What's missing?

[Craig Tucker]

Craig, if I may give my personal opinion, I really don't think anything is fundamentally "missing" in a global sense. 

 

 

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.

 

Ahh thanks Michael,

...for putting into simple words, my 'other side'. (in thinking that is)

This type of reality I have run into as 'a player' also. Playing the violin is something that requires a skill that I, (a maker first, and strongly foremost) simply do not really have much of.

I am not a musician.

I simply do not "get it" with regard to playing the violin, or learning "music" theory, and all the etc.'s that may apply.

Though I can fiddle around quite well, on a very simple level that has come about from doing or playing the few things that I do play - for some thirty years now...

But I can hear a (the) difference in tone, due to an advanced playing technique. And am always amazed by it. and then I can hear the difference in the playing ability, that supersedes the ability of the violin (and its innate quality) itself to produce sound as a tone.

 

Do the two - the players ability to 'induce' a tonal quality into the violin he is playing , as opposed to the violins ability to produce a tonal quality - all by itself, alone from the players ability to induce one - have a separate - real - existence?

Or does the one always dictate the other?

And then, if it does, how much so does it?

It is my thought that perhaps the one (the players ability to draw a particular tone from the instrument) may indeed, in the final analysis, well depend on the instrument being played, in order to produce a specific tonal endpoint or result.

And that a talent in playing, may well benefit (in the final analysis) from playing specific instruments, from specific makers, from specific time periods, in order for them to realize their "potential" fully, or perhaps it is simply easier to get what sound or tone they're seeking, from such instruments?

 

Think?

And that "may" well be why some violins are chosen over others. 

[Craig Tucker]

 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.

 

Higher caliber?

 

Such as?

[not telling]

Higher caliber?

 

Such as?

What the heck are you doing up, asking me about something I think? Heh...but really...??

I have to be up in four hours too. I don't sleep.

I mean an instrument loud enough for a concert hall, that sounds completely unlike the Vuillaume being pushed to it's limits and beyond. When Lusitano was describing it, I totally agreed about his sense of its characteristics. I think Hahn is really great, by the by, not to be hypercritical. I also don't know how anyone got on this topic.

[Craig Tucker]

Ahh yes, not sleeping...

 

I get that way too occasionally. (like, now for example)

Well, what questions do you expect from an insomniac? 

Higher caliber such as ....a Strad?

[Doug Cotterill]

Hi Craig,

 

The day I replace a carved-in bass bar and re-thickness the top of some German mediocrity to (hopefully) improve it, is the day it becomes a Doug Cotterill, and no longer the sound created by the poor bastards that put it together. For better or worse, the sound will be different.

 

Not many of the old instruments have their original sounds. How often do we hear Stradivari's sound in a Stradivari? The sound often belongs to the vandals who decided baroque violins should become "modern" violins which could fill large concert halls with sound and play in higher positions etc, which Stradivari himself never needed to do. Mostly, the sound is of the restorer who re-graduated the plates. If anyone believes that Stradivari's (and other famous makers of his time) violins have their secrets in their sound, then hopefully they can explain how it's possible to have the original sound after changing the graduations of the plates. I can't see how it's possible.

 

The best sounding instruments I've made may not match the best Strad or Guarneri violins, but would be better than some of the lesser ones, and I believe this would be true of every modern maker who has made a decent number of instruments. After all, the sound of most of these old instruments was created by restorers - mere mortals.

 

Instruments can sound excellent from the time they are first set up, I don't know why there should be suggestions that we wait for them to become good over time. Aren't there new instruments mistaken for Strads in blindfold tests, or played behind a screen?

 

I think an instrument has to at least start with a tonal goal, whether we finally reach it or not. We then have to use what we know about wood density, arching shape and height, taptones and to a lesser extent graduations to achieve those goals. For example, for my tonal goals, I cannot use Sitka Spruce or dense maple. I start with wood which I know will work for my goals, then think about arching shape and height for character and volume of the tone I'm after. I like my plates to have a certain stiffness, and I get that by graduating until my plate has a certain flex, and taptone. The final thicknesses, I don't care so much what they are because they are different in each instrument, since the density of the wood is a little different each time, but I get my same plate flex/stiffness and taptone. It works for me, and other people will know how to get what they want in their instruments.

 

It's ok to make great sounding instruments even if they are not mind blowing soloist instruments all the time, or ever, isn't it? I find creating a mind blowing soloist instrument very hard, and I'd only make one, I think, if I was very lucky. It's rarely even my goal. However I find that to make an otherwise excellent sounding instrument quite easy, and it's probably the norm with modern makers.

 

I don't feel anything in particular is missing.

[Don Noon]

If anyone believes that Stradivari's (and other famous makers of his time) violins have their secrets in their sound, then hopefully they can explain how it's possible to have the original sound after changing the graduations of the plates. I can't see how it's possible.

 

I not only see it as possible, but quite likely, based on my experience regraduating many old clunkers and discovering that there are elements of the tone that seem to remain, no mater how radically I change things.  I can not change the arching or the wood to any significant degree... but when I change the top (new wood and arching), the tone becomes something entirely different.

 

This is not to say that a Strad today sounds the same as a Strad on day 1, as I am quite convinced that 300 years does something significant to the wood... and from the previous experience, you change the wood, and you change the sound.  But assuming the arching remains basically the same, and age acts in a somewhat uniform way, I think it is quite possible for Strads to maintain an element of family resemblance, much the way siblings often have similar features, even if they don't look today very much like they did when they were born.

 

To say something is "missing" implies that moderns are somehow less.  However, I think that it is a balance.  My experience is that the Cremonese  violins are weaker in some frequency ranges (mostly midrange), which comes across to me as lack of power... or more refined tone, depending on your leanings.  I also believe the older instruments may have a stronger high end, or perhaps a slightly more focused shape to the response curve, leading to an impression of clarity.  These are all differences I believe to be associated with aging, in addition to what may have been put in place by the maker's original selection of the wood and arching.

[Lusitano]

And you know this how?

 

Any chemical treatment used on wood in order to artificially induce the look of age is going to alter fundamentals of the properties of the wood itself into something that is not in line with it's natural properties. In other words, ammonia fuming + oxidization catalysts or evan the usage of tannins found in tea to achieve a darker color, the usage of high intensity UV bombing to color wood as well as varnish which is chalk full of additives will impact the goal of arriving at something similar to the cremonese as techniques used depart to an extreme from the original methods. Although there are ways of working around issues with different methods and achieving the same goals (in a nut shell) the problem with modern techniques around this sort of stuff is that they are present and used in all steps of building. 

 

You are free to disagree, I just find it "funny" that folks attempting to imitate or reproduce the aesthetics of the cremonese get frustrated when they cannot do so fully without ever realizing that they are doing everything unwittingly different than what the cremonese did. Or did they use tea to stain violins and put them through ammonia fuming? Where exactly is the virgins blood and the alchemically complex ground coat residue?!

 

So far what has been discovered on Strads is confusing because it's a lot simpler that most would like to believe in terms of varnish LOL 

[JohnCockburn]

Any chemical treatment used on wood in order to artificially induce the look of age is going to alter fundamentals of the properties of the wood itself into something that is not in line with it's natural properties. In other words, ammonia fuming + oxidization catalysts or evan the usage of tannins found in tea to achieve a darker color, the usage of high intensity UV bombing to color wood as well as varnish which is chalk full of additives will impact the goal of arriving at something similar to the cremonese as techniques used depart to an extreme from the original methods. Although there are ways of working around issues with different methods and achieving the same goals (in a nut shell) the problem with modern techniques around this sort of stuff is that they are present and used in all steps of building. 

 

You are free to disagree, I just find it "funny" that folks attempting to imitate or reproduce the aesthetics of the cremonese get frustrated when they cannot do so fully without ever realizing that they are doing everything unwittingly different than what the cremonese did. Or did they use tea to stain violins and put them through ammonia fuming? Where exactly is the virgins blood and the alchemically complex ground coat residue?!

 

So far what has been discovered on Strads is confusing because it's a lot simpler that most would like to believe in terms of varnish LOL

I think it's entirely possible that the cremonese used a chemical process to stain their wood.

[Lusitano]

I think it's entirely possible that the cremonese used a chemical process to stain their wood.

 

It is possible yes, evidence states they most likely did not though lol unless solar exposure is equivalent to ammonia fuming, baking, high output UV bulbs and other modern marvels

 

Have you seen what was found in Mr.S's ground and varnish coats? Again, not that interesting!

[JohnCockburn]

It is possible yes, evidence states they most likely did not though lol unless solar exposure is equivalent to ammonia fuming, baking, high output UV bulbs and other modern marvels

 

Have you seen what was found in Mr.S's ground and varnish coats? Again, not that interesting!

What evidence?

[Doug Cotterill]

...there are elements of the tone that seem to remain, no mater how radically I change things.  I can not change the arching or the wood to any significant degree... but when I change the top (new wood and arching), the tone becomes something entirely different.

 

Hi Don, I agree with you. Yes, there are characteristics of the original violin which remain. These violins can be improved, but not changed to the extent that it sounds like one of my new violins, and I should have made it more clear when I said it becomes a "Doug Cotterill". I meant that the sound is different, but within the limitations of the arching and wood already provided. If we all improve such violins, and later someone says "Those old German trade violins are pretty decent, they really knew what they were doing when they slapped them together", then the assessment is really made of the repairers sound, not the original sound, which was not as good.

 

Most of the Cremonese instruments must have different sounds to before. If they sounded excellent in the first place, why touch anything? It's possible that some of these instruments might even sound worse than before. How can we know? I think we can listen to the best of them, and decide what we each like tonally, and aspire to recreate that sound. It might not be the Stradivari sound, it might be a Vuillaume or Hill etc created sound. Stradivari will always get the credit though.

[pold]

The secret is in the spruce quality, there is no replacement for the best pieces of alpine spruce.

[JohnCockburn]

The secret is in the spruce quality, there is no replacement for the best pieces of alpine spruce.

Naive bullshit of no value whatsoever.

[pold]

Naive bullshit of no value whatsoever.

Ok, but I am happy this bullshit is important to me.

[Don Noon]

Most of the Cremonese instruments must have different sounds to before. If they sounded excellent in the first place, why touch anything? 

 

In my measurements of my instruments over the limited timespan I have been building, there are definite tonal changes that occur, primarily in the form of more high-frequency power.  If one builds a new instrument with the "right" tonal balance, it will become unbalanced to the bright side over time.  I believe Joseph Curtin also found this, and has thinned out his own instruments after a while to re-balance the sound.  So if this trend continues (which I believe it does), then older instruments can tolerate a thinner graduation before becoming too bottom-heavy.

 

 

I do believe the properties of the spruce matter... a lot...  but is that a secret?   I believe Strad had some good wood as well as some pretty poor stuff, but that only accounts for part of the sound.

[Doug Cotterill]

In my measurements of my instruments over the limited timespan I have been building, there are definite tonal changes that occur, primarily in the form of more high-frequency power.  If one builds a new instrument with the "right" tonal balance, it will become unbalanced to the bright side over time.  I believe Joseph Curtin also found this, and has thinned out his own instruments after a while to re-balance the sound.  So if this trend continues (which I believe it does), then older instruments can tolerate a thinner graduation before becoming too bottom-heavy.

 

This leads to a bigger question as to whether such changed instruments should be altered. In my book, it's fine for Joseph Curtin to rework his own instruments, but I'd never do this to another individual maker's instruments. I hope nobody ever reworks my instruments in the future, I've even thought about writing something inside to say I'd be very unhappy if anyone changed anything. If the instrument is no longer any good, then the owner should get rid of it and go find one that they do like, and leave my instrument alone. I do know a maker more extreme than I am, who will disown an instrument if another maker touches it, to the point of wanting the label removed. Like him, I don't want my instruments to become other people's work. New sound post, new bridge, new fingerboard, fine. That's reversible.

 

In any case, keeping with the Stradivari sound as an example, are we hearing Stradivari's sound, or something else now that the instruments have undergone both natural and man made changes? Why does the instrument sound the way it does today? Stradivari will always be credited for the sound of his violins, but I feel a reworked Strad is not a Strad, and whichever side of the fence people sit, I hope there's at least some food for thought.

[Rick Hyslop]

This leads to a bigger question as to whether such changed instruments should be altered. In my book, it's fine for Joseph Curtin to rework his own instruments, but I'd never do this to another individual maker's instruments. I hope nobody ever reworks my instruments in the future, I've even thought about writing something inside to say I'd be very unhappy if anyone changed anything. If the instrument is no longer any good, then the owner should get rid of it and go find one that they do like, and leave my instrument alone. I do know a maker more extreme than I am, who will disown an instrument if another maker touches it, to the point of wanting the label removed. Like him, I don't want my instruments to become other people's work. New sound post, new bridge, new fingerboard, fine. That's reversible.

 

In any case, keeping with the Stradivari sound as an example, are we hearing Stradivari's sound, or something else now that the instruments have undergone both natural and man made changes? Why does the instrument sound the way it does today? Stradivari will always be credited for the sound of his violins, but I feel a reworked Strad is not a Strad, and whichever side of the fence people sit, I hope there's at least some food for thought.

 

Well this brings up an interesting thought. If I drew a Dali moustache on the Mona Lisa or added length to the penis of Michelangelo's David, would that be acceptable in the art world ? I would have to say most likely not. So I think what we are experiencing in the instrument world is the fact that the instruments are not only viewed as "works of art" but "art that works". ( I coin this phrase if it hasn't already been coined ! )

 

So in this reality we have no control over what will become of anything we make because what we make is to be used and played and fashion/music may change in regards to what, why and how it was originally made.

 

I agree that it is stinky but somewhat understandable.

 

r.

[Doug Cotterill]

Yes Rick, this other maker I mentioned used a similar analogy, where it would not be ok to paint wallpaper in the background of Van Gogh's bowl of daffodils, and put glitter on the leaves to make it modern and pretty, yet people will hack away at expensive instruments.

 

Some of us like to design instruments from start to finish, with our own outlines, soundholes and scrolls, and even make our own fittings. The instruments are our own creations, our own babies, and we don't want our concepts or visions changed by others. For my instruments, if people get tired of them, or the instrument itself gets tired, I hope people will buy a new violin from some modern maker. Give the money to the makers while they are alive and producing work for future generations. These tired old things get worn out, restored and worn out over and over, I feel sorry for them.

[Marty Kasprzyk]

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?  

Yes, a new .451 Gibbs copy can be better than an original old one but why bother?  I'd rather have a 338 Laupua.

[Peter K-G]

 there is no replacement for the best pieces of alpine spruce.

 

Oh yes there is, Finnish Polar circle, outstanding, marvelous qulity spruce

[Craig Tucker]

Oh yes there is, Finnish Polar circle, outstanding, marvelous qulity spruce

 

And I find the desire to chime in here also.

 

The spruce used by the 'Cremonese makers', doesn't result in 'Cremonese' tonal qualities in the violins made with it today...

It has been my observation that any spruce, used correctly can (perhaps) be made to work as well as any other (in my opinion) as well as European, or "traditional" woods can be made to work.

Reading about some makers here that do not like to use Sitka, but which prefer Engelmann (two domestic woods, for us Americans) - I understand completely, because I am exactly the opposite - I prefer Sitka and cannot use Engelmann, even though I have bought and tried it several times - I eventually sold all of it to other makers...

 

Too light for me. Strong but light.

This is another 'interesting aspect' of modern violin making for me - the move away from traditional materials, with the effort being - to obtain essentially the same results as the makers of the past. There is, or can be, a belief that specific materials can (and do) hold almost "magical" qualities, with regard to the build, and the results obtained

I don't see it.

That specific materials may have been used in the premier instruments we hold in high regard, may well hold true. May well be exactly true. But are those materials the, or a, key ingredient in making "superior" instruments today?

 

Nope.

[pold]

And I find the desire to chime in here also.

 

The spruce used by the 'Cremonese makers', doesn't result in 'Cremonese' tonal qualities in the violins made with it today...

It has been my observation that any spruce, used correctly can (perhaps) be made to work as well as any other (in my opinion) as well as European, or "traditional" woods can be made to work.

Reading about some makers here that do not like to use Sitka, but which prefer Engelmann (two domestic woods, for us Americans) - I understand completely, because I am exactly the opposite - I prefer Sitka and cannot use Engelmann, even though I have bought and tried it several times - I eventually sold all of it to other makers...

 

Too light for me. Strong but light.

This is another 'interesting aspect' of modern violin making for me - the move away from traditional materials, with the effort being - to obtain essentially the same results as the makers of the past. There is, or can be, a belief that specific materials can (and do) hold almost "magical" qualities, with regard to the build, and the results obtained

I don't see it.

That specific materials may have been used in the premier instruments we hold in high regard, may well hold true. May well be exactly true. But are those materials the, or a, key ingredient in making "superior" instruments today?

 

Nope.

 

 

Of course is not about superiority vs inferiority. I forget always to mention that I am thinking about classical music, in a theater, with an orchestra. Otherwise, for other styles, alpine spruce might not be the favourite choice. And there are exceptions to any rule of course. But I am surprised by how, in blind tests, people expect a cremonese to sound sweet in a small room. It doesn't sound sweet at all, it sounds actually harsh and wolfy in a bedroom. I think this clip says much more than words, Benedetti meets Aly Bain, alpine spruce and scandinavian spruce, sound both good, but definetely different.

 

[Peter K-G]

pold,

 

I agree, this same tube has been on my site under Interesting recordings

http://www.thestradsound.com/the-sound/interesting-tubes

[Craig Tucker]

  I think this clip says much more than words, Benedetti meets Aly Bain, alpine spruce and scandinavian spruce, sound both good, but definetely different

 

Amen.

 

And here I believe that my own words reach their conclusion in this thread. Definitely different - but both good.

 

Well said.

[Craig Tucker]

pold,

 

I agree, this same tube has been on my site under Interesting recordings

 

Great sentiments - and interesting yet very diverse opinions given here also.