"Inside first"?

[Jacob]

My head is spinning after reading that.

What do you guys think?

Michael D and/or Jeffrey - what does the arching on the inside of a Strad top look like, apropos lowered bottom f-hole wings? That is my biggest problem with the "inside first" theory.

[MANFIO]

Are you referring to carving the inside arching first and then making the outside archings?

That's not new, it's the thesis exposed in a book by Italian maker Euro Pelluzi, called "Tecnica Costrutiva degli Antichi Liutai Italiani". The theory is based on the reflection of concave mirrors, the sound would "reflect" inside the back and top and the light would do with concave mirrors, I find that complicated.

This is a rare, sold out book (with no English translation)

[Melvin Goldsmith]

The article presents an interesting way of conceptualizing arching

but my feeling is that the old Cremonese were too hasty and

pragmatic to use a round the houses method like this. Though old

Cremonese arches share enough in common to make them recogniseable

so there may be some underlying principal at work.

[MANFIO]

Yes Melving, and they change from instrument to instrument by the same maker, sometimes in the same period, point out to the non existence of a rigid, scientific method. But I may be wrong.

[Jacob]

Melvin, I don't see the "round house" in that method.

To over-simplify: you get yourself a piece of chain, draw the outline of say, the Cannone, start and end with the thickness graduations of the original, make the inside "barrel", and most importantly, design the width of the inside cross widths to conform to the outside recurves, and you will end up with a decent Cannone model. But that involves reverse engineering, which the Cremonese obviously were not concerned with in the manner we are. No arching guides, eye-balling, "intuition and insight", generally going crazy - just a piece of chain.

In short, with the exception of the recessed lower f-hole wings, this process sounds very simple and direct, and it adresses a lot of questions I have concerning weird contours which can occur on the inside arching when done "normally", as well as what I consider to be some strongly counter-intuitive actions which are required when shaping the outside arching. Differences between models regarding outside arching are governed by body outline and dimensions, and the distance from the edge of the inside cross archings. For one thing, it instantaneously painlessly gets rid of my own biggest bug-bear - too-full arching over the lower corners.

I have also often wondered how it is that the outside archings of back and belly show can show considerable differences, but the inside arching for both plates end up pretty much alike.

I do however agree that if one is attempting to copy a particular instrument, this method could be a bit "round house". On the other hand, if one is making "from scratch", it seems to give one a lot more freedom while at the same time it guarantees an optimimal tonal construction for the inside cavity.

In fact, this article is the closest I've seen to an acceptable explanation for the wild variety of outside shapes of Cremonese instruments: the outside arching is the almost co-incidental result of body outline, arching height, and thickness graduations, all based on a constant interior arching design.

A very interesting and thought-provoking article indeed.

[Melvin Goldsmith]

Hi Jacob..( by 'a round the houses method' I meant 'an

overcomplicated route to objective'...sorry not to be clear!)

I basically agree with your analysis of the article though I should

read the article again!

The fact that old Cremonese arching is so recognisable yet so

varied leads me to think there was at least some scheme or method

used in common. This theory stands up ok against the idea of

arching templates as depiceted in Sacconi and the Biddulph Guarneri

book by Roger Hargrave. especially as no arching templates exist in

the archives. As for sunken F hole wings I think a lot of the

sinkage occured over time. Counter intuitive as it is violin

bellies tend to rise over time and F hole wings rather than follow

get pushed down by edge clamps over time....as ever I could be

wrong.

[GlennYorkPA]

For one who is struggling to catch up with this topic, is the basic thesis that all Cremonese violins have the same internal arching and only the outsides differ?

Glenn

[gabi]

That's an interesting subject,

I guess we are all tempted to visualize the sound radiate from the surface of the instrument outwords,

but what about the inside surface of the plates?and the sound that radiates inwords into the resonance box.

Gabriel

[Andres Sender]

Gabi, FWIW the interior form of the arch won't just affect the 'inward radiation' of sound, it surely has a very significant effect on 'outward' radiation. That leaves aside the question of just how much 'inwardly radiated' sound eventually escapes the box to become part of what is heard (i.e. ends up 'outwardly radiated').

[Melvin Goldsmith]

Glenn. The article proposes a theory that old Cremonese arches were

built from the inside out to a certain principal and then the

graduation was done on the external surface of the plate. Even if

this theory is debunked the article is thoughtful and imaginative

and well worth a read for anyone interested in arching. It will

certainly have me thinking for a while. The author's name is

Torbjorn Zethelius

[Craig Tucker]

Torbjorn has been a proponent for this type of arching (hollowing the inside first) for quite a while now.

I can't see how it would make a huge difference either way.

I think that if one starts with a fairly concrete idea about what he or she wants in an arch, it probably doesn't matter a whole lot which surface is shaped first. Though the traditional way seems a bit easier and definately is the more intuitive route to go.

Isn't the whole idea that the shape and thickness is not accidental or the result of method or chance, but of conceptualization and intentional execution?

I will be curious to hear from any members who are tempted enough to try this method out.

[Craig Tucker]

Or is the idea here that a certain result may only be had by forming the inside first?

[Andres Sender]

CT--whether or not that's the idea, I would think it's a useful measure of the value. I'm sure there are differences in how easily or 'automatically' different methods produce 'Cremonese' results. They dont' arise easily just from the desire for them, apparently.

[Jacob]

Craig, no doubt one can do it either way. To me, doing the outside first is like reverse engineering, if one accepts the basic premises in the article. If one is trying to copy a specific instrument or style, one will end up with the "correct" interior. But I agree with the guy: it can be difficult. On the other hand, doing the inside first according to the prescribed method seems pretty simple (a whole lot simpler than doing the outside first with the help of arching templates, curtaid cycloids etc.) and following the graduation pattern desired, combined with the exterior recurve and edge scoop, one will end up with a Cremonese exterior shape. In this instance I guess one can say that the exterior shape is the end result of the other pre-determined factors: inside shape, body dimensions and graduation. On the other hand, doing the outside first causes the interior shape to be co-incidental. If one does everything right, it doesn't matter which route one takes, the "inside first" method just seems easier and less error-prone.

I am so intrigued by this that I'm going to start on a violin straight away following this method. I'll report back in a few months (time available to me for making is always in short supply).

___________

Glen,

No, the interiors are not all the same. The method is (essentially, the use of a catenary curve) but differences in body outline (especially the bout widths), the arching height decided upon, the predetermined width of the recurve, as well as the graduation system will determine the outside shape.

[Magnus Nedregard]

I'd say it is a very fruitful way of thinking about arching, this. But of course, today, if you make a "cremonese" outside arch, and you do your inside job right, the result in the end will be the same! But the thing is; I think if you work inside-out the way described in the article, you'll get this kind of arch and inside shape automatically! So you'll get in an intuitive way something you'd have to strive hard for to obtain working more analytically.

So I think it makes sense. But the chain-curve part of it I'm not so sure? It is true that "catena" is what the bass-bar is called in italian, but I was thought that was due to catena also was generellay meant a supporting bar as well as "chain" - also "catenaccio" (derived from "catena") is the big bolt or bar used to lock a big door or a gate from the inside, indicating that this may not only relate to violinmaking but for instance to doors, and there is no catenary curve on doors! Also, the way the chain is held must influence a lot. And how do you tell when a wooden surface "fits" to a chain? There's quite a leeway in that question I think. Also, with a certian arching height and a certain width on the instruments narrowest point I'd say the shape of the central arching is pretty much given! Or what do you think? I hope someone seriously disagree!

[Jacob]

Hi Magnus

The chain must "dangle" loosely between the hands. Depending on the depth of the barrel (or "loaf", as the article has it) and the width of the center bout (the chain must touch everywhere, edges as well as bottom), the catenary curve can vary a lot in shape. That is what I find so interesting with this method: the arching height and center bout width (as well as the recurve and edge widths) determine the shape of the arching inside the barrel.

[MANFIO]

Hi Magnus! Catenary may also derive from "catena", that is, chain in Italian (and perhaps something like that in Latin).

[Magnus Nedregard]

Yes Jacob, maybe I should read the article over again. But anyway, the edge recurve shouldn't have any influence on the inside shape here, as I understand it? The edge recurve and the other outside wotk will have influence only on the thickness of the plates, (and the outside shape, of course).

And that's antother interesting aspect; could the tickness "pattern" you'll find in most classical instruments be seen (to some extent) as the result of the "tuning" between the scooped edge and the central part of the arching (wich should be at the final thickness from the inside if I've read it right).

I hope I'll find the time to try out this method soon, but the problem as a professional maker, is that you often won't "waste" your time on trying out methods radically different from the one you're accustomed to... Does any one else feel like that? It also about having a guarantee for the results you'll have, but isn't it a shame really? It's not always true of course, but it is a tendency.

[Magnus Nedregard]

"

... Catenary may also derive from "catena", that is, chain in Italian (and perhaps something like that in Latin)"

Hi Manfio, I'm sure it's like that, but I don't see why they should call the bassbar "a chain" even if they used the catenary chain as a working method So I think there must be some other link as for that name.

[MANFIO]

Hi, yes, you are correct.

[Andres Sender]

I take it that the chain is being applied crossways in the article?

One evidence point against 'inside out' being Cremonese practice is the exterior markings on a Strad cello which Michael D. posted a while back--the markings look as though they could be from the base of the Strad thickness-punch.

[Melvin Goldsmith]

Hi Andreas. Here is a pic attached of the

catenaries (suspended chain) lines that Torbjorn Zethelius

uses in his system.

[Michael Darnton]

I also have photos of the insides of a violin with the corresponding pin pricks on the inside, and have seen others, as well. I really don't think there's any doubt which came first.

[MANFIO]

I agree Michael. And making the archings from the inside would be much more time consuming. Imagine the difficult of shaping the outside archings and graduating at same time (and avoiding valleys and hills). There would be no margin for errors and corrections would be much more difficult. Those guys had bills to pay, as us, they tried to make things in the fastest way possible, I think.

[Melvin Goldsmith]

Hi Manfio, I agree and as someone who has instruments to make and

bills to pay I am like Magnus who posted earlier on this ...ie

interested but too busy to try or think much about this for a

while. On the other hand I feel the article is well enough thought

out to elevate it above crank status....furthermore, if you

construct an arch from the inside there seems from the article a

certain logic. I'm not sure that graduating the other way round

would be so hard if we were used to it and to play devils advocate

finalising cold still be done by sctratching the inside to save

appearance!....Whatever my feeling has always been that truly great

craftsmen work really fast and judge by eye a lot. But there does

seem to be an unexplained concept to old Cremonese arching and even

if incorrect I feel this article is a brave and intelligent attempt

worthy of a read. It is the kind of article that sounds like the

usual rubbish unless you read it. My feeling is that this theory

will be proved incorrect but also I feel it is a worthwhile read

and the authors understanding of the dynamics of Cremonese arching

and how it deforms over time is worthwhile for any enthusiast even

if they do not agree. Personally I can say I am not sure but for

once it is nice to find something a bit stimulating in The Strad.