Violin Forum/Message Board

[actonern]

There has been (I think) a very interesting exchange in recent threads dealing with the broad question of instrument construction and the Cremonese "way."

Michael, you have quite clearly emphasized instrument architecture and design as being of primary importance, and that unless those attributes of design are honoured in our work we'll have a hard time achieving golden period results. And you've made clear your scepticism about things like special qualities of wood, special thicknessing or plate tuning methods, and other frequently debated points.

So I'd like to know if you think these guys did anything special to achieve their fabled sound or whether any fiddle made today that replicates their working methods will one day sound equal to them?

You've also made quite clear over the years that "real violins" as you call them ARE special... and that the recent tests showing modern vs. old work to be indistinguishable to listeners and players are unpersuasive. Is the secret just time do you think?

Best regards,

E

[jacobyfineviolins]

The cremonese unit of measurement was different than ours. Just to help muddy the water. Perhaps... ?
_________________
I could have carved a scroll by now.
http://jacobyfineviolins.squarespace.com/

[Michael Darnton]

I think the wood is different. The tradition is that the varnish/ground system is different, but it seems like everyone has tried every possibility in that direction, and not come up with something that seems right. So what's left? That the wood is different, and that the magic we are seeing is the different wood interacting with some varnish thing that's already been tried. Perhaps even something that we all do now. . . but on different wood. That would be a better explanation for a tonal difference than the magic of a varnish that a majority of great instruments have very little of remaining.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

[TimRobinson]

[Michael Darnton]

I think that something was done to the wood that made it different. When we figure that out, all of the necessary information will be in hand, though perhaps not in all one single hand.

That's my opinion; others probably will not agree. I do think we're very close.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

[jacobyfineviolins]

Anyone else tried potash submersion?
_________________
I could have carved a scroll by now.
http://jacobyfineviolins.squarespace.com/

[Michael Darnton]

Potash what? I soaked some wood in a solution of lye for a few months, then made a violin from it. Then, a couple of months later, when it started to sag, I gave it to a friend, and he and his son dipped it in epoxy, motorized it with a prop out the endbutton hole, and took it for a run in the local lagoon. Somewhere I have photos, but haven't seen them in quite a while...
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

[Lemuel]

Michael,

Out of curiosity, what's the youngest (most recent - any in the 20th century?) violin you've heard that has the Cremonese sound?

[Michael Darnton]

I don't usually look for it in new violins. In old ones, I can truthfully say that the best of it isn't available except in Cremonese instruments, but I've heard some Venetians that have been extremely close--a couple of Goffrillers, and a Gobetti, specifically. I turned a friend whom I respect who's been making longer than I have, onto cycloids, and he offered that he thought that his resulting instruments had a different sound he said was more like Cremonese than previously, but he didn't claim to be making Cremonese equals.

It's very hard to put a modern violin in the same room with a really good Cremonese violin. I always think that the people who don't "get it", in spite of their apparent credentials and self-elevation, are basically deaf. About the only time a modern comes close is against a somewhat defective old violin. It makes us feel good, especially when the violin's a well known one, but not all well-known violins are great ones. I once heard one of my del Gesus hold its own against a famous Strad, but I didn't much care for that particular Strad, BEFORE it got played against mine, so there you go.

Out of maybe 150 Strads that I've played, there are four or five that I wouldn't mind being in a blind contest against. Nowhere the "marjority" or other some such nonsense that modern makers like to promote as being the massive quantity of defective Strads. Many of them I wasn't good enough to play, but I heard other people make them sound fine. It's always a bad idea to take one or two player's word that an instrument is "bad", especially when that "player" isn't a player, but just a maker with an opinion.

There are a couple of violins that I've only heard one or two people make them sound good, but boy, did they sound good, then. Do we downgrade an unbeliveably great del Gesu because you have to play beyond the level of 98% of violinists to make it sound better than just about 90% of the violins you've ever heard?

Really, history has said all about this that need to be said.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

[Lemuel]

[Michael Darnton]

Those are the ones, yes.

I guess that's possible.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com