Sign in to follow this  
skiingfiddler

The adventuresome scholar Roger Hargrave

Recommended Posts

.. so for a little while, "jmannsgone".

Shoot, I was just getting warmed up. Never even made it to the point where a challenge was issued to meet by the flagpole after school. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Full moon isn't it? and a holiday weekend to boot. Boy, I hate spending my time editing posts at times like this... so for a little while, "jmannsgone".

When the suspension lifts, jmann... please watch your language. Be nice if you could get your point across without unltra-critism as well, but that's just a friendly suggestion. While I don't personally enjoy the method in which you communicate your views, I try to ensure that you and others are free to share them, until inappropriate language is used and/or "flaming" is apparent.

Jeffrey,

When jmannsback reapplies, welcome him back and let him know that all his forgiven.

Jmannsback seems to have some good insights into Roger Hargrave's ideas. Wonder how that happened. Jmannsback proposes the following two as Hargrave ideas: Del Gesu used only one mould. Del Gesu configured his f-holes with some kind of device. Can anybody confirm or elaborate on those two ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jmannsback proposes the following two as Hargrave ideas: Del Gesu used only one mold. Del Gesu configured his f-holes with some kind of device. Can anybody confirm or elaborate on those two ideas?

One should not consider elements in isolation, but rather how they fit in the overall Hargrave hypotheses around Cremonese making.

For instance, once assembled on an inside mould and then removed from it to nail in the neck, the rib cage can be pretty flexible (if not fixed to back or front plate). So the question becomes: Is there any evidence that GdG rib outlines are so extreme that they could not have been created by distortion from a single mould?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On his article about Del Gesù Hargrave proves how different outlines can be easily got with the same mould by leaving the blocks prouder or changing the outline of the corners.

I used to say that Sacconi is like James Joyce: everyone talks about them without reading their books. It seems the same is happening with Roger Hargrave, unfortunatly. Just download Roger's articles and read them!!!

Of course that if you have never made a violin it will be more difficult to understand - and criticize - his work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There may be some insights to be gained from postings in this thread:

http://www.maestronet.com/forum/index.php?...60&start=60

I hope not. I am a bit unsettled by what seems to be a veiled accusation, and I apologize to you, Janito, if none was intended.

I know that a couple of years ago I gained a good deal of... infamy? on this forum. And I admit a lot of it was well deserved. I prefer not to go into more detail, suffice to say the meds seem to work better now. It's taken a lot of good hard looking at myself to realize what I was doing wrong. And frankly, it's just as well I decided to lay off for a while.

The only time I am aware of (and I say this because it is actually possible that my psychosis was deeper than I had thought) having changed usernames was after I forgot my password to log in as Klezmerfrombama. And even under that tag I don't think I was really all that helpful.

Now, I know that many of my extant posts don't show me as an easy-going, well informed guy. It's disheartening to see that just when I'm trying to get it together and try to start off on a better foot, I find other people only too happy to act in the same reckless, churlish way that I did. To read some of their posts honestly makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck. I guess the best way to move on would be to say:

I've read several of Mr. Hargrave's articles, and I find them very well thought out. I'm grateful to him for sharing his knowledge in a fashion more "this is what I've seen, here's what I think. Questions?" than "this is how it absolutely must have been." I'm sorry I don't have anything more germain to the discussion to add.

To anyone who takes the time to read this, I know you have better things to do getting violins made. Thanks for letting me speak my piece. I'll do my best to stay out of your hair, unless I have something relevent to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've read several of Mr. Hargrave's articles, and I find them very well thought out. I'm grateful to him for sharing his knowledge in a fashion more "this is what I've seen, here's what I think. Questions?" than "this is how it absolutely must have been." I'm sorry I don't have anything more germain to the discussion to add.

To anyone who takes the time to read this, I know you have better things to do getting violins made. Thanks for letting me speak my piece. I'll do my best to stay out of your hair, unless I have something relevent to say.

Well,

this thought, in this particular thread, seems very relevant - and it is germane to this discussion, since it (the thread) has turned into a discussion more about Mr. Hargrave, and his qualifications, and how different posters react to his writings, and less about the substance of a particular article...

And I agree with your assessment - I have read his writing before, not only for the violin making aspects of it, but also just because it is a pleasant, entertaining read. I enjoy the prose simply for the pleasure of reading it - which is not something I can say about every violin-related author. MANY of them leave me cold with the superior air of their proclamations and authoritative stand. But Hargrave seems to be able to keep it personable and informative - entertaining.

Rothwein, after reading this post I feel inclined to add that, though I'm not familiar with any of your former incarnations, your present on-line persona is very well presented.

Nice post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well,

this thought, in this particular thread, seems very relevant - and it is germane to this discussion, since it (the thread) has turned into a discussion more about Mr. Hargrave, and his qualifications, and how different posters react to his writings, and less about the substance of a particular article...

I hope we can nudge the thread back to ideas, rather than people's reactions to Roger Hargrave. I take it as a given that Hargrave is a recognized expert on violins. No debate on that topic is necessary. We need to be careful about being pushed into unnecessary arguments about that by people seeking entertainment and not information. I suspect that the people seeking entertainment are doing so by doing mischief. They could, if they wanted to, offer a lot of information instead.

David Burgess's and Robertdo's posts above deserve re-reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope not. I am a bit unsettled by what seems to be a veiled accusation, and I apologize to you, Janito, if none was intended.

For the record:

1. My comment in Post #46 was in relation to JMannsback and his purported expertise. He posted photos of the insides of ribs in close juxtaposition to a discussion of GdG's toothed plane marks on ribs, with the implication that they came from a GdG violin. When asked about aspects of authenticity, it was disclosed that the violin had not been shown to experts.

2. No apology necessary from Rothwein

And now back to the Cremonese methods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope we can nudge the thread back to ideas, rather than people's reactions to Roger Hargrave. I take it as a given that Hargrave is a recognized expert on violins. No debate on that topic is necessary. We need to be careful about being pushed into unnecessary arguments about that by people seeking entertainment and not information. I suspect that the people seeking entertainment are doing so by doing mischief. They could, if they wanted to, offer a lot of information instead.

David Burgess's and Robertdo's posts above deserve re-reading.

Speaking only for myself once again, I don't have a problem discussing anything violin related, including the subject of violins, historical Cremonese methods, or an author's credibility or writing style.

These threads often take interesting twists and turns, and I don't feel constricted to keep things entirely on a "fact finding mission" basis.

With the exception of this; if and when an individual acts out of control and becomes inexcusably rude and inflammatory…

In which case, it doesn't much matter what the subject is. But everything in life, including violin making, has a human side that bears discussion and inspection or even fair criticism..

The thread title;

"The adventuresome scholar Roger Hargrave" as in this case, fairly well guarantees that his personality will be taken into account at some time during the discussion.

No harm no foul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with nothing that jmannsback said, but think it's a sad state of affairs when a man can't use the word "-------" without admonishment. What are we? A collection of maiden aunts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with nothing that jmannsback said, but think it's a sad state of affairs when a man can't use the word "-------" without admonishment. What are we? A collection of maiden aunts?

John... Love your posts, your contributions, and your humor... but please don't push this one. It won't come to any good in the end. I do not enjoy editing threads at any time, but especially when I'm off trying to relax.

You're welcome to use the edited word, and and many other similar words when visiting my workshop, as long as there aren't kids around. Even with that invitation, I doubt you'd use it in the same tone or context as the poster-in-question did.

Your maiden aunt,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John... Love your posts, your contributions, and your humor... but please don't push this one. It won't come to any good in the end. I do not enjoy editing threads at any time, but especially when I'm off trying to relax.

You're welcome to use the edited word, and and many other similar words when visiting my workshop, as long as there aren't kids around. Even with that invitation, I doubt you'd use it in the same tone or context as the poster-in-question did.

Your maiden aunt,

Jeffrey, I must admit I had not considered the fact that you devote some of your free time to administering the forum, and, as such, you are perfectly entitled to decide what kind of language is acceptable.

Please accept my apologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hargrave's list of Italian makers who adopted a Stainer model (and not just simply were influenced by Stainer) is a long one and is, for me, concrete and helpful information. I'll look at those specific makers from now on, especially the surprise on that list, Montagnana, with that thought in mind.

Here's Charles Beare on Stainer's influence on Montagnana (in DOMENICO MONTAGNANA, Carlson Cacciatori Neumann & C., 1998, p. 34): "Like those of Goffriller, Montagnana's instruments vary considerably in model. The violins, especially the early ones, are sometimes rather narrow and slightly short at the same time. For a few years in the 1720's he was much influenced by the Austrian maker Jakob Stainer's violins, which are seen as less than ideal today. By 1730, however, he had evolved a violin design of excellent dimensions, and these instruments are much sought after."

So it would seem that the observation that Montagnana used a Stainer model might be applicable to some of Montagnana's instruments, but not all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's Charles Beare on Stainer's influence on Montagnana (in DOMENICO MONTAGNANA, Carlson Cacciatori Neumann & C., 1998, p. 34): "Like those of Goffriller, Montagnana's instruments vary considerably in model. The violins, especially the early ones, are sometimes rather narrow and slightly short at the same time. For a few years in the 1720's he was much influenced by the Austrian maker Jakob Stainer's violins, which are seen as less than ideal today. By 1730, however, he had evolved a violin design of excellent dimensions, and these instruments are much sought after."

So it would seem that the observation that Montagnana used a Stainer model might be applicable to some of Montagnana's instruments, but not all.

Consider also J.B. Guadagnini, in his Piacenza period (the first period) was making some instruments with higher arching, compact corners and which I have also understood to be his "Stainer model". The other instruments of the period, especially as you appraoch the time of his move to Milan become broader in model and flatter in the arching.

See below:

post-29446-1275241648.jpg post-29446-1275241666.jpg

Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Montagnana's instruments vary considerably in model. ... For a few years in the 1720's he was much influenced by the Austrian maker Jakob Stainer's violins, which are seen as less than ideal today.

Some literature tends to praise the tone of Stainer's violins while suggesting his "high" belly arch is the cause of poor projection. Interestingly, Stainer's arch height is 'higher' than Del Gesu's Cannone only IF one chooses to ignore Guarneri deepening the ribs.

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some literature tends to praise the tone of Stainer's violins while suggesting his "high" belly arch is the cause of poor projection. Interestingly, Stainer's arch height is 'higher' than Del Gesu's Cannone only IF one chooses to ignore Guarneri deepening the ribs.

Jim

Hi Jim,

The proportion on many violins is the old 50/50 rule between rib height and the sum of the arching heights. I really wonder if it is possible to make the ribs heights a millimeter lower and the two archings 1/2 mm higher and get the same result, or how far you could take that reasoning before you end up with an instrument that can't sound good based on the first assumption.

Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The proportion on many violins is the old 50/50 rule between rib height and the sum of the arching heights. I really wonder if it is possible to make the ribs heights a millimeter lower and the two archings 1/2 mm higher and get the same result, or how far you could take that reasoning before you end up with an instrument that can't sound good based on the first assumption.

Hi Bruce,

Yes, the 50/50 rule must certainly be a 'bad one'. :)

Not often discussed, but many Stainer backs actually have a lower arch than the Belly, while it's normally just the opposite with Cremonese designs [higher Back arch even with their flatter Belly arch].

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='skiingfiddler' date='May 30 2010, 12:10 PM' post='469124'

So it would seem that the observation that Montagnana used a Stainer model might be applicable to some of Montagnana's instruments, but not all.

Correct, as did Peter of Venice, Seraphin, and Tononi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive heard of the 50/50 rule, and most of the posters I have come close. But the one thing I've seen about the Stradivarius models and most del Gesu models is that the back is shorter than the belly. Only the Bergonzi differs, they are both the same. Which models have a taller back?

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct, as did Peter of Venice, Seraphin, and Tononi.

The common connection, of course, being Venice. Goffriller, also, made Stainer models, and there are suggestions that the name Goffriller is a German one. The biggest part of the music business, in Venice, dwarfing violins, was lutes, and the lute makers were German. The Tieffenbrucker (Bavarian) firm in Venice was simply huge. It's not surprising that the violin makers around them, some of them German, were making a German model.

Another place the Stainer makes an appearance is the very international city, Rome, around a German-named maker, Tecchler, and another, Platner. The third spot for a lot of Stainer copies to show up is Florence, with the Carcassis, for whatever reason.

The city that never did have a Germain Stainer model is Cremona, where all of the makers, not just the prominent ones, either, were Italian, not German. I don't think one should forget to consider, then, that a lot of the spread has perhaps not so much with the demand for German violins as much as the fact that is some locations all the suppliers were German, and that's what they made--German violins--so that's what you bought if you wanted a violin.

Just for one comparison, compare that some of the Cremonese makers whose names are very familiar to us never made many violins at all, and did it in small shops by their own hand, with the fact that the death tax inventory of one lute maker in Venice lists over a thousand unsold lutes! It makes the native Italian violin production look very small, indeed. I read an interesting article in Harpers this month about the watch business: because of the huge numbers, effective marketing, and distribution of Rolex, that's the watch every half-informed buyer wants, ignoring that really it's at the bottom, not the top, of the high-price watch market. Perhaps the Cremonese faced the same uphill battle against the omnipresent German violin. We still see the same type of fanboy thing with violins today, where people recommend makers whose instruments I am sure they have never seen or heard because of effective publicity, not honest evaluation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consider also J.B. Guadagnini, in his Piacenza period (the first period)

Amazing difference in the F holes with only ~3 years separation between the 2 examples.

Did he continue to flute the F holes at later times?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the fact that is some locations all the suppliers were German, and that's what they made--German violins.

Did they use inside moulds like the Cremonese? And would their making process be similar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consider also J.B. Guadagnini, in his Piacenza period (the first period) was making some instruments with higher arching, compact corners and which I have also understood to be his "Stainer model". The other instruments of the period, especially as you appraoch the time of his move to Milan become broader in model and flatter in the arching.

See below:

post-29446-1275241648.jpg post-29446-1275241666.jpg

Bruce

To me the earlier one seems more like Amati influence than Stainer, especially when you have one in your hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.