Stradofear inspired epiphany and a question...

[stradofear]

Sure, taking 300 years of opinions added together is valuable, but that doesn't mean I don't look for myself, nor do I value all opinions simply because of who held them. What I'm saying is that these PEOPLE do not define Cremonese violins for me, though they can provide lots of information of mixed value: the violins, and only the violins, provide the best information.

Authoritative figures are often right, and they are also often wrong. When you see a movie that got high ratings, do you tell yourself "all the critics said it was good, so I must have enjoyed it" even though you didn't? Of course not. It may (and should) invite you to look more deeply, but it's shouldn't decide the issue for you.

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]

The classic geometry of the f hole and scroll design is largely decorative.

As are the corner shapes and purfling mitres.

F hole design and placement in relation to the grain of the belly, is of interest, ie how much does it weaken the plate, or not.

Do those upright wide cut Brescian holes make a darker sound than the smaller Amatise design ?

What ever the answer, the question makes me try new designs.

[Don Noon]

I think there has been a request or two that we not engage in the personal stuff (at least for now?)

Aaaw, geez... the Superbowl's over, and there's no Ultimate Cagefighting on TV right now. What are we supposed to do for entertainment?

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

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

Seems like there was a period of time, when Tarisio was cruising the land, when Cremonese instruments were of very low value in one environment, and of a much higher value in another... which is how he made a living. Doesn't that say something? Like time and culture make a difference? Or possibly the local Italians would say "Yeah, Strads are beautiful, but so what? Nobody wants them."

SOME Cremonese were well made, but (just having looked through a book of lesser known makers) there were a lot of pretty crudely made instruments made then, too. I'm not sure by what artistic standards one could call them all good, except by the rule that "anything made in this spot within this time period is decreed to be good."

[stradofear]

I think there has been a request or two 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?

You can say that because you're not the one who's fed up with being constantly bullied. You have not noticed, I'm sure, that for several months I have almost entirely not responded to your heckling, but you know, I'm sort of sick of you now. So, yes, please stop.

[David Burgess]

Aaaw, geez... the Superbowl's over, and there's no Ultimate Cagefighting on TV right now. What are we supposed to do for entertainment?

I'll be resuming kickboxing class again pretty soon, and the instructor is a licensed mixed-martial-arts guy and Cage Fighter.

Is there a "senior" division?

You can say that because you're not the one who's fed up with being constantly bullied. You have not noticed, I'm sure, that for several months I have almost entirely not responded to your heckling, but you know, I'm sort of sick of you now. So, yes, please stop.

I'll leave that one alone.

[~ Ben Conover]

After having my left shoulder nearly broken in Judo, by a short fat grey haired instructor, I'd say take up golf or go swimming !

[JimMurphy]

the violins, and only the violins, provide the best information.

Functional Art must be held to an even higher Standard [than it's been] though.

For Violin, does Form follow Function, or Function follow Form?

Should a perfect Violin:

(1) have an extemely-strong G response [like the 1708 Havemeyer Strad]?

(2) should Mode frequencies correlate to String-tuning? And why not, IF Function follows Form?

(3) why don't those cheap violins sound so bad?

Lots of questions - I know - but early-1700's Cremona design left only so much information to interpret - high on aesthetics, low on function.

Jim

[stradofear]

Functional Art must be held to an even higher Standard [than it's been] though.

For Violin, does Form follow Function, or Function follow Form?

Should a perfect Violin:

(1) have an extemely-strong G response [like the 1708 Havemeyer Strad]?

(2) should Mode frequencies correlate to String-tuning? And why not, IF Function follows Form?

(3) why don't those cheap violins sound so bad?

Lots of questions - I know - but early-1700's Cremona design left only so much information to interpret - high on aesthetics, low on function.

It's an interesting set of questions, but they would, I think, be irrelevant to the original makers. If the violins are worth paying attention to, and if you want to replicate something in them, wouldn't it be best to first see them as the people who made them saw them, then go from there, for a start?

[Craig Tucker]

SOME Cremonese were well made, but (just having looked through a book of lesser known makers) there were a lot of pretty crudely made instruments made then, too. I'm not sure by what artistic standards one could call them all good, except by the rule that "anything made in this spot within this time period is decreed to be good."

Good observation, Don, and well stated to make an appropriate point.

This is an interesting point and since no other points (valid or not) seem to be going very far in this thread, I'll take this one up.

I have noticed this also. Anything made during a certain period in Cremona is considered, in some circles, as a "masterpiece".

I don't particularly want to make a "statement" about this, since I don't particularly want to have to go round and round to the point of semantic dissection, with fifteen dissenting points of view, but, I have noticed that, in my opinion, the above observation is true, even though you don't see these instruments copied much, because they aren't all that impressive - looks wise.

No makers names please. I think that would be like putting a match to the tinder box just now.

It is an interesting point, which has some interesting corollaries, and I have noticed it also.

[erocca]

QUOTE (Don Noon @ Feb 8 2010, 12:17 PM) *

"SOME Cremonese were well made, but (just having looked through a book of lesser known makers) there were a lot of pretty crudely made instruments made then, too. I'm not sure by what artistic standards one could call them all good, except by the rule that "anything made in this spot within this time period is decreed to be good."

I have noticed this also. Anything made during a certain period in Cremona is considered, in some circles, as a "masterpiece".

Maybe you're back to the ground and varnish.

A completely revarnished Strad or del Gesu looks pretty disappointing, the woodwork can all be there, but without that glow they are not so attractive. And most 18thc. Cremonese makers had that to some degree.

[erocca]

Sure, taking 300 years of opinions added together is valuable, but that doesn't mean I don't look for myself, nor do I value all opinions simply because of who held them. What I'm saying is that these PEOPLE do not define Cremonese violins for me, though they can provide lots of information of mixed value: the violins, and only the violins, provide the best information.

Authoritative figures are often right, and they are also often wrong. When you see a movie that got high ratings, do you tell yourself "all the critics said it was good, so I must have enjoyed it" even though you didn't? Of course not. It may (and should) invite you to look more deeply, but it's shouldn't decide the issue for you.

I agree. However, when I am told by several authoritative figures that something is good or bad stylistically, and I happen to disagree, I first wonder what it is that is missing to that group of authorities, is there something that I have missed, rather than to dismiss it and say "it's not what I like". (The same is true concerning authentication of an instrument.) I feel that only when I can see what they are seeing, or not seeing, can I really make an informed decision, one which goes beyond first instincts. I remember the first times I looked at instruments by several makers that were presented as wonderful instruments, if I had followed my OWN impressions, that would have been the last time I would have studied them. But, because they were highly regarded makers, I figured that there must be a reason. That doesn't mean that my own instruments need look like them, but I learned what is stylistically nice about them. It helps having "authorities" point these things out. If I were a film maker, and saw a film that is recognized by authorities as a great film, I'd want to know WHY they think it is great, and learn to appreciate those things which made it a great to them.

Other people here might have heard Rene Morel's story of when he began working at Wurlitzers and he was approached by Sacconi to give his thoughts on a del Gesu scroll that was in the shop. Rene said he looked at it and turned to Sacconi and said "Maestro, I would have to have s**t in my eyes before I cut a scroll like that". He said Sacconi looked at him and said, "No Rene, you'd have to get the s**t OUT of your eyes to cut a scroll like that".

In the end it only means that it's easier to have guidance than to not. Of course one can decide what to accept and what not to accept and that's how is should be, and is

[JimMurphy]

It's an interesting set of questions, but they would, I think, be irrelevant to the original makers. If the violins are worth paying attention to, and if you want to replicate something in them, wouldn't it be best to first see them as the people who made them saw them, then go from there, for a start?

For a "start", yes.

In retrospect, I guess it's not such a rarity that Cremona's Violin interpretation is still going strong.

What IS surprising though, with other artforms - like Painting - everybody [and their Mother] understands

how to mix color from three primaries. With that [information] new painting styles arise all the time. The artform fundamentals are widely understood.

Perhaps the Havemeyer "G" is not an anomaly; measured Modes would correlate if the specific test Violin weren't so far from perfect design; Etc.

With Violin design ... very little progress in styles over centuries now. Not much new information.

Jim

[David Burgess]

I agree. However, when I am told by several authoritative figures that something is good or bad stylistically, and I happen to disagree, I first wonder what it is that is missing to that group of authorities, is there something that I have missed, rather than to dismiss it and say "it's not what I like". (The same is true concerning authentication of an instrument.) I feel that only when I can see what they are seeing, or not seeing, can I really make an informed decision, one which goes beyond first instincts. I remember the first times I looked at instruments by several makers that were presented as wonderful instruments, if I had followed my OWN impressions, that would have been the last time I would have studied them. But, because they were highly regarded makers, I figured that there must be a reason. That doesn't mean that my own instruments need look like them, but I learned what is stylistically nice about them. It helps having "authorities" point these things out.

Same here. Even if I initially didn't care for an instrument, I've always found value in discussing it with colleagues, or with "authorities" who saw more in it than I did. It might change my impression or it might not, but it's enlightening to have a chance to see things through another pair of eyes.

[apartmentluthier]

I for one, can't begin to express my appreciation to both David and Michael, for their insight, and willingness to share with us on this forum.

I must also admit to also enjoying the occasional banter that comes from the differences of opinion.

It is my sincere hope that neither side takes these exchanges too much to heart, and decides not to participate. It would be an immeasurable loss for the rest of us. Let's agree to disagree

[Craig Tucker]

I must also admit to also enjoying the occasional banter that comes from the differences of opinion.

It is my sincere hope that neither side takes these exchanges too much to heart, and decides not to participate. It would be an immeasurable loss for the rest of us. Let's agree to disagree

This is so true.

I was wondering how to say something of the sort myself,

thanks apartmentluthier.

[grajki]

This is so true.

I was wondering how to say something of the sort myself,

thanks apartmentluthier.

Aye.

I'm kind of thinking of an exhibition a few years ago in Edinburgh of Scottish violin makers.

There were fiddles from many Scots makers in display cabinets as well as a couple of Strads (please forgive me...I never got their names!).

The thing is, all of the fiddles had a degree of respectability although a good lot of them showed a wee bit more of a divergence from the 'Cremona form' than others.

I suspect that this was because they had never ever seen a 'Cremona' fiddle in the flesh, so all they had to go on was a description.

Scotland was never on the main trade route across Europe.

That's how things happened in the days afore instant data transfer!

Ok, this post isn't going to contribute significantly, maybe just to say that people make the best they can, in the circumstances in which they are in and their sense of aesthetics, at the end of the day comes from probably a mix of what 'experts' judge and what they think by their own assessment of the real thing, if they are fortunate enough to see the real thing!

Oh, by the way, Matthew Hardie, the Scot seems to have been the bloke who made the finest fiddles of the time (as judged by those in the know) and is known as 'the Scots Stradivari'

[David Burgess]

I must also admit to also enjoying the occasional banter that comes from the differences of opinion.

This is so true.

I was wondering how to say something of the sort myself,

I was about to accuse both of you of being drama queens , but after thinking about it some more, debates can have the value of bringing out supporting arguments which wouldn't be needed in the ultimate polite format, and thereby provide more information for people to make their own decisions. And when they get a little more contentious, they can bring out some underlying belief systems or thought systems (operating systems? ) of the participants, and that too can be useful for evaluating the information.

[stradofear]

What IS surprising though, with other artforms - like Painting - everybody [and their Mother] understands

how to mix color from three primaries. With that [information] new painting styles arise all the time. The artform fundamentals are widely understood.

I don't think there should be anything surprising about artists knowing more about their techniques and materials than we do about ours. Consider the amount of energy and brainpower that's been thrown at the whole field of art, for more than 100 years. How many artists do you know with BFAs or MFAs? How many with college degrees? How many colleges have graduate-level art and art history programs? How many college programs and degrees and classes are there in Renaissance Art? How many journals devoted to art chemistry and restoration that are on a genuinely high level? How many art restoration departments in museums resemble a laboratory more than a artist's studio?

Finally, in contrast, what are the corresponding figures for violin making?

[JimMurphy]

I don't think there should be anything surprising about this.

"Other" information is certainly aplenty - Old Master arching styles, bridge, bassbar, etc.- but unlike the three primaries , "acoustic design fundamentals" are M.I.A. for stringed instruments. I don't think they're taught in schools or even luthiery workshops. As an art discipline, especially for Functional Art, that's what seems so odd.

Jim

[Melvin Goldsmith]

Aye.

I'm kind of thinking of an exhibition a few years ago in Edinburgh of Scottish violin makers.

There were fiddles from many Scots makers in display cabinets as well as a couple of Strads (please forgive me...I never got their names!).

The thing is, all of the fiddles had a degree of respectability although a good lot of them showed a wee bit more of a divergence from the 'Cremona form' than others.

I suspect that this was because they had never ever seen a 'Cremona' fiddle in the flesh, so all they had to go on was a description.

Scotland was never on the main trade route across Europe.

That's how things happened in the days afore instant data transfer!

Ok, this post isn't going to contribute significantly, maybe just to say that people make the best they can, in the circumstances in which they are in and their sense of aesthetics, at the end of the day comes from probably a mix of what 'experts' judge and what they think by their own assessment of the real thing, if they are fortunate enough to see the real thing!

Oh, by the way, Matthew Hardie, the Scot seems to have been the bloke who made the finest fiddles of the time (as judged by those in the know) and is known as 'the Scots Stradivari'

...................

Grajki,

We may be a bit off topic here but some of Hardie's work that I have seen ranks with the finest long Strad copies of any time...in spirit as well as shape...These could only have been done having god access to the Strad.. A trully admirable and under recognised maker!

[Melvin Goldsmith]

"Other" information is certainly aplenty - Old Master arching styles, bridge, bassbar, etc.- but unlike the three primaries , "acoustic design fundamentals" are M.I.A. for stringed instruments. I don't think they're taught in schools or even luthiery workshops. As an art discipline, especially for Functional Art, that's what seems so odd.

Jim

.......................................

With this much I agree

[stradofear]

"Other" information is certainly aplenty - Old Master arching styles, bridge, bassbar, etc.- but unlike the three primaries , "acoustic design fundamentals" are M.I.A. for stringed instruments. I don't think they're taught in schools or even luthiery workshops. As an art discipline, especially for Functional Art, that's what seems so odd.

Well, I just wrote, literally, about 1500 words of an answer before wiping it, but the bottom line is that it seems like the solution is for you to find someone whose work you really, really like, then go suck his brain dry, and try to do what he does, everything just exactly like he does, and don't pay attention to anyone else. Otherwise, you're going to have 500 different methods, none of which agree, to sort out.

[JimMurphy]

Otherwise, you're going to have 500 different methods, none of which agree, to sort out.

Yes, understood. "Art" indeed.

Thanks,

Jim

[robedney]

I know I will be in the minority in this group of free thinkers who chafe at rules for violin making and believe, against all evidence, that a violin is a free-form, wing-it type of thing where anything goes and everything is good, but I don't believe that the art and attractiveness of the violin is entirely cultural or arbitrary. A decade or so ago I gave a lecture at the Guild of American Luthiers convention, speaking about the circle in Cremonese design. I focused on the idea that the straight line, and circle are the only geometrical shapes that can be identified from an incomplete piece, and that the beauty of Cremonese design was the obviousness and repetition of recognizable circular elements. (The flip side of this is the pointless shape, with no specific definition.) One of the universal characteristics of humans appears to be their desire to find patterns in their surroundings, and the security of finding them. Security is pleasurable. This is not cultural or arbitrary.

As a starting point for the talk, I used this article-- http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-63125052.html --"Against Smoothness", by Mark Kingwell. The initial paragraph outside the paywall states (I'm paraphrasing and compacting the article--you can read most of the first paragraph at the link) the problem well: the infantalization of design, the removal of titillating and complex patterns from our life in favor of a non-threatening, inartistic blur [perhaps the visual/design equivalent of living in a perpetually drugged/drunk state, which is how much of our culture lives now].

So very well said. Been off for a few days caring for a very sick dog (best of friends). As usual, Stradofearless has bowed a resonant chord in my brain. Our visual relationship to the world has been studied and analyzed, and that information has been put to use in a variety of ways to seduce us and sell things to us. We are -- most of us -- exposed to so much visual input these days that Strado's "perpetually drugged/drunk state" is -- I think -- becoming the norm when it comes to our perception of things visual, particularly those that might be called iconic.

The violin shape is certainly iconic, and -- almost regardless of our level of violin related visual acuity -- anything that we sense as straying from that shape will engender some level of discomfort in most people. In the broadest sense it's unwise to trigger discomfort when trying to peddle something. Pushing lines around -- a bit here and there -- is considered adventurous by some. It seems to me that -- at times -- we are talking about trying to establish a personal style without offending anyone -- or at least offending the least possible number of critics/buyers. Some would call this the nature of the marketplace.

So, I suppose that one possible counter-definition of art and/or beauty might include pushing those limits. I think, however, that if you're going to challenge iconic visual boundaries there needs to be some point to it, preserving function while creating a differing and perhaps personal thing of beauty. It must still "work" visually, however -- meaning that however much the shape is altered the fundamental qualities of good design need to be respected. Good design, of course, being in the eye of the beholder.