The Secret Lost Art of Craftsmanship *LINK*

One theory *LINK*

Jonathan Peck -N.Y.

>1) long river voyages encourage the growth of microorganisms. Microbial enzymes increase the permeability of the wood with out decreasing its strength and is full of myriad tiny additional air chambers to increase it's resonance


Songs from Alaska's Spruce

Another possibility *LINK*

Jonathan Peck -N.Y.

>2) The "salt of gems", treating the wood with mineral solutions commonly used by furniture makers and the apothocary for the preservation of wood.


The Salt of Gems

Re: Objectiveness

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>How do you measure the quality of sound produced by a violin? Who decides which tone is better?

I would suggest that since television, computers and 40 hour weeks have come on the scene, craftsmanship has declined. I would love to go back to the good old days of not having any readily available entertainment and spending 14-16 hour days in a sweat shop perfecting my craftsmanship.

Re: Objectiveness

Jonathan Peck -N.Y.

>Moses asks:

"How do you measure the quality of sound produced by a violin? Who decides which tone is better?"

The short answer is - your brain knows. Instruments crafted by Stadivari and Guarneri have their own unique qualities and characteristics. The Stadavari is said to be warm while the Guarnaeri is brighter. In learning to play music, one spends a great deal of time in training the ear as training the fingers. This ear training probably had a lot to do with how the master craftsman selected the wood and shaped the front and back plates, tapping with a hammer, and shaping until the corect tone is achieved. This is an art and not something a machine can measure, although scientists have tried. The shape, thickness, wood and other factors affect the tone the instrument will produce. A master violinist could tell you after one note if the instrument played was made by Stradavari or Guarneri.

Moses also asks:

"I would suggest that since television, computers and 40 hour weeks have come on the scene, craftsmanship has declined. I would love to go back to the good old days of not having any readily available entertainment and spending 14-16 hour days in a sweat shop perfecting my craftsmanship."

My grandfather worked in a sweat shop for his entire adult life. I can't say that 14-16 hour days made him any better of a garment presser, as he hated his job. Being the oldest of six when the depression was definite, he had to give up his dreams of school and playing for the NY Yankees farm team to help provide for the family. While my grandfather had seniority, he never aspired to be the best, although he did manage to put two kids through college and lived his life by a certain code of ethics that is rare today.

living in NYC has it's benefits, and I'm glad to say that I've seen many of todays great players up close. The emotional impact of great music, by great players playing great instruments in the great music halls is something you just can't measure by machine, just as you can't reproduce these emotions by taking a pill. Read the link I attached to my first post "Science and the Stradavarius" It's very long, but it will shed light from a scientific point of view on your question.

Regards

Jonathan

Conclusion

Jonathan Peck -N.Y.

>It is my opinion that in order to be a great craftsman you must persue it with great passion and a drive to be the very best. Some natural talent doesn't hurt either. Simply repeating a task will not make you a master craftsman. You may mow your lawn every Saturday for your entire life, but unless you strive to do the very best job each and every time, there is nothing to prevent you from making a shabby job of it.

This is what I beleive to be the secret art

Re: Conclusion

Don Thompson, Cutler Ridge, Florida

>"How do you get to Carnegie Hall?"

"Practice, practice, practice."

It is quite common for repetition to improve skills.

Re: Conclusion

Bob Hackett

>As a friend of mine would say"Leave us not confuse refinement of skills wit real growth".

MB

Re: Conclusion

Greg Sloop

>Practice is one part. Born skill and talent is another.

Lance Armstrong (however much you may dislike the mostly arrogant cyclist) is a composite of both.

Practice will never put me on the level of LA. And clearly, he's put in lots of time and effot in "practice."

However, just being "born" with it will also never make you one of the greatest. There is a long list of those who were given great skills but who squandered them, often because it was so easy.

Both are required. The true masters of anything are born with "super-human" skills and learn to grow those into the incredible talent they have.

Cheers,

Greg

It really only takes one thing.

Bob Hackett

>That one thing would be commitment.I have personally seen some rather mediocre people rise to the top through sheer will alone.If you tune your TV to just about any channel these days you can see quite afew of them.

Luck,and being in the right place at the right time definately helps too.

If you make it a point to travel the backstreets you may get to meet some of the true masters of thier craft.These people are not masters because they or someone they met say they are,their work says they are.I guess that`s where that"practiced ear" comes in handy,it tunes out the hype.

Mainely,Bob

Re: Objectiveness

Cameron

>Much of the arguement is subjective anyway as "fashion" also dictates. Strad was only considered fashionable about 110 years ago (or so). Before that he was really only thought of as "another highly competent Cremonese violin maker". The Amati's, Guarnaeri and (I think) Stainer were held in higher regard than Strad 100 or so years ago. This according to the Hill Bros. (and others) who had more fine violins pass through their hands than most of us have had hot meals!

I'd have to say that being a few years in the "industry" myself (in my youth) and a couple of decades involved with people who are still in the industry of violinmaking, and other instrument making, there's a heck of a lot of bulls**t involved with it all - moreso than most other industries :-)

Re: Objectiveness

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia

>Is it possible that age/time has changed the tone of the violin? Or possibly that tastes in sound have changed WRT tonal quality? How about rarity affecting the desireability? I always say there is no acounting for taste, some people only have it in their mouth.JR

Re: older has less moiture

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>Older violins sound different...definitely. It has something to do with the moisture content in the wood...less sounds better. I've seen swmbo play duets on her $25 yardsale find (beep...beep)violin with the other violinist playing a modern violing costing many thousands of dollars. They sound completely different. Sorta like a Fender Strat with it's single coil pickups and a Gibson LesPaul with it's dual humbuckers.

On the other hand...swmbo had a bunch of older (quality) violins on loan for purchase. After testing them all out, there wasn't enough of a difference to justify any purchase. Wheew! This is the downside of buying tools...Me - What do you need another more expensive violin for? Her - Do you really need another plane?

Older has less moisture?

Don Thompson, Cutler Ridge, Florida

>I really know nothing about violins, as such, but wood-wise, everything that I have been taught would indicate that wood reaches equilibrium moisture content with the environment in a matter of months or years, and that is that. Not centuries. Two violins stored in the same environment should have the same moisture content in a reasonable amount of time, right? Where am I going wrong, here? Or, are we looking at loss of other than water? Wood oils or such?

Confused in Cutler Ridge.

Re: older has less moiture

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia

>I only wish that the LOML had a semi expensive hobby that would provide leverage for my...umm...tool desires:-)JR

Re: Conclusion--WAY TOO LONG

Alan Hamilton

>The old makers were great craftsmen (were they all men?)no question. Their instruments are the testimony of their skill. But there are makers around today that are great craftsmen too, but their stringed instruments don't seem quite as good as the old ones. Why?

I followed this eternal debate for quite a while back when. In a way it reminded me of the building of the pyramids. Because no one knows exactly how the ancient Egyptians made them, and because no one knows how to go about it even using all the equipment and knowledge acquired since--to say nothing about using only the things the ancients had--some believe the ancients must have had some great secret of levitation, or lifting the blocks with hot air baloons, or lots of other nonsense.

In the same vein, many today think that because no one can make a violin that sounds as good, the old masters must have some secret, some method, some material, some treatment, that elevates their work. Many think that if only we could discover their secrets, instruments as good as theirs could be made today.

While I was following all this I read lots about secret ingredients, secret wood treatments, secret this and secret that. One fellow discovered the backs and tops weren't symmetrical in their thickness; another believed he had found ground up precious stones in their shellac; another thought the trick was that their wood was from logs that were transported and sometimes stored in salt water; another thought the temperature and humidity in the rafters where they seasoned the wood made a difference, the glue, the finish, the post, and much more I can't remember. Some modern makers utilized a number of these "secrets" in their instruments and claimed they were getting closer...

The discussions and trials, the arguments, the trials, the tests, and on and on, all produced much more heat than light--and produced instruments that still weren't the equal of the masters'.

I gave up trying to make sense out of all this. I concluded that there is no sense to be made from it. I am convinced that there are no real secrets; the old masters knew no more about making fine instruments than do the masters of today. There is such a thing as happy accidents, and it is those which sets the old instruments apart.

Perhaps some of the type of things like the ones above did matter, perhaps they are what made superior instruments; but I can't imagine that the old masters knew anything about them. They used the wood that was available, the wood that was transported and stored without concessions to their wants, wishes, needs or requirements; they used the shellac, the glue, the gut, and all the rest that they could get, not what they thought was optimal.

In short, the old makers were masters of their craft. No makers since have any greater technical skill. But that's not why their instruments sound better. They have more pleasing tones because of the serendipitous conjunction of many factors they did not control--or probably didn't even knoiw about--along with the things they did control. The skill of the makers together with fortunate happenstance are what made those dulcet strings.

Alan (going on WAY too long--again)

Re: Conclusion--WAY TOO LONG

joel

>I don't think I'm disagreeing with you when I say there is a simple reason why the violins from back then were so good.

THere was a large group of violin makers. some made crap, some made great stuff. Over the years the crap got destroyed and was replaced with better instruments. each generation filtered out the best of the past.

It's like that in everything. We remember Shakespeare, not Joey the Turgid.

Re: Conclusion--WAY TOO LONG

Cameron

>Don Thompson wrote:

'I really know nothing about violins, as such, but wood-wise, everything that I have been taught would indicate that wood reaches equilibrium moisture content with the environment in a matter of months or years, and that is that. Not centuries. Two violins stored in the same environment should have the same moisture content in a reasonable amount of time, right?"

Yes, that's pretty much right, Don. The moisture content would change depending on the surrounding environment.

One of the early jobs I had in my youth was as a guitar maker for a prestigious company here. One of the things we'd do was to "cook" mahogany and rosewood guitar necks, backs & sides in a "microwave/radiowave" type machine. From memory we'd cook the wood to about 5 or 6 percent moisture content and then stack the cooked wood in shelves for weeks, months or however long it took for the wood to be made into instruments. After storage and acclimitization the moisture content would be up around the 8,9 or 10 percent ratio. There wasn't really much difference between batches, percent wise.

By the way, burnt mahogany smells pretty much like burnt bread for some reason?

Alan Hamilton wrote:

"The old makers were great craftsmen (were they all men?)no question. Their instruments are the testimony of their skill. But there are makers around today that are great craftsmen too, but their stringed instruments don't seem quite as good as the old ones. Why?"

Well one reason would be because we're all told that things were always better in the good ol' days. "They don't make 'em like that anymore" the old saying goes. Joel's conclusion that a lot of the crap violins got cremated years ago though has merit. I think a good many of them would have, yes.

Peer pressure is another reason too. I personally know violin makers who are arguably more talented than Strad and who's instuments are played by concert violinists all over the world, but for those same violinists to walk out on stage with anything but a Strad, Guarneri or another "name" maker they would have to possess a large set of balls to see it through (pardon the language). You're either "in the clique" or you're not, and if you're not you sure do know about it! let's face it, most people you'd meet would question why you'd choose a $60,000 violin over a $5,000,000 one, wouldn't they? Of course you'd have to be mad....and they'd soon convince you of that unless you were very stubborn and thick skinned.

On any other occasion, however, usually the "go to" violins for these players though are the ones my friends have made. Simply because they prefer the sound, the feel and the playability of them.

It's easy to romanticise about things. Pyramids are one thing, but a violin is something else altogether. Intrinsically a violin is just a wooden box with strings on it - no big mystery there. Some makers are great at what they do and some aren't.

It's the same wherever you go. When I first joined the guitar company I thought that I was going to share in the "magic" of how these things were created. I soon learned that there was no magic involved, per se. I wasn't jaded by the experience as such, I just learned that when you did this and this and this and, if you'd done everything well enough, you ended up with that. There was no "mysticism" in the wood that made one acoustic guitar sound different from another but the type of wood, the shape and size of the guitar, the bracing of the soundboard etc. There were certain properties in the wood pieces themself, but any one of them could be changed by "adding a bit more here" or "taking a bit away there." There was no mystrey in why an old electric jazz guitar sounded more "mellow" than a newer one. Rather than the properties of the wood it was more likely that the pickups had lost their strength and that, in turn, changed the sound of the guitar.

Having said that though a maple bodied guitar sounds brighter than a mahogany bodied one, but put them through a mixer and a parametric eq and you can make them sound pretty much the same out the other end.

And here's a thought for you.... When a salesperson starts talking to you about why one product is better than another because it has an interpolation value of x, or contains a higher zinc content than y or even a longer residual flowback value than z, do you not think to yourself that all that might be a little over the top anyway if all you want to do is stick it in your lawn and look at it?

We often try to make things sound "bigger" and more impressive than they actually are and it's certainly the case with the violinmaking industry. Take away all of the percieved "mystery and intrigue" and all you're left with is a pretty box with strings on it - a well made box I should add, but a box nonetheless!

Sounds like...

Bob Hackett

>all that training developing that "practiced ear" really paid off for you ,Cameron.Nice to hear from one who has"been there and done that".It`s also nice to have my theory confimed.The most important function of a "practiced ear" is to filter out the hype,as I stated earlier.

Mainely,Bob

Re: Sounds like...

Cameron

>One interesting thing I should add is that, in my experience, there is a very real difference between the violinmaking fraternity and the guitarmaking one. Violin makers tend to "mystify" their art, generally speaking, while makers of guitars tend to be much more open to revealing their tips and tricks. I don't quite entirely know why that's the case, as guitarmaking goes back almost as far as violinmaking and the two are very much related (Strad also made a few guitars in his time). Of course this is a generalization and there are always exceptions to the rule.

Another thing is that I was talking to a violinmaking friend of mine about this discussion two nights ago during dinner, and he reminded me that many of the older violins had been extensively modified over the ages anyway - necks replaced, lengthened and reset (especially in the early 1700's) being the most common. The fashion changed and the market changed to meet it. Who would take the majority of the credit then for producing a particular violins' sound? The original maker or the later modifier? They both created a "sound", but which one was the "better sound"?

Re: Conclusion--WAY TOO LONG

Alan Hamilton

>Joel,

That's a very good point. Saint Roy of Underhill makes the same point about old houses:

"They were made better back then. If you don't believe it, then look at all the old houses and you'll see how well built they are."

As you and St Roy point out, this argument ignores the important point that houses that weren't well built have long ago fallen down; violins that didn't sound very good have disintegrated from lack of care and maintenance.

Alan

Lots of myths and misinformaton

Michael R

>The referenced article is pretty good, but it repeats a lot of things that are not true.

First, there are plenty of modern makers whose violins equal or surpass the sound of old Strads and Guarneris. The test of a violin is how it sounds to listeners in a large room when it is compared to another violin played by the same player. There are dozens of makers in the world whose instruments have been judged superior to old Cremonese violins in side by side BLIND tests where the listeners didn't know which instrument was being played.

Concert players do not "invariably" prefer old Cremonese violins to modern ones. There is a lot involved in owning and maintaining such an old instrument - not to mention the financial investment and risk. Violins also seem to have a finite lifespan.

All violins made before the middle 1800's have had their necks extended, since the concert scale changed about then. Concert "A" wasn't always 440 hertz. Bridges and strings have changed a lot too. Even though many fine players still use gut strings, they are not made like they were in the 1700's. What you hear these days from an od violin is not what it was originally meant to sound like.

The article said violin front plates are made of pine; I believe the preferred material is spruce.

If you ever have the chance to look at violin made by one of the old masters compared to one made by a modern master, you might be surprised at how cobby they look. Italian violin makers in general seem to pay more attention to sound than appearance. My mentor was the same way; his instruments won prizes for tone in Europe, but never for looks......

Varnish doesn't add much, if anything, to the sound of a violin, unless it does so by muting the sound. All it really does is to make the instrument look nice and protect the wood from dirt and oil. The thinner the finish, the better in most cases.

Not all Strads and Guarneris are great instruments. One strad might sell for over 100 times as much as another, depending on quality, condition and tone.

Violin making is still an art. I have a friend who is a very good maker and sells to lots of concert players around the world. Seemingly identical instruments made from the same wood, with the same amount of labor will sell for a large differential in price, just because they sound a tiny bit different (to the untrained ear). Good instrument makers can be very consistent, but each instrument still varies.

As an aside, some of the acoustical guitars and mandolins made since the 1980's have no equal from any era. I won't name any particular makers for fear of starting an argument, but I've been playing stringed instruments off and on for about 50 years, and the modern custom makers take a back seat to nobody.

There's lots more that I could take issue with, but I think the point is made. There are plenty of fine craftspeople around these days. It's worth remembering that the finest work was never affordable to the general public. Fine work takes time and costs a lot of money.

Some thoughts on string instruments from a player

Ryan Selberg, Cellist from Salt Lake City

>This has been an interesting discussion so far. I'd like to throw my two cents worth into the mix, from a professional string player's perspective.

I think most professional string players, whether violinists, violists, or cellists (and even bassists, although there choices are severely restricted), would love to own an instrument made by one of the great masters of Cremona, or Venice or Milan, etc. Most of us have at least had the opportunity to play a few notes on one, whether on one belonging to a visiting soloist, or at a violin dealer's shop. However, most of us will never own one, as the cost of ownership of such an instrument is beyond the realm of even dreaming! Many of the fine touring soloists only have their instruments on loan from foundations or private philanthropists. That leaves us mortals to find fine sounding instruments from other sources. There are many fine makers who have lived since Strad, Amati, Montagnana, del Gesu, etc., and the marketplace for these makers also continues to rise. For those who don't realize what the cost of a fine instrument is, be prepared for serious sticker shock. ANY instrument made in the 18th Century, or earlier, by a recognized maker, begins in the six figure area, with the top makers commanding seven figures. The better the condition, the higher the price.

This has not yet addressed the sound quality/playing quality of the older instruments. Many of the great makers' instruments do indeed have a sound which make them the desireable vehicle on which to perform. However, even the greatest sounding of these are often extremely fickle as to playability, as organic instruments are affected by humidity, temperature, set-up, and more importantly, the constant shifting of these variables, as these soloists travel from one end of the world to another. Many have had extensive repair work over the centuries, which add to the tempermentalness of the instruments. And many of them actually require an enormous amount of work to get that sound out, sort of like driving a car without power steering.

I have been present in a number of side by side comparisons (usually behind a screen), of older instruments and newer instruments. Usually, the order of finishing is a combination of old and new, sometimes with a new instrument finishing first. However, any test of this nature is flawed from the outset, as the testing player is forced to try to learn the quirkiness of each instrument on the spot, and his/her playing style may or may not be suited to a particular instrument, new or old. One thing is certain, however. There is still a strong prejudice against modern instrument (or even non-Cremonese instruments) among the concert-going public, particularly critics present at these concerts.

A story to illustrate this comes from a former concertmaster of the Philadelphia Orchestra, who owned a very fine modern violin when he was hired as concertmaster. He performed a concerto in his first season, to great critical aclaim, except that the critic, knowing he was playing on a modern instrument, lamented how much better it would have sounded on a Strad. The concertmaster did acquire a Strad the following year, and again was featured as soloist with the orchestra. However, he again used his modern instrument. The same critic, however, commented on how much "better" he sound on his newly acquired Strad. This perhaps illustrates the fact so often ignored in comparison tests. Most great artists will sound nearly identical with a variety of instruments (assuming the instruments, old or new, are of good quality). It is the player's musicianship and technique that comes through.

What we musicians want from an instrument is a great sounding instrument (and that is a topic of another discussion, as it is extremely subjective) that is easy to play. No one wants to have to spend more time thinking about how to overcome the foibles of a particular instrument, no matter how great the sound, at the expense of producing beautiful music. I happen to own three cellos, one dating from about 1690, and two from the latter part of the 20th Century. My favorite of the three was made in 1999, made by a fabulous husband/wife team in Petaluma, Calif. They build instruments in the same working style as the great makers (Strad, Montagnana, Guadagnini, and del Gesu), using handtools only, except for a bandsaw to cut out the general shape of the front/back/sides. They also add antiquing to simulate the kind of wear to the varnish and blemishes which an instrument 200 years old might attain. They are among a growing number of outstanding contemporary makers who are now producing the great instruments that future generations will look back on with the same kind of awe that we view Strad and del Gesu. They are also making it possible for the working musician to have great sounding (and beautiful to look at as well) instruments at affordable prices. I would have to spend more than ten times the amount I spent to get an older instrument that would come close to it for sound and playability. And mine is absolutely healthy, and able to withstand the rigors of professional useage.

Thanks for allowing me to share some of my thoughts and opinions.

Ryan

Re: The Secret Lost Art of Craftsmanship

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>Hi,

I've been really busy lately (good busy) and lurking just a bit. It's really nice to hear some different points of view. Swmbo used to date a fella who was known to be a child prodogy. While he never made the big time, he has made a living selling violins. It would seem that he can draw sounds out of *ANY* violin that are quite remarkable. Whether or not the buyer can reproduce these sounds is certainly debateable with the realization that he may have overpaid for a quite ordinary instrument a possibility.

Re: Some thoughts on string instruments from a pla

Don Thompson, Cutler Ridge, Florida

>Ryan,

Thanks for your comments from the perspective of a user.

About the 1999 violin which you prefer: Is the maker any sort of accomplished player? If I were to attempt to purchase a new violin from the makers, what would be the price?