Violin Forum/Message Board

[Michael Darnton]

Too.
Much.
Thinking.
:-)
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

[L P Reedy]

Maybe more like fantasy than thinking.

[John Cadd]

Well at least I managed to shift us off page Thirteen for anyone that suffers from Triskeidekaphobia. It`s still Christmas so you can use that in a scrabble game if you don`t like Bumper Bundles of Christmas questions . Cheers .

[ctviolin]

One interesting thing about violin making , I have found, is the vast amount of theory that exists behind why they work the way they do.

for an interesting example of what I'm getting at - just try to read the two volume "Research Papers in Violin Acoustics". Everyone apparently thinks there is a scientific explanation. But such theories accomplish not much useful in the main. (my opinion only)

The one thing that we must admit, is that they (violins) DO work the way they work. Even if we don't understand exactly how that is, or why that is - they work exactly the way they do.
Or exactly what the cause is as to why particular violins work a specific way, in fact a majority of instruments appear not to work specifically in the particular way we might expect or desire, specifically in regard to what might be termed tonal quality of output.

That we CAN understand this with our ears, when certain players play certain instruments, is interesting and remains an arguable truth, depending on the ability or listening skill of the particular observer(s) involved.

Though the fact is, as makers, we also try to understand this phenomenon with our brain as if it was an after effect of construction specifics that can be related to specific applicable facts applied to the construction of violins in terms of such things as thickness-ing of plates, or a matter of constituency of ingredients in the varnish - or some such specific relating to how the instrument was constructed - relating to the specifics of the measurements of the individual ingredients or "parts" used.

Which, in a way has to be true.

I'm trying to be specific here, with the terminology I use, just to make sure that I am describing 'specifics' that we can all agree on. There are so many "magical qualities" that can creep in, that I often avoid these type conversations.

My personal belief is that there are no specific measurements that can be looked for in specific violins, that describe or quantify a specific outcome in tone (after all, what specific output are we trying to specify or replicate here?) because of the fact that they (the violins, that is) use different individual pieces of wood in there construction that determine the quality of "musical" output, of tonality.

The fact is (at least, in my weak scientific opinion) that there is a connection THERE, that is in fact, much more intuitive, than it is technical. Therefore, it may well not be deductible in exactly scientific or mathematical terms.
It, as a quality that results in a structure that produces specific tonality when played with tensioned strings and with a bow, that particular result may be well above scientific specifics, and may well be related to a specific aesthetic "native ability" that could be described as a "gift" of human ability. An artistic "gift" or a talent.

After all, much about music can be ascribed to human perception, rather than strict scientific factoring.


It is my firm observation after making only (approx forty eight) violins that there are specifications involved in the construction of a standard violin that cannot be overlooked, that are replicable and learn able as a standard, but, that the tone is a result of the exact individual wood(s) involved and that the particulars involved with the exact dimensions required, have to do with the specifics of the individual pieces of wood - and not specific mathematical formula that apply uniformly but do not specify a strict formula about the minute differences applicable because of the differences that exist in individual pieces of wood. If there is a connection with the structural requirements and a mathematical formula, then that remains a hidden unknown generally at this time. It might be considered realistic but coincidental at this point in time.

Whether or not the historical figures (Strad. et al) had access to a specific technique, formula, or math, or whether they were simply there during a specific point in history when this ""talent"" was prevalent - who knows?
In a way - who cares?
It appears not to be the case now, unless one of the "magical" ingredients we don't quite understand the requirements of, is time. Or should I say; time combined with a great amount of innate skill.
_________________
Look,
Listen,
Learn.

[Lemuel]

[Michael Darnton]

I think it's a more relevant problem to replicate the behavior of Cremonese violins than the "sound", whatever that is (which I don't think will ever be defined, because there's not ONE sound.)
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

[ctviolin]

[ctviolin]

[Michael Darnton]

[Canuck]

I am not a luthier. My sphere of interests encompasses a number of other areas, one of them of course, is my violins. Another area of interest is tower clocks! You have all heard of Big Ben, in London. Big Ben is not a clock. It is a bell! What does a bell have to do with violins you might well ask. Nothing much, really. But a number of years ago, we visited the Whitechapel Bell Foundry in the Whitechapel district of London, and were given a tour. White chapel built Big Ben (13 metric tonnes of bell) about 155 years ago. They showed us how they not only tune the bells after casting, but also how the bells are lathe turned to maximize the resonance. It seems that a bell can vibrate at a variety of different timbres within the bell unless it is proportioned properly. They use modern electronic instruments to analyze the bell sound, and to achieve pure tones. I mention this because it would seem to me that a violin might offer similar challenges to the luthier in every aspect of producing an instrument with a beautiful tone. It seems as though a luthier can judge the proportions of a plate while shaping it, and that can be done by listening closely as they tap the plate.

[Michael Darnton]

In a technological civilization the lure of exercising technological control, whether called for or not, is a strong one.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

[ctviolin]

[ctviolin]

[Michael Darnton]

You don't know how to be rude. Someday I will show you how it's done. :-)
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

[Lemuel]

I had a feeling that you would bring the "Cremonese" sound or behavior up, and
it's only because I read the section of your book on "Understanding Tone".

The concept is clear, but I need some clarification on a couple other points you made....

You mentioned that "it's hard to hear unless different violins are being played
against each other in rapid succession, in person". Does that mean that if
only one violin was being sampled, and it had the Cremonese sound, nobody
would recognize it? I don't think that's what you mean.

You also wrote:

"It's not audible on recordings at all, which might indicate that it's connected
some way with the concept of the cloud of sound"which is "a room effect".

and

"players are more likely to understand it."

How can players hear the Cremonese behavior, if the violin is so close to them? Would
they not have to be away from the violin to have it played by someone else in
order to hear the "room effect"?