David Beard

Another informing observation, at least in my opinion, is that the price pressure as expanded to included more instruments and more makers over time. The very top as been rather stable, but there seems to be an observable broadening of the market pressure over time. This seems natural enough. More collectors and more players are competing for instruments over time. What's very interesting to me, is that mostly this broadening has lifted the lower limbs of the Cremona Tradition tree, rather than a selection of the best less directly related makers. There are some exceptions. Some of the most thorough copyists have been lifted significantly, like Vuillaume bench copies. However, directness of linkage to the methods of the main Cremona tradition appears to be the best predictor of which makers have been lifted and which haven't. To me, this suggests there is something very significant and positive about the principles and methods of traditional Cremona making.

There is the deflection under the static load of the strings. Then there are the more complex moving patterns over deflection/movement when musical vibrations are driving the instrument via the strings. Both things have been studied to some extent.

It's a good story, and probably a common enough occurrence. But, as much as many modern makers might like, it does not imply that the perceived utility of Strad and Del Gesu instruments is generally false or merely myth.

Oops. Meant to say 'players', plural. Well, yes. It's an evolving thing. The more elite players start using other violins with lower costs, that will eventually develop into upward price pressure on the new instruments they favor. The more concentrated and prolonged their new favoritism is on select names, the greater the effect But, as long as the market sees most of those players dabble while they can't afford the top stuff, then switch to a Strad or Del Gesu when they get the chance, as long as that pattern dominates, then Strad and Del Gesu will comfortably hold the top spots.

Close to what Don is saying is that a structure will move in every mode possible. A stable internal reference point for a particular mode will be one that remains static in relationship to the nodes of that mode. But, the various modes will have different nodes. Very likely any internal reference point you could choose will be a stable node for some modes, but not for all. If somehow you could create an external stable reference frame around the entire instrument, you would likely find that all points on the instrument are actually in motion, due to the many modes. Any point that appears stable within a particular mode is only stable relative to that mode's motions. Nevertheless, it will be in motion due to other modes. So, the notion of a single absolutely stable reference point within a complex vibrating system is a galaxy, unless it is somehow rigidly pinned by some external framework. But even then, if you back up and include the framing on the system, everything will again in lost cases be moving.

Okay. But this fundamentally misses the point. You can make assessments of the instrument sound separated from the complications of a player using the instrument as a tool to make music. You can do hammer tests that tell you something. You can develop controlled studies that attempt to neutralize human variables. But all that misses the point. A separated sound is never what makes valuable instruments valuable. What develops long term value in instruments is of top player consistently gravitate toward preferring certain instrument for actually making music, in it's full complex context. You might succeed in some sort of separated evaluation of sound, it just won't be the thing that actual supports and drives value.

You can never 'hear an instrument'. You can only ever 'hear a player play an instrument'. There's a big difference. What you think about the sound basically doesn't matter, at least not directly. What matters is how the player felt about the instrument while delivering a performance and sound. Did the player feel the instrument helped or stood in the way? Did the player feel some other instrument would have allowed him to deliver more, or do so more easily, or do so with greater pleasure or satisfaction? These are the questions that matter in evaluating instruments. And, such evaluations are not fixed. They depend on the player, and on the set up. Again, it is the upward potential in talented hands that matters. What an audience hears only matters in the sense that it feeds back to the player in a way they comprehend. What you think you hear is just not relevant. It's the player's comfort and liberty in delivering a performance and supporting their career as a musician. That's what counts. For students, the concerns are different. But again, it's about an instrument that supports the person's journey. That can mean many things, including economic concerns. It doesn't directly mean what the people around the student thinks they're hearing. Indirectly though, that can be important. Without a player, an instrument has no sound.

The weight might affect how a player feels about a bow. But the player controls the weight of the hand/arm/bow combination that passes through to the string. This choice changes dynamically as part of playing. The actual weight of the bow is in a sense hidden and irrelevant in the larger picture of actual playing. That's not to say a player might not care about the weight. But any potential direct simple relation of now weight to playing is swamped by the players actions in playing.

That's a possibility. But, I doubt that could ever happen with a truly cheap and indifferent factory product. There would have to be some sort of integrity and quality present in the instruments for that to emerge. Even if that integrity wasn't acknowledged generally when the instruments were made, it would need to be there for later generations to find.

It depends on the person. For some, an indifferently made VSO of odd and bad materials and appearance will be equally good for them as one of the great instruments of history. In fact, there are probably many many more people who would not comprehend or need what is different about a great violin versus a commercial junker, then those that absolutely crave and need that difference.

You raise some valid points. Very often, the treble and bass sides closet to the neck are unequal, sometimes significantly. In such cases, a clearly meaningful documenting measure would need to be by calipers, say so, and also from how the measurement relates to the instrument. Also, in classic Cremona examples, the top plate and back plate measures also often differ significantly. Our community has historically focused on measure for identification purpose. If everyone measure by tape over the arching, that method used consistently is sufficient for identification purposes. But, for study purposes, such tape measure are of very limited value.

I still question the premise. Where is my left handed piano? Left handed books? Left handed typewriter? Left handed car? Is a left handed British car also left handed if I take it to America? I'm not convinced the concept applies to certain things that involve deeply learning either way, but offer no way to determine which orientation prefers which hand. I much prefer to call reversed orientation reversed. To me, either orientation is equally either handed. One orientation is simply conventionally standard.

Just personally, the most annoying thing to me is when someone reports measurements to a 1/10 mm, but measure by tape over the arching!!!?

I believe the trend will continue to move toward preferring linear measures by caliper. Tape measured certainly were acceptable in the past. I'm not so sure they will seem acceptable in a few more years.

If you're making something by hand, and seeing that as somehow worth while for an item that costs only a few hundred for the low end factory version, is 'simpler' your chosen guiding principle?