baroquecello
-
Posts
1255 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Articles
Store
Posts posted by baroquecello
-
-
@martin swan gladly. It is true what you say, opinions on pricing do vary a lot, and people that don't trade do develop a certain distance from the market. If you handle things as you stated in your first paragraph (allow people to get second opinions, while explaining the complexity of realistic pricing), then that gives a trustworthy impression. A shop or shop owner that categorically forbids this or is offended when such a thing is done is unrealistic and deaf to the fear that a customer might have when making such a large investment. That may just be inexperience on the side of the salesman, or maybe the seller knows that the price asked is ridiculous?
I've had a student come to me with a tarted up 500 euro Markie that was being offered for 8000 instead. While 1600 may have been somewhat high, it was tarted up after all and sounded good. But the kind of price asked was preposterous and beyond subjectivity, I think. That is the kind of thing a customer should be allowed to prevent.
My cello is my second largest buy ever, after my house. Of course I should be allowed to get a second opinion before buying. I brought an expert along when viewing my house too. Too complex a matter for me as a non expert to fully understand.
-
A wolf tone killer is nothing that reduces the price or quality of the instrument. Practically all good cellos have a wolf, and some will need suppression. BTW if the wolf killer is visible from outside it is likely just a magnet and can be removed without much difficulty.
My advise is to buy what sounds and plays nice to you. Don't buy anything that you don't enjoy playing, just because someone tells you it is a good cello. Also look at cheaper cellos. Sometimes you may find one that sounds exceptional anyway. Sound has not so much to do with price. Good luck!
Edit note. answers to questions: 1. Find a knowledgeable person to help you. I for instance have a lutier that doesn't trade in instruments but his own, and is totally impartial when it comes to judging others instruments. But a knowledgeable player is also a help. 2. If they object that shows what kind of dealer they are. 3. No. Don't count on it. It may, and it may not. Buy to play, not to invest.
-
@Blank face from a practical point of view, nothing. But from a historical point of view: such instruments were specifically made for accompanying congregational singing in churchbuildings lacking an organ in the US. They were often in the possession of said congregations. They range from cello size to double bass size. They were made in new England from the end of the 18th century until the middle of the 19th century. Abraham Prescott is the best known maker of such instruments. His double bass sized instruments are still in use, some also in major American orchestras. So the difference is one of provenance and history.
-
If it is an instrument from the Salzkammergut, it is not a church bass. If it is a church bass, it would likely have been made between the late 18th and the middle of the 19th century somewhere in New England, but not by the better known makers.
In any case: I think it is great, that your friend is using it. If it were mine and I'd have proper command over my hands again, I'd consider setting the bridge a little lower and increase string length. Maybe occasionally string it as a basse de violon (one whole step lower than a cello). I'd love to play bass to the Couperin Lecons de tenebres on such an instrument once!
-
I've never played a well sounding cello with a plywood top, but I have once played a Cello with plywood ribs and back that sounded and worked fine. It was well made with nice varnish and a good setup. Good student quality. So I suspect that plywood ribs are not that detrimental to the sound, but also that, like with real wood, plywood does not equal plywood.
-
A standard starting position is to attempt to have the sound post at the mirror position of the bass bar. Half a sound post distance below the bridge is an ok distance. One could go slightly further south, or north practically until the sound post edge is aligned with the bridge foot, everything in between is a potentially good spot and will give you room to experiment. The sound post should remain put also when there is no string pressure, but not be very tightly wedged between the top and back. Too loose, and you'll lose focus on the a string and possibly get a lot of wolf, too wedged and you'll get a very thin harsh sound. There is a ot of room for experimentation. But there is also quite some possibility for mistakes. The fit needs to be perfect both for preventing cracks and for the acoustic result. A dentists mirror is a good tool. You can also take out the end pin and gaze through the end pin hole.
-
6 hours ago, Violadamore said:
Welcome to the forum!
IMHO, the usual Mark/Sch trade violin from circa 1900.
but revarnished, I'd say.
-
9 hours ago, oldcellow said:
Yes of course I agree...but as you can imagine its not an instrument of great quality and it suits me at the moment as an adult learner. (....) We all have to play on something.
I was not being dismissive of your instrument at all! I've actually played a plywood cello with a solid top a couple of weeks, and it was quite an ok cello. But it had an impeccable setup. Even celli of not great quality benefit from a good setup. With a good setup I mean optimising the removable/adjustable parts of the cello, such as the bridge, the sound post, the fingerboard, the end pin, strings, saddles and tail piece. I also own a cheap cello that is my work horse for dangerous environments, and the setup costed as much as the cello itself. It was worth it nonetheless and it plays well. So I'm not at all dismissive of cheap instruments. They are fine and can perform their function well. I am very dismissive of bad setups. bad setups ruin your fun, your technique and your chance of succes. It makes or breaks an instrument. Theoretically even a Stradivarius with a bad setup will be worse than your cello with a good setup. (theoretically because I've yet to see a Strad with a bad setup)
-
One needs to have the cello in ones hand to answer this definitively. The d string on cellos is often the most difficult string to get to sound well (with steel strings), because that is usually where the wolf is most pronounced. D strings, compared to a string and g string (which are often rope core) are often softer and weaker in sound. The first thing that should be asked is if the rest of your setup is good. Have you been to a lutier and have you ever had the sound post and bridge adjusted? If not, it makes no sense to talk about strings. If well adjusted, these difficulties regarding unevenness of strings usually disappears. A ConCarbo tail piece will help a lot with getting rid of unevenness and wolf tones, if they persist after proper setup work, but it will set you back 200 Euros or so.
If the setup is well done, chances are (nowadays, this used to be different) you are best served with a whole set of one particular brand. For amateurs, I'd recommend a Larsen Aurora set if you are on a budget. I've yet to come across a well-setup cello on which this set didn't work at all. If you prefer something with a bit more power on the lower strings, something like a set of Helicore might work (maybe replace the a string, which often is somewhat rough sounding, with for instance a Jargar or a Larsen). A set of Eva Pirazzi gives you some lighter bowing possibilities, whereas the combination of c and g spirocore, and a and d larsen or Jargar (classic combo) is a bit more tough on the bow but gives more power. A good overall choice is the new Dominant Pro, or if you have the cash a set of Rondo will give you the maximum possible on your cello. Good luck!
-
3 hours ago, jacobsaunders said:
Just imagine the satisfaction you might have got from having a cello restored that was actually worth it
I think the aatisfaction would be less than it is now. I have the added satisfaction of having resurrected something that was worth it, musically speaking, while others would have likely put it in your almost proverbial dustbin. But it would feel safer, ofcourse, knowing I might get the money I invested into it out again.
-
@Jcrodick I'm the guy from FB that sent you here. Please let us know how the restoration will have gone once its done! I hope you'll be happy with the result.
Some years ago, I got the first cello I owned restored. It is a Markneukirchen (ish), middle of the nineteenth century cello with little monetary value. The restoration costed me twice what the cello is worth now. But it was worth every penny, sound wise, and it easily outcompetes most celli that cost three, four times what I payed for the restoration. In the end, if you are sure you'll play and enjoy this instrument for the rest of your life, it is ok to make expensive choices that from a traders position don't make sense. Over the course of a couple of decades, happy playing will be worth so much more than that money.
-
To me, it looks more like Humson than Thomson. That said, I did find an email address for a John E.Thomson, said to have made musical instruments, from Binghamton. https://www.binghamton.edu/art/profile.html?id=thomson Is that the info you already have?
-
If you were playing something like spirocore before, then a gut string c will sound rather soft. Particularly Eudoxa, which in my opinion is too light tension since the last design change in the late nineties, will feel flabby and unresponsive. Try tuning the string half step too high. If it feels better, you need higher tension.
-
This can happen with these tail pieces if you loop the kevlar instead of tieing two knots. The tail piece was designed for the saccconi type nylon tail gut, which has two screws and divides the pressure. Looping the kevlar cord creates a tension on the plastic between the two holes that it was not designed to take. I use 3 MM Kevlar with a black woven plastic mantle and it works great.
-
You are right that the comment is probably not very appropriate for me to make. It was a reaction to some of the negativism one sees here on the board every once in a while. It is true nobody should choose the profession of violin maker in order to become whealthy, but it is my impression that if you are willing to compromise on your location and other personal matters, then you can make a reasonable living out of it. But then, I'm a musician and have many colleagues who live below the poverty line, particularly those who do not teach amateurs (teaching at university is terribly payed) and don't want to compromise on their quality of playing. I may have other expectations than others regarding my income.
-
I'm a cellist, but I think if I'd have the choice again and no responsibilities, I'd try my hands at becoming a violin maker as well.
While at school, try to get good at woodworking or wood carving with hand tools. Maybe your school has a programme? Try to find courses for during school holidays. You may even find lutiers that do courses for amateur makers during holidays (at least such things exist in Europe). Ofcourse, if there are makers in your vicinity, maybe you can help out. (It doesn't hurt asking) While it is not impossible to build a violin without personal instruction (there are good books, the Brian Derber book is said to be excellent), you will need a well stocked woodworking shop and a lot of time, and a lot of tolerance for frustration. But maybe something like a Pochette is a better thing to try your hand at at first, as one can make it as complicated or easy as one likes, there are many options regarding the model. Or you could even start with builing pre made kits for any stringed instrument really (ukuleles, guitars, violins...). One thing you should also try to develop is your drawing skills, particularly accuracy, both technical and artistical. Understanding geometry is also a big advantage.
When you finish school, what would be a great start is to enroll at an instrument making school, ideally a violin making school. There are several scattered across the planet, more than one would think. The best known ones are in Cremona, Mittenwald, Newark and Mirecourt, but there are many other less famous programmes that are nonetheless good. After that you could set up your own shop, but you will still lack a lot of experience, which means you will likely be working in the lower end of the market (which is ok, if that is what you like).
Once you know what it is like to really make a violin, you will likely have a feeling for what it is you would really like doing. Most makers can do all of it a bit, but nonetheless one usually specialises in either making new instruments, restoring old instruments, or dealing and keeping up (mostly amateur) instruments. You should try to find a job with an established maker or shop, where you can gain experience in the direction that interests you. If you have been succesful at the school you visited, that will be very helpful when trying to find a place to gain experience.
After doing that for a couple of years, you will be well prepared for setting up a shop for yourself. There are also larger shops which will employ you, if you prefer that, but the jobs are few and far apart.
It is a long road, but you are young, and if you notice at 25 years of age this isn't what you thought it would be, it will not be to late to change career. I advise you to allow yourself a change of heart, even after several years of invisting in it!
-
Have you considered contacting Codabow directly with your question? Maybe they have some recommendations. https://www.codabow.com/
-
If one makes a pegbox with shoulders on a viola, and adds a T-nut, doesn't that mean that there is quite a lot more wood compared to a violin style box, and exactly where it will make the viola feel heavy? Isn't that a factor of importance?
-
Nice cello! Is it small also, like the cello that inspired the thread?
Addition: I find this thread highly interesting from the point of view of historical performance practice. Just in the last two days, on facebook, I'm having a discussion on the topic of Quantz recommendation with a (I believe) string maker and a well known cellist in that field, regarding Quantz' recommendation of the thickness of strings. Quantz writes that a cellist needs two cellos: a bigger one with thicker strings for orchestra, and a smaller one with thinner strings for solo playing. Our discussion is that it seems weird for a smaller cello at the same pitch as the larger cello to have thinner strings than the larger one. One would expect the inverse.
In my opinion, if assumed correct, Quantz recommendation can be used for extrapolating what was thought of as an acceptable sound in baroque playing, and base on that a recommendation of a more exact string gauge than currently possible. Currently, you just experiment and then use what you like. Which is what you should do always, but if the starting point is different, more concrete, then one may discover new things.
The diametre of the strings has a great impact on how the instrument sounds and reacts. Therefore it is interesting to know what the preference was in earlier times, so that one may make an educated guess as to how the music may have sounded an was played originally. From Quantz observation, it is clear that people in baroque were very aware of this and used it depending on the function of the instrument. The larger celli were not considered to be used for soli, and the smaller celli were considered inferior for orchestral work. Surely, these things were in constant flux, but if I look at the three different Viennese Celli that Jacob has presented here, if their sizes do give a certain almost standard for larger and smaller celli for Vienna in the first 40 years of the 18th century, then a little experimentation with string thickness on two of these celli would help go a long way in getting closer to something of an answer. One could find a maximum thickness for the larger celli and a minimum for the saller that gives a satisfactory result (and this is, ofcourse subjective, although I can think of one parametre (constant tone production of the same timbre, without squeeking and crackling) relatively absolute) It could at least make our guesses to what historical stringing might have looked like better "well-educated guesses" than before.
So it would be interesting to see if one can find more celli from Vienna from that period, and if they corroborate the theory of two different, almost standard sizes. That alone, detached from the whole string gauge theme, would be interesting enough to know. In the end, it would just be a matter of statistcs; record measurements of every single viennese or possibly viennese Cello in original-ish condition one can find. And if it doesn't corroborate the two sizes, then that also is useful information.
I'm starting to wonder if this (Sizes of Viennese Cellos Ca 1700-1750) might make for a good theme for a doctoral thesis. If only a day had 28 hours!
-
As a reaction to practically all post above: could the raised saddle be an indication for the violin to have had a metal "tail gut" instead of a (thick) gut tail gut? Probaby a hard to answer question.
-
What I'm wondering when seeing this raised saddle is when exactly such saddle came in fashion. I always thought they came in fashion because of the newer, more elegant way of constructing the tail gut connection, which has the tail piece wood protrude under the tail gut. I learned baroque instruments had saddles that were flush with the edge. Indeed my 1770 Mittenwald cello has such a small saddle. Any info on this? Could this saddle be a later addition to an earlier fiddle?
-
Dave, I admire both your varnishing and your woodwork. However, here, I feel there is a discrepancy between the crispness of the latter and the result of the antiquing of the former. I find it doesn't convince without some wear to the edgework, f holes etc etc. Of course, this is a matter of taste, but regarding newly made ones, I prefer crisp new instruments or antiquing that goes a little further than yours. For me as a buyer, this looks not so convincing. This is highly subjective of course, and in no way intended negatively!
-
What have you tried? Almost all parts in a cello influence the sound and response, but often it is not very predictable in what way it will do so. Mostly there are rules of the thumb what something mostly will do, but in reality these are almost as often denied as confirmed, so keep this in mind when reading the following.
First: all loose parts need to fit well. The bridge feet, the sound post, the end pin bung. These are prerequisites for meaningful experimentation with the setup. Check the cello for "weird stuff" like a thin fingerboard (results in a weak neck and is often very detrimental to the sound), or an ill fitting nut or things like that, which should just be ok before experimentation.
If you are experiencing "dead" resonance on certain notes, or lacklustre sound, what I'd advise you to try is a ConCarbo tail piece. They very often open up the sound, reduce wolfs tones and make string response easier. This is the thing that comes closest to a miracle solution in cello setup.
While lutiers often see this as the first option, I regard it as the second option because on cellos (not violins) the impact is less extreme than the ConCarbo tail piece. The bridge model choice and sound post positioning. I'm assuming you know about french and belgian bridges, what they can do for your sound, and that there are many options in between. I'll leave other to comment on that.
The third thing I'd experiment with is the end pin. There are cellos that are absolutely not sensitive to this, but on some cellos it can make a big difference. Carbon fibre end pins, while comfortable because of light weight, on many cellos result in a flat, uninteresting sound. Different materials and models all do different things, and one can only know what exactly by experimenting. For experimentation, one needs a bung that supports 10 MM end pins. If you like a soloistic sound and have the cash lying around, I would urge you to try the Mitsuke triple brilliante, which is a personal favorite.
Only then I'd start trying different strings and string gauges.
Good luck!
-
1 hour ago, David Burgess said:
An instrument which lacks the spectral content to give a more accurate feedback may be described as "easier to play in tune".
I would say the inverse. An instrument that gives you more feedback will immediately tell you how to improve the intonation, and is therefore easier. That this correlates with instruments that "do" something with vibrato supports this, in my opinion, because one of the things vibrato does is excite more resonances in the plate.
Cello bows - quality and playability
in The Pegbox
Posted
Learning to play the cello is learning an act of balancing or juggling. You want to learn to use as much of your body weight and of the bow weight and gravity as virtuosically as possible. While compared to violin playing, playing the cello does require mor strength, we want to minimise using muscle power as much as possible because using too much makes us rigid. I like to compare the kind of body tension needed for cello playing to that needed for table tennis. It is a complete usage of the body, but the task is divided over all muscles. Therefore it feels "light". The Cello is like the table, the bow like the bat. Now imagine having a bat made out of lead. What does that do? That is sort of what a bad bow does. You'll learn wrong reflexes and start tensing up in body areas that should not tense up, while loosing connection with area of the body that should play a role. If you are a strong person, you may be able to play fine with a heavy table tennis bat, but the smaller or less powerful you are, the more important it becomes to have no leaden bat. The ideal student bow is slightly light (but nothing ridiculous), has the right balance point and has a fast string response. This all to make it discourage tensing up. The overtone spectrum it draws out of the cello (its sound) is less important at the start. The difficult thing is that it is impossible for a non-experienced person to judge these characteristics....