Who are the most undervalued contemporary builders?

[A432]

Again, FWIW,

Quote

Sartory bows have a different concept of graduation and camber than other bows.

Bill Salchow said that a Sartory was essentially a Voirin modified by leaving the throat immediately behind the head about (this is from a spotty memory) 0.5 mm. thicker.

Edited June 3, 2019 by A432
typo

[A432]

some very incredible players use Sartorys

Contemporary (re-)definitions of what "incredible" means diverge from older ones.

[PASEWICZ]

Just now, A432 said:

Again, FWIW,

 

 

Bill Salchow said that a Sartori was essentially a Voirin modified by leaving the throat immediately behind the head about (this is from a spotty memory) 0.5 mm. thicker.

I am not sure I would go along with that.  Voirins have their own idiosyncrasies, including many of them being rather light.  Also, the graduation scheme was different than Sartory, as well as the way they were cambered.  Maybe someday I can ask Bill to explain.....

[PASEWICZ]

Just now, A432 said:

 

 

Contemporary (re-)definitions of what "incredible" means diverge from older ones.

I am saying I have worked on the Sartory bows of very fine soloists who were alive at the time.

[A432]

Quote

 Maybe someday I can ask Bill to explain.....

Bill's been dead for some time now.

Addendum: 5 years.

[PASEWICZ]

Just now, A432 said:

Bill's been dead for some time now.

Yes, I am quite aware.......I am making an assumption that we will be in close proximity once I join him.

[PhilipKT]

1 hour ago, Andreas Preuss said:

I think I asked you how it does come that Scarampella prices rank constantly at the same level as Vuillaume? In my view the only thing which can defend it is the consistency for the sound and the mouth to mouth appreciation of musicians. 

 

I’ve played a Vuillaume, and a dear friend owned a Scarampella for 40 years before selling it at Brompton’s a few years back. The Scarampella took so much work that my back hurt after a typical rehearsal, but it sounded magnificent. The Vuillaume...meh.

[David Beard]

It perhaps isn't the popular view, but I believe a players hand can add dampening and cushion as desired. So I tend to believe that as long as the stick is balanced and tracks straight and isn't too mushy or weak, then player who wants to can make do.  Though a great stick would be more pleasing than something minimal.

This is just a very personal opinion.

[violguy]

Hoping to read something on this subject from Herr Machold

[Don Noon]

Seems like the discussion has wandered off of "contemporary" builders a bit... But it does seem relevant in looking at what becomes valued over time.

It appears to me that in order to be valued, you need to be known, and in order to be known, you need output.  With enough product circulating around, it can be a catalyst for discussion.  With just a few out there, it won't rise above the noise level.

Another point:  rough workmanship might be overlooked down the road if the fundamentals of performance and some level of artistry are there.  However, it seems like those valued quirky makers of the past didn't get much recognition (or pay) in their lifetime.  Are there makers alive today who are highly valued yet produce rough instruments?  Seems to me like the highest valued are really exceptionally well-made, as it likely was in the past.

[PhilipKT]

41 minutes ago, Don Noon said:

and in order to be known, you need output. 

But not too much. There are Matsudas all over the place, and William Whedbee claims 775 instruments. Caron has only made 180. I wonder where the line is between too few and too many.

[not telling]

1 hour ago, violguy said:

Hoping to read something on this subject from Herr Machold

Oh right...he would be finished with his mandatory stay in that mountain paradise by now. Is he allowed to touch violins? Is it a probation violation for him to go on violin boards or to sell a violin on eBay? I'm half serious. He can't hope to re-enter the field, in any way, right?

[not telling]

26 minutes ago, PhilipKT said:

But not too much. There are Matsudas all over the place, and William Whedbee claims 775 instruments. Caron has only made 180. I wonder where the line is between too few and too many.

Yeah, and Douglas Cox claims near 1000. Do the math: output divided by x number of years making. If you care about how they're made, you have your answer. No one can make a high performance machine in a week.

[Michael Szyper]

1 hour ago, not telling said:

Oh right...he would be finished with his mandatory stay in that mountain paradise by now. Is he allowed to touch violins? Is it a probation violation for him to go on violin boards or to sell a violin on eBay? I'm half serious. He can't hope to re-enter the field, in any way, right?

Actually - as far as i know - his son continued the business and is some sort of an established dealer in vienna.

[not telling]

Really! So his old life was just kind of waiting for him. He kept his money, weird laws there.  I wonder if his lover waited for him too. Her face. "OMG I have to post this $800 bottle of wine on MySpace!" It was 2006 in this photo. That probably went up on MySpace.

Edited to add: curious about such things, God help me, I found out the ex-Mrs.Machold dropped him like a hot coal in February 2012. Shame. 

 

 

 

[A432]

Quote

No one can make a high performance machine in a week.

Violins I can't speak to. But bows I can, based on what Salchow said at various times. Which, in turn, was based on the reality of the trade as he lived it in Mirecourt.

Time is money.

There is no difference in quality between what a competent journeyman turns out and what the maestro of the establishment makes.

The difference is this: the journeyman is a journeyman because it takes him a week, and (even assuming he had customers for his work) he couldn't hope to live on what he could get for it at that rate of production; the maestro, with a helper roughing stuff out, and his wife doing laps, grips, hairing &c. can turn out a finished bow per day. 

The fine points of "style" that characterize French bow work are what he termed "hasty elegance" -- what resulted from having worked at 60 miles an hour for 20 years, like handwriting is (or, was) personally distinctive. (Pecatte, at the extreme end of the continuum, worked at 120 miles an hour).

Parallel examples come to mind spontaneously -- in Italy, Guarneri Del Gesu, Storioni, Scarampella, the Testore clan, and so on. Same issue. In dire economic straits (like mid-19th century France and 18th century Italy -- see Hargrave's background piece on those times*), craftsmen worked sun to sun and died with their tools in their hands. Out of dire necessity.

That's the basis of Sacconi's dictum to copyists/restorers (memory) Cento misuri, e uno taglio solo. (Measure it 100 times -- if you need to -- but execute it with one stroke of the tool, the way they did. Otherwise it looks wrong, because it is wrong).

FWIW

_____

*Saving pennies is "why" the odd woods show up in mid-19th century French bows. It was cheaper, and usable. You can't underestimate how crushing economic forces were. E.g., student quality bows were fitted with used hair (reversed) from better ones that were rehaired.

[PASEWICZ]

1 hour ago, A432 said:

Violins I can't speak to. But bows I can, based on what Salchow said at various times. Which, in turn, was based on the reality of the trade as he lived it in Mirecourt.

Time is money.

There is no difference in quality between what a competent journeyman turns out and what the maestro of the establishment makes.

The difference is this: the journeyman is a journeyman because it takes him a week, and (even assuming he had customers for his work) he couldn't hope to live on what he could get for it at that rate of production; the maestro, with a helper roughing stuff out, and his wife doing laps, grips, hairing &c. can turn out a finished bow per day. 

*Saving pennies is "why" the odd woods show up in mid-19th century French bows. It was cheaper, and usable. You can't underestimate how crushing economic forces were. E.g., student quality bows were fitted with used hair (reversed) from better ones that were rehaired.

Are you saying that these tidbits came from Bill Salchow?  These sound a whole bunch like fish stories; because of realities of the work, this not possible without some key missing piece of information. These along with other questionable things you have posted, and your desire for anonymity, are raising red flags...especially as you are attributing them to a respected figure in the field that can no longer defend himself......do you, or have you, worked in the field? 

[Andreas Preuss]

4 hours ago, Don Noon said:

Seems like the discussion has wandered off of "contemporary" builders a bit... But it does seem relevant in looking at what becomes valued over time.

It appears to me that in order to be valued, you need to be known, and in order to be known, you need output.  With enough product circulating around, it can be a catalyst for discussion.  With just a few out there, it won't rise above the noise level.

Another point:  rough workmanship might be overlooked down the road if the fundamentals of performance and some level of artistry are there.  However, it seems like those valued quirky makers of the past didn't get much recognition (or pay) in their lifetime.  Are there makers alive today who are highly valued yet produce rough instruments?  Seems to me like the highest valued are really exceptionally well-made, as it likely was in the past.

There are a few violin makers in Jaoan whose work is rather rough but somehow seem to make a living on it. Not that I heard they are driving around in the latest model Mercedes.

Actually I think it happened in the past that one of the rough working guys found a player who would support him on the basis of sound. Can't name anyone directly from my memory but with some research certainly could dig someone out. 

 

[Aubrey K Alexander]

I’m only chiming in because a birdie told me I was mentioned. 

Instead of saying ‘undervalued’ I prefer ‘really f**king good deal.’ 

[Scoiattola]

As a player, I am interested first in a tool that can recoup the initial investment. For me that means, can I earn enough income playing on the instrument to make it a reasonable investment? Obviously, for certain multi-million dollar instruments, that isn’t practical (unless I win the lottery - which I don’t play in the first place!).

I am familiar with the work of the old guys (Tony, Joe, et. al.), as well as the new guys (Sam, Joe, et. al.), and I have to say the new guys have made fiddles that would be great instruments to play on in halls across the world - one can make a (hopefully financially viable) career on these instruments, and from this perspective, they are all “undervalued”.

A few mentions (by no means complete!!!) of some instruments that stuck in my memory:

• Colin Gallahue’s VSA gold fiddle of a few years ago
• A George Stoppani copy of the Titian
• Ted Skrekko’s personal model
• a George Yu copy of an Amati
• an Alkis Rappas violin, that went to a member of the Dallas Symphony
• A violin by Justin Hess, which won a VSA gold
• A violin by Stefan-Peter Greiner, belonging to Deutsche Stiftung
• A violin by Ryan Soltis, which won a VSA silver (tone)
• A violin by Phillip Ihle, which won a VSA gold
• A Bergonzi copy by Masayuki Komatsu from Vienna (which I believe won some kind of European award)

Looking at the list above, I notice a great number of competition winners. I suspect that the things that juries look for in terms of craftsmanship (?effective ground/varnish, appropriate arching and graduation, etc.?) are all things that have a great (cumulative) impact on tone, playability, output, etc. At any rate, the setup on all the above fiddles was superb!

Cheers,

Scoiattola

 

[nathan slobodkin]

6 hours ago, Don Noon said:

Seems like the discussion has wandered off of "contemporary" builders a bit... But it does seem relevant in looking at what becomes valued over time.

It appears to me that in order to be valued, you need to be known, and in order to be known, you need output.  With enough product circulating around, it can be a catalyst for discussion.  With just a few out there, it won't rise above the noise level.

Another point:  rough workmanship might be overlooked down the road if the fundamentals of performance and some level of artistry are there.  However, it seems like those valued quirky makers of the past didn't get much recognition (or pay) in their lifetime.  Are there makers alive today who are highly valued yet produce rough instruments?  Seems to me like the highest valued are really exceptionally well-made, as it likely was in the past.

Well made and rough are not opposites. Rough is a stylistic element which can be very attractive as shown by good Scarampellas, GDG and many of the Brescians. Some rough looking instruments are indeed very well made and some beautifully finished instruments while very functional are extremely rough inside such as the Amatis.

Criteria for instruments which are valued highly today:

Sound good when new. Meet (or set) current fashions in appearance. Good advertising and visibility of the maker.

Criteria for instruments which will be valued in the future:

Sound good over time. Don't fall apart and can be depended on to perform reliably under variable conditions. Recognizable style based on sound artistic principles. Reasonable body of work.

Obviously some popular makers of today will also be valued over time but some will fade  into obscurity. Like wise some past makers whose work was not really appreciated in their lifetimes such as Scarampella and GDG have turned out to have lasting value.

 

 

[joerobson]

4 hours ago, Aubrey K Alexander said:

I’m only chiming in because a birdie told me I was mentioned. 

Instead of saying ‘undervalued’ I prefer ‘really f**king good deal.’ 

Yeah...but I'm not allowed to say it that way!

on we go,

Joe

[David Burgess]

8 hours ago, Aubrey K Alexander said:

I’m only chiming in because a birdie told me I was mentioned. 

Instead of saying ‘undervalued’ I prefer ‘really f**king good deal.’ 

Tisk tisk. 

[gowan]

15 hours ago, not telling said:

Yeah, and Douglas Cox claims near 1000. Do the math: output divided by x number of years making. If you care about how they're made, you have your answer. No one can make a high performance machine in a week.

You seem to be implying that it isn't possible to make a good instrument quickly, GdG not withstanding.  Cox's number seems high but, if I remember correctly, he's been making instruments for over 50 years so he averages under 20 instruments per year.  Is it so unusual to make 20 violins in a year, especially if that's mostly what you do rather than doing a lot of repairs and restoration?

[nathan slobodkin]

13 hours ago, not telling said:

Yeah, and Douglas Cox claims near 1000. Do the math: output divided by x number of years making. If you care about how they're made, you have your answer. No one can make a high performance machine in a week.

 

Not so.

I worked across a bench from Matsuda for several years and he is one of the most careful and self critical makers one could imagine. Hence the double gold medals at the (Ottawa?) VSA competition. His high out put is the result of knowing exactly what order to do things in so that there is no down time for drying glue and having the confidence to use saws and large gouges to cut very close to finished lines. Also some pretty clever machinery for more mechanical tasks like shaping blocks or cutting purfling grooves. Definitely the cleanest, most precise and fastest maker in a shop where most people had an award or two under their belts.

Rene Morel said that the quota when he was working in MIrecourt was three good quality finished white instruments a week.