Cremonese "secret"?

[Craig Tucker]

Ok, that's fair enough.

I will admit that I'm not an expert in the area of antique Italian violins, nor do I routinely handle them.

Exceptional violins, on the other hand, I do have some experience with. Exceptional bows also. They are usually priced beyond my reach in any case. (other than the ones I *think* I make.)

Since I don't routinely handle Strads and Del Gesus, I can only surmise that they are what the people who deal with them and pay for them claim they are.

My post was meant to emphasize that the quality of "exceptional" isn't really all that common in the violin world, nor is it usually cheap & that most claims that the quality doesn't exist come from people who can't really identify the quality to begin with. I don't mean to denigrate anyone or their ideas (you included)

It took me a good fifteen years of study before I was even able to recognize what I was hearing when I heard it.

[MANFIO]

Thank you for this information Michael, Oistrack is my favorite violinist. In the Art of The Violin, Perlman says that Oistrack's Strad was not a particular good one. To which instrument was he referring to?

[Michael Darnton]

Perhaps the issue is personal taste as much as anything?

[MANFIO]

Oh, yes Michael.

Going back to the secrets, I would like to know Del Gesù or Caterina Guarneri secrets. I would love talking some hours with Caterina Guarneri, mainly about her later violins!

[jmasters]

Thanks for the pix, Michael. And I have to say that I LOVE the link to the cubic universe or whatever else it is called.

I recall at University, in the library stacks (basement) there was a cardboard box of vanity press books from people with new "theories" of all kinds of physics. Naturally, after printing such a book, they would mail off copies to universities . Mostly, the writers liked to tear down Einstein. Naturally, if you are a paranoid schizophrenic, you want to attack someone BIG, not an inconsequential personage (Even if they made a highly important contribution although not well known.) The Box was labeled "AUR" for "annules of useless research."

My favortie: The man's name was Gillette and he had a lot of hand-drawn diagrams in a book that was supposed to be an alternative to general relativity. His big quote: "Gravitation is nothing more than the kicked-back nut of the screwing bolt of radiation."

I mention this because much debate about tone and all things Cremonese comes from people with a lot of opinions and no contact with other people.

[Michael Darnton]

I usually figure that when someone doesn't understand something that a multitude of others do, the problem usually lies with the someone, not the others.

[Seth_Leigh]

I agree with that principle loosely Michael, however if I were to sit in a room with you and a bunch of those who agree with you on whether we should have invaded Iraq, I'd still think I was right on and the whole rest of the room were all wrong.

ps: this isn't to kick up debate on the Iraqi War, just to point out the dangers of how you decide to choose your "someone" and your "others". You can gerrymander your thought borders anyway you want to find a "someone" you want to disagree with, and present them with a chosen set of "others" and then assume you're all right, and you could be wrong.

[Michael Darnton]

Well, I said "usually", and we're talking about mechanics, not ethics. You could almost apply this to ethics, though.

The issue isn't that people can't disagree, but rather that when *perception* of concrete phenomena are involved, and a huge _and_informed_ group of people say "I see something" and a couple outsiders say "there's nothing there", I'm more suspicious that the latter lack perception than I am that the former see things that aren't there. I think, for instance, that we all see essentially the same facts about Iraq--it's the meaning of them or whether we should pay attention to them that we disagree on.

In the issue of violin tone, a number of people do hear something, and can describe it and reach consensus on this description. Then there are a few who don't and feel invested in convincing everyone else that there's nothing there. I find that curious. Eessentially we're talking about the opinions of thousands of owners of fine instruments, mostly great players, over the last 350 years or so, vs the essentially uninformed opinions of a great miniority of contrarian non-owners. I don't think of this as "gerrymandering". Look at the list on the page I referenced above--for the most part it's a list of people who'd be expected to, overall, have highly cultivated and informed tastes. Against that, we have, for instance, the opinons of a small regional dealer of no particular importance who does hardly any (if any at all) dealing in the type of violin he's pontificating about (I'm referring to the link posted earlier--he's entitled to his opinion, but it does well to look at his qualifications to have that opinion. . .) And since I could easily be accused of being similarly qualified, sure, don't believe me, either--believe the greatest violinists of the past three centuries. I do.

As regards occasional dissenting violinists, the situation is like a color-blind person getting excited about trying to convince everyone there's no such thing as blue. Just because someone's a good violinist, it doesn't mean that he automatically has all the perception supposedly invested in a violinist. I immediately think, for instance, of a concert artist I know who plays on a decidedly inferior violin---everyone around him knows it except him. And he's a good player, not a bum. I showed him a nice Strad once; the difference was remarkable when he played it, and he followed the playing by saying to me "there's really no difference, is there?" He brags about his sense of tone, too. That's not really unusual--as I've said before, the violinist's job is music, not violins, and most players base their opinions on a very small sample and limited experience. It's as if I claimed to be an expert on cars because I drive one specific one a lot, fairly well.

However, in the current discussion rather than get deeply into this ego-lined rat's nest, I'll just stick with the established fact that great violins do great things more easily, making it easier for a violinist to do his best. As I already commented, most of the audience isn't qualified to give an opinion one way or another on the quality of the sound, and that really doesn't matter--no one's asking them to buy a violin.

I've been reluctant to suggest this link, but here it is: http://nagyvaryviolins.com/ . Go to the sound samples farther down the page. Are they identical? If not, how not? Claims are being made there. Is it fair to make the claim that the violins are the same or similar? Here's a perfect example of something concrete we can all hear that's the same for all of us, that we can all discuss in concrete terms, referencing the same sources. What do you think?

[Seth_Leigh]

By the way Michael I don't disagree with you on the fine violins. Although part of me wants to disagree that any violin is worth millions of dollars, it's not my money so it's not my decision, but I don't disagree that there's something there as to the sound. I do happen to agree with your "someone" vs. others analysis in this particular case. I just don't agree that it's a general principle that can be applied in arguments, and I know that's not what you're saying.

I'll go check out the Nagyvary link. I've always been amused by the comments here about that guy and I'm interested in hearing what you're talking about.

Since I have no clue on fine instruments on my own, I have to decide whose opinion to respect on the matter, and in this matter I defer to Michael and the others who say there's something there, the Hill brothers in their writings, etc.

[jmasters]

I was speaking of the nature of schizophrenia... just that it can be very bizzare. It is not reasoning actually as an alternative to that other people. The case of the schizophrenic is that he is really out of touch with what others think. More importantly, his thinking mechanism is not the same as that of a normal person. The point is that he does not often know this unless he is in treatment.

On the other hand, if one person does not "understand" or accept what many others understand, that is another situation altogether. I assume no mental abnormalities of course. History is full of examples where facts were not 'democratic.' One person was right and the common knowledge turned out to have problems. This is not a comment in any way about anything to do with violins. Just an observation about the evolution of understanding in general. My field of physics is full of such situations.

[Guy_Gallo]

I couldn't find a place on the Nargary site that specified which violin was which. But I'll go out on a limb here and say Violin 2 is the Strad.

Violin 1 seemed more strident, lost focus in the upper reaches. And had less color all around.

Violin 2 seemed all around more complex in its tones. More immediate in making the tones.

I don't see how we can judge projection in such a recorded test. All you can differentiate is volume, which isn't much of a test... I guess it seemed V1 was a smidge louder, but I wouldn't say more powerful.

[jeff1]

They have changed it since the last time I went to his site! The first violin seems brighter, and seemed to have more power on the high notes. Mike you said that you felt that maybe a process dont to the wood before it was made! Nargary, said he boils his wood in a water solution with .5% Borax. have you tried anything like that yourself? I can see that working on green wood,but what about seasoned wood. He said the process help to clean out the pores especially of rosins.

[Violinnut]

I wish I could hear that recording.

Cubist han Nice link,makes for some interesting reading.

All is not always what it seems

[Violinnut]

I agree with you in that exceptional violins are not that common. My belief is that it is not necessarly tied to a price or a particular name for that mater.

Dont misunderstand me, I would not mind at all having a Strad, although I have a very strond penchant for Guadagnini

There are though in my mind some modern makres that I belive make some instruments that could be also exceptional. imho.

[LadyAmati]

I don't know which is which, but the violins do sound different enough. Violin 2 seems more complex and comforting to listen to. Violin 1 is more strident and has that "new violin" brittleness to it. They don't tell you at the website which one is the Strad, but I would guess #2 also, because #1 is more brittle.

[Violinnut]

I liked the first one overall better. The lower strings were for me a bit fuller. On the higher range true the 2nd was sweeter.

A question then for all. What did a strad sound like when it was new and not yxet broken in ?

Here is another comparaison link.

http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=side...3F6809EC5880000

[flamenco]

Violin 1 and 2 in the various boxes are not consistent. That is, the Strad shows up in both 1 and 2. I don't think this is fair. One needs to evaluate under a range of circumstances. I can hear a quite distinct difference, but I don't want to get into a debate.

I would like to know the opinion of the borax treatment. I boraxed one fiddle with a surface solution. It sounded nice, but no nicer than the controls without the surface solution. I didn't try boiling.

[Guy_Gallo]

Interesting. Do you know which is which?

My first impression was based on 3rd set. Do you know which is which in that? And is the scale (#1) the opposite of #3?

[Dean_Lapinel]

.

[Michael Darnton]

Well, borax is *this year's* "secret", in a series of similar revelations. :-) I don't know what it does, but I can't imagine it would do much.

[Violinnut]

aye! aye!

[Craig Tucker]

It took a team of twenty mules to haul that borax out of the desert - in temperatures of well over 120 degrees. How about a little respect?

[Jacob]

Considering the effects of vernice bianca on tonewood, which I find downright spooky, I'm only too happy to believe that something else could do even better.

I don't know what vernice bianca does, how it does it, and why the recipe consists of what it does, but its effects are amazing. Nevertheless, going on the descriptions of classic Italian violins and the way they respond, it seems that something more subtle, but also much more effective, is at work there.

[La Folia]

The little ice age subject was discussed much more thoroughly in a previous thread. I think I can safely state the conclusions here. A substantial fraction of the wood in Strad and Guarneri violins was in fact grown during a period of low average temperatures. Other people noted, however, that individual trees vary tremendously from global averages. The low average tree ring width that characterizes the wood of that period is not particularly evident in these violins. Even more problematic is that apparently a mechanism by which low average temperature would improve the tone wood is not well established. Finally, Michael mentioned that later makers attempted to use the same wood, apparently without proportional benefits. This point was not well discussed, however.

With regard to the Nagyvary recordings, some of the recordings sound distorted, as if the recording equipment were saturated.

[K544]

It is a fascinating issue, isn't it?

It seems to me that one must accept that the very best Cremonese instruments are the best instruments there are. Too many generations of fiddlers have come to that conclusion to seriously suppose otherwise.

Second, the "lost secret" cannot be something that the Cremenese creators were aware of. Otherwise, the apprentice system would have assured its perpetuation down to the present day.

So it must have been some characteristic of the materials used -- a characteristic of which the creators were unaware and which has changed, indeed disappeared, over time.