scordatura Posted February 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Tangent or not, I agree with the violinist. I feel that wood improves with age, but more importantly a good sounding violin that is played often will sound better in time based on "elastic memory". This also relates to our age old discussion about violins "breaking in". If I have a thin piece of rib material and start to bend it back and forth like a coat hangar, at first, as long as I don't bend too much in either direction, the wood will be stiff, but as I work it back and forth, the wood will heat slightly and become more pliable, some of this is due to the heat, but more importantly it is due to the fibers stretching and maybe tearing a bit {like muscle tissue}. All bending has a breaking point, but, much like our own bodies, if we work at flexibility, we can achieve it, slowly. Wood is exactly the same way. So, if every day I go to this piece of rib material, and I bend it, after sitting over night, it will be a little stiff from sleeping, but will be able to go right into "bend mode" and be able to hit its peak flexibility after just a few bends back and forth. If however I leave this piece for a long time, and do not bend it, over time it will become stiffer again. Violin music represents 95 possible notes deriving from the 21-note scale in five positions along the fretboard. For each one of these notes we could consider it a part of our body or a different muscle. Each individual note will excite the corpus in its own unique way. An open G string, think of it as bending over and touching your toes, and open A, think of it as reaching your arms over head, and so on, for each note we have a different "yoga" maneuver. A good violin that is constantly played, will remain flexible and ready to serve. I would not attribute this as a broad based explanation as to why these instruments{ the well know master ones}sound so good,but I certainly think it plays a role On an instinctual level I think there is something to this. Great violins tend to be played by great players. Over time this may contribute to chemical or even molecular changes to the wood or the binding materials that “glue” the wood cells together. One of the best sounding instruments I have ever played was the Kreisler Guarneri. One the greatest violinists ever (my opinion) played it. However, when I spent some time with the violin it was mostly unplayed (Library of Congress). I have to say that that instrument was almost limitless in its ability to produce a wide palette of color and the ability to withstand incredible amounts of bow pressure (vertical force). I would equate it to being restricted to using only primary colors to paint and then being allowed to mix those colors into infinite variations of color and hue. I kept asking more and more of the instrument and it went with me in almost every way. I walked out of there amazed, astounded and convinced that the greatness of these instruments was not a myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anders Buen Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Okay, thanks Anders. I'll have to track down some of his more recent articles. Jim I think he is referring to an experiment Jansson did using a bridge blank on a violin and still had its "bridge hill" in place. The body also matter for the hill to be good. Woodhuse wrote a theoretical study of how the violin bridge hill is influenced by the bridge properties and a simplified violin box and thus plate thicknesses etc. I think that was released after Bissingers article you referred to. I guess many of Bissingers later articles are on the Strad3D CD. Otherwise his articles are not easy to get hold of for free. Most are published in JASA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvin Goldsmith Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 On an instinctual level I think there is something to this. Great violins tend to be played by great players. Over time this may contribute to chemical or even molecular changes to the wood or the binding materials that “glue” the wood cells together. One of the best sounding instruments I have ever played was the Kreisler Guarneri. One the greatest violinists ever (my opinion) played it. However, when I spent some time with the violin it was mostly unplayed (Library of Congress). I have to say that that instrument was almost limitless in its ability to produce a wide palette of color and the ability to withstand incredible amounts of bow pressure (vertical force). I would equate it to being restricted to using only primary colors to paint and then being allowed to mix those colors into infinite variations of color and hue. I kept asking more and more of the instrument and it went with me in almost every way. I walked out of there amazed, astounded and convinced that the greatness of these instruments was not a myth. From my experience it is not a myth but as you hint it is not simple. A few years ago I was visiting the RAM in London and heard in the distance the most amazing violin sound coming from the distance through fire walls and corridors....I followed the sound to its source and it was the Lord Wilton del Gesu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Darnton Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 A friend of mine got to play a concert once on the Heifetz del Gesu. She said all you had to do was think about what you wanted to do, and the violin did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyboy Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Speaking of the Cannone, a few days ago I watched a youtube vid with Eugene Fodor playing the instrument in CA. Very interesting from a number of standpoints. The fiddle sounded great as far as one can tell from the video. What a tragic figure Eugene ended up being. Got to know him a bit--one talented and crazy dude. He was really fun on a sailing boat. Not to wander too far OT, but what happened to Fodor? I recall he got busted in the early 90's for a break-in and drugs but as far as I know he's no longer on that destructive path. There's no denying he's got great chops for the violin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scordatura Posted February 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 I hope he is doing well. Have not seen his name come up lately though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Dolan Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 I believe these instruments are so successful because they are in absolutely perfect balance (perfect harmony, if you will). I do not think one must have the perfect piece of wood (decent yes, but perfect no), nor do I see the value in analyzing every aspect to the point of obsession. Rather, I see great value in attempting to understand how it is such a balance was achieved in the first place, and in this I see more value in understanding the past than the present...how they thought rather than how we think. In other words, look back, not ahead. All these modern methods of analysis are fun to use, and I enjoy the results as well, but in the past there existed none of this. The world then looked different, and the people thought different of it, and so they approached the same problem as we from a radicaly different perspective. It is this perspective we should seek to acquire, and it will not be found by peering through a modern lense, of this I am convinced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Dolan Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 By the way, along the line of great instruments, if any of you have experience with this one (tall order, I know), is the del Gesu 'Vieuxtemps' the violin everyone makes it out to be ("...if this is a violin, then what do we call all the others?")? Just curious, because currently this particular instrument is being hyped quite considerably (and even I have joined in, never having even seen the instrument in the flesh...how stupid is that!?!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Noon Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 I believe these instruments are so successful because they are in absolutely perfect balance (perfect harmony, if you will). I do not think one must have the perfect piece of wood (decent yes, but perfect no), nor do I see the value in analyzing every aspect to the point of obsession. Rather, I see great value in attempting to understand how it is such a balance was achieved in the first place... it will not be found by peering through a modern lense, of this I am convinced. All we know is that SOME of them are successful NOW, as 300-year-old instruments. If (as seems likely) they did not sound very special when they were first made, then following their methods (whatever you think that is) does not hold much promise for success within the lifetime of the maker... some of them will sound fabulous long after we're dead. Personally, I'd rather try to make instruments so that ALL of them sound great NOW (or reasonably soon). That is a much different problem, and I don't think can be achieved just by following what the old guys did, assuming we could even know all the details of what they did. By the way, along the line of great instruments, if any of you have experience with this one (tall order, I know), is the del Gesu 'Vieuxtemps' the violin everyone makes it out to be ("...if this is a violin, then what do we call all the others?")? I don't have first-hand experience, but I discussed the topic with Fan Tao, who has played it. I was somewhat surprised that he said it was an exceptional sounding instrument. I was surprised because he had previously related ho-hum opinions (or even slightly lower) of playing the Titian and Plowden. On the critical side, he did relate that the Vieuxtemps seemed to require full-power playing all of the time, and was not one that you'd choose for sedate noodling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Burgess Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 I don't have first-hand experience, but I discussed the topic with Fan Tao, who has played it. I was somewhat surprised that he said it was an exceptional sounding instrument. I was surprised because he had previously related ho-hum opinions (or even slightly lower) of playing the Titian and Plowden. On the critical side, he did relate that the Vieuxtemps seemed to require full-power playing all of the time, and was not one that you'd choose for sedate noodling. I haven't played that fiddle, but I have a pretty high level of trust in Fan's opinions, based on some other instruments we've both heard and played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Dolan Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 "If (as seems likely) they did not sound very special when they were first made, then following their methods (whatever you think that is) does not hold much promise for success within the lifetime of the maker... some of them will sound fabulous long after we're dead. Personally, I'd rather try to make instruments so that ALL of them sound great NOW (or reasonably soon). That is a much different problem, and I don't think can be achieved just by following what the old guys did, assuming we could even know all the details of what they did." Don, with all due respect, the above doesn't make much sense (not any, really). Truth is, the present has a lot to learn from the past, and how to go about making a damn good good violin is but one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scordatura Posted February 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 The Vieuxtemps del Gesu is at Bein and Fushi. My roomate from music school is a salesman there. I hope to get to Chicago and beg to play it. You can be sure that if I am successful I will report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scordatura Posted February 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 "If (as seems likely) they did not sound very special when they were first made, then following their methods (whatever you think that is) does not hold much promise for success within the lifetime of the maker... some of them will sound fabulous long after we're dead. Personally, I'd rather try to make instruments so that ALL of them sound great NOW (or reasonably soon). That is a much different problem, and I don't think can be achieved just by following what the old guys did, assuming we could even know all the details of what they did." Don, with all due respect, the above doesn't make much sense (not any, really). Truth is, the present has a lot to learn from the past, and how to go about making a damn good good violin is but one. I kind of get what Don is alluding to. I have been told by very successful makers that their instrument needs to be played in. For those who have made instruments we say “of course”. But when that instrument really does not sound good from the start--there is a problem. I have read that in Vuillaume’s day he was being accused of artificially aging the wood , etc. and the instruments would lose their voice over time. I have heard this line of thinking about good sounding modern makers (Matsuda comes to mind). Interestingly enough I think Hilary Hahn plays a Vuillaume. Also Vuillaume’s instruments have seen a substantial increase in value recently. No I am not saying that ALL Vuillaume’s sound great. Barring what I would define normal playing in (I know… define that) an instrument that is a dud from the start will stay that way unless the problems lie in the setup (bar, bridge, etc.) or it can be thinned. We also need to keep in mind that the requirements for volume or sound projection have changed. Bigger halls require more decibels (volume). It is one thing to make an instrument that has what we would deem to have qreat color and nuance. It is another thing for an instrument have tone quality AND volume. Perhaps the 2nd generation Cremonese makers (after Andrea and Niccolo Amati) instruments responded to the changes in neck and string type (and the regraduation that people like Vuillaume did) due to lower and flatter arching. If we believe the accounts, the Stainer and Andrea Amati instruments were the ones to have. Is that because they had been played in or the their setup or sound requirements favored them? We also have to be careful of the few and far between sources in literature that describe Strads and others as being poor sounding early on. It reminds me of Baroque performance practice. How do we know how they played during the Baroque era? Yes the setup , lower pitch and bows dictate a lot but what do we have to go on? A treatise by Leopold Mozart? It is speculation at best. FWIW I like what is going on in the neo Baroque movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimMurphy Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Bigger halls require more decibels (volume). It is one thing to make an instrument that has what we would deem to have qreat color and nuance. It is another thing for an instrument have tone quality AND volume. Higher decibels only hurt people's ears more. Is the use of Low Density Spruce intended to jack up decibel levels even higher? Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gowan Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 All we know is that SOME of them are successful NOW, as 300-year-old instruments. If (as seems likely) they did not sound very special when they were first made, then following their methods (whatever you think that is) does not hold much promise for success within the lifetime of the maker... some of them will sound fabulous long after we're dead. Personally, I'd rather try to make instruments so that ALL of them sound great NOW (or reasonably soon). That is a much different problem, and I don't think can be achieved just by following what the old guys did, assuming we could even know all the details of what they did. How do we know that if we could or do make an instrument now that sounds as good as the great Cremonese ones from 300 or so years ago it would continue to sound good for another three hundred years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janito Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 How do we know that if we could or do make an instrument now that sounds as good as the great Cremonese ones from 300 or so years ago it would continue to sound good for another three hundred years? There are some things worth debating and other not - I smell futility here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scordatura Posted February 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Higher decibels only hurt people's ears more. Is the use of Low Density Spruce intended to jack up decibel levels even higher? Jim Unfortunately yes. When audiences are used to hearing recordings where the mike is close it creates unrealisticexpectations. Only on one occasion did I play a violin that was hard to play softly enough (due to my handywork). I was the concertmaster and the conductor was always telling me to play softer. That violin has a huge sound but hind of one dimensional. Case in point I am playing a solo with an orchestra. I can assure you that I am going after it. Comment to me from someone in the hall after the rehearsal l" you need to play out more". At that time I was playing on a nice northern italian fiddle that had all of the quality but not enough presence. Thin slab cut back... The style of teaching since Galamian is largely focused on producing a big sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Dolan Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 This one kinda took a left turn, but for those of you who are interested in one person's (Paul Becker's) perspective on 'playing in' a new violin, you might want to listen to the following: http://rachelbartonpine.libsyn.com/episode-48-woodworms-and-the-three-s-s-luthier-paul-becker-discusses-violin-maintenance-restoration-and-tonal-adjustment And, when it comes to the good ones, James Ehnes has some rather interesting words as well, in the interview section of the Homage production. I'd put that one up, but haven't the opportunity (the time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezzupe Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Scordatura, I'm not sure who you are, but I do find it enjoyable to know that there are violin players such as yourself who are as interested in playing as they are understanding building. My only concern is that you be careful with your hands when and if you start carving again Related to the greatness of "master" violins. I would again state,imo, that these instruments sound so good because 1. they were built well by people who knew how to build them 2. By being desired instruments right out of the box, they were played often and have been since they were made. This constant playing has "exercised" the wood and played out "patterns' to which the sonic relationship travels down. Ie. If we were to simplify the the corpus and represent it as a grid, or like the game "whack a mole" say with 100 holes{an arbitrary number} for each different note played we will get a different group of "moles" that pop their heads out of the hole, this represents the frequency vibration and the actual physical motion of the plates {and other parts} while that particular note is being sounded. When this is done over and over again, each individual note creates a "memory" in the corpus vibrational pattern. Individual notes as well as "passages" in musical composition become ingrained in the flexibility parameters and the corpus developed a memory. This along with oxidization that may change the physical structure of the wood itself. I do think that as humans we must accept the reality of conditioning and the psychological impact that conditioning has on us. There have been many studies on peoples perception of "genuineness" and or the realness of something. For example if I were to show one a wooden table from afar and say "isn't that a nice walnut table", generally most would agree,if I then said, "come closer, look, its not even wood", suddenly your perception of the table would be reduced, you would think of it as "cheap". It is my feelings, based on my observations, that the "placebo" effect reigns supreme in the world of violins. Old Italian violins make "you" feel better because you think they do. Most every person,violin maker/player or not, has been conditioned with "Strad" story. Is there "truth" in the Strad sound?, of course there is, yet on the other hand, I think it is quite well known that not all Strads sound good, so what does that mean? If the master himself could not put out consistent sounding great instruments, where does that leave us? With the most likely reality of statistics. IF one has passion for a particular trade, they will do it often and produce a large body of work. Out of that large body of work comes some very good, and some not so good. Time after time blind studies have revealed that not one person, including Stern,Zuckerman,Beare together could perform well in blind tests. The results with them as with any group trying to "pick the Strad" are as consistent as GUESSING. So back to the "low density Spruce". Again what are we doing and why do we want that property in the wood. Very simply low density relates to "radiation" and or the speed that sound will travel across the material. Related to that, it is how once carved, in conjunction with several other things,it "works" with the back material. I feel that "tappers" are barking up the wrong tree. I see lots of science related to "sonic" testing of violins and the materials themselves. I feel that suitable material is best to be learned to be picked by hand, I do feel that "numbers" of material are good to know, yet on the other hand I feel that one can train themselves to "feel" the numbers with their hands on the spot, so why bother with the testing. At any rate, once we have suitable wood, it is not the "tones" that can be pinpointed by tap testing, its not the air modes and how they relate, it is in my opinion the structural nature of each plate and how once carved it acts under any given load/sheer/flex situation and then how they interact together in order to start the motor that is the "breathing" apparatus. So to me, the actual physical properties of the plate itself when free are what is important, not so much what tones that result from its shape or thickness. So,a light top, that the speed of sound travels across very well {the wood choice} carved into a shape that allows for the wood at thin dimensions{graduation} to be strong {stiffness}so as to have supporting arch {arching}, yet thin in the "right" places {skill and understanding} will yeild a plate that has certain ranges of motion {flexibility} in certain places. It is my opinion that the understanding of the free plates range of motion under "torque"/stress/vibration {not pitch} actual up and down,side to side or quantum variable in motion, in any given direction is where the "secrets" lie. When the plate is free and in your hand: when twisted like a dish rag, how much does it flex, where is the apex, how much does it curl, in the upper and lower bouts when torqued as such? when placed flat on a table, when pushing down on the arch what does it do and where? All these "tactile" in my hands twisty flexy test's seem to tell me what I want to know. Of Course I don't have "it" figured out, just like the rest of you. But my feelings are that the "motion" is what should be studied more than what "tones" come out when tapped. I think if we had an objective scientist do a study and compile a report about "what do violin makers actually know" based on ALL of the current and past papers, reports, etc I think the conclusion would be. Really not alot other than when you build this box thing and slap some strings on it it makes sound, and frankly no ones seem to be able to tell you why one sounds good and the others don't. Just bits and pieces, some corroborating evidence, but noting solid. and thats why I don't mind blathering for several paragraphs, because when it comes right down to, there are sales,competitions,contest's,collectors,restorers,makers,players and all these things that establish "reputation", but none of them,or anyone persons have any solid answers when it comes down to understanding "the sound" and why So really, my guess is as good as yours, unless "you", whoever you are, can prove otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scordatura Posted February 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Jezzupe nicely put. I am well aware of the blind test with Stern and Zukerman and others like it. I want to make something clear. I am not dogmatic about the ubiquitous nature of Strads and Guarneris. I have played some violins that are quite new that I would put in the outstanding sound category (Curtain, Zygmontowicz, Bellini, Becker and others). I have played a few Strads that were what I would call dogs. But the absolute best were Guarneris, Strads, and one Storioni that had the best E string I have ever played. As you say probably because they were played for a long time by good to great players. I would say that each time that I have had the opportunity to play on the expensive antique instruments part of me is excitedfor obvious reasons and because of my making/repairing background I almost wanted them to be ho hum. Additionally I knew that I was playing on instruments that I would never be able to own. I actually for a while quite going to shops or asking players if I could try their fiddles. Perhaps to bring this topic full circle the image below might shed some light on my original question. As I understand it Curtin uses low density Engelmann (correct me if I am wrong). I have quite a bit of his old spruce. Like I said before, I asked him why he was selling this wood as most of it does not have glaring defects. He said because we (I guess he was still working with Greg Alf) found something lighter. I have tried his instruments and for the most part liked what I tried. BTW thanks for warning me about my hands. Years ago I was working on a bass bridge. I was really going at trimming it. All of a sudden it let go and I drove a big splinter in between my fingernail and skin of my thumb. It came out ok after they cut off half of my fingernail and removed the splinter… a tad uncomfortable as you can imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Noon Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Getting back to the original topic, I recently had the opportunity to play several instruments in a performance setting, ranging from my unvarnished #6 with .3 density top wood to a friend's regraduated old fiddle with .49 density wood. In terms of overall sound, the high-density instrument didn't lag behind as much as the numbers might indicate. There was a definite difference in the character, though. The HD instrument had more overtones, and the LD instruments were quick to respond, more "midrangy", and less overtones or "color". There is one large caveat on this comparison... the HD instrument is ~50 years old or more, and the LD instruments are all very new, between 0 and 1 year or so. If (large IF) the LD instruments age and play in to develop the high end and overtones, the comparison would be quite different. Now, on the tangent topic: Science and technology works pretty good at figuring out the violin works in the lower-frequency range. However, just following plans and patterns works just fine for getting these resonances into the right area, and I also don't feel that these are the most important factors in differentiating OK from Great. There have been no end of claims of knowledge of "The Secret", none of which seem to be agreed to by anyone other than the claimant. Truth is, nobody really knows. I feel that the best chance is by using every source of information available: history, listening, playing, technology and measurements, feeling, twisting, and plenty of carving chips. Focusing too sharply on any one of these might miss something important. Say, for example, that the Cremonese DID soak thier wood in something, and this was indeed responsible... at least in part... for a great sound. Focusing only on historical documents and traditional methods would never get there. Similarly, one can develop a love affair with numbers that don't matter, which also will not get to the goal. Personally, I believe that many things matter, and all interact in extremely complex ways. No source of information can be detrimental... only the misuse of it. If we could re-create the sound of a great 300-year-old Cremonese instrument today, I think there would be plenty of interest... even if it only sounded good for 50 years. The lifetime of such an instrument would depend on what had to be done to make it so, therefore there can be no answer to how long it would live until we know these details. There is no guarantee that any of the great Cremonese instruments will sound good for 300 more years, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
actonern Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 "Similarly, one can develop a love affair with numbers that don't matter, which also will not get to the goal." I must confess, Don, that I have misunderstood you... reading your posts over time had me thinking you were indeed down that path... Best regards, E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Noon Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 "Similarly, one can develop a love affair with numbers that don't matter, which also will not get to the goal." I must confess, Don, that I have misunderstood you... reading your posts over time had me thinking you were indeed down that path... Best regards, E I recognize that I measure and analyze stuff more than just about anyone. This is because there is some theory behind it, and it might matter. There still needs to be the verification at the end... by the playing and listening... that something really DOES matter. edit: and I hope I can do away with measuring the unimportant stuff, as soon as I can decide what matters and what doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scordatura Posted February 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Don how are you measuring density on a built violin? Wouldn't the varnish skew the results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Noon Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Don how are you measuring density on a built violin? Wouldn't the varnish skew the results? It's an estimate, on the regrad, based on the weight of the plate and the thickness. On the other ones that I built, I measured the wood beforehand using accurately cut samples. Yes, varnish would make a difference of a few percent, but that's not a huge deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now