Danube Fiddler

Don´t remember to have done so in only a single case. However some apparently don´t have enough knowledge. This could apply e.g. for Martin Swan - no education in making, only poor or no education at all in playing, not reaching any grade but enjoying some "circles" with his "traditionals"....and knowing all better. As I yet told, the common interpretations of the term "school" were not done by me, but great experts like Hamma and some more. It is also a live going-on process, made by many participants as museum-curators, authors of important standard literature like Walter Senn in the case of Stainer ( who interestingly denies an education by any italian school because of too less accordance in working methods ) and many more violinmaking literature or violin- encyclopaedia. We have read here, that all these experts ( often with great access to instruments of the referred "schools" in their own institutions ) allegedly use an unprecise or even wrong understanding of the "school"-term, but naturally the members of the little club know all much better.

What you describe, is not a "school", it is a beginner-apprenticeship about first steps, which doesn´t decide about quality. This is not school, this is nursery. When your "school" didn´t bring more or even something of a completely different dimension, you sadly are lost. Then you must have really great talent to survive after such "education". In our time we have an increasing number of makers, who have understood this and have great success. You prefer to become member of the "little club" ? Within this club sound is not paid, you could contribute, that sound is just like it sounds. That fits quite fine the club- ideals : why to pay for something, which just is like it is ?

What´s about some advices for those, whose responses you don´t excuse ? I don´t see any reason to change neither attitude nor contents. However I seriously consider to leave this forum, in which some dilletantes like these of the "little club" have a much too loud voice. The output for myself is too low - I not really need this forum, and it actually would be a fine idea not to waste time here any longer.

One could resume your idea as : " There are no bad violins, but only bad players " - correct ?!

Oh, don´t worry : I only see here the "little club" in contradiction to great experts, museum - curators, National library-documents etc. I myself feel in fine company !

The amazing player surely will reject and has rejected a lot of violins, because they don´t sound fine - but naturally nearly all of them will sound like violins in any way.

The same applies for me, there is much better way of spending time than discussing with third-rank-makers like you - I will stop this waste of time.

This could apply in some students to a limited amount, in some more not. As a leading member of the "little club" you probably wouldn´t recognize any differences at all.

If you are wondering about your missing success - this probably is one and may be even the most important reason.

This is a quite modest target - you don´t want more ?

Very nice ! Particularly the first part of the basic rule

Unti now we see your "little club" in contradiction to these experts, e.g. : To the point "about me" - why I discussed here your qualification the first time in many threads. It was after you and your little club repeatedly tried to disqualify my personality. Only after a lot of time seeing that, I thought, it would be helpful to bring you back on the ground of YOUR poor qualifications : Martin Swan - No abilities in making - Not any or at the best quite poor abilities in playing ( a torture for any violin in your hands ) - but considerable experience as DJ Not having any real access to the violin - family, you naturally are not able to recognize any functional or aesthetical dimensions in these instruments. But at least it is great qualification for the "little club" !

Your understanding is to close : The same as in basic scholar education one teacher and one apprentice, even three or four are not a school, not a highschool nor something similar. To be "school" a certain spread is needed, a big number of "learners" which show, that the "learning-contents" are sufficient acknowleged by a wide circle of persons, showing, that the learning-contents are important in efficiency ( in our field that means: producing different sound and appearance-outputs, which make a difference in the market, being perceived as different in important points by musicians/clients ). This is the main thing in "school" : - any master + any learner is not sufficient to make a "school" - learning contents must be important and asked/ shared by many persons, at the best in wide areas or in many areas ( a wide spread is an indication for importance ) Therefore a direct connection between master and student even is not necessary at all. It is enough, that some important learning-contents are learned/ imitated, to build or to sustain a school. In the case of the German school the contents are well-known and extremely spreaded. The learned contents have been in high demand until ~1800 and normally are described as sound-related. If one speaks of German school in certain cases or of German - influenced schools or German-influenced making in certain areas like Venezia, probably depends on many things. When you develop a certain working-step or procedure and share it with your regrettable apprentice, this is not yet a school - you understand ?

You seem to not have understood, neither what a member of the little club stated in this discussion : .nor which position I had supported : 1 ) Yes, that an apprenticeship of Stainer in the Amati shop is not proved 2) Stainer is not member of the Amati school but top-representative of German school, as all know since ever - with the exeption of the little club. 3) the use of a dorsal pin or inside-mold is unimportant for school-participation. Important is the final character of the instrument in functionality ( sound and appearance ). This depends much lesser on working -techniques than on the underlying musical taste ( sound - ideas ) and the aesthetical taste ( optical and eventually haptical taste ). The German school has had different targets - these made the difference. Nearly no client in history or in presence has had any interests in molds or pins, he can´t see. But he is interested in some particular characters in sound and appearance of the final instrument - and the different schools evolved in satisfying these ( often locally differing ) interests. Even when Stainer actually should have been pupil of Amati, he would not be Amati school any longer, when he after his (technical ) apprenticeship aimed for different targets and therefore was perceived as a contrast to the Cremonese world - which apparently was the case. Showing up e.g. in the fact, that old Mittenwald makers built a Stainer vs. an Amati model. 4) The term "school" in violinmaking was not invented by me, it is not a precise term.

It was clear, that you misunderstood, what I have said : It is ridiculous, to take the dorsal - pin as proof for an apprenticeship of Stainer in the Amati shop. Something similar is told by Dilworth. Naturally I never said anywhere, that the dorsal - pin would be ridiculous. The opposite is true : I even consider the dorsal - pin as eventually much more important than any expert ever publically told, so far as I know. 1) We should let speak experts about this, and I never read about Stainer as member of the Amati school, written by any important expert - but very frequently the opposite, Stainer as top-protagonist of the German school. 2) The dorsal pin for its alone is not evident to count Stainer into the Amati school, even not some inner working-techniques. Deciding are the sound-related effective working-techniques, mainly archings, shapes and graduations and also some basic aesthetical things in general appearance. This is, what the little club doesn´t understand : the functional aspects of the violin ( sound and aura). Here the schools have their real game - naturally.