Stradofear inspired epiphany and a question...

[stradofear]

I think you've shuffled around the question, but OK.

You might want to check my edit, David--I expanded the concept.

[David Burgess]

You might want to check my edit, David--I expanded the concept.

Edit noted, but does not change my response.

Part of the edit:

"I'd rather just stick with discussing the facts."

From earlier in the thread:

The instrument was perfectly constructed. . . and perfectly boring. . . it was all technology of the type that you could check off on a list and assign points to, and very little art. Maybe it was even asymmetrical, but that wasn't enough to make up for the life it didn't have. Tonally, it was the same: flawless; boring.

What part of this is factual, rather than opinion?

[COB3]

Is there a reason why what began as a series of good questions has to end up in an adversarial mess...and so often?

You are both well-respected, very talented makers. It is embarassing to me to be on the sidelines of the frequent brawls on this forum. It is not just two people, nor do I intend to imply that is all any particular person's fault, but after a while it is pretty clear when it is personal attack.

Just another great evening with Maestronet, I guess.

[Jacob]

Not sure about nudging f-hole lines around, but f-hole shape sure changed over time.

Anybody else notice a resemblance ?

Jim

Jim, if you look carefully, you might understand why the sound holes on viols are called "c-holes".

As far as I know c-holes didn't change into f-holes. They are two separate species entirely.

[JimMurphy]

As far as I know c-holes didn't change into f-holes. They are two separate species entirely.

Precisely, the point being soundhole shape made an abrupt change as bowed instrument

design evolved from Viol-to-Violin. Better mathematics ? [Perhaps.]

IF we look at Stradivari's F-hole evolution though, one might just as well be inclined to label him a "nudger" [Nudger??] considering how many years it took to stop the nudging [get the proportions right].

Jim

[stradofear]

...

[Torbjörn Zethelius]

When two violin makers agree, one of them is lying.

[Fellow]

When two violin makers agree, one of them is lying.

+++++++++++++++

" One of them is inaccurate"

[Craig Tucker]

I don't think we will ever see buildings like the Chrysler structure in New York City ever being built again.

Good choice.

An example of Art Deco architecture, at its finest.

From this era - the widespread appeal of design elements in the Art Deco/Art Nouveau movement impacted nearly every phase of life for quite en extended period, and has continued to impact graphic design up till (and including) the present.

Many guitar makers have successfully employed its elements into innovative guitar design, and I remain at least slightly surprised that no violin makers that I know of (with the possible exception of Guy Rabut who did branch into "modern" design) have offered a more contemporary choice for patrons that might be seeking a violin with top quality materials, construction, and acoustic quality, along with a more modern look.

As, I believe that such a combination and execution is possible.

[Craig Tucker]

I finished the talk with this illustration, which is a breakdown of a hyper-modern guitar design by my favorite modern guitar maker, Steve Klein. Relying on circles certainly doesn't limit him!

In a way Strado, you are reinforcing my point here - I have in no way suggested that solid design principals should be abandoned. Neither has limiting the use of the circle or the straight line has been suggested by me - nor abandoning the classical elements! - what this guitar maker has succeeded in doing, is incorporating solid modern design principals into traditional guitar design, which, if you read my posts, is exactly what I am (at least, I think I am) suggesting might be possible also with regard to the violin.

His bridge is very much in line with Art Deco design elements...

I've seen his work before. Very nice.

[Craig Tucker]

And please realize that I am in no way emphasizing Art Deco above all other movements, it is just that I had already suggested it earlier in the thread, and then Dean brought up an example of its use, and then Strado brought up Klien modern guitar concepts...

It is just a fortuitous coincidence that we all seem to drift towards such design elements, in conjunction with what might also be considered “successful” or workable, within the framework of modern design.

[Peter Lynch]

I wonder if any of those who are doing modern things with the design are in some way following the underlying geometric principles that Stradofear is talking about to guide their work, and are those attempts more "sucessful" then those who are not guided by those underlying design considerations? I have been studying Francios Denis book and it has really affected how I am seeing instruments, very relevant to this discussion.

-Peter

[~ Ben Conover]

Talking specifically about f hole designs, there are huge differences between a Scarampella f hole and a Guadagnini f hole. Guad is much longer and the eys are much bigger.

What, if any effects do you suppose they will have on the sound ?

The only reason I have about 45 f hole templets, is that I like the shapes they make and PERHAPS I'll find one that works very well with a particular outline shape and arching.

I wonder how many f hole designs Strad and Del Gesu tried before keeping their repsective styles ?

Perhaps the f hole shape is largely aesthetic.

[stradofear]

I would like someone to do with f-holes and heads what Francois Denis has done with bodies. In my usual mode of thought, I suspect these designs are concrete and can be dissected geometrically, but I am not aware of anyone who had done it flawlessly yet. There are several plans out there that just don't quite work, the way it was with outlines before FD. Someone I'm not aware of has probably already done it--I think FD was working on the problem.

[Mauricio]

When two violin makers agree, one of them is lying.

Genius, Torbjörn. Genius. (I'm not lying)

[Torbjörn Zethelius]

Genius, Torbjörn. Genius. (I'm not lying)

Thanks. It's not mine though. I heard it from a fellow student in VMS a long time ago.

[David Tseng]

I would like someone to do with f-holes and heads what Francois Denis has done with bodies. In my usual mode of thought, I suspect these designs are concrete and can be dissected geometrically, but I am not aware of anyone who had done it flawlessly yet. There are several plans out there that just don't quite work, the way it was with outlines before FD. Someone I'm not aware of has probably already done it--I think FD was working on the problem.

These photos have been shown here long time ago while MD was absent.

[erocca]

In my opinion, this topic gets back to varnish and ground coat. To me the charm or attractiveness of an instrument and whether or not it "works" in a harmonious way depends ever so much on how it's wrapped.

The clean work of many 18th and 19th c. German or Austrian makers for example is every bit as good or better than say a Stainer, Tecchler,

Gobetti, or Tononi, (higher arched examples which show a lot of German influences)...but what those instrument DON'T have is the warmth of the ground or the sparkle of the varnish.

The same can be said between a Vuillaume and G. Rocca. Each of which, (especially on a Strad. pattern), may show a degree of craftsmanship equal to that of a Stradivari, but to my eye at least, the Rocca will always have a warmer and more pleasant feel than a Vuillaume, yet both are of highest quality workmanship. And what puts the Strad on a higher plane yet? What all of us strive for, the beauty of his ground and varnish.

The most perfect, symmetrical and well conceived instrument has no attraction, in my opinion, without an equally attractive coating...there are amazingly clean, symmetrical French fiddles which look pretty cheap because of the varnish, just as there are really crude asymmetrical

amateurish instruments from many countries which exude charm...again because of what has been put on the wood.

[David Burgess]

I’ll try to put some concepts and questions forward again, and try write in a way which won’t easily lend itself to associations with specific people.

Start with the premise that when it comes to perception of art and beauty, it can either exist strictly in the mind of the beholder, or it can be influenced by the opinions of others, and the environment. I’ll suggest that the first is uncommon, because it’s hard to go through life without being peppered with comments about “this is good or beautiful”, and “this isn’t”. And “fitting in” has some historical survival value, so decisions may be totally unconscious.

With violins, is there such a thing as an inherently more beautiful or artistic violin, or is this primarily a product of outside influences and “learning”? Would a person, educated by seeing a lot of different violins, but with no outside input, reach the same conclusions we have today? Or does this rely largely upon others saying, “This one is beautiful. This one isn’t so nice”?

Market factors aside for a moment, if outside influences are important, where should they come from? Couldn’t it be more valuable to have input from someone who is “raw” in the field, because their input might be closer to a natural human reaction, without having been corrupted by other input? Or is there something inherently better about an “educated” opinion?

Market forces back in the mix:

How should one make artistic choices? Are the most expensive, or Cremonese violins inherently more beautiful, or have we “learned” that they are? What sort of external input has the most value? What role do “experts” play, and what is an expert? Is expertise something which is self-bestowed, or bestowed by others? Or does it matter? If bestowed by others, who should these others be?

I don’t really have a horse in this race, but these are things I struggle with every time I judge a competition (as I think I should), and one reason I’m extremely uncomfortable critiquing the work of other makers. Things like what is “more correct” or “less correct” when it comes to inherent beauty or artistic merit. And I acknowledge that I’ve had a heavy dose of outside influences. It’s impossible to work in a major shop, or have significant training in making, without people telling you, or implying that, “This is better than that”, or at least noticing an inference from the different values placed on instruments. So I’ll just admit the possible role of these influences. If I claimed to be free of these: (a) Would it be credible? (b ) If true, would it really offer any advantages for me or anyone else?

[stradofear]

David and I get into these tiffs because our value systems are fundamentally different and opposed. Perhaps too simply put, he looks for validation to come from authorities (who do you know, how important are they, and do they agree with you) and deprecates observation as being an insecure process, too subjective to be useful, and unable to resist outside influence--a flawed process. His statement above is a very concise declaration of his position, I think, fundamentally based on an authoritarian viewpoint into which, incidentally, I've refused to fit myself into where he'd like to see me.

I deprecate authority as being temporal and subjective (not many people will remember that Pablo Casals promoted Paul Kaul as being a maker equal to Stradivari), and value observation (though not uninformed observation: first you have an obligation to inform yourself, and THEN you have an obligation to develop beyond what others can tell you) as being the only genuine way a person can develop opinions that are personally valid. It's the Impressionists vs the French Academy all over again. :-) It's unlikely that we will ever come to agreement.

[~ Ben Conover]

The quality & character of your work is what makes it worth buying.

At least that's what I try to tell myself.

Impressionism gets my vote.

[David Burgess]

David and I get into these tiffs because our value systems are fundamentally different and opposed. Perhaps too simply put, he looks for validation to come from authorities (who do you know, how important are they, and do they agree with you) and deprecates observation as being an insecure process, too subjective to be useful, and unable to resist outside influence--a flawed process. His statement above is a very concise declaration of his position, I think, fundamentally based on an authoritarian viewpoint into which, incidentally, I've refused to fit myself into where he'd like to see me.

I'm sorry, but your description of my viewpoint is completely erroneous.

I asked a lot of questions, exploring things from many different perspectives, and these questions, for me, are real and largely undecided.

I would rather continue to re-examine these questions, than err for the satisfaction of resolution or finality, comforting as it may be.

I think there has been a request or two (one posted by a mutual friend) that we not engage in the personal stuff (at least for now?), and my last post was an attempt to honor that. Which direction would you like to go?

[erocca]

Stradofear, don't you agree that the work of say, Stradivari, has reached the level of appreciation which it has due in large part to the appreciation of those in positions of authority, both musicians and connoisseurs alike? Not by one person, (ie your Casals reference), but by generations of people who are regarded as knowledgeable and whose body of knowledge as a whole act as a guide to those of us who build instruments today? I really don't understand a position which relegates this knowledge to the back burner. Reading your posts over time, I believe that you hold to this belief as strongly as I do, your comments to posters to seek out good examples of instruments to examine, to seek out competent workers for advice...these are all suggestions to seek "authoritative" views. The world is full of "original" thinkers, artists, writers, musicians, etc., but I think those "originals" who do achieve recognition are usually those who receive the appreciation of authoritative figures as well as the popular vote.

I don't see David's posts in the same light as Stradofear does, but we all come from different schools of thought...keeps things lively I suppose.

[~ Ben Conover]

Questions beg answers, & since I have a few minutes, here's my response in all it's simplicity.

How should one make artistic choices?

'Should' is never gonna make a choice, it's a matter of taste and decision.

Are the most expensive, or Cremonese violins inherently more beautiful, or have we “learned” that they are?

Nope, they just cost more, represent sound investment, and people have for centuries believed them to sound better than say, the Testore's of the world.

The Cremonese are of course very well made, no doubt.

What sort of external input has the most value?

That of a fine player who is also an articulate and trusted friend.

What role do “experts” play, and what is an expert?

Someone who is expert is his or her field of expertise.

Is expertise something which is self-bestowed, or bestowed by others? Or does it matter?

Yes it matters, and generally expertise (I'm no expert) is something that is learned over many years of observation and effort in the chosen field.

If bestowed by others, who should these others be?

You can't learn to play golf like Tiger without practice, he like others in his league, is on his own.

[Jacob]

Precisely, the point being soundhole shape made an abrupt change as bowed instrument

design evolved from Viol-to-Violin. Better mathematics ? [Perhaps.]

Jim

The violin "evolved" from the viol?? That's a new one to me.