the viola is a 5th lower, then, by proportion it should be
1/5th longer in its length, giving a viola of about 16 ¾ '', which would be much more viable if such an 'ideal' size
were to be sought. Such terms as the viola is 'not acoustically perfect' and the viola is 'an instrument of
compromise' really arise from the acoustical work of Felix Savart during the mid 19th century, a time known as
the 'age of enlightenment' when reason displaced mysticism and the modern scientific age was born. Savart
proposed that an ideal middle range instrument, one in tonal balance with the 'acoustically perfect' violin, would
have to be of a much greater string length and have a corresponding body size of 21in., This idea was to become
firmly rooted in a the contemporary mind, but a mind unaware of the true character of the viola. Maybe this
theoretical giant is tonally ideal for the middle register, but this is not the viola! The viola is far more subtle; the
understanding of which is buried in the late 16th century. Here we see two sizes of the viola form expressing
different characteristic tonal qualities, an expression later abandoned, as the viola was overshadowed by the
rising star of its smaller sister, the violin, and later by the rationalization of the bass instrument into the
violoncello, which was to ultimately better encompass the tenor register in its upper positions, thus superseding
the tenor viola. Good luck to anyone trying to market , or play, the 'ideal' 21 in., viola!
To understand the viola in its modern context, one has to account for these 16th century consort beginnings; the
legacy of size and tonal variation. The concept of an instrument of two different proportions, but sharing the
same tuning, is an inheritance that has, ironically, been preserved by virtue of the violas neglect during
intervening centuries, and is one that has proved too enduring to ignore. Later attempts to standardize the violas
dimension have always been fraught with difficulty, and the idea that it is too small to express its intended
register is simply misguided. Change is driven by demand, and today that demand is most certainly for
instruments of different sizes, not to express a tonal variation, but to accommodate players of different stature,
the challenge; to make each individual instrument size achieve its true tonal potential.

Each viola will have its own tonal spectrum and timbre, this diversity ultimately contributing to the broader tonal
landscape expressed by the range of varying instrument sizes. This is a unique inheritance! Change only takes
hold when there is a good reason for that change to occur and it is worth remembering this when approaching the
design of an instrument, particularly one that has been around for over four hundred years. It is in response to
current demand for different sized violas that I have developed my own workshop practices, based on solid
geometrical principals supporting true proportionality, enabling me to focus on the development of a 'scaled'
viola pattern.
For any given size, of many existing violas, a difference of the relative string lengths is often apparent. This
causes considerable variability in the actual playing size and feel of violas that are of a similar body length.
 Viola specification - Body size & String Length

The point at which the string leaves the nut.

S
t
r
Note on variants of string length. i
One of the most important considerations when designing an n
instrument is its string length. This has a direct bearing to the g
response of the body to the input from the vibrating strings. A
simple rule of thumb is the longer the string length the more L
tension is required to bring it up to pitch; this translates directly e
to the amount of downward force exerted on the body of the n
instrument. If this force is too great the body is 'locked down' g
and there are difficulties achieving a response to the players B t
input, conversely, if the downward force is too weak then the
o h
response of the body suffers accordingly. My work with violas
over the years has suggested a dimension for a string length that
d
is balanced with the mechanics of the body, and that this y
proportion may be applied over the entire size range, from the
smallest to the largest. This is why proportion is so critical to S
The point where the string crosses the bridge.
the violas construction. i
z
A classic mistake present in many violas is where the string
e
length has been adjusted out of proportion to a given body size,
either by lengthening the neck of smaller instruments, or
shortening those of larger, to make them 'more responsive' or
'easier to play', the result often compromises the violas true
potential.
Further fine tuning of the string tension, in order to balance the
response from a particular viola, may be achieved by
experimenting with the currently available array of highly developed strings, all offering different specific
qualities. It should be appreciated that, due to the variants of design and construction of string instruments,
although one particular string may be ideal for one instrument, it could also be disastrous for another. Many high
tension strings, particularly the violas A string have been developed to overcome the difficulties of violas that
have been made in, shall we say, a very rigid fashion, so beware of higher tension strings on a more responsive
instrument, you may just lock everything down.
The size of a viola is naturally of primary importance for the player. However, it is not the body length alone
that needs to be considered.
For any one given size of viola, often a difference may be observed between the relative string lengths of each.
This inconsistency can cause two violas of a similar body length to feel very different indeed.
This variability is a result of differences in the design and set up. I have always maintained, the ratio of the stop
length, [the distance from the middle of the f holes where the bridge is placed to the upper edge of the viola at
the neck root], to the neck length, [the distance from the same upper edge of the viola to the nut position that
marks the limit of the vibrating string], should always be at a ratio of 3:2 This also being the situation with the
violin.
Although the use of this ratio is relatively recent, it is one that has been accepted by players and makers over the
past century or more, and if ignored can cause many difficult intonation problems. Unfortunately, many viola
set ups do not adhere to this fundamental ratio, resulting in a wide variation of final string lengths for any one
particular body size. This is often the case with many older instruments which, over the years, may have been
changed considerably from their original dimensions.
To enable players to compare the characteristics of viola set ups with my own instruments I have included here
the essential relative dimensions of string length to body length.
One of the aims in establishing my own workshop pattern is so that within this group of instruments, an
incremental increase of the body length becomes naturally associated with a relative increase in the string length.
The string length adopted for each of my violas is, as a result, in very good balance with its relative body size,
thereby giving an exceptional dynamically balanced instrument.

David Milward,
The Viola Workshop 2006.

“Modern viola design should, whilst maintaining

the unity of form of the triaditional violin family,
respond to the demands fo the player engaged in
today’s performance environment.”
 17 1/8 16 ¾ 16 ½ 16 ¼ 15 ¾
These sizes are representative of the scale emcompassed by the set, indeed ANY incremental size is available.
Such is the flexibility of the design. Violas from 15 ¼ inches to 17 ½ inches are offered, characterizing the
contralto form of instrument considered to represent the modern standard. It is in response to current demand for
different sized violas that I have developed my own workshop practices, based on solid geometrical principals
supporting true proportionality, enabling me to focus on the development of a “scaled” viola pattern.