shorter neck on baroque era cellos?

[baroquecello]

Bit of background: I've studied baroque cello at two concservatories in Germany (Bremen and Frankfurt) with prominent baroque  players. I have quite some experience performing. I also have a keen interest in instruments, both historical and modern, and instrument making. So I'm not entirely new to the matter at hand.

 

Recently I've come across a paper and a number or people that stated that the neck on most baroque cellos was shorter than the modern neck by quite a bit. This is something new to me. Ofcourse, the baroque neck was different, set at a different angle, with a wedged fingerboard that was shorter and often laminated etc etc etc. But I've never heard of the baroque neck being shorter than a modern one. It would make sense, I guess, on those large patter cellos, to have a shorter neck, so that the string length ends up almost like a modern standard length. I'm just really surprised I never heard of this before.

 

Anyone care to comment with knowledge or opinion?

[jacobsaunders]

Should one pursue ones own “research” i.e. measure the few genuinely really original undisturbed necks oneself, one comes to the conclusion that nothing was entirely standardised, and there was certainly no quasi DIN Norm such as today. It becomes infuriating to have to resist the notion that there was a baroque “norm” which is propagated by books such as the one from Melkus for instance. This problem isn’t confined to necks; also bridges, bass bars, fingerboards, tailpieces, and everything else. I have even been asked to make a “proper” baroque bridge once for a Thir violin that had it’s original one!

[Mark Caudle]

Despite the extreme decorative carving it is interesting that the Domenico Galli cello of 1691 has an undoubtedly original and very short neck. Lots of pictures if you search online. Of course you could argue that it isn't a musical instrument for practical use but I don't see any reason that he would not have followed acceptable proportions for the set-up of the time 

[Bruce Carlson]

Doesn't this have to do with the musical role that the cello in early music? There wasn't much reason to go climbing up the fingerboard or was there?

[Mark Caudle]

In the 17th century French orchestra where the basse de violon (tuned in Bb) was sometimes part of the basse continue and required to play quite high, the solution was to add a fifth string (basse de violon a cinque cordes). Otherwise the high limit on the Bb tuning seems to have been f above middle c But the motivation for a longer neck would have been to get a decent sound in the bass with all uncovered gut stringing. Many of the pictures of bass violins from the 16th century show instruments with a long neck. Another solution which exists on an ?old? instrument that I have, with original neck is to place the f holes and therefore bridge much lower than norma to give a long string length on a reasonable size instrumentl.  But as Jacob says, a complete lack of standardisation

[baroquecello]

Thank you for all your replies.

Yes, ofcourse, a lack of standardisation. But in many cases, one can speak of a relative tendency (relative/contrasting to modern practise). for instance, bass bars. There existed bass bars as large as those nowadays, but there existed many shorter ones too, so the "average" bass bar would have been shorter. And graduation patterns: the average violin plate will have been thicker than the average modern state of old violins, as they can only have been made thinner in the centuries following their creation. 

Likely an averaged out instrument is something that never existed. It would be so interesting to know what combination of specs would have made an instrument that would have been considered successful. For instance, do a short bass bar and a thick top gradutation pattern go hand in hand? And if so, what way would they have made the bridge to work well with such a top? Do a short neck and a large cello pattern go hand in hand? etc. etc.

@Mark CaudleOn a side note, I'm not convinced of the low bridge placement argument based on iconography, especially not starting the second half of the 17th century. I think the cause of placing the bridge too low is one of a mistake of perspective by the artists. I've read a very convincing article about this once explaining the phenomenon and showing more than enough 19th and 20th century examples of the very same mistake even by quite good painters. (Unfortunately I do not rememember where I read it.) I also do not believe that the f-hole nicks were ever intended as merely ornamental; if they were, they would have been celebrated more (and ofcourse one can find f holes where the nicks are "celebrated". But look at c holes, a whole different story and an earlier invention. No c hole nicks). I believe bridge placement  invariably leaves permanent marks in the varnish, and I've yet to see a historical ful size instrument that shows marks of a (very) low bridge placement in the varnish. Do you know examples of that? Or do you possibly know of written sources?

 

Regarding the domenico Galli cello, that certainly is interesting. It does look a small on the whole, is it full size? I can find a lot of images, but cannot seem to find a description.

[Mark Caudle]

I think the Galli instrument is large and I have some measurements somewhere. I'll have a look. I was referring to an instrument of mine about the low bridge position but I am not sure whether this is really an old instrument or one made later in a local tradition looking backwards. Here is a picture anyway.