Thomas Coleman

Violin geometry references

Recommended Posts

On 10/31/2017 at 9:46 PM, David Beard said:

Back to this... :(...............................................but there is no hope of convincing everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab0mWvuYOq8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfBG0d5Oj3c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AxW9MQ2qPI

et cetera, et cetera........ :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good discussion people, enjoyed reading. I seem to be caught in the middle. Did Strad and everyone else use a complex drawing system of design to layout their masterpieces? I usually adhere to the "KISS" system (keep it simple stupid), don't over think things and make them more difficult. These people were craftsmen, everyday workers trying to scratch out a living and feed all those kids. We have precious little to go on by way of evidence, except Strad's "f" hole layout evidence. We, or I, just lay out a paper template  on my top and trace it. Strad could have done this just as easy, but he didn't, why? The stem was traced, but the layout of the eyes was done with dividers every time, even when he was making the same model. He could have said, hey Omobono hand me the f hole template for the G model violin.  What I'm trying to get at here is, they didn't do things like we do. Strad would have thought laying a template and tracing the entire f hole was the dumbest thing I could do, and maybe it is, who knows.  How in depth they got with their geometry I don't know, back to my KISS system, but I'm sure they it. 

As a side note, meeting Bruce Babbitt here in a few hours and heading for the VSA in DC. Can't wait. A good time will be had, for sure. Anyone who wants to come by and see my work, even if you are just curious,  ask at front desk for Rich Dodson's room numbers. We have three rooms in his name.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dividers can be as  handy as ever for transferring a dimension from on place to another, such as from a pattern or template to the instrument one is making. Isn't this still almost universally used for transferring the location of bridge notches from a pattern to the bridge? So it's no surprise when we see evidence of compass marks on a violin. Does this necessarily mean that they were used when drafting some kind of original violin form?

I often have various sorts of layout marks remaining on my finished instruments. Most of them have nothing to do with the original design process, but with transferring dimensions.

Music can be described quite well with simple math, or with musicology terms. Does that mean that these had to be in place before music could exist, or do they happen to be a good fit for something which had already existed for a long time? Did vibrating frequencies, and their mathematical or proportional relationships need to be understood before music could come into being? Or was music originally done "freehand", in a way that was considered pleasing, with these tools superimposed much later?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seem to be a lot of ways to arrive at a fine violin. I think it's fair to say we'll never uncover the exact method of the ancients, but of course it's worth investigating. Performers contend with this too. There's no guarantee of authenticity, so try it all, keep what works for you, and on you go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Association between empiricism and theory is a old story. On this point Vitruvius (50 yr BC) has already had some irritated statements and, when the violin is invented, some artists pragmaticaly stated that you should drawn a line using the best way.Three different processes are suggested, freehand, dot by dot and dividers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am struck that many here question the use of geometry in terms of belief! I

think that Amati ..... I do not think that Strad ...

But it's not about believing or not. Specifically speaking of the Renaissance period, empiricism does not exist in place of the formal approach and resarch but on the side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, francoisdenis said:

I am struck that many here question the use of geometry in terms of belief!

 

Really? 

I happen to be  rather negatively stricken by some beliefs that some sort of geometry construct must have prevailed, versus an approach which satisfied the customers of the time, which also happens to do a pretty good job of satisfying customers today, whatever that construct was or is.

But I'm much more of a practical working guy than a romanticist, so that needs to be taken into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JacksonMaberry said:

There seem to be a lot of ways to arrive at a fine violin............

..........And even more to create a crummy one.  That the two populations overlap in ways that no one can explain is what allows the endless controversies which reverberate here................

2 hours ago, francoisdenis said:

I am struck that many here question the use of geometry in terms of belief! I

think that Amati ..... I do not think that Strad ...

But it's not about believing or not. Specifically speaking of the Renaissance period, empiricism does not exist in place of the formal approach and resarch but on the side.

1 hour ago, David Burgess said:

I'm much more of a practical working guy than a romanticist, so that needs to be taken into account.

 

............And what causes the controversies, unfortunately, is exactly that, personal beliefs indistinguishable from politics and religion in their origins, rather than understanding produced from logic and science evolved in a social vacuum.  And at that point I'll drop it, and let you all meditate silently on what I've said, because we do not dare discuss any of it here, but, IMHO, the existence of the big dark world outside these hallowed halls will ultimately prevent us from agreeing on any issues regarding "Cremonese secrets".  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In England, which I know isn't Italy, but... John Dee, Queen Elizabeth's wizard (for want of a better word) translated Euclid's Elements into English in 1570 (rather more importantly, being the first person to translate them out of Greek, bypassing the latin interpretations, which in itself has important ramifications for understanding and rationalising it). His Mathematical Introduction to Elements is itself important and it gives ideas of the different ranks of people who used mathematical ideas. I think this is important for two reasons, first that it sets out a survey of society and it's relationship to these ideas. Second it makes it clear how different stratas co-existed. Bound into this, just as we don't imagine that a navigator on a ship has half the knowledge of a university trained astronomer, yet we are able to be totally reliant on their ability to measure their location on earth by the stars: You don't have to be able to invent the internet to be able to post on Maestronet. You don't have to be an architect to build a house. 

Likewise, we don't need to believe that Andrea Amati was necessarily both a master violin maker and a master of geometry. He may as easily  have been an artificer (Dee includes people such as Vasari the Italian painter and writer as artificers - so he leaves the bar pretty high) who could rely on the assistance of formally trained mathematicians to develop a project that they would understand well enough to apply within their craft. 

I certainly advise pouring a large whisky and reading through his introduction - do it out loud, essentially as a performance of rhetoric and it will read easier than if you are trying to go through it silently in your head. Its only a few pages. You can find it here... 

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22062/22062-h/main.html

 Good luck! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, David Burgess said:

Really? 

I happen to be  rather negatively stricken by some beliefs that some sort of geometry construct must have prevailed, versus an approach which satisfied the customers of the time, which also happens to do a pretty good job of satisfying customers today, whatever that construct was or is.

But I'm much more of a practical working guy than a romanticist, so that needs to be taken into account.

David,

Do you believe that geometry was involved in the designing of classic Italian instruments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Thomas Coleman said:

David,

Do you believe that geometry was involved in the designing of classic Italian instruments?

I don't know. Conclusions based on pre-existing beliefs are not as compelling to me as they seem to be some people, so that leaves many questions unresolved, and awaiting further information, for me. And I'm not uncomfortable there. My sense of enjoyment from what I do doesn't rely on a belief that I have everything figured out already.

Sometimes, when people seem to get really hyped up on their beliefs, I'll try to present cogent arguments for other approaches. Other times, doing so would just be redundant, because other people here have already taken care of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ben Hebbert said:

In England, which I know isn't Italy, but... John Dee, Queen Elizabeth's wizard (for want of a better word) translated Euclid's Elements into English in 1570 (rather more importantly, being the first person to translate them out of Greek, bypassing the latin interpretations, which in itself has important ramifications for understanding and rationalising it). His Mathematical Introduction to Elements is itself important and it gives ideas of the different ranks of people who used mathematical ideas. I think this is important for two reasons, first that it sets out a survey of society and it's relationship to these ideas. Second it makes it clear how different stratas co-existed. Bound into this, just as we don't imagine that a navigator on a ship has half the knowledge of a university trained astronomer, yet we are able to be totally reliant on their ability to measure their location on earth by the stars: You don't have to be able to invent the internet to be able to post on Maestronet. You don't have to be an architect to build a house. 

Likewise, we don't need to believe that Andrea Amati was necessarily both a master violin maker and a master of geometry. He may as easily  have been an artificer (Dee includes people such as Vasari the Italian painter and writer as artificers - so he leaves the bar pretty high) who could rely on the assistance of formally trained mathematicians to develop a project that they would understand well enough to apply within their craft. 

I certainly advise pouring a large whisky and reading through his introduction - do it out loud, essentially as a performance of rhetoric and it will read easier than if you are trying to go through it silently in your head. Its only a few pages. You can find it here... 

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22062/22062-h/main.html

 Good luck! 

Thank you, Ben!.  Great post.  Absolutely marvelous link.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

On 10/31/2017 at 6:46 PM, David Beard said:

Back to this... :(

 

Many curve families can be caused to fit violin families.     But few can be cause to generate the shapes from simple initial choices, and as far as I'm aware there is only one solution that can generate the full range of classical Italian violin shapes from a simple consistent range of choices.

Add historical context and there you go.

But there is no hope of convincing everyone.

 

On 11/7/2017 at 12:33 PM, David Burgess said:

It is inherent (or should be) in any such discussion.

 

I absolutely agree.  It was a first consideration in my research.     My frustration comes from feeling this has been well addressed, but not heard or understood.

There are multiple complications.  First, many people have copied the old violin shapes with greater and lessor fidelity, but using pretty any and all methods anyone can imagine.  So that is one cloud to the topic.  

Further, even when we restrict our focus to classical Italian making, they might not have constructed the shapes from scratch every time.  It's possible that at times they might of worked something out once on paper and then transferred the shape multiple times to wood.   It's also possible that some makers might of freehanded an imitation of the basic idea of the shape.    But still, what is the origin and foundation of the shape, what ideas are behind that.   If we look at art text from around the that era, we see evidence that artisans in general worked using a mix of constructions, freehand, and tracings.  So, to what extant might freehand work, or transfers of design by tracing from separate constructions or prior examples have played a role.

So that is the second cloud on understanding the classical violin shapes.  And last, there is a looseness inherent in the old makers' work, so that is a third cloud on understanding.

 

Now, given those obstacles, we still have a rather complex shape, exhibited in many variations in violin family instruments made in Italian during that time.  And we have many more shapes of other lute family instruments made during the same time and the several centuries before the violin.

SO...    At a very early stage of my research I did ask two questions on this topic:  If there is a geometry behind classical violin shapes, 1) what is the most likely kind of geometry, and 2) are there other possibilities?

Now, I did begin with a bias, and though I recognized the bias and the potential dangers of having a bias, still it was there.    From looking early on at the work of Coates, and Denis, and the comments of Sacconi, and the trail of historical comments, I was inclined to expect that a circle geometry was likely.

Besides the trail of violin oriented modern work and historical comment that suggest circle geometry, there is also the general historical context which shows that artisans and artists also used these tools to some extent: Cennini, Vetruvius, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Durer, etc.   Then you also have the evidence that compass and rule methods had an important place specifically in woodworking traditions and metal working traditions.

So, there was much cause to suspect from the begin that if there were geometry behind the instruments, it would more or less be what Coates was already pointing to.

But, my first canvassing of other people's work turned up various alternate theories.    So people for example have tried to explain violin shapes with linkages, and other curves that result from circles moving within circles.   Also, several people have approached that shape using various spline shape approaches.   This is probably the most interesting alternative idea, as it also has a historical basis as an artist and artisan method of work.  So this candidate is not to be lightly dismissed.    And indeed, as I current see things, 'spline shapes' which equate to our general notion of what it means to 'smooth' or 'fair' a shape, has a place.    This notion of 'smoothing' or 'fair' plays a role in arch work, and in the characteristic looseness of classical work, in that it's what takes over when the proper geometry is done in accurately and must be 'reconciled'.   This notion of 'spline shapes' = 'faired curves' also closely relates to what we attempt to do in most freehand drawing.   So these things complicate the picture, but remain minor parts of the process.   At least as I see it.

Nevertheless, this surveying of ideas people had tried left me with 'freehand' and 'spline shapes' as potentially valid candidates in understanding classical violin shapes.   I had I difficult time seeing any of the other more remote attempts as viable or historically reasonable.   Still, it was clear that the possibility that there was no intentional structure behind, or a different structure than circle geometry had to be considered.

 

This brings us to the idea of 'curve families' and the 'size' of a curve family, and 'low number iterations' versus 'high number or infinite iterations'.

To illustrate, lets use Marty's example of shapes made from straight line segments only.    This is a small curve family.   You can make an infinite number of shapes with straight line segments, and, as Marty illustrated earlier, if you use a very larger number of segments you can get as close as you like to any shape you want to duplicate.   Also, if you push on to an infinite number of line segments, you can duplicate essentially any shape exactly.

But still, even though straight line segments can trace or duplicate any shape, still it remains a very small curve family.  This is true because most shapes that are possible generally cannot be duplicated or traced with only a low number of straight line segments.    Thus, you  can not trace a circle with straight line segments unless you resort to a large number of segments.

The critical consequence of being a small family of curves is that it then becomes meaningful if you can duplicate or closely trace a shape with just a low number of iterations.

So we can say that rectangles and triangles are 'straight line segment' curves.  It's highly meaningful because you only need 3 an 4 iterations to get these shapes.   It's also highly meaningful to say a circles are not in the 'straight line segment' curve family because it takes a great number of iterations to approach a circle shape.

So, the key point is that the curve family of 'circle arcs and straight lines' is also a small curve family.  Thus, when a shape can be duplicated or closely traced in a low number of iterations of circles arcs and straight lines, it's highly meaningful.       So, what Coates demonstrates across Italian lute instrument making, not just violins, is highly meaningful.     

Note that for historical classical violin family examples across the board, basically all the shapes can be traced with only one circle or line for each major change of curvature or direction.   This is an absolute efficient and meaningful match.

 

Now, the same idea of meaningfulness of fit does not apply to very large curve families.    'Freehand', 'Fair Curves', 'Smoothed Curves', 'Bent Splines', and 'Bezel Curves' are examples.  The virtue of these families is that they can easily duplicate almost any other family of curves relatively simply and directly.   That's why Bezel curves are used in computer drawing programs.   These very large curve families can duplicate almost any shape, and the smoother the shape the more easily they can produce it.   However, this also implies that it doesn't much of anything to duplicate a curve with these large families. So yes, you can easily duplicate a circle with any of these.  And you can easily duplicate an ellipse, or a sine shape.   But it doesn't mean that ellipses are circles, or that either of them are characteristically 'bezel  curves'.

 

So, lets suppose that as a working method an artist draws freehand.   That's a very large curve family.   If the artist very accurately draws a freehand circle, then the method of execution is not so much the point.   The only way you get a good circle by freehand is by aiming to make a circle.  The idea of the design remains a 'circle', despite the skillful production of it by freehand.   So the 'circle' idea remains meaningful.

Same with spline curves.  You absolute can produce classical violin shapes by this method.  But, 'spline curves' are again a very large curve family, so unless you try very hard, you will not accidentally produce a shape that is also in the 'circle arcs and lines' family.   The ONLY way that happens is if tried to do that.

 

So yes David.   I agree that such things deserve consideration.  But take the full walk through the subject, you lose the ability to see the ratios and geometry behind classical making as anything other than intentional.  Regardless of whether it was executed on the wood, on paper, or in the eye.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ben Hebbert said:

In England, which I know isn't Italy, but... John Dee, Queen Elizabeth's wizard (for want of a better word) translated Euclid's Elements into English in 1570 (rather more importantly, being the first person to translate them out of Greek, bypassing the latin interpretations, which in itself has important ramifications for understanding and rationalising it). His Mathematical Introduction to Elements is itself important and it gives ideas of the different ranks of people who used mathematical ideas. I think this is important for two reasons, first that it sets out a survey of society and it's relationship to these ideas. Second it makes it clear how different stratas co-existed. Bound into this, just as we don't imagine that a navigator on a ship has half the knowledge of a university trained astronomer, yet we are able to be totally reliant on their ability to measure their location on earth by the stars: You don't have to be able to invent the internet to be able to post on Maestronet. You don't have to be an architect to build a house. 

Likewise, we don't need to believe that Andrea Amati was necessarily both a master violin maker and a master of geometry. He may as easily  have been an artificer (Dee includes people such as Vasari the Italian painter and writer as artificers - so he leaves the bar pretty high) who could rely on the assistance of formally trained mathematicians to develop a project that they would understand well enough to apply within their craft. 

I certainly advise pouring a large whisky and reading through his introduction - do it out loud, essentially as a performance of rhetoric and it will read easier than if you are trying to go through it silently in your head. Its only a few pages. You can find it here... 

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22062/22062-h/main.html

 Good luck! 

Hi-

I very much agree with what you're saying.

 

For those who are finding the notion of using geometry and ratios to be 'complicated', consider this:

 

Sometimes we forget how different our world and our perspective can be from the past.

Since the geometry and ratios are alien to modern workers, and presented in the context of research and attempts to understand etc, it can look complicated to us today.

 

But let's say you have four things on your bench: a flat board to markup a shape you want, a scribe point, a straight edge, and a strongly made pair of dividers sharpened on both legs.   That's not a complicated tool kit.   Yet it does all that scary geometry with easy. 

For people who used this simple kit of tools, the stuff I'm talking about would be easy and native to them.  Not theoretic. Not complicated.  Instead, the simplest, most friendly, and direct method possible.  And it lets you design and make anything pretty much that you can want.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, David Burgess said:

Really? 

I happen to be  rather negatively stricken by some beliefs that some sort of geometry construct must have prevailed, versus an approach which satisfied the customers of the time, which also happens to do a pretty good job of satisfying customers today, whatever that construct was or is.

But I'm much more of a practical working guy than a romanticist, so that needs to be taken into account.

 

So , saying  "I happen to be  rather negatively stricken by some beliefs that some sort of geometry construct must have prevailed" I understand that you agree me because it is exactly what I'm saying. What I question is the cummon idea that empirical approach (I understand that you support this ) should be place in opposition with a more theoritical approach. We have evidences that both have existed in the same time and I encourage you to read the historical writings on this issue.
Concerning  "some sort of geometry construct must have prevailed" I suggest you to forget the conditionnal mode and would be curious to know your analysis about "some geometrical constructions  which have prevailed". I have a list of them that I can recommand and it's not a question of belief you can check their existence in the library.
To speak seriously of historical facts of their knowledge and analysis we have to forget for a while the violin making world because we get almost nothing but the violin shape is a tipical profile of the late flaboyant gothique and we have a certain amount of original documentation focus on this. Try to understand what's going on then, look which kind of connections existed between the differents trades ans so far, how music and instrument making is implied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Beard said:

 

For those who are finding the notion of using geometry and ratios to be 'complicated', consider this:

 

 

 

 

It is a common fact that people mix up complexity and complication and it is often the case here. I spent a very hard time to understand this little chinese boy saying that the bus station was the first to the left. Complication for a simple message. If you don't get the language every thing become difficult BUT it doesn't mean nothing about the complexity of the message. It's easy to find tons of  examples, I assume that building the Chartres cathedral has been a complex project but when I learn that masons used seven differents units at the same time I'm thinking first woh! why a such complication! It's not a complication it is just that I don't understand what's going on here and later, when you get the explanation you say who! what a smart simplication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, David Burgess said:

 

But I'm much more of a practical working guy than a romanticist, so that needs to be taken into account.

Nothing wrong with being a romanticist. It's been positively established that it saves money does not cause blindness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, carl stross said:

Nothing wrong with being a romanticist. It's been positively established that it saves money does not cause blindness. 

Ahhh, there's the problem!  You've been confusing romanticism with narcissism.  Explains a lot............  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ben Hebbert said:

I certainly advise pouring a large whisky and reading through his introduction - do it out loud, essentially as a performance of rhetoric and it will read easier than if you are trying to go through it silently in your head. Its only a few pages. You can find it here... 

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22062/22062-h/main.html

 Good luck! 

Dang it, I only got about half way through before running out of whiskey, and I can't go out and get more, because I'm above the legal limit to drive. What do I do now? :lol:

8 hours ago, francoisdenis said:

 

What I question is the cummon idea that empirical approach (I understand that you support this ) should be place in opposition with a more theoritical approach.

I don't see them as being in opposition, nor am I more in support of one or the other. What I would suggest though is that practically speaking, to a contemporary maker, it doesn't matter. If one wants to come close to what has been done in the past, they can copy. Or they can imitate what they see as an attractive empirical theme, without strictly copying, but rendering their own interpretation. Or they can do something closer to freehand, should they be adventurous enough.  Or they could use some sort of drafting system which appeals to them. There are lots of options.

Sticking closely to some formula doesn't seem to be that important for sound. This is perhaps most clearly demonstrated with violas, which can be all over the map, without this necessarily causing a reduction in sound quality. Even with violins, dimension or shapes or proportions can be tweaked quite a bit, with no apparent damage to sound quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

Dang it, I only got about half way through before running out of whiskey, and I can't go out and get more, because I'm above the legal limit to drive. What do I do now? :lol:

I don't see them as being in opposition, nor am I more in support of one or the other.............There are lots of options.

Sticking closely to some formula doesn't seem to be that important for sound..............Even with violins, dimension or shapes or proportions can be tweaked quite a bit, with no apparent damage to sound quality.

1.  That will teach you the importance of logistical planning.  [Pauses to watch as the Drambuie truck drops another pallet of cases at her barn]  The holidays are upon us again, after all.

2.  If they can do as they please, why argue about it?

3. A while back, I played at a function where an engineer who builds as a hobby showed up with a trapezoidal-looking, flat-sided violin he'd copied from someone's old patent.  I was rather surprised that despite a total lack of curves or arching, it sounded as good as any there, which included some very pricey Italians.  I tried it, and it played very well, too.  It also looked like absolute doo-doo, and nobody evinced any interest in getting one.   All that visual aesthetic stuff is important to player and audience acceptance, and the roots of it are in the geometry that Maestro Beard is drawing attention to.  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Violadamore said:

All that visual aesthetic stuff is important to player and audience acceptance,

Yes, but I've been surprised at how much leeway there can be, without anyone objecting, and sometimes not even noticing. But I'll probably never make a trapezoidal instrument. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2017 at 6:35 PM, Marty Kasprzyk said:

I believe the first instruments may have used simple triangular bouts (like the Russian Balalaika) but early players didn't like the sharp edges so they were sawed off.

More and more straight saw cuts were made until the bouts eventually looked like smooth rounded curves as shown in the attached constructions.  The last one is superimposed on the Titian Strad CT rib scan to prove what you said that anything works if you try hard enough.

1.jpg

2.jpg

3.jpg

4.jpg

5.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Johnmasters said:

 

This very clever.  Is your starting angle exactly 60 degrees?  Are your marks uniform on the two axes?  And are the divsions the same on the two axes?  And how do you determine the spacings of these points?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some thoughts about this thread, in no particular order -

 

The video that was linked to above was made by me some time in the last few years in response to an irritating discussion on MN, actually, and I think the point I was trying to make was that any discussion about this kind of thing is only relevant if it can produce a usable, useful result, in the real world, and that if you can’t prove that it works in real life, you should maybe not claim that it does. Since then I’ve tried to avoid the topic since it seems to antagonize some people (especially me).  Not that I have a problem with it, but the Strad did not ask me nor tell me about posting the video on their website. Actually, I thought that I deleted it shortly after posting it, and was surprised to see it still around.  If I’d known they were going to use it, I would have put a little more effort into it.

 

Marty has published some work on violin design, but for some reason he seems to have forgotten to include himself in his list earlier in the thread. 

 

I really hate the word “geometry” in this context, because its modern meaning is confusing to any discussion about violin design.  Any reasonable amount of reading on the subject would make it clear that Francois is correct when he says that in the age of Andrea Amati “geometry” was nothing other than measuring. Nothing mystical, and not really anything to argue about.  The fact that there have historically been so many bad hypotheses about a specific theory or system doesn’t mean there wasn’t one - there was. 

 

I disagree that theory doesn’t matter to modern makers.  It may not matter to all makers, but I think it’s exactly like saying that music theory doesn’t matter to musicians - they can learn to play by ear, so why do they have to bother with all that theoretical stuff?  

 

The way we all learned to make violins is like playing by ear.  “Here’s a thing - copy it. Why does it look like this? Well, that’s just the way it’s done.”   What I want is violin making theory, so that i can understand the forms I’m making and change them if I want, and still make something that’s traditional. I feel like it’s respectful to do that, and it gives me a feeling of freedom to make whatever I want. I like it when someone looks at an instrument I made and says - “Amati?” or “which del Gesù?”

 

Finally, here’s what I’m working on right now. I recently decided to make a “copy” of a del Gesù violin (not a real copy of, but based on, a really nice fiddle).  I took some measurements from said fiddle, plugged them into my little system (just like in the above-referenced video), and, using proportional dividers and a straightedge, drew a template for a mold (again, following the Andrea Amati recipe in the video - very simple).  Here’s a picture of a quick tracing of the template with and without a washer to draw the edge, laid over a photo of said fiddle. 

vd.thumb.jpeg.c87cc505b73b56301cfe4cbbf91464b8.jpeg

Now - does anyone here want to tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about?  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.