Sign in to follow this  
romberg flat

Stradivarius drawing in Nl. Wikipedia

Recommended Posts

Are they suggesting that this is a drawing by Strad? I would say no, there is something about the way the figure playing the violin is drawn that suggests much more modern to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they suggesting that this is a drawing by Strad? I would say no, there is something about the way the figure playing the violin is drawn that suggests much more modern to me.

 

Under the image is written:

Schetsen van Stradivari met aantekeningen over de vioolbouw  (Sketches by Stradivari with notes about the violin)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything you read, take with a pinch of salt. Sounds like somebody is trying to cash in on the fact the drawing is up on Wikipedia.

 

Wikipedia didn't specify WHICH Stradivari. I can ask two surviving members of the family I know if one of them may have made the sketch. Antonia Stradivari or her son.

 

Interesting that on Wikipedia each language or country has a different version!!!  :o  :o  :o  :o

 

Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. I'm a bit weary of the big (excuse my French) circle jerk when it comes to the mysticism about some of these old Italian luthiers. Much respect to our forefathers, but why are people still contriving such things to this day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. I'm a bit weary of the big (excuse my French) circle jerk when it comes to the mysticism about some of these old Italian luthiers. Much respect to our forefathers, but why are people still contriving such things to this day?

 

About whom are you complaining? I thought we were rather frank with our comments here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... I can ask two surviving members of the family I know if one of them may have made the sketch. Antonia Stradivari or her son.

..

 

Bruce

Cool!!!  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About whom are you complaining? I thought we were rather frank with our comments here.

Oh no I didn't mean you guys. Just the population who perpetuate such beliefs.

Luckily we have modern science looking into such a subject, and it seems that we are starting to find out that Strad was simply an extraordinary craftsman who used simple methods to achieve phenomenal results. Not some arcane magician whose sorcery will never be unraveled lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they have chinrests in Strad's time ?

 

Right.  And also the fingerboard is modern.  Maybe we shouldn't give those frauds too many hints, though.   :)​ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no I didn't mean you guys. Just the population who perpetuate such beliefs.

Luckily we have modern science looking into such a subject, and it seems that we are starting to find out that Strad was simply an extraordinary craftsman who used simple methods to achieve phenomenal results. Not some arcane magician whose sorcery will never be unraveled lol.

I was mostly surprised that Wikipedia was different depending upon the language you choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.  And also the fingerboard is modern.  Maybe we shouldn't give those frauds too many hints, though.   :)​ 

 

And also the bow, frog, hairstyle ...Wonder what handwriting would say?

 

The reason why I started this thread was to show how Wikipedia can fail. Here  https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Stradivari for example you can find, instead a portrait of Stradivari a young Monteverdi.  :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think Encyclopedia Brittanica and other scholarly sources are much safer than Wikipedia.  We easily see the mistakes in articles about our profession since we know better, but how many mistakes are in all the other areas?  And how much nonsense gets into the discussions of areas such as political science?  It seems Wikipedia is just a very nice convenience.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia cannot be edited by users anymore unless it is a soleley user created article. So any official info is pretty safe. Like the page on Stradivari is moderated and locked by staff. I think that it's a little ridiculous that they would post this image claiming it to be drawn by Antonio Stradivari himself. It seems as though they are trying to compare him to a Leonardo da Vinci or Michaelangelo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Wikipedia is quite wonderful...a world of knowledge at your fingertips... :wub:

 

BUT...you have to read it with caution.  It is not a guaranteed source of correct or up to date information.  Once you look something up on Wikipedia first...THEN you go and make sure what you read is correct.

 

 

And that's fine.

 

But I'm continually surprised at how many people think it should be Gospel.  How can it be?  It's a free, on-line resource run primarily (entirely?) by volunteers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Wikipedia is quite wonderful...a world of knowledge at your fingertips... :wub:

 

BUT...you have to read it with caution.  It is not a guaranteed source of correct or up to date information.  Once you look something up on Wikipedia first...THEN you go and make sure what you read is correct.

 

 

And that's fine.

 

But I'm continually surprised at how many people think it should be Gospel.  How can it be?  It's a free, on-line resource run primarily (entirely?) by volunteers!

 

Couldn't be said better.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience of Wikipedia has been that it is good for certain subjects, and poor to awful for others.  There is seldom any nonsense in the science/technology articles (the closer one gets to mathematical exactitude, the better the quality).  The same is true of "cut and dried" history and archaeology, as well as most geography/travel.  The linguistics articles are usually superior as well.  The fuzzier and more controversial the subject, however, the more the quality sometimes declines.

 

One interesting paradox is that the articles written with local point-of-view, while often deficient as scholarship, may cast more light on local and current culture than if they had been authored by trained mainstream academics.  Here's a couple of fairly inoffensive examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacoity  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoolan_Devi .

 

I find that articles written with unintentional local bias (such as those often written about sociopolitical issues that failed to make the world news) can be quite fascinating and illuminating beyond what the authors probably intended.  B)  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other link https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Antonio_Stradivari, same text, evidently comments (equal like in this thread) on a drawing which is probably taken from one of 19 c. (or even later) books about Strad and somewhere published as genuine, like on Ni. Wiki.

 

Rough translation direct from Google Translator says:

 

 "Who thought that to build a violin, one must first draw two pentagons in a circle? But the laws of harmony discovered by Plato, president both in the construction of geometric figures that musical design, this abstract conception of music-thought and the establishment of the proportions of instruments designed to play. "Stradivarius

 

The book Stradivarius mentioned on this page seems to be a grotesque invention (possibly 19th c.). Indeed, the violinist who is drawn plays a violin fitted modern way and left side of the tailpiece. I remind that luthier Stradivari is in full Baroque period (died in 1737). at that time, the playing technique and violin assembly are different today (for mounting the violin, see the iconography of the time and in terms of playing technique, treaties of time such as Leopold Mozart). Moreover, the bow is shown a modern bow. The "modern" bow appears only at the end of 18th century Parisian bow maker François Tourte. This document is that quite anachronistic and text attached to it is ridiculous.

 

End a better photo of the drawing to see how grotesque is "selling" it as genuine:

 

post-60277-0-10913900-1452630319_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much can we trust Wikipedia? 

A lot.  Here's  the user discussion page on the person who originally uploaded the picture .https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:Yelkrokoyade/Archive_1 , and here's an English translation in PDF User_ Yelkrokoyade _ Archive 1 - Wikipedia.pdf Note well that the problem was promptly fixed in French Wikipedia.  The responsible people at NL Wikipedia who copied the false information need to fix their copy. 

 

The page on the picture you posted, https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Extrait_carnet_Stradivarius.gif shows who originally uploaded it to Wikipedia, as well as where it came from, http://www.cgagne.org/ which is where the error originally occurred.

 

Everything on Wikipedia leaves a data trail, as you can see above.  Do you get that with most other references?

 

Why didn't you do your homework like I just did for you before posting this cheap attack on a valuable public knowledge resource?  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot.  Here's  the user discussion page on the person who originally uploaded the picture .https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:Yelkrokoyade/Archive_1 , and here's an English translation in PDF attachicon.gifUser_ Yelkrokoyade _ Archive 1 - Wikipedia.pdf Note well that the problem was promptly fixed in French Wikipedia.  The responsible people at NL Wikipedia who copied the false information need to fix their copy. 

 

The page on the picture you posted, https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Extrait_carnet_Stradivarius.gif shows who originally uploaded it to Wikipedia, as well as where it came from, http://www.cgagne.org/ which is where the error originally occurred.

 

Everything on Wikipedia leaves a data trail, as you can see above.  Do you get that with most other references?

 

Why didn't you do your homework like I just did for you before posting this cheap attack on a valuable public knowledge resource?  :P

 

Wow! Didn’t realized what I did, thank you for pointing to me at this.

Also didn’t realize that my innocent question would be understood as an attack to Wikipedia, moreover a cheap one. I deeply apologize to the whole Wikipedia and to you particularly if you found offended by any means.

I really sincerely agree with you that Wikipedia is today irreplaceable and most valuable public source of knowledge.  

Anyone can make an error and it is good to know about a Wikipedia procedure debugging. Hopefully Ni. Wikipedia will soon correct the error on its site (it passed almost ten years since Fr. Wiki did that) and Fr. Wikipedia will also soon change Monteverdi’s with Stradivari’s portrait (even that made by Gialdisi will be better) on Antonio Stradivari site.  

Don’t mean to be ironic. I’m fully aware that the huge body of knowledge stored in Wikipedia is a living organism that is constantly being expanded and improved, and that it takes time. But as in everything, it is always good check and other resources.  :) 

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.