Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

RolandS

Members
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

RolandS's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (2/5)

  1. The "business", as in for example the Strads being auctioned and locked-up for not-playing but rather investment ... ? I bet that this is not your intention. But indeed rather something like mass production (Dave Slight, FiddleDoug). This goes with a lower quality due to less attention for craftmanship. If this is what you actually mean with "trade instrument", communication would gain by avoiding that expression. "Trade instrument" - if so intended - has a negative connotation, by sort of implying that the buyers are the victims of their stupidity, whereas in reality they buy something that suits their purse and skills. Beware, if you continue to use "trade instrument" in a pejorative manner, I shall call every Stradivarius or Del Gesu that is not played but only sold a mere "trade instrument" Greetz!
  2. Dear Maestro's, Not being a luthier, but very interested in your trade and craftsmanship, I am reading the pegbox with great interest. Sometime later I plan to ask your advice on the ID of my wonderful cello. Here is my question: What is a trade instrument? I have read this terminology ever so often on MN. If I propose the following ranks, where would a trade instrument be placed? : Instrument for novice For advanced amateur For professional student For performing artist The expression "trade instrument" puzzles me, since hopefully all instruments are at least traded once in their lifetime. If traded, a seller wants to get rid of it, and a buyer wants to procure it. How could "trade" possibly denote a quality? Or would this be your meaning: if traded more often than once, it means that it buyers discover relatively quickly that it is no good, and want to get rid of it ASAP?
  3. They are, if you copy/paste removing the hypertext code.
  4. Ethanol is a solvent for rosin and fats. (especially near the frog, bow hair collects a lot of finger grease). The point was made here that the dissolved matter would travel from the hair's surface to the hair's interior pores and crannies. Such transfer is minimised when the concentration of dissolved matter is lowest. Therefore, if the quantity of alcohol used is largest. And even lower if more alcohol is used to flush a first washing. The transfer can be reduced to a negligible level. The advice to use only few alcohol contradicts with this logic. Whether it is desirable or not to saturate the hair's internals with rosin and fats is another question. Perhaps having rosin internally works just great to stabilise freshly applied rosin? Perhaps finger grease on the inside keeps the hair flexible? Coming back to the question of the OP, a superficial clean with ethanol can remove sufficient of one type of rosin before testing the next type. After the test has been completed, one might consider to do an intense clean with ample ethanol to remove undesired types of rosin. The hair is not damaged by the ethanol, and it will evaporate entirely. Mind the bow's surface preservation, as ethanol likes to digest that as well! PS: Water and soap dissolve fats, and tend to transfer the dissolved matter to the hair pores too, just like ethanol does. Drying from water takes much more time.
  5. And now our thoughts of those instruments.... (for if Schwartzinc likes answers) One violone and one violoncello piccolo?
  6. Perhaps not so strange... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cello gives a clear review of the etymology of "cello", short for the Italian word "violoncello", meaning "little violone". So, the reference is not to the violin, but rather the violone.
  7. Define "violin engineer", and explain the relevance for a scientific analysis of the violin-human body system producing sound. You comment very "surely", but based on conjecture. Re 2: When quoting Andreas Preuss to express my agreement, I did not feel urged to go nitpicking about his less precise wording. Exactly, as I wrote here I did professional physics research - that is modelling, experimenting, measuring of the cello-human body system. My comment was on that basis. And on the basis of a professional cello playing education. To someone replying to a forum contribution, I suggest to REALLY read first, and minimize one's presumptions.
  8. As an engineer (and cellist) I assure you that Andreas Preuss is 100% correct: "Bowing technique is the key to sound production". "fingers are totally relaxed", for a good sound. I add: 1/ Muscles that control the fingers are located in the underarm. 2/ Muscle tensions in lower and upper arm that are not needed to control the bow are a cause of damping vibrations that otherwise would have contributed to sound colour. Therefore, maximised arm relaxation is key for sound control and sound quality. 3/ Specific right arm position and use of movement space may help to maximise right arm relaxation. 4/ The forces required to actuate string vibration can be created entirely by controlled lifting (!) - not pressing - of the right arm. For cellists and bassists this is even an unavoidable fact due to the position of their instrument. For violonists and violist whether or not they use pressing arm forces depends upon the bow angle with the direction of gravity. 5/ Even if controlled lifting is applied, the right arm can be unrelaxed and thus reduce sound quality. I did some research on this matter, and shall be happy to share this via a private conversation. Greetz!
  9. Forgive me if what I bring forward here is nothing new to you luthiers, but I feel the engineers need some defence here. (Myself being an engineer, and not a luthier at all - and rather a cellist, as far as music is concerned.) However, as an engineer I should put forward here that the vibrations of a free blade is utterly different from a mounted blade. The mounting of a front blade along its edges do change the acoustic characteristics of the blade to such an extent that tap tones cannot imply anything at all about the acoustics of the mounted instrument.
  10. Dear Cellists! Finally I got ready for a next piece on my bucket list: Brahms, Op. 99. Some phrases turned out to be a real challenge, notably bars 17-23 of the first part and bars 51-55 and 85-95 of the third part. The challenge being to find the fingering that effectively yields the required fluency of these phrases. After a lot of experimenting I believe that I found some nice solutions. I compared several editions of this piece, and several performances by distinguished players (published on YouTube), but in the phrases discussed here they are all very similar and less attractive to me. The fingerings proposed by the various editors and actually used by major performers are similar to the extent that they all make use of flageolet tones on the A-string and on the D-string where it is seemingly easier to quickly catch the right notes rather than to stop them by pressing a finger upon the finger board. However, the sound character of flageolet tones differs from that of stopped notes. Used in this manner flageolets tones disturb the melody. A second disadvantage of the 'traditional' fingerings, at least in my experience, is the excessive right-arm movement that makes the playing of these phrases less efficient and less secure. I think that my solutions are more beautiful, ultimately easier to play (some practice needed) and new. That is why I share them in this post. My proposal is attached. The editions investigated were: * Editor: First edition, N. Simrock, 1887, Plate 8750, Berlin (Röder, Leipzig), taken from https://imslp.org * Editor: Hugo Becker, Carl Friedberg, B. Schott's Söhne (Mainz), ca. 1922, Plate 09498 & 09499/09501, taken from https://imslp.org * Editor: Julius Klengel, Edition Peters (Leipzig), ca.1925, Plate 10418, Reprinted Muzgiz (Moscow), 1932, Plate 13099, taken from https://imslp.org * Editor: Wolfgang Boettcher, Wiener Urtext Edition, Musikverlag GmbH & Co. K.G. (Vienna), 1973. I hope that you find them worth trying. And please let me know your comments! Best regards, Roland Cello_Sonate_No2-fragments.pdf
  11. Now, let's look at it from another perspective. There is a violin for which $ 20,000 was paid in 1999 by two "business partners" (quote from one of the partners). From the efforts made since by the buyers - of which this thread gives clear testimony - it can be concluded beyond doubt that they view this violin purely as an object of speculation. The seller (daughter of the last player of this violin) is likely to have known its player's quality. And she was not able to sell it for more than the said $ 20,000. One of the two speculator buyers holds two master degrees as a violinist from Juilliard (says the other buyer). It is therefore extremely unlikely that any violinist/performer would be willing to pay even as much as $ 20,000 for this instrument. No wonder that the speculators talk as vaguely as they do in this thread to make believe this violin to be a strad and to obtain a certificate supporting this conjecture. So much about fiddle price and value...
  12. @Rue, opening this thread: Epoxy is not a thermoplast. It cannot melt. It is a thermo setting polymer. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosetting_polymer
×
×
  • Create New...