Violin Forum/Message Board

[Lemuel]

I'll need you to clarify, Michael, because I'm not really getting you (and just to let you know
I'm not trying to win a debate about religion). Your last statement about Stradivarius just
intrigued me and begs further inquiry.

Quoting again:

What he spent his life doing was criss-crossing through the past, including several times working
off the best models of the Brothers Amati, which is basically what he settled into at the end.

This would make me think that most of his life, Stradivarius main influence was historical
and towards the end of his life focused on the works of Amati. So if his influence was religious,
what exactly about religion contributed to his violin making? Did he obtain his insights by
listening to popes and priests, reading of dogmas, creeds and doctrines? Or did he receive
spiritual revelation (as in dreams, visions, angels, Jesus, God....etc)?

I could understand and accept the latter, but can't see the former as the contributor.

[Michael Darnton]

Religion is just a symbol for the general idea I am promoting. The problem with the Industrial Revolution was the resulting cult of scientism, and it's dumber cousin, [pseudo-]skepticism: they outlaw the use of magic in problem solving.

What the IR did was build a box where everything in it depended on observable cause and effect, eliminating magic from the possibilities of how things worked. You can see the contemporary fruit of this where both violin makers and a class of players and skeptics I would group under the category of >people who don't know what they're talking about< discount and disallow such things as the superiority of certain classes of instruments and things like violin break-in effects because with their inferior ears or current instrumentation they don't hear or measure what other people do perceive. So they put it into their Materialist box as being illusion, generally speaking. Violin makers who demand explanations and cause and effect have backed themselves into a corner by refusing to think outside this box they've made for themselves. The result is a never-ending attempt to provide better instrumentation and software. What does this have to do with Cremona in 1700?

To think outside the box, you need a hole in the box, and Materialism, which maintains that everything is measurable cause and effect or it doesn't exist has made a box for itself where only what we know for sure is real. You talked about revolutionary thinking; I'm suggesting that the Materialist box limits and constricts revolutionary thinking by calling cause and effect the only permissible path of action and thought.

Religion, which was the largest cultural motivator in the time and place where the violin was developed and perfected is, basically, magic. How can you seriously examine a subject if you preemptively eliminate the major force of the time from being considered as having an effect? That's why I refer to Materialism, PSEUDO-skepticism, and religion--as landmarks in the problem.

An example. I'm getting a pretty good reputation around here, based on an increasing flow of customers from the CSO and teacher recommendations, for my setup and adjustment abilities. How do I do what I do? I ask the violin what it needs, open my mind, try not to think too much, and deliver what the violin asks. Importantly, I do NOT demand a reason or logic for what I do. Certainly this could be 35 years of experience speaking, yes, but the important thing is that I don't feel the need to impede the flow of this process by asking questions that don't need to be answered for me to do my job.

Certain abilities are destroyed by quantification and over-analysis. I would point to, for instance, dancing and music. And violin making.

>> http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/characteristics.php
>> http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

[Chet Bishop]

Hmmm. Those are good things to ponder.

I have repeatedly, over many years, tried to analyze "what makes certain things attractive" to me, and come up with nothing rational at all. Perhaps the best answer would have been "Why ask?"

Why do you love the sound of your wife's voice? Is it only association? or did you like the sound the first time you heard her speak? And, in the latter case, could it still be association? and, ultimately, who cares?

I think you are at least correct that certain (real and valuable) things are damaged by over-thinking.

Good stuff to think about.
_________________
Chet Bishop
https://bluefiddles.com
https://fivestringfiddles.com

[Michael Darnton]

The extreme end of what I'm referring to:
https://web.archive.org/web/20030415135446/http://www.singing-woods.org/healing.html
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

[Dave Chandler]

[John Masters]

I agree with Michael except I look at things differently in some respect. He has seen an enormous number of violins (with problems) and his mind makes connections according to the experience. Nothing wrong with that.

The scientistic approach with the box is flawed simply because the box is too small, and the questions asked are not good ones. Maybe the answer is 42.

IF all were known, then the box would have answers with causal connenctions. The problem I see is that people try to derive answeres from first principles. But these first principles are either not known or are framed poorly. As are the questions asked. And who knows what a complete set of questions might be?

II would rather think this way than appeal to the silly "energy" arguments of the Indian Lady.

All sufficiently complicated technology is indistinguishable from magic.

[Michael Darnton]

We have a dichotomy, which I believe is inaccurate, between science and religion. I myself believe that the two can be resolved. The essential problem is that the proponents of either side are rather fixed in what they are willing to admit, limited to their present rather small understanding of the problems. Both science and religion have become opposing matters of faith (yes, science is every bit as much of a faith as religion--that understanding is essential to understanding this), where neither needs to be.

I'm participating in a Maestronet thread right now where there is one group on the science side who absolutely refuse to admit the possibility of anything that cannot be measured and counted with the tools they currently have, right now. Things simply don't exist for them until they have been measured. On the other side are the religious folks, who refuse to believe that the things they value might ever have direct scientific explanations--and I don't mean "debunking" explanations, either, but ones which validate religious observations.

I tend to think that eventually all of this will be knowable and explainable with satisfaction to both sides, but not any time soon.

This has nothing to do with violin making, except to note that I believe that people align themselves on violin issues much as with religious beliefs, so the parallel is allegorically useful.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

[Dave Chandler]

The Spock-Kirk Conundrum, that battle of faith and logic -- yet they coexist and are complementary. But they are, and always will be, my friends, mutually exclusive. That doesn't mean that one has to chose one over the other on all issues -- but on each issue, in the absense of a proven truth, I think makers end up chosing tradition.

Michael, not sure what you meant "We have a dichotomy, which I believe is inaccurate, between science and religion" "Inaccurate" or "Unfortunate" ?

There are those of us that need to pursue scientific explanations for things in order to put our worlds in order. And since scientific inquiry leads to knowledge, this is a good thing.
_________________
Dave in the Blue Ridge
Southern Violin Association

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to the next with no loss of enthusiasm" Winston Churchill

"I took the road less travelled, and now I don't know where I am." Marco Polo

[Michael Darnton]

I mean that they are not mutually exclusive, they do not contradict each other--they are different views of the exact same thing, from different positions. Neither side is currently able to accept or admit that.

Max Planck observed the scientific side of the situation: “A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because it’s opponents simply die off. Science progresses one funeral at a time.”
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

[John Cadd]

Getting back to the topic for a second . The original measurements of the stiff back would be a useful starting point. Now make up a set of 4 backs. 2 stiff and 2 softer . Make those into violins minus the top plates . The experiment can begin there. Make 4 top plates , each with different stiffness or hardness. Vary the thickness dimensions and simply keep to the outline sizes and keep the soundholes in the same place.
An earlier question was not answered or resolved about matching a stiff back with a stiff belly --as if that was perfectly logical . Maybe it seemed logical . Before testing the other options there is no way to tell if it was logical or not . One book mentions matching a stiff back with a soft belly --and vice versa --matching a soft back with a stiff belly . I won`t say the book`s name for obvious furtive reasons .
Now you have a possible four violins to choose from. Part two of the experiment is to remove the tops (quite easy ) and swop them all around to see if you like some more than the others . Thick together--or thick and thin mixed . That is a practical way to compare without losing your way with too much measuring . Just record the details as you go and work out what seems to be logical .Draw your own conclusions . Try not to make them all from home grown American wood just to be patriotic . That might not even be logical either .Reduce the big unknowns first . Be patriotic later on if you like .
One of my favourite sites is Blagovest Bells (It`s Russian in case you are very patriotic )where they describe making bells with highly individual tones by leaving the bell as it is cast and not machined to specific dimensions . You need to read all that to get the point about tone .
What on earth has religion got to do with this ?

[Michael Darnton]

If you accept it as conventional that the Cremonese, who invented the violin, get to say what's standard, let's call their method standard. The Venetians took a different approach: their instruments are usually lighter in the back and heavier in the top. That would be tops stiffer, backs softer.

Very few would choose the usual Venetian violin over the usual Cremonese.

As far as I know, no one makes the opposite situation, a stiff cabinet with a soft top, so we don't know about how that would be.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

[John Cadd]

The violin maker that passed on the information to Heron Allen had a good reputation and Heron Allen was basically a scientist well used to recording useful information laid before him on a plate . So if his "teacher" said the top and back should match like Hard with Soft rather than Hard with Hard it`s not so difficult to accept that from an experienced maker .
Disregarding the book as an easy read for modern people there are many true facts there .Not every piece of information should be denied in the complicated defensive way we see today . Most questions about violin making seem to be answered by makers who would be very good Italian football managers in the Cetenaccio ultra defensive style .
But if a new reader is aiming to make the very first violin in their whole life it`s a bit harsh to talk about making very thick violins that would make a beginner player struggle just because the very few great players have found them satisfactory. Just a good workable violin to break the ice is what they need . Great violins can come many years later if you get lucky . Sort out the basic carpentry and keep your work suface tidy first .
But can Mr Darnton play these famous instruments himself to try them out ? I am getting my form of question and address mixed up here . It`s a good question to get some perspective and not meant as an ad hominem attack . I hope it does not sound that way .
The danger on forums if a prospective new maker gets a wrong impression it can instantly turn into inflamed anger which is just a little scary to be honest . Peace and good will to all .

[Michael Darnton]

I wouldn't trust Heron-Allen too much. He was 24 when his violin making series was published, and an attorney, never a scientist. He made only two violins, and learned from one single maker. The method taught in the book is a real outlier, so it's not clear how much his teacher really knew about the broader craft beyond what he'd been trained to do by his own teacher.

Yes, I've played many of those famous instruments to try them out, including around 70 of the remaining 175 or so Guarneri del Gesu violins and probably 100 Stradivaris, as well as a wide selection of the other notable makers, and made nearly 200 myself, most of the last 100 based on the heavy del Gesu model.

The interesting thing about it is that a heavy violin properly made is not a difficult thing to play. Weight is not necessarily an impediment to anything unless the weight is misplaced and the instrument improperly designed. A Maserati weights nearly twice as much as a Ford Escort, but the Escort is not the snappier car to drive, so I hear.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

[John Cadd]

It`s never a bad time to ask about really fine violins so I want to know how highly you rate the Vuillaume copy of a Del Gesu played on the recordings by Joseph Hassid . Kreisler wanted the violin back after the recordings .

[Michael Darnton]

I listened to a few Hassid clips. I don[t really know what violins he was playing, or whether they were the same or different or the Vuillaume you mentioned, but one thing that I notice in his playing is a lack of percussive snap to his notes. There are a lot of ways to hear this, but my favorite is if slurred notes smearing together instead of separating. The other is the lack of punch to fierce attacks when compared with better violins.

This can be a setup fault or a violin fault, but I notice that Hillary Hahn on her Vuillaume suffers the same problems. In fact, I don't listen to her much because I find her playing precise but lacking in punch. I blame the violin because of an experiment I did cueing up a bunch of players playing the same percussive passage, and while she was doing the right type of punchy bowing, her violin didn't deliver compared with the others. She's not the problem. Christian Tetzlaff plays a modern violin; Ray Chen often does. I can't listen to either one for more than a few minutes at a time.

On another occasion I turned on the radio and there was a violinist on. I like to guess players and after a while I thought maybe it was Josh Bell. Happy, skillful playing; but something was wrong, the playing was dull and lacked snap. Josh after not getting any sleep for three nights, maybe. It turned out to be HH.

So me, I think she needs a good violin. Same for Hassid.

Regarding the most special tonal qualities, those are hard to hear in recordings, but usually I can tell a bad violin because my ears become fatigued after a while from not getting what they like to get. Then usually I discover that player likes new violins. It can be difficult to pick out specifically what the difference is sometimes. Sometimes not.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com