Violin Forum/Message Board

[Joseph Leahy]

This may be a very rudimentary question but I'll ask anyways as its apparent we are gaining a very knowledgeable group on this forum.

My understanding is that Strad's P form dates to approximately 1705 and the PG nearer 1715 (I may stand to be corrected). I have read that the Titian and some other violins, however, dating around 1715 were based on the P form. I also see many new builders designing their mould around the PG form. I was wondering what the fundamental differences are between the Strad P and PG forms and why Strad may have switched between the two during this period.

The second part of my question is what your thoughts are on the benefits of building from a mould based on the P or PG vs. a mould based on one of the golden period violins. It seems that starting with a successful violin may make more sense as Strad has completed much of the testing for the maker on the design. However, due to the changes in the shape of the base violin over time, would a more exact starting point be a copy of one of the original forms? Many accomplished builders seem to have started from a design based on a particular violin.

As usual, if this is too simple or I should dig deeper on my own or it has already been covered in another thread, feel free to point this out.

Also, welcome Dean. I was wondering how your latest discussion on the "forum that is not to be named" would turn out.

Joe

[Andres Sender]

The "Golden Period" is, depending on who you talk to, 1700 to around 1720-1725? (With luck we may get to hear about the "RGP"--the "real Golden Period" ) Both the P and PG were available during that time, and the violins of the time do vary in their measurements, i.e. pick a number between 352 and 358 and you'll find it listed in the body lengths for violins of that time listed in the Beare book.

As I understand it Stradivari built off of multiple molds during this period and onward (Francois Denis says the P, P/B, PG, and G), and all we can do is speculate as to why he may have chosen one over another in a given instance. In most cases we don't know who the first buyer was.

The P and PG are very similar, essentially the same widths, the PG is slightly longer, being very slightly stretched in the c and lower bouts. The G form (which from comments by the Hills seems to have arrived around 1709) is a few mm longer, and up to a mm wider in the widths. Francois Denis has elegantly demonstrated that all 3 of these forms--the P, PG, and G--are variations on a single proportional archetype closely related to the large model of the brothers Amati.

As you mention, the 'Titian' (at least according to F. Denis) was made on the P mold, and the Titian is widely considered to be a very successful instrument. The 'Soil' may have been made on the G form and is a hugely successful instrument.

[Andres Sender]

Joseph--it just finally penetrated my sleep-deprived brain that you are comparing starting with a copy of a Strad mold vs. working backwards from a particular violin, and I gather you mean specifically with regard to the instrument’s success in terms of sound and playability.

The short answer is: I bet either way is fine. You'll most likely be using a specific instrument as a reference regardless unless you've been doing this for a long time. So you will probably try to choose a mold which relates to the instrument, and that introduces some added work but there's no harm in that, necessarily.

I leave the rest of this but I don't think it's really all that relevant, just sleep-deprived rambling.

-------------------------
I think starting with a specific instrument which is a known success is the most efficient way to make an instrument, particularly if your criteria of choice includes that it is also a model which has proven successful beyond the original instance. Then you have before you all the decisions made, and don’t have to re-invent the wheel at every turn.

When builders get into working from copies of Stradivari’s molds I think there are additional motivations involved, i.e. a desire to explore Stradivari’s process and search for the principles behind what he did. Not working from a specific instrument means you have to generalize, it forces you to think about the principles instead of the specifics. This is great if that’s what you want to be doing but it takes a greater investment of time and thought at some point.

For instance instead of just copying the f-holes and spacing of a given instrument you’ll end up looking at multiple instruments and seeking to understand the principles Stradivari used for f-hole layout. Of course in this case it happens that some good ideas have already been handed to us (such as Michael Darnton's layout), but the same sort of thing applies in other details as well.

It is of course true that even when copying a specific instrument, the more you understand of the common threads in Stradivari’s work the better your instrument will be, so my rationale for distinguishing these two approaches doesn’t create a hard-edged divide.

[last edit 1:00 p.m. PDT]

[Joseph Leahy]

Thanks Andres, for both your original post and your late-night follow-up.

All "ramblings" such as this are welcome. I have spent a great deal of time researching and reading (my wife will attest to this) and am starting to put some of the pieces together. I'll be ordering some wood shortly as I feel, although I have learned a great deal from my books, various articles, and these forums, in order to move forward in my understanding, I need to start the building process. As many members of these forums are, I am one who enjoys the research as much as the result and would like to improve my understanding at as fast a pace as possible, so once again, thanks for the reply. I am interested in both underlying principles and production.

I do not have copies of the more expensive text by Denis, Biddulph, etc. but I have tracked some of these down at the University Music Library so I plan to spend some time this summer reviewing these.

After thinking about this, I agree that the best place for my to start is by choosing a successful model. I'm sure Strad had a purpose for moving between moulds. However, I wonder if perhaps, some of these moves were more random at times as each of the forms are so close in design. Perhaps building for a customer who has seen and liked a particular model? or perhaps they were all equally valuable experiments in his quest for the perfect model.

In any case, as a start, I think I will start with a form based on the current Titian as I like its robust look and its as good a place to start as any I think.

Thanks and I hope I didn't disturb your slumber.

[Michael Darnton]

I wish I had something really wise to say, but I have always just tried to use individual violins as models, picking ones that I know work well. One of these days I'm going to have to read my Denis book more carefully, and make a mold from scratch, but that's not a hot item at the moment.

[Joseph Leahy]

Thanks Michael. I see that Denis has a Flash example of the step by step layout of a Guarneri viola on his site that shows the basic principles of how the form was laid out http://kigiri.free.fr/tdl/eng/page3/page3.html. I may play with this a bit but since the book isn't available at any of the libraries locally, I'll go ahead with the Strad poster.

[CT Dolan]

"I wish I had something really wise to say..." - you're being modest.

I have wracked my brain over what model to focus on as I get my start in making, and almost daily it seems I find my preference change. First, which maker do I follow? Do I choose what seems to be the obvious, something from the bench of Stradivari or Guarneri del Gesu, or another, such as an Amati, Guadagnini or Bergonzi? Then, which creation? Right now (today), my preference is toward the del Gesu Vieuxtemps (or maybe the Alard), or the Stadivari Milanollo (or maybe the Kruse or Titian). See what I mean!?! I'd like to say the Cannone heads the list, but I think that is a bit of a bite for a first go around. But I suppose when you get right down to it, for a first time any decent model would do, so long as I do not completely butcher it in the process. I have always wondered, though, what if one were to take the Cannone outline and arching, but make it with modest thickness in the plates, and with a rib of average height? Might one be able to make something good out of this idea, and with less difficulty than making something great from a strict adherence to the original (namely, the very thick plates)? To me, this has always been a curious question. It is wonderful that the Cannone was never re-graduated, but what if it would have been?

[Michael Darnton]

I've done it both ways. It's a very nice design. It doesn't need to be thick to be good, but it needs to be thick to be like the Cannone.

[CT Dolan]

Gestalt is the word for it, I think.

Truly, I cannot think of anything that could be more gratifying than this line of work. I enjoy playing immensely (though I do not do so in a professional capacity), but when you get right down to it, my heart is in a small, quiet shop working with my hands (and head), creating something of lasting value that enriches the world in which we live, an object of timeless beauty in more ways than one.

My grandfather's heart seemed in the same place as well, and while he managed to have a small shop out back (though he did not make musical instruments), he always found his professional role pulling him elsewhere. He was a very talented, frighteningly intelligent man of great moral integrity, and could have done darn near anything he chose, it seems, but he did not choose this line of work, probably due to a lack of exposure, even though his mother (my great-grandmother) was a first chair violinist in a major orchestra. But she died while still quite young, so my grandfather’s direct exposure would have been limited indeed.

I have always wondered what happened to my great-grandmother’s violin. It did not remain in the family, and even though it would have been nice had it done so, I simply wonder where it is now, and who is playing on the instrument today. I’ll never know, but I wonder. That is one of the most glorious aspects of these instruments - how their life far outstrips our own, and while our mortal self may soon expire, they go on, continuing to add value in a world seemingly all the more diluted of such (rapt with the need for instant gratification, as it is).

[Tim McTigue]

[CT Dolan]

I was speaking more to the commercial aspect of things, and the nature of what is common for purchase in our day, as opposed to times past when everything was made by hand, whether it be worthy of the effort, or not. However, it is not so simple, because in times past only a very few had sufficient means to know the finer things in life. Today such a group still exists, but alongside a horde of common consumers, such as myself. Hence the overwhelming prevalence of the mass-produced, made for consumption, and soon to be discarded for something newer still (designed for perceived obsolescence, so the need persists, to make more still). The violin and its cousins run contrary to this scheme. And, as they are created for the purpose of bringing something beautiful into the world through the music they help create, makes them all the better.

The bottom line is, many have grown quite accustomed to having what they want, when they want it. Some have always known this way of living, but MANY more do in our day, and it has caused a shift, if you know what I mean.