Self-taught violin makers; seconde parte

[David Burgess]

8 minutes ago, Bodacious Cowboy said:

Some of the wisest words I've seen on this forum. 

Wiser than "There once was a man from Nantucket..."?

[Bodacious Cowboy]

49 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

Wiser than "There once was a man from Nantucket..."?

Of course not. I only said some of the wisest words 

[Wood Butcher]

2 hours ago, Violadamore said:

However true it is, IMHO, it's a pompous and pretentious pile of pontification, apparently designed to discourage (and irritate) every amateur luthier on this forum.  It certainly could have been presented more diplomatically.

Should you not want to read my words, there is the ignore function which you can use.

A forum is a place for people to share opinions, those are my opinions. Ones which have formed from being put in the position of having to play violins made by amateurs, and then discuss what I thought about them afterwards. The same issues crop up, time and again.

In this day and age, where everyone is a winner for just taking part, you can sugar coat everything should you wish. The reality is, quicker progress is made by getting to the heart of the matter. The OP question was presented in a list format, which is exactly how I have replied to it.

[martin swan]

2 hours ago, Violadamore said:

However true it is, IMHO, it's a pompous and pretentious pile of pontification, apparently designed to discourage (and irritate) every amateur luthier on this forum.  It certainly could have been presented more diplomatically.

 

I'm baffled by this. Isn't it exactly what the OP asked for? I don't think it's either pompous or pretentious. Whatever the divide is between a self-taught novice and an experienced and respected maker, I think Wood Butcher gave a good analysis,

[Dennis J]

Understanding violin design and the geometry behind it should be the first step. And replicating that, preferably with pencil and paper. All the information needed to do that is out there.

[Violadamore]

14 minutes ago, martin swan said:

I'm baffled by this. Isn't it exactly what the OP asked for? I don't think it's either pompous or pretentious. Whatever the divide is between a self-taught novice and an experienced and respected maker, I think Wood Butcher gave a good analysis,

I feel that it was the "amateurs do this", as in all of us, all the time, across the board, tone of it that I objected to. The tone struck me as divisive.  A more inclusive, "you have to avoid doing..." approach, would be more to my taste.  The previous thread seemed much more balanced, IMHO. 

[Marty Kasprzyk]

On 1/10/2023 at 2:09 PM, Violadamore said:

>

And how about whoever it was who first quit making lutes and viols to invent the violin? 

We're all artistically descended from a complete maverick. 

The instruments that predated the violin were plain looking.  The violin's inventor maverick added the nonfunctional ornate Baroque period scroll and pointed corners.  These remind me of the artistic fins put on cars back in the late 1950s.

 

[Violadamore]

15 minutes ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

The instruments that predated the violin were plain looking.  The violin's inventor maverick added the nonfunctional ornate Baroque period scroll and pointed corners.  These remind me of the artistic fins put on cars back in the late 1950s.

 

 

Now, that brings back some good memories........... 

[Andreas Preuss]

3 hours ago, Bodacious Cowboy said:

This is an interesting observation. I know some really fine makers who have professional level visual arts skills. And other fine makers who couldn't draw to save their lives. Which is kind of weird, really.

I think more makers in the latter group had struggle to get where they are. It’s also unlikely that they do a lot of variations. I think that those makers rely often on their own pre made patterns to avoid free style ‘drawing’ in their work.

[JacksonMaberry]

I am not naturally gifted at drawing, or anything really. But I agree with Andreas that working at drawing regardless of aptitude and trying to improve is a valuable investment of time. I would say that it has been an exercise that has helped me improve as a maker. 

[Bodacious Cowboy]

48 minutes ago, Andreas Preuss said:

I think more makers in the latter group had struggle to get where they are. It’s also unlikely that they do a lot of variations. I think that those makers rely often on their own pre made patterns to avoid free style ‘drawing’ in their work.

Yes, you could have a point there. I, of course, am in the former category. My anatomical masterpieces have graced the walls of men's rooms throughout the civilized world.

[JacksonMaberry]

The original question, emphasis mine: 

On 1/9/2023 at 9:15 AM, Rico Suave said:

What are the 5 or 6 (or 10 - or more?) most common stylistic errors that a self-taught novice is likely commit?

The notion of "stylistic errors" implies the existence of any one or even a small handful of acceptable styles. But even a superficial survey of well regarded instruments would seem to suggest that there is none. If one were to place a Da Salo, an Andrea Amati, a golden period Strad, an early and a late del Gesu, a Stainer, a Piacenza Guad, a Gennaro Gagliano, a Serafin, and whatever else you can imagine on a table, there would be little other than the general shape in common. Yes, they all have scrolls, corners, soundholes in common. But the nuts and bolts of how they are designed geometrically, the selection of materials, and how the pieces were worked and with what tools... General trends that you'd expect of a common trade will be apparent to those that use tools to work wood. But the exact "how's" clearly differ, and that's wherein style can be found. 

As to the matter of how a self taught amateur might hope to proceed, I don't have anything to add beyond what others here, especially Andreas and Melvin, have said already and better than I could. Exhaustive study, persistent effort, and a willing humility are going to help. 

[arglebargle]

It might be as simple as you know it when you see it. I (and most people here) have been moved in some ineffable way when holding or observing a great instrument. It takes practice and looking at a lot of instruments, but after many years you can spot crap from a mile away, competence is a welcome relief, and artistry/mastery is a rare shining light. Asking what signs to look for as a new maker is like asking how will I know if I paint good portraits. If you are asking, go find beautiful instruments to look at. And then understand why they are beautiful. We make tools, but also art, but mostly tools, but a little art, but tools. Mostly.

It has always struck me as curious that violin making is the rare artistic endeavor where anyones early efforts are expected to be lauded. Where the question "but why is mine not as good as these" is even humored. Were I to show my third thrown pot or my second marble sculpture to a professional in the field I would expect nothing but criticism. Maybe constructive, but with a big bucket of cold water as well.

[Guido]

On 1/10/2023 at 5:35 PM, Michael Szyper said:

do you know shops in the us which redo the setup on a regular basis? 

Even though this has been answered, I'd like to add an observation on set-up.

I have violin #136 of a currently still active maker (I think he is in the 600s now).

The violin is really well crafted and beautiful. At #136 from someone with any talent, you'd expect that.

However, the original bridge bearing his name is thick and clumsy and ugly. I'm keeping it as a token but would not consider it appropriate for use.

If you are predominantly or purely a maker and haven't spend much time working on/ setting up violins, and you haven't cut hundreds of bridges; your set-ups are unlikely to pass muster with a good shop.

Making 100 violins might be a lot. Cutting 100 bridges is barely getting started.

[Michael Szyper]

1 hour ago, Guido said:

Even though this has been answered, I'd like to add an observation on set-up.

I have violin #136 of a currently still active maker (I think he is in the 600s now).

The violin is really well crafted and beautiful. At #136 from someone with any talent, you'd expect that.

However, the original bridge bearing his name is thick and clumsy and ugly. I'm keeping it as a token but would not consider it appropriate for use.

If you are predominantly or purely a maker and haven't spend much time working on/ setting up violins, and you haven't cut hundreds of bridges; your set-ups are unlikely to pass muster with a good shop.

Making 100 violins might be a lot. Cutting 100 bridges is barely getting started.

if you know where to go it may take 3 attempts to reach the goal, if you don’t know the directions you might still fail at attempt no 1000. I see what you want to tell, but making ugly bridges after 100 attempts shows just the lack of a clear vision what a good bridge is.

[Rico Suave]

On 1/11/2023 at 2:06 PM, Dennis J said:

Understanding violin design and the geometry behind it should be the first step. And replicating that, preferably with pencil and paper. All the information needed to do that is out there.

I think studying and understanding the "Golden Mean" is of paramount importance to folk recreating historical art and craft forms, especially, and still beneficial in application to modern works and designs. 

[David Burgess]

9 hours ago, Violadamore said:

Now, that brings back some good memories........... 

Yes, that was back before manufacturers switched from bench seats to bucket seats, effectively bringing an end to the parking lot hanky-panky era. (The change also happened to coincide with  large reduction in birth rates.)

[HoGo]

Talking about self taugh makers of today with all the possible sources I would divide them into two basic categories - eccentric guys who intentionally do things (all or at least some) their own weird way and those who want to make the "real" authentic violins looking like the prized classical examples. I'll talk about the latter.

As ful self-taught maker myself I would sum the whole in just one sentence. Maker must learn what looks like good (or excellent) instrument and what not both in visual part and construction. Once he can recognize that AND apply it to his product his instruments will be recognised as good instruments.

Most self taught amateurs or beginners fail on this one aspect. Even if general woodwork is good, beginners often overdo or underdo the details that make violin look and work like it should. They can have drawings and posters but the eye-hand coordination is trained only through experience and good teacher makes progress much faster. Like in the one f teh latests threads we see a violin with too wide chamfers, another time it is too bulky edgework or too much overhang or thick, or varnish too thick or too much colored. Same with carving any part, knowing when to stop is essential and that's what shows experience level, IMO

[David Burgess]

13 hours ago, Bodacious Cowboy said:

This is an interesting observation. I know some really fine makers who have professional level visual arts skills. And other fine makers who couldn't draw to save their lives. Which is kind of weird, really.

Some people conceptualize and execute better in 3D than in 2D. I am one of those who can't draw for chit!
Perhaps that's because a lot more of my experience comes from looking at actual violins, and carving on stuff,  than looking at photos and drawings?

[Rico Suave]

 

Do any Makers here use Golden Mean / Fibonacci Proportional Dividers for layout?

 

[JacksonMaberry]

8 minutes ago, Rico Suave said:

 

Do any Makers here use Golden Mean / Fibonacci Proportional Dividers for layout?

 

Lots of us use proportional geometry. Writers on this include Kevin Kelly, Francois Denis, David Beard, and many others, who have been super influential. As to the Fibonacci or the golden ratio figures, they can be observed on surviving instruments but don't appear to be as important or consistently applied as basic integer ratios. There is a great deal of post ex facto romanticism surrounding the supposed use of these however.

[Christopher Jacoby]

My two quickest impressions of amateur work are usually:

1. The recurve into the corners is too extreme-- they're not actually LOOKING at the old violins they're working from.

2. There's no black in the varnish, leaving whatever effect they achieve anemic, and wack.

[Deo Lawson]

I think the biggest sign of amateur work, judging from my own, is a misunderstanding of scale. My feeling is the tendency is to go too BIG as opposed to too small, especially on corners, scrolls, et cetera. Another thing is that "it'll be fine" attitude... No, it won't. Go slowly.

[Michael Szyper]

21 hours ago, Christopher Jacoby said:

My two quickest impressions of amateur work are usually:

1. The recurve into the corners is too extreme-- they're not actually LOOKING at the old violins they're working from.

2. There's no black in the varnish, leaving whatever effect they achieve anemic, and wack.

No matter if amateur or pro,  the easiest way for me to get an impression is to look at the varnish, corners and f hole fluting. 

[Christopher Jacoby]

16 minutes ago, Michael Szyper said:

No matter if amateur or pro,  the easiest way for me to get an impression is to look at the varnish, corners and f hole fluting. 

That's a solid trio!