baroquecello
-
Posts
1265 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Articles
Store
Posts posted by baroquecello
-
-
My girlfriend has a question about her 18th century violin. Maybe a little history is needed in order to answer this question.
The volin is in the family for a long time and has been played intensively for the bigger part of it. Her mother played it thoughout her conservatory years and early professional career, she herself has been playing it for 8years now. Problems started two to three years ago and have gotten progressively worse. The violin has developed a bad wolf tone on the c in all registers, but especially on the c''''. My girlfriend got the violin checked for open seams, and got everything reglued which seemed to improve the problem slightly. However, its been getting worse and worse and lately it has become very problematic. Also the general sound of the violin seems affected. An open a string already is problematic: screamy. The violin has already gotten a different sound post, which didn't help at all. However we discovered that if you place a finger exactly next to he deskant side of the bridge and the f hole, even with hardly any pressure, there is great improvement in overall tone and what the wolf problem is concerned. A lutier has suggested a new bass bar, however even though we think this could fix the problem, it seems a little odd that a violin this old, that has functioned well for decades suddenly needs a new bass bar. What is your opinion on this matter? Any ideas she could try?
-
could the difference in weight of the two materials play a role in which to choose for mounting on a bow?
-
10% of the instruments value, that seems absolutely ridiculous to me though. What do you guys charge?
-
This is a perfect description of a strong body resonance... hard to play, strong vibration, rapid decay. Unfortunately, I know nothing about cello mode frequencies or mode shapes to say much more about it.
Isn't a wolf essentially the result over overly powerful body resonances interfering with the resonances of the string?
-
I have slid one of those bridge groove protecting tubes many steel a strings come with over the string at the nut, but apart from that, the nut recently was reshaped a litte when the fingerboard was planed, and th problem didn't disappear.
I use bare gut a and d strings from Aquila strings and have used several different gauges. Relatively thick gauges are very good for later stuff, like the Haydn c-major concerto, the thinner ones are better for earlier stuf.
I've been wanting to try another brand, maybe I will do so soon.
But I think the wolf may actually be the problem, so I will try messing around with wolf killers soon.
Thanx everyone for your advice and ideas!
-
I would think that if the back were too thin it would be higher on the soundpost side rather than the bassbar side. Did I misunderstand something?
You could have a minor wolf which interferes with the open A resonance. Does this show up on any other position when you play A?
Bruce
Yes Bruce, sorry, I ment the sound post area, ofcourse. And you are right, now that you mention it, it does remind me a little of a wolf note. Now that I come to think of it, the g sharp-a range an octave higher on the a string is also somewhat harder to play. And when my fingerboard needs to be replaned, it is always because the a on the g string has become a worn spot. I always thought that apparently that a is a more often used note, statistically, but maybe I am subconsciously trying to surpress a wolf note... I will check when I practise again, tomorrow. I didn't think of this before, because the a is not the most common place for a wolf note, is it.
As I said, otherwise the instrument has developed a very nice tone... Maybe I could simply try a wolf killer?
-
If I were you, I would try different A strings, and different gouges.
If the back of your cello was made with lower density spruce, I see no problem with that, since woods with much lower density (such as willow) was used by classic makers for celli.
Yes, I understand, but I was under the impression that when a lower density wood is used, generally speaking, the plate should be made somewhat thicker than with higher density wood, to counteract the effect of the lower density. Did I understand this wrong? (Then I am assuming a higher density wood is strong/stiffer... I am not a maker and may be messing up terminology, and also making assumption that are not correct) My concern was that maybe the lutier used a graduation pattern that worked for the original because the original had higher density/stronger/stiffer wood, but with this wood may have needed an adjustment.
-
I have a baroque cello made after a Goffriller model. I am generally quite happy with it, is has a very nice tone, many sound colours and is quite loud. However, one thing bothers me and at the same time puzzles me somewhat. The open a string does not respond very well. Once it responds, it sound very good, but to get it to respond needs extremely good bowing in fast passages, and this is somewhat problematic in for instance Bach solo suites, where you constantly have open a strings, bu which also is a standard repetoire for baroque cellists. The string speaks better when stopped.
However, there is more to it. The a string, compared to the other strings, has a very short decaying time: it doesn't ring for a very long time after I stop bowing or after I plucked it. On top of that, I have noticed that playing the a string makes the back of the cello resonate extremely much, more than with any other cello I ever played on. Also, I noticed that the back has bent outward just slightly around the bass bar area. (Edit note: OOps! I ment the sound post area, ofcourse! Sorry!)
The back is made of highly flamed maple, but also the woods annual rings are well visible. To me, it seems that they are comparatively far apart for what is usualy the case with maple. Would this mean that the wood is lighter than average wood? (Does this mean a lower density?) could it be, that the wood of the back of this cello is actually a little too weak for the graduation pattern which the lutier used with this model, so that the plate is too weak, and that the excessive vibration of the plate when bowing an open a string is due to its thinness, and causes the short decay period? Is there anything that could be done about this? Do you think I should go back to the lutier? would is make sense to have a maple patch on the sound post area to make it stiffer? One thing that may be of importance is that the effect is worse when the air is dry, like now in the winter, sub-zero. By the way, the cello will celebrate its fifth birthday this year.
-
Does this mean that placing a violin with a poor player will make it sound bad? Driving the violin with rap will make sound obnoxious?
Oded
Yes, I am quite sure this can be the case. (not the thing with the rap!
) But I do think, in order to really "leave a mark" on an instruments sound, it needs to be played by one person for hours and hours on a daily basis over a long periiod of time, amateur playing is not enough. I've experince with one case of two baroque cellos made at the same time by one maker, same model, from the same wood for the front plate. I own one of them, the other one went to a colleague of mine who studies at the same school. When they were new, the other one was better: better sound, better response, more even over all four strings. After 4 years, the one my colleague played doesn't respond well at all anymore, and doesn't sound good either, whilemine has opened up and has turned into one of the nicest sounding and loudest newly made baroque cellos I played so far. I'm confident the bad development of th other instrument has to do with my colleagues playing style: too much pressure when bowing chokes a gut string instrument, meaning it never gets to resonate well and gets to amplify a sound with a bad structure rom th very beginning.
Another case of a colleague who studies at ht same conservatory as I do, who has a relatively cheap cello and a bad sound. Once I played on his cello for hal an hour, and I felt how it opened up slowly, and in fact seemed to have quite a nice sound. It had never been played close to the bridge, apparently, never taken to the maximum.
A whole different question is how long it takes to get the instrument to sound healthy again, after it has been in th hands of a bad player....
Another thing, my modern cello, by the same maker as my baroque cello, never wanted to sound good for the first 4 years or so. I tried many things: 3 sound posts, different strings, a new french bridge, tailpieces, tailgut materials etc etc... Nothing worked. Only another bow improved things slightly. Then, as the very last thing to try, I had another bridge installed, a model inspired on the belgian model, and, to my astonishment, this did the trick. Ofcourse it sounded somewhat better at once, but the immediate improvement was more in the response and loudness of the cello. The real gain in sound quality was made over a period of 5 months or so after that, in which the cello consistently started sounding better and better nearly every day (which made playing a great experience!).
I think that for some reason I couldn't get this cello played in when it had a french bridge.... I just realised: it would be interesting to see what a french bridge would do to it now that it has been played in. l'll try that out soon, when I have some time to switch them.
-
This may be of interest, both from the maker's point of view and to show that age need not be a barrier to achievement:
The scientist who became an academic
Regards,
Tim
I just find that beautiful, somehow...
-
Very nice Matthias! To my untrained eye, (I am only a musician) on the photos it looks like a violin made by a professional maker. Let us know how it sounds! I'm sure you know some good violinists that can try it out...
I really very much like the depth you achieved in your red varnish with the extra coat you applied (it looks great to me especally around the f-holes, for some reason, the upper f hole wings are gorgeous!), but I'm only partially convinced by the "antiquing". I kind of like it on the back and sides, but for some reason it doesn't convince me on the top... Maybe (but I'm not sure wether it has to do with any of the following!) the lighter areas on the top, especially the ones on the lower half, are too big? (the ones on the shoulders are more convincing to me) or maybe they are too light? Or maybe it is not so convincing to me, because they are all lighter in the exact same degree instead of being different in intensity? Or maybe it just has to do with that varnish on backs of instruments usually wears away, whereas the top apart from wear also is more likely to have little scratches due to usage caused by the bow, a loose tailpiece, bridge feet, strings etc and therefore its looks more atifiial on top? For some reason, I could imagine a slight shade of brown in the worn spots (is this untasteful?). Or maybe the wood of the top was finished too perfectly, too cleanly (no slight scraper marks etc.)? Not being a maker and not ever having varnished an instrument, this could all be nonsense though. And in any case it is all just a matter of taste!
Congratulations!
Leonard
-
this is were my problem comes in, so far its 50)50 on real or not most that have handled instruments by j cuypers have handled the more popular cuypers the son johannes theodorus cuyers (1724-1808)there is to my knowledge 3 instruments in the states ie (net-auction-profiles) crafted by johannes (jan de oude) cuypers he crafted from 1707-1720 there are destinct differences between the two and some similarities also that is why its so hard to get a def "yes it is " or " no its not" I need to go to the netherlands next i guess i"ve been trying for a solid answer to this matter for 4 years now ........the instrument has been in the family for 3 generations
There were two sons of Johannes Cuypers who worked in the nineteenth century. This is from a book called "400 years of violin making in the Netherlands" by Fred Lindeman and Serge Stam:
CUYPERS, JOHANNES THEODORUS
Dornick near Emmerich (Germany) 1724 The Hague 1808
Nothing is known of Cuypers' youth. A dated label shows that he was established as a violinmaker in The Hague in 1750. His earliest instruments were already constructed in a style that was completely at variance with that which had been adopted by instrument makers up to that time. It was a style so in keeping with the work of the Paris violinmakers of the time that it was once assumed that he had learned the profession there. It is also thought that perhaps Benoît Joseph Boussu, who worked in Brussels around 1750-1780, could have been his master. Very recently a Boussu violin was found with a label 'Leiden 176..' It seems most probable, however, that he was trained by Jean Joseph Wattier (c. 1724-1755, established in The Hague). Despite intensive archive research, no proof of this has so far been found. A vague indication could be that Cuypers' sons (baptised Jean François and Johannes Bernardus) had the same Christian names as Wattier's sons. But this actually proves nothing. Cuypers remained in The Hague all his life; in his later years assisted by his sons Johannes Franciscus (1766-1828) and Johannes Bernardus (1781-1840). Although Franciscus lived in Amsterdam from 1783 to 1823, he continued to do work for his father. Bernardus' eldest son, Johannes Franciscus Jr. (1808-1881), originally worked for a while as a violinmaker, but soon became a piano dealer. The Cuypers dynasty was unusually productive and made violins in every conceivable format as well as a large number of cellos and a number of (mostly small) violas. The early work of Johannes Theodorus Cuypers is elegant and shows an affinity with the style of Louis Guersan of Paris (c. 1760) and of Benoît Joseph Boussu of Brussels (c. 1750). The varnish, with its gold-yellow colour and shellac-like texture, is also comparable. In his earliest work Cuypers was already making heads which had a clearly personal signature; the scroll is not more or less circular, but rather an upright oval, and the back of the peg box is only slightly grooved. After about 1780 his style changed and the design was heavier, with broad edges and more substantial arching a style he remained faithful to for the rest of his life. The maple of his instruments is probably native wood, usually quite narrowly grained. We often come across bellies made from a single piece of wood. An enormous quantity of this wood must have been bought in at some point, because we find the same wood over and over again, even in the instruments of his sons. Often the darker strips of the purfling have faded. In the early years he used printed labels, but he soon began to write these by hand, always indicating his domicile with 'sHage'. When he was much older he added a third line indicating his age - 'etatis suae 78', for example. Frequently, Cuypers' cellos, at variance with his other instruments, show a clear Stainer influence in the archings and the design of the f-holes. Throughout his whole life they are reminiscent of his earliest violins. (See chapter 2 for details of one of his violins in its original condition.) (Photos: pp. 180-182-183-184.)
-
There has been one thread here in the past regarding a "Vivaldi project". In short, leading makers were asked to make instruments for a whole orchestra after historical venetian instruments (Serafino, Goffriler, Montagnana), the aim being to play Vivaldi's music with the same sound signature as during his living. I don't know of the results, but that would mean that at least some people think that the model indeed makes a difference to the sound.
But the instruments owned by the pietà, where Vivaldi worked were predominantly german instruments. This is known because the tradition of music making died out at the Pietà at the end of the eightteenth century, and the instruments were lying around unused until the nineteeneightties. Then ofcourse there was made a proper inventarisation. A book was published on the topic and is a great resource for people who want to make baroque instruments, since most of the instruments were left untouched since baroque times.
-
David, the drawback of what we now call the Romberg style fingerboard mainly appears when you play double stops in fifths with one finger, especially in higher positions. You may find yourself not only pressing down the strings but also pressing in the ridge beten the c and g strings. Really problematic this can become in thumb position. True, it is not very standard to play that high up the c string, but it happens every now and then. If one makes sure the c string runs very closely to the ridge, the problem does not occur so much that it bothers.
I would also want to point out that this style of fingerboard was developed in the era of gut strings, which are of a much bigger diameter than modern steel strings (especially tungsten ones like the popular spirocores), it could be that this is what makes these fingerboars harder to play, to me: the strings are thinner and therefore don't reach as high as the ridge is. BTW, the first cello I owned has a fingerboard with a ridge, so I learned playing on a cello like that. Not having any preference yet, I changed to another fingerboard when I got my newer cellos, and now I prefer the round ones.
Leonard
-
G'evening Jeffrey - I wish that I could have had the cello for a little longer to mull over it more deeply.
Now, how will we distinguish between Romberg and "traditional" - the trad had a run of 200 years before the advent of the Rom
What percentage of cellos use a Romberg f/b?
cheers edi
Actually, Romberg did not advocate a flattened fingerboard under th c string, he advocated a hollowed out finger board. Check his treatises, theres a picture in one of them.
My first two cellos had "romberg"fingerboards, but I prefer round fingerboards because of the difficulty "romberg" fingerboards cause when playing double stops in fifths between c and g strings, especially higher up, and general problems with thumb position on these fingerboards.
-
I think both violins sound like good violins. True that the player forces the sound a too much, but the tonal characteritics of these violins are clearly audible. Violin x has a noble, silvery sound, if played badly it could sound thin , but well played it can project over an orchestra, I think. The second one to me sounds as if it would be a lighter violin (thinner plates?), and is harder to play/control. Hollow, maybe, to me it has a little bit more charm, actually it evokes dirtier, gipsy-style playing associations to me. I think violin y would project less well over an orchestra, but could be better for chamber music repetoire (depending to what extend the difficulty of playing the player has with it has to do with the setup or the player himself, it could just be the players playing isn't well adapted to it). I suspect that violin y has more possibilities what subtle couloring of the sound is concerned (for this however, one would need to hear more). It would probably blend better in a quartet aswell. Since I like chamber music more I somewhat prefer the second violin to the first. If I were a violinist, maybe I'd prefer the first one, it seems easier to play.
I have two cellos, a baroque and a modern one, the modern one, a strad model, sounds like the first violin. I takes good technique to make it sound good, if you don't have that, then it is harder to play, but if you do, it is easier to play than my baroque cello, a Matteo Gofriller inspired model, which I feel has more similarities to the second violin.
Now the actual answer.... If one of the two violins is relatively new (not older than 50 years or so) I expect that that is the first violin. Otherwise (in case both instruments are old) the first violin is the strad and the second is something else.
Just gut feelings really.
Edit note: listened to these examples on cheapo in-ear headphones. And I just saw one of the two is modern. The modern stad copy is the first violin.
-
If you read through this article and then take the string spacing into consideration, one could argue that with a smaller string spacing the difference in leverage between the strings is smaller. And for the a string the lever for the rocking motion of the bridge (rocking on its bass foot) is shorter.
This could mean a more uniform sound.
But that's only theory, I have no experience with cellos and only little with violins. So better wait what the experts say.
Matthias
That is exactly what I had been thinking!
-
I recently got a new bridge made for my modern cello. The work was done not by the lutier who made the instrument, but by someone else, who chose a different type of bridge but also changed some other things, like the curvature of the bridge and the space between the strings, which he made smaller. This cello had always had the problem that the a string sounded somewhat strident and the string somewhat sluggish. After the changes, all these problems are gone, and the instrument has gotten much more uniform over all 4 strings.
I would have thought this was just because of the new bridge, however, last week I got my baroque cellos bridge shortened by over two millimetres (it was still the first bridge made for the cello when the cello was new, 4 years ago, and the neck settled lower in the mean time). I asked the same lutier to do it and also asked him to change the string spacing to what he had done on my modern cello, since I find it more comfortable. This cello had the same problem on the a string: too strident, quite hard to get to respond on short notes (it had a beautiful sound on long bow strokes and cantabile playing... But a baroque cello should be good at short notes especially!). Again, after the changes made, these problems have been reduced greatly and evenness of sound over all four strings has improved.
This leads me to think there may be a relation between how far strings are apart from each other (or: how big the distance from the middle of the bridge is) and how even an instrument sounds over all strings. Any opinions on the matter?
-
I have the same question but not for violin, but cello: in your experience, in what way, if at all, does thinning a cellos neck influence the sound? I could imagine the difference being bigger than on a violin, for some reason...
Even though I'm used to quite a thick neck from playing baroque cello, I notice that for comfortable vibrato on a modern instrument with modern strings a thinner neck would be helpful, which is why I'm considering getting my modern cellos neck thinned.
-
I've seen them advertise the thing, creating this big mistery around it, claiming great things and not tellling anything about how it works.... What is the difference in how it is made and what are the supposed changes it makes to the instruments sound? Also, what are your opinions on this type of bass bar?
Just curious
-
could it be some smaller and less nicely worked version of this instrument?
-
Ed , I have a question on your usage of Beech for bows. I'm a baroque cellist in need of a good bow, but everyone seems to be using snakewood. I've tried many bows on my cello, made of different types of wood, and ALWAYS snakewood performs bad what string response is concerned. It also seems to generally have a much darker sound. Can you tell me about your experience with beech bows? what are the tonal characteristics, and what about string response. (I know that a lot can depend on the model, but these findings have been consistent when testing very many bows... It seems to me now, that wood type is much more important that the model when it comes to characteristics of bows)
-
And here are .... Paganini's strings! ...Maybe....
-
This is just a guess, but I'd say that in earlier times wear from the bridge feet was not as bad as it is nowadays, because instruments used to be strung at a lower tension generally before the invention of steel strings.
) But I do think, in order to really "leave a mark" on an instruments sound, it needs to be played by one person for hours and hours on a daily basis over a long periiod of time, amateur playing is not enough.
I know it isn't anything much...
in The Pegbox
Posted
No professional opinion here, but my "amateur eye" worries a little bit about how little wood is left next to the a string peg hole. Seems to me thats going to break at some point, maybe an idea to get it bushed?
Apart from that, I hope you didn't use any cleaner with oil in it, it does look a bit like it, escpecially on the fingerboard. Such cleaners are often detrimental to the instrument...