What's missing?

[Craig Tucker]

What's missing?

 

Is it simply just age?

Is it using the exact right timber?

Perhaps it has something to do with arriving at the exact correct dimensions, for the material being used?

does "it" have something to do with the varnish?

If its age, then, we must all simply wait... right? How long?

That some people do not think there's anything missing, usually, it's only with regard to their own work... and in those cases, yes, I have to wonder.

Perhaps they're right, and there's nothing missing, and many of us are fooling ourselves somewhat, with regard to what we and the others around us make today - and how those things act compared to those specific instruments of old?

Perhaps the very best players have been duped, along with the rest of us, and demand the "best" as a sort of "merit badge" and owning or playing a thing of great value?

 

Not being intentionally dense here, but this question has been in the back of my mind for many years. And I've never been able to answer it to my own satisfaction. Perhaps it's simply my fate, to always wonder at the missing quality(s) that I think, perhaps, really does or do exist, and has, in the main, not been re-discovered and used or copied in "modern times"?

 

What do others think about such matters?

Do others bother to think or wonder much about this topic?

If so, I am wondering about what thing or things that others might think is missing?

Anything?

[Rue]

I think we just like to overthink everything...and we like mystique...put the two together...and you have a never ending discussion...

[Craig Tucker]

I think we just like to overthink everything...and we like mystique...put the two together...and you have a never ending discussion...

 

Believe me, I have considered this aspect of the thing, and have not been able to discount its veracity in the least.

So, you're on the same page I am, in many respects, if you truly believe this as fact.

[Michael Appleman]

Craig, if I may give my personal opinion, I really don't think anything is fundamentally "missing" in a global sense. I was chatting with Claudia Fritz after her round two tests in Paris, and I was surprised by her opinion that only today's top makers have "re-discovered" the "secrets of Stradivari", and can rival the great Cremonese makers. Of course, she's a bassoonist, so  I can forgive her for not having much perspective. I have played clunkers from the great Cremonese makers, perhaps due to over-restoration, or under-use, but in any case, violins  that, if the sound and playability could not be improved, I wouldn't want to have to use them for professional work. I have also played violins from just about every decade since, from the 1750's to moderns made in the last few years, that I would gladly use for the rest of my playing days.

 

I may be just one violinist and my opinion may have not have any particular weight, but I can point to historic violinists like Louis Spohr who played a Buchstetter and a Lupot for most of his career, and Kreisler who would use a Vuillaume or a Parker quite often in concert. When I studied with David Nadien, his Del Gesu had long since been replaced with Oppelts and Bellinis. Schlomo Mintz played a Contreras for many years, Hilary Hahn has mostly used her Vuillaume. A soloist friend of mine who may not want me to mention him by name, has owned several top Cremonese instruments but has mostly used other fiddles, 20thc; French or modern Chinese, for his concerts and recordings. Some of the makers who post here have top soloists and concertmasters using their violins as primary concert instruments. 

 

Something I often find in teaching the violin, is that to get a student to improve something, especially a domain like tone, is more a matter of helping them develop what they hear in their head than changing the way they draw their bow. I can only imagine a violin maker who listens to, say, recordings of Oistrakh playing "his" Strad as an ideal for tone, but has no violinist nearby capable of drawing a sound like that will remain frustrated for a very long time. My experience from trying lots of new violins and my limited experience making has convinced me that it's not difficult to make a good sounding violin. Getting to the point that you have a waiting list of demanding clients is another story.

[Don Noon]

Craig,

This is basically the topic of a presentation I plan to give at VMAAI, and I guess you'll just have to show up to get THE ANSWER  .  Or at least my opinions on the topic at the moment.  

 

However, I will be the first to admit that I have no earthshaking discoveries that will revolutionize violin making, and almost everything has been hashed, re-hashed, and pulverized in the recent thread:

http://www.maestronet.com/forum/index.php?/topic/330170-stradivaris-secret/?hl=theories

 

 

Getting to the point that you have a waiting list of demanding clients is another story.

Sad but true.  That's so much harder than making fiddles that sound good, and much less fun.

[Carl Stross]

Craig, if I may give my personal opinion, I really don't think anything is fundamentally "missing" in a global sense. I was chatting with Claudia Fritz after her round two tests in Paris, and I was surprised by her opinion that only today's top makers have "re-discovered" the "secrets of Stradivari", and can rival the great Cremonese makers. Of course, she's a bassoonist, so  I can forgive her for not having much perspective. I have played clunkers from the great Cremonese makers, perhaps due to over-restoration, or under-use, but in any case, violins  that, if the sound and playability could not be improved, I wouldn't want to have to use them for professional work. I have also played violins from just about every decade since, from the 1750's to moderns made in the last few years, that I would gladly use for the rest of my playing days.

 

I may be just one violinist and my opinion may have not have any particular weight, but I can point to historic violinists like Louis Spohr who played a Buchstetter and a Lupot for most of his career, and Kreisler who would use a Vuillaume or a Parker quite often in concert. When I studied with David Nadien, his Del Gesu had long since been replaced with Oppelts and Bellinis. Schlomo Mintz played a Contreras for many years, Hilary Hahn has mostly used her Vuillaume. A soloist friend of mine who may not want me to mention him by name, has owned several top Cremonese instruments but has mostly used other fiddles, 20thc; French or modern Chinese, for his concerts and recordings. Some of the makers who post here have top soloists and concertmasters using their violins as primary concert instruments. 

 

Something I often find in teaching the violin, is that to get a student to improve something, especially a domain like tone, is more a matter of helping them develop what they hear in their head than changing the way they draw their bow. I can only imagine a violin maker who listens to, say, recordings of Oistrakh playing "his" Strad as an ideal for tone, but has no violinist nearby capable of drawing a sound like that will remain frustrated for a very long time. My experience from trying lots of new violins and my limited experience making has convinced me that it's not difficult to make a good sounding violin. Getting to the point that you have a waiting list of demanding clients is another story.

 

Michael, nice post but on second reading, doesn't prove a thing isn't it so ? It's not even an argument towards.  We all know there are crappy Old Ones and excellent New Ones and that the differences sometimes are not THAT big.

As to Mrs Hahn playing a Vuillaume , what can one say... She really doesn't need something else.

[Carl Stross]

What's missing?

 

Is it simply just age?

Is it using the exact right timber?

Perhaps it has something to do with arriving at the exact correct dimensions, for the material being used?

 

 

What's missing ? The times, the surroundings and the mindset. Mind "works" on violins.

[Rue]

... I was chatting with Claudia ... Of course, she's a bassoonist, so  I can forgive her for not having much perspective.

...tsk...I will respectfully disagree and suggest that gives her a distinct advantage...

[Rick Hyslop]

Craig.

 

I wonder if this is much different than the variance in quality one sees, hears, experiences in any way in regards to any situation. The violins we will make, the performances we will give, the food we will cook etc. will be our efforts and ours only and I would assume that we all aspire to put our best foot forward. However we won't always be pleased with the results. I am certain that even the greatest of the greats have had results which they personally found unsatisfactory/dissapointing. The strange thing is that there will always be at least one person who will love that "thing/performance" despite it's "flaws" and even the creator may eventually allow themselves to appreciate this "thing/performance" for what it is.

 

So I guess what I think is: 

 

The only thing that is missing in the greater sense is exactly that which is missing. How one comes to recognize this in my mind is a personal journey which eventually can approach something called artistry. Hopefully in this state we aren't "missing" as much ! However I don't think that this "state" can ever completely exist because everything is moving forward/changing and we have to move/change in step.

 

I am not sure if it really applies here but this comes to mind for some reason:

 

You can never step in the same river twice.

 

r.

[duane88]

I still think that the secret is that there is no secret.

 

Time. That's all. The best today, I suggest, would compare favorably with the best then, when new.

 

Time will not transform a mediocre instrument into something great, but if you look at the choice of materials in some great old violins, and look at the exceedingly precise workmanship(sarcasm), it seem obvious that you can get something nice out of the right fence post, and if it's crooked, well, that seems to work itself out, too.

[Carl Stross]

 

 

Not being intentionally dense here, but this question has been in the back of my mind for many years. And I've never been able to answer it to my own satisfaction. Perhaps it's simply my fate, to always wonder at the missing quality(s) that I think, perhaps, really does or do exist, and has, in the main, not been re-discovered and used or copied in "modern times"?

 

 

 

Craig, I think "never been able to answer it to my own satisfaction" is the mark of a true artist. I think violins are different and I also think that within a certain context, Strads are better. But within other contexts, other violins are better.

Why compare ? Why compete ? I am convinced that your violins reflect YOU and that should be what every true maker, in the end, aspires towards.

[Don Noon]

As to Mrs Hahn playing a Vuillaume , what can one say... She really doesn't need something else.

 

She doesn't need something else, but I need her to play something else.  I never did like the sound of that thing, and I don't think it's her.

 

 

Rumor has it that Joseph Curtin will speak at the VSA convention on the difference in the measured response of old vs. new instruments.  I look forward to that, and wonder if it will confirm or conflict with what Anders Buen and I have both observed.  That is only the first half of the problem, identifying the tonal difference.  More problematic is identifying the physical cause of the difference (assuming one does exist), and if that physical cause can be overcome with modern materials.

[Rick Hyslop]

She doesn't need something else, but I need her to play something else.  I never did like the sound of that thing, and I don't think it's her.

 

Wow ! Sounds just fine to me.

 

r.

[David Hart]

No I agree with Don. I personally don't like the sound she makes, and I don't think it does her justice.

[Rick Hyslop]

No I agree with Don. I personally don't like the sound she makes, and I don't think it does her justice.

 

That's cool with me. I still like her sound. She also seems to like it and that's all that really matters !

 

r.

[duane88]

That's cool with me. I still like her sound. She also seems to like it and that's all that really matters !

 

r.

I heard her here in Seattle, some years ago, and she had the loan of a Strad from Mr. Fulton. She sounded better on the Vuillaume. 

[Rick Hyslop]

Something I often find in teaching the violin, is that to get a student to improve something, especially a domain like tone, is more a matter of helping them develop what they hear in their head than changing the way they draw their bow. I can only imagine a violin maker who listens to, say, recordings of Oistrakh playing "his" Strad as an ideal for tone, but has no violinist nearby capable of drawing a sound like that will remain frustrated for a very long time. My experience from trying lots of new violins and my limited experience making has convinced me that it's not difficult to make a good sounding violin. Getting to the point that you have a waiting list of demanding clients is another story.

 

Michael.

 

I completely agree with you on this point. The "sound" comes from the head (more realistically the ear), through the concept of the form of an expected sound by the musician. In most cases it doesn't matter what an accomplished player has to use for an instrument they will still sound like themselves.

 

r.

[Carl Stross]

I heard her here in Seattle, some years ago, and she had the loan of a Strad from Mr. Fulton. She sounded better on the Vuillaume. 

 

I can believe that.

[not telling]

No I agree with Don. I personally don't like the sound she makes, and I don't think it does her justice.

Agree. Love her...except the near-unforgivable Higdon tour...couldn't hear her violin in a medium-size concert hall venue and when i did it was...just fine. But she is great. I don't understand her decision to play that Vuillaume except for the distinction of ownership...and I get it. It's very cool that she owns her violin outright.

Lol Don..." I need her to play something else"...yeeeep. my sentiments exactly!

[Lusitano]

Agree. Love her...except the near-unforgivable Higdon tour...couldn't hear her violin in a medium-size concert hall venue and when i did it was...just fine. But she is great. I don't understand her decision to play that Vuillaume except for the distinction of ownership...and I get it. It's very cool that she owns her violin outright.

Lol Don..." I need her to play something else"...yeeeep. my sentiments exactly!

 

Although I agree to some extent I should also state that I fully understand her choice to stick with the V...

 

It sounds perfectly fine (and this is at times unfortunate as it does seem to not leap past fine), requires no extra leaps and bounds to shoot off what she wants and although a bit too safe,too meek, too quiet and at times downright "bland" sounding it is apparently easy to play year round and does provide (imho) stability and uniformity without extra effort or taming (amen to that!), Strads and all ear splitting war horse violins (the good ones at least) are temperamental as temperamental goes and require some heavy duty coaxing from extremely dedicated folk to be anywhere near as stable, again you cannot expect a violin to be both thunderously powerful and capable of expressing extreme emotion without some serious drawbacks which are not exactly easy to overlook never mind live with. You want the extra spark only achieved via the usage of a truly wildly powerful violin? Don't kid yourself and think it will be easy to handle or lend itself to kind cooperation, these beauties have a nightmarish side to them which is not to be overlooked or underestimated  LOL Strads and all powerful violins are absolutely not for the faint of heart.

 

Personally speaking, I believe personal taste is something unique and as such each violin (no matter what it actually sounds like) has a potential violinist who would absolutely love and enjoy it's unique "voice" as it tailors to their taste. The issue resides when people or entities try and express their own tastes as the thing to follow onto others or expect (and this is a major issue) violins do what they are not made to actually due... 

 

On a new maker front - I believe part of the issue resides in the fact most of us are perfectionistic in nature and focus on what we perceive as faults in a manner that can be a bit overpowering at times, we all create and have expectations for an instrument in the making and have a particular set of traits which WE personally like and wish to see embodied in our instruments, kind of sucks when the boxes don't sound exactly like we wanted them to LOL It also doesn't help that no luthier in the history of violin making has been able to produce or predict to the T what exactly an instrument will sound like and feel like before it is absolutely finished and stabilized and this "frustration" (im speaking for myself but Im sure other's share the feeling) often times negates any potential positive to the point I often am totally blinded to characteristics which are actually pretty impressive because what I specifically wanted just did not manifest. It's like feeling pissed off when your trying to produce a "solution" to a specific kind of cancer and end up creating a cure for Ebola LOL. 

To further complicate things, our tastes evolve with time and rarely are absolute in nature so something that you like today in a violin may very well not impress you in a year's time LOL!!!

[not telling]

Well...you said it. That took effort. I would have offered up at least two of your points if I didn't feel a need for succinctness at the moment.

I think Hahn could handle an instrument of a higher caliber and I wish she would, that's all. In interviews she mentions that she simply doesn't want to borrow one. Well, that's fine and good, but I'm a little wise to the fact that it is an excuse she gives to avoid being as powerful as she is, or could be.

I'm not trying to impose my taste in anything on anyone. I think Hahn is awe-inspiring, overall, not only for her playing talent.

[Violadamore]

300 years of cherry picking, selective attrition, painstaking maintenance, and flawless restoration added to outstanding craftsmanship to begin with? 

 

IMHO, it's only the inherent uncertainty of 2 pieces of wood ever being equivalent plus the added difficulty of scoring a purely aesthetic competition that elevates the whole argument above the puerility of disputing over whether an original .451 Gibbs shot any better than a modern replica .451 Gibbs when the scores and groups seen on the range are as good as they ever have been.  Modern gunmakers have better everything than the original makers did.  Nobody claims that top end modern copies are inferior to the original weapons in either appearance or performance.  I would seriously question whether there is some magical dispensation from progress granted to musical instruments in this regard when the craftsmen available are certainly as fine as they ever have been, and the best tools available are better than ever.  Surely modern makers manage to root up a few acorns worth of superlative tonewood occasionally?  

[Stephen Faulk]

Once I read a Youtube comment where  a guy was bagging on Anne Gastinel the French cellist. He said he ruined the sound of her ....was it Gofriller by having put a string set on that he did not like. Some gut strings he said ruined the sound of the instrument. He was quite rude about it. Then I put on the recording of Gastinel's Bach suites, the ones she recorded with the ruined sound. 

 

Tsk tsk.....shame on me for reading Youtube comments. Never have since then. 

 

Her recording of Cassado works is probably better then he played it himself. I always have a difficult time finding fault with players who outrank me by a million miles. My frustration is not with their choices, but that I can't ask them in person about those choices to get into their head about the issues they deal with. 

 

Last year I wrote a long thoughtful letter to famous violinist about some choice he made with music an equipment. He wrote a very long thoughtful letter back. 

[Craig Tucker]

Well, I had asked this question out of a general sense of frustration.

In my own work? Yes, in my own work.

Then I went out with my wife and granddaughter (who's now a young woman, and only partly still a child..., damn, where does the time fly to?) to the movies, and did not get back here to answer the very intriguing answers that I should have been here to engage with. But - life is good to me, and very often somewhat less confusing than violin making is... am I right? 

You all have my apologies and my thanks for even looking and then for answering. I have read all of the replies here with great attention, because I do see that there are several different basic thoughts expressed here, and that the different basis's for the different beliefs has intrigued me somewhat. 

 

So, I'm going to engage some of the thinking here.

Again, my thanks for the answers, all of the thoughts that have been offered - and the outright generous nature of the different posters here to offer their inner most thinking on this subject. I now have a general idea about how some of the different cornerstones of thinking here are oriented, I do believe.

[Lusitano]

300 years of cherry picking, selective attrition, painstaking maintenance, and flawless restoration added to outstanding craftsmanship to begin with? 

 

IMHO, it's only the inherent uncertainty of 2 pieces of wood ever being equivalent plus the added difficulty of scoring a purely aesthetic competition that elevates the whole argument above the puerility of disputing over whether an original .451 Gibbs shot any better than a modern replica .451 Gibbs when the scores and groups seen on the range are as good as they ever have been.  Modern gunmakers have better everything than the original makers did.  Nobody claims that top end modern copies are inferior to the original weapons in either appearance or performance.  I would seriously question whether there is some magical dispensation from progress granted to musical instruments in this regard when the craftsmen available are certainly as fine as they ever have been, and the best tools available are better than ever.  Surely modern makers manage to root up a few acorns worth of superlative tonewood occasionally?  

 

Totally agree with you on everything with a slight add on, regardless of brand name and hype (which now a days accounts for everything bowed related) producing said beautifully sound and aesthetically pleasing boxes is not an easy task in any way shape or form, as such even with the plethora of new technology and knowledge available to makers both past and present, only a remote few are actually capable of producing works which are in fact absolutely flawless. It takes a very specialized hand with commitment to precision and no fear of burning time to actually produce a gem, many just aim for "good" (nothing wrong with that!) but you can't realistically expect Faberge eggs to spring forth from kinder surprise like efforts now can you? How many makers actually push enough when constructing to actually be able to achieve said perfection, it's not a question of talent but more so along the lines of effort and dedication to improving!

 

Well, I had asked this question out of a general sense of frustration.

In my own work? Yes, in my own work.

Then I went out with my wife and granddaughter (who's now a young woman, and only partly still a child..., damn, where does the time fly to?) to the movies, and did not get back here to answer the very intriguing answers that I should have been here to engage with. But - life is good to me, and very often somewhat less confusing than violin making is... am I right? 

You all have my apologies and my thanks for even looking and then for answering. I have read all of the replies here with great attention, because I do see that there are several different basic thoughts expressed here, and that the different basis's for the different beliefs has intrigued me somewhat. 

 

So, I'm going to engage some of the thinking here.

Again, my thanks for the answers, all of the thoughts that have been offered - and the outright generous nature of the different posters here to offer their inner most thinking on this subject. I now have a general idea about how some of the different cornerstones of thinking here are oriented, I do believe.

 

Glad to hear it!