Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Rib Taper hypothesis #43,759


sospiri
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 1/3/2021 at 8:50 AM, Sapiens said:

Would you develop a bit more on that? I tend to believe despite the wedge system, neck angle is crucial.

A modern maker has to get that angle for the fingerboard near perfect when setting the neck.

 

The old system allowed the makers to set this critical fingerboard angle at a later time the neck setting.  The wedge can be set at a later time, and gives the critical angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 452
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 1/3/2021 at 8:50 AM, Sapiens said:

True, but also loads of examples where the purfling goes further away under the fb 

I am unaware of "loads" of Cremonese instruments that have their original neck joints intact, so I doubt we could find a scientific sample, but most of the examples that I've seen have a purfling channel that ends similarly to the Andrea Guarneri pictured above. Are you aware of other specific instruments with baroque necks intact that illustrate your point?

I've seen one Strad, but it has a curious joint in the purfling at about where the channel ends on the Guarneri above, and has had it's baroque neck lengthened and re-attached with a shoe, so I've never been fully confident that it wasn't improved while the neck was off.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On January 3, 2021 at 2:57 AM, David Beard said:

Also. Neck angle a non issue for the old makers, since they used a wedge system.

Doesn't prevent the sinking in of the neck after stringing up though. 

However I have no idea how much this would/could happen in a pure baroque style set up with lower string tension. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andreas Preuss said:

Doesn't prevent the sinking in of the neck after stringing up though. 

However I have no idea how much this would/could happen in a pure baroque style set up with lower string tension. 

 

And, the could have strung up without FB for a month before setting wedge.  And, a wedge can be removed and replaced.

 

However you slice it, a wedge is a more adjustable and less finicky way set FB angle.  Too bad it isn't still the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Three13 said:

VAre you aware of other specific instruments with baroque necks intact that illustrate your point?

Check out the Messiah and the Lady Blunt, they are enough to give a clear picture of what we’re talking about. 
Have you ever tried to fit a purfling under a baroque fb? Even A. Guarneri style? I’m pretty convinced the experience would speak for itself.

 

13 hours ago, David Beard said:

A modern maker has to get that angle for the fingerboard near perfect when setting the neck.

 

The old system allowed the makers to set this critical fingerboard angle at a later time the neck setting.  The wedge can be set at a later time, and gives the critical angle.

So you think they didn’t care too much about neck angle? 
What you’re saying is Cremonese makers randomly nailed a neck on the ribs at any angle and corrected the potential errors by adjusting the wedge shape of the f/b, is that right?

Sorry, I'm new here, but there is something I don't quite understand: why, nowadays, do we give so much importance and respect to certain aspects of the making of the great masters (varnish, arching, etc.) rather than to other aspects of their making that are considered as random, kind of amateur work? 
Why can't we see that they mastered all the aspects of making and that is why their instruments were played all over Europe in the greatest courts? And that properly adjusting the angle of the neck contributed to the success of making a great instrument because it has an impact on the stringing and the tension of the string, but also on the pressure on the bridge, etc., all of which is crucial for sound. I’m just wondering, happy to read your thoughts.

Edited by Sapiens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Sapiens said:

Check out the Messiah and the Lady Blunt, they are enough to give a clear picture of what we’re talking about. 
Have you ever tried to fit a purfling under a baroque fb? Even A. Guarneri style? I’m pretty convinced the experience would speak for itself.

 

So you think they didn’t care too much about neck angle? 
What you’re saying is Cremonese makers randomly nailed a neck on the ribs at any angle and corrected the potential errors by adjusting the wedge shape of the f/b, is that right?

Sorry, I'm new here, but there is something I don't quite understand: why, nowadays, do we give so much importance and respect to certain aspects of the making of the great masters (varnish, arching, etc.) rather than to other aspects of their making that are considered as random, kind of amateur work? 
Why can't we see that they mastered all the aspects of making and that is why their instruments were played all over Europe in the greatest courts? And that properly adjusting the angle of the neck contributed to the success of making a great instrument because it has an impact on the stringing and the tension of the string, but also on the pressure on the bridge, etc., all of which is crucial for sound. I’m just wondering, happy to read your thoughts.

False.  I'm saying the modern moment to care is when you set the neck.  You have to get a good neck and a good FB angle at that moment.

The old moment to care about the FB angle is later, when you set the wedge.  You still need a good neck set, but some issues are different.

 

Modern making is different.  It gets its roots from industrialization.  The orientation is to copy work, and the approach derives from efforts toward precision, repeatability, and control on the 'high effort' side of things and efficiency, speed, and low costs on the other hand.

None of this has much to do with tradition based artisan workshops of old Cremona, aiming at princely results.

 

In the transition to a modernized approach, not only were old methods and tools replaced, but the sequence of events was rearranged.

There is no reason to believe our priorities and work sequence matched up with theirs.

 

Why on earth would they master the things we care about that they didn't have a concern for or even use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, David Beard said:

False.  I'm saying the modern moment to care is when you set the neck.  You have to get a good neck and a good FB angle at that moment.

The old moment to care about the FB angle is later, when you set the wedge.  You still need a good neck set, but some issues are different.

 

Modern making is different.  It gets its roots from industrialization.  The orientation is to copy work, and the approach derives from efforts toward precision, repeatability, and control on the 'high effort' side of things and efficiency, speed, and low costs on the other hand.

None of this has much to do with tradition based artisan workshops of old Cremona, aiming at princely results.

 

In the transition to a modernized approach, not only were old methods and tools replaced, but the sequence of events was rearranged.

There is no reason to believe our priorities and work sequence matched up with theirs.

 

Why on earth would they master the things we care about that they didn't have a concern for or even use?

Thanks.

What kind of things they didn’t have a concern for?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Beard said:

Setting the FB angle at the time the set the neck.

Tracing an outline to make a copy.

Making the sides perfectly square.

Damar

Metal strings eating the fingerboard

Graduating the top

Still  missing on the list

perfect or near perfect symmetry

using absolute measurements (instead of relative measurements. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, David Beard said:

Setting the FB angle at the time the set the neck.

Tracing an outline to make a copy.

Making the sides perfectly square.

Damar

Metal strings eating the fingerboard

Graduating the top

Setting the FB angle at the time the set the neck
Right, sequence is a bit different but don’t understand why there concern about these been less important than nowadays.

Tracing an outline to make a copy. 
Almost any maker outside Italy copied the Amatis, so at least some people had to deal with tracing an outline to make a copy

Making the sides perfectly square.

yeah that’s true and thank god they didn’t care about that, one of the reason why they are still pleasant to look at (together with not being concerned about perfect symmetry)

Damar

Do you mean the resin?

Metal strings eating the fingerboard

As soon as wound strings were introduced they also had to deal with this problem, mid 17th c

Graduating the top

Maybe seen through the expertise of an engineer they didn’t have a great concern about graduating there tops but at last they were concerned enough to make instruments we still copy and study today

using absolute measurements (instead of relative measurements. 

whatever the way they measure didn’t mean they didn’t have concern about precision and repeatability of there measurements 

 

I may be a little naive to think that they cared about every detail, but so far you haven't proven me wrong ;-)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2021 at 8:45 AM, Sapiens said:

Setting the FB angle at the time the set the neck
Right, sequence is a bit different but don’t understand why there concern about these been less important than nowadays.

 

Tracing an outline to make a copy. 
Almost any maker outside Italy copied the Amatis, so at least some people had to deal with tracing an outline to make a copy

Making the sides perfectly square.

yeah that’s true and thank god they didn’t care about that, one of the reason why they are still pleasant to look at (together with not being concerned about perfect symmetry)

Damar

Do you mean the resin?

Metal strings eating the fingerboard

As soon as wound strings were introduced they also had to deal with this problem, mid 17th c

Graduating the top

Maybe seen through the expertise of an engineer they didn’t have a great concern about graduating there tops but at last they were concerned enough to make instruments we still copy and study today

using absolute measurements (instead of relative measurements. 

whatever the way they measure didn’t mean they didn’t have concern about precision and repeatability of there measurements 

 

I may be a little naive to think that they cared about every detail, but so far you haven't proven me wrong ;-)

 

 

Look, I'm not saying they were careless.

This came up in the context of worrying about setting the FB projection at the moment you set the neck.

That particular concern at that particular moment is big for modern styke making. But for the old makers, that concern wasn't relevant at the moment they set the neck.

I beleive that when considering their old work it's valuable to be alert to places like this where their viewpoint was different.

 

You're translating this very limited observation too broadly.  I am not saying they weren't careful.  Only that their care wasn't in all ways expressed identically or in the same places as most modern making.

With the graduations for example, there is great care in a way, but also a much lower precision than much modern making aims at.  There is a random drifting of thickness in their work on a scale of about +/- .1 or maybe .15mm.  You can see this in thickness maps.  Such a thing is probably less precise than most modern makers aspire to.  Also, many modern makers (as in post 1800) have 'graduated' their top plates in the sense of tapering from thinner to thicker as you travel from center to edge.  But mappings of classical top plates strongly suggest more of an equal thickness 'diagram' concept of the top, with perhaps patches of deliberate thinning here and there.   And even the backs can be seen in this light, but with an extra patch of tapered mass imposed on the otherwise 'diaphragm' thicknessing.  This is why I suggested 'graduations' are a modern concern.

There are many details were classical making did something different than Mirecourt based making.  And, a great portion of modern making concerns stem more from Mirecourt than from Cremona.    

Of course, there have been makers that follow a great many details very directly from Cremona work.  But overall, Mirecourt (and similar) influence is very deeply imbeded, and hard to shake off.  It's even challenging just to realize how deeply Newwark making is essentially dressed up and educated Mirecourt making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vuillaume hailed from Mirecourt, as did his pal Chanot who wrote a dissertation on modernizing making which seens to have influenced Vuillaume.   

Vuillaume and the other French makers around that time were foundational in developing modern copying based making.

No???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Beard said:

Vuillaume hailed from Mirecourt, as did his pal Chanot who wrote a dissertation on modernizing making which seens to have influenced Vuillaume.   

Vuillaume and the other French makers around that time were foundational in developing modern copying based making.

No???

Some contemporary makers are into copying, and some are not.

What is your sample size of contemporary makers? Mine is rather large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, David Beard said:

Yes. As you say, not everyone.

Then might you be willing to retract your rather broad-brushed and uninformed characterization of contemporary makers?

I will freely admit that my personal working style is on the clean side.

Davide Sora has managed to go far above most of what comes out of Cremona these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, David Beard said:

And, a great portion of modern making concerns stem more from Mirecourt than from Cremona.

J.B. Vuillaume came from a violin making family in Mirecourt which can be traced back to the early c17th - the violins they made were far removed from what we would consider to be modern and no one uses those models today. J.B. Vuillaume broke from that tradition when he moved to Paris.

I'm not sure he would take too kindly to being considered less educated than someone trained in Newark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This why I say hard to acknowledge.  There is emotional resitance to admitting that copy work and innovative work are also automatically delinked from old Cremona work to some extent.

How far a maker's work departs varies by maker.  But still, it's there.

There is resistance to acknowledge this at all.  This is why I say it's difficult to acknowledge the extent of departure from old Cremona work, because their is a desire to deny that difference entirely 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, David Beard said:

This why I say hard to acknowledge.  There is emotional resitance to admitting that copy work and innovative work are also automatically delinked from old Cremona work to some extent...

...There is resistance to a knowledge this at all. 

Mine, or yours?

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...