Violin Forum/Message Board

ctviolin · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:30 pm Post subject: Just thinking...

Interestingly we are a group of people who are stuck in an odd position, I think.

Our interest is in a field where tradition and careful adherence to traditional method, is striven for, as almost a goal in itself.
Often, success may be counted, in one very large aspect, by how close we can come to exact results, that mimic most closely, the famous makers of old.
Even if the tonal results are not considered of exactly the same 'quality' as that of the violins from that era.

Results wise, that is, I'm thinking about the TONAL results of our modern work, not the structure, finish, looks, or the like.

Lately I can't help but wonder if one great weakness of violin makers, in general today, is the idea that we have to rise to some standard that was accomplished in the past, that is, somehow, mysteriously absent in most or all modern work?

I wonder this mainly because I believe that the standard (trying to re-accomplish what is generally accepted as "superior" about work of the past - regarding tonal results) work of the great makers today, may well, in TIME, be exactly what the violins of great fame of old, sounded like when new.
And I'm thinking that time alone may indeed supply the "missing" ingredient.

It's an interesting idea at least.

One unfortunate result might be, that such a circumstance 'might' result in a form of slavish dependence, on following or attempting to recreate instruments that are like the instruments of the past, by mistaking the fact that (or 'thinking' that the fact is) the reason for their noticeable tonal superiority has a specific cause that's missing from the building - something that we're missing today, or something specific, that is missing from the 'construction' phase.

Particularly, If age ITSELF does impart some ir-reproducible quality to such an item as a violin, that is difficult to recreate in construction, impossible to duplicate exactly, in instruments made today... then, we might be thinking that what it is, is something that is the result of specific building technique.
Something that we're missing.
When, in reality, it may not be that at all.

Just thinking out loud.
_________________
Look,
Listen,
Learn.

Russell · Junior Member Joined: 16 Jan 2013 Posts: 19

I tend to agree with you , I think age has everything to do with the tone of a violin. Makers today copy the old instruments right down to the last detail but that sound is missing isn't it , given a superb copy today and give it 300 years to age and mature then see how it sounds, has anyone got the time to listen ? I don't think so .You or myself will Never capture that tone or will we?One question might be is what time does to wood.I don't think any amount of scientific probing into varnish or anything certain to a violin will reveal its so called secrets . One thing I do know for a fact time will give a piece of wood a patina on the surface , the longer its exposed to air the deeper the patina will become with time. Its all subjective anyway , Like the old saying goes Time Will Tell. Very Happy

Russ

Michael Darnton · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:46 pm Post subject:

Vuillaume was certain that he was the equal of Stradivari and that in 100 years (about 1950, that would be) his violins would sound a good and be appreciated as equal.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

ctviolin · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:24 pm Post subject:

ctviolin · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:30 pm Post subject:

james ansara · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:16 am Post subject:

I begin to wonder if we are missing the point? I go to "classical" concerts very often. Was John Crow playing his Guanerius? Is that Anne Sophie's "Lord Dunn Raven"? Did Perlman bring his Strad? What's the Emmerson quartette playing on?
I make violins, but how much can I care what the musician plays on when I hear a great performance?
Heard a 1959 Les Paul lately? How about a late forties Broadcaster? Could the difference between these and a cheap repro matter in the right hands?
An instrument is a tool of an artist, let's not forget that the music is what counts. I take making things very seriously but I try to live in the present. As custodians of the the art of luthierie, I can understand the fetish but lets remember why music exists and what the role of makers of instruments are.
I hope I don't sound crazy.
James

Canuck · Member Joined: 15 Oct 2012 Posts: 29

I can't make a violin. And I have great admiration of those of you who are able to. My expertise lies elsewhere. But I strongly suspect that if age can improve an instrument, the amount it is likely to improve would be limited by the skill of the maker, his adherence to recognized standards, the quality of materials used, and the resulting quality of the instrument. And of course, the ability of the violinist.

I have three violins. I can really only determine the true age of one of them (1929). If I am to believe what I am told about my other two, they are both older than the 1929 one. But if the two older ones are still around in another 100 years, neither of them would hold a candle to what appears to be my "newest" instrument, in the here and now. I suspect that some instruments are simply not good enough to improve with age.

By the way. I am a recent arrival on this message board. I get the sense that the only luthiers who post here, are male. Are there any luthiers from the distaff side? Here, or anywhere else?

Michael Darnton · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:03 am Post subject:

actonern · Super Member Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 444

Since there are (I'm going by what I've read, not directly observed) evidently mediocre sounding instruments out there by the "Greats," I wonder if the superior sound of "some" of their output was the happy accident of a carefully observed working method, rather than the result of a "tuning" regimen or any other "secret?"

E

Michael Darnton · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:52 am Post subject:

In spite of what you read, really bad ones by the great makers are very few and far between, and the failure can usually be tagged (this is my direct observation) to some particular thing that the maker did in that instance that he shouldn't have done.

Stradivari learned very quickly--the ones I know that just don't work are essentialy single examples of something strange. Del Gesu was slower to catch on--his "ineffective" model lasted for about three years, resulting in a set of collector instruments--violins that are very pretty and well-preserved because no player wanted to wear them out by playing them--but the problem with those instruments is pretty clear, too, and he moved on past it.

I will not be naming specific violins, by the way.

Craig, I have something to say about all this, but need time to write it out.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

ctviolin · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:24 am Post subject:

ctviolin · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:35 am Post subject:

ctviolin · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:49 am Post subject:

ctviolin · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:51 am Post subject:

To me, at least.
_________________
Look,
Listen,
Learn.

Michael Darnton · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:07 am Post subject:

I've been fighting this battle on multiple fronts lately, not getting anywhere, but here it goes:

I believe that modern makers, after about 1835, thanks to people like Savart and the Industrial Revolution, have gotten the entirely wrong idea about how the best violins function, and the result is the prominence of a mindset that absolutely discourages the construction of violins like the old guys made.

Specifically, the error is the idea that by attacking a violin with precision and science we can make a violin that sounds a certain way: good. For the musician, this works as well as deciding that the best aligned steering for a car should make the car drive straight, pointing the wheels as straight as possible, and then welding the steering system there.

Every bit of precision and tuning forces the violin in a certain direction, and locks it into that direction. One hundred and eighty years of trying to "tune" the parts of the violin, and consistent failure: what other field could possibly be as dumb as violin makers have been, to keep doing the same thing that doesn't work, over and over?

A good violin has the potential to deliver any sound the player intends, so why do makers insist on making a violin that makes only the sound that they, in their infinite hubris, declare is the Good Sound, that the player should be satisfied with that, and then lay any disagreement with that opinion down to "snobbery" about old things?
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com