David Beard

Beautiful case!! Thanks for sharing pics and your expertise, Dmitri. Very much appreciated.

Or copied Ingres drawings of Paganini. Technical styles have varied significantly historically.

Ah, while it's not evidence at all of anything about the time christ was born, or evidence that such an event ever occurred at all, yet it's still excellent evidence that crucifixes of that basic kind existed when that portion of the painting was painted.

Is last violin Sonatas were written and played with Strinisachi and her Strad. Mozart owned a Klotz. Not a Stainer. It seems to me he simply decided not to invest a maximum amount in any school of violin. The story also confirms the fact that the success of late Cremona instruments began in Italy and then spread. Local favorites could still win until post 1800.

Here's a start. Building a chocolate cello: Chocolate Cello

A perfect metal plane is probably best. But, very few arrive or stay perfect. I use wooden planes. 1) I simply enjoy the feel of using them more. 2) It is to me much easier to flatten and modify wooden planes. 3) I can buy great old wood planes with wonderful blacksmithed blades at a much lower cost than today's best metal planes. But. I've spending is easier for you than the labor of correcting and tuning a wood plane, then a great modern plane is the quick and trouble free way to go.

I think I agree. There was a bit of 'Germanic play Germanic' momentum persisting. Not so much further in the future, Beethoven was honored with the gift of a quartet of Cremona instruments.

I certainly agree that the whole question is off point. Both, are inescapably essential.

That's merely the reductio ad absurdum argument. More significant to me, is my personal sense that the limits of the musical, articulation, and tonal results I can draw from an instrument depend first of all on me, second on the instrument quality, and only third on the bow quality. That's provided we are varying the quality of bow and violin from basically functional to wonderful. And, if we're varying the qualities down to barely playable, then a bad violin gives me more pain than a bad bow. But, that's a very personal perspective. I know many good players say to prioritize having a good bow.

A balance yes. But, technically, the bow is less fundamental. The strings are on the cello. The soundboards and sounding are integral to the cello. You can pluck the cello and make music without the bow. And, a very skilled hand can draw much with a merely functional bow. As important as great bows are, they are part of the last mile, not the body of the journey.

Love this! Thank you for sharing.

Willow is different. It returns most of the energy put into. It's elastic in the physics sense. And, tradition has long identified it as a tonewood.

It's very fiberous and thuddy and even mushy. Almost a dead opposite of what you want. On the hand, you can make clean brushes from it. If you take a stick of lime and wet the end, then hammer and pound the end into mush, you'll end up with a good brush that won't leave junk in your work. Not a tone wood.

It's not an issue of time, but of maker experimentation. Del Gesu and then Guadagnini both at times exploring something getting closer toward the through arch for the top. But never going as far as the later French and commercial makers. Look at other Italian makers from same time and later. Many did not experiment with rounding the top. Montagnana, Seraphino, Peter of Venice, Bergonzi, etc. So, it isn't a matter of age or time. Also, some of the Italian makers that experimented toward a through archs also experiment with extremes the other way. Guadagnini for example. The correlation is to maker. Not to time. Though, the fashion to experiment toward a through arch doesn't begin until mid 1700s, and isn't taken up earnestly until the French. The period from 1800 to 1880 is very interesting this way. We have many surviving examples instruments from differrnet schools. And during this time, the new fashion was solidly used by some, and the old by others. If you are willing to explore laying biases aside as best one can, you will find that current structure of these instruments depends on the makers choice, on the maker's approach, not the date.

Structures correlate much more by maker rather than by time.